I now played a full game and a two material issues I haven't seen mentioned

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

I now played a full game and a two material issues I haven't seen mentioned

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> I now played a full game and a two material issues I haven't seen mentioned

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

I now played a full game and a two material issues I ha... - 7/16/2004 5:26:05 AM

doomonyou

Posts: 144
Joined: 6/26/2002
Status: offline

Surface ships vs. Transports.

Due to the AI on several occasions I caught nearly unescorted tranports with surface ships. I can't seem to really kill them.

Example I caught eleven Japanese AP's and AK's with Two PCs near borneo with the Prince of Wales, the repulse and four DD's in daylight, fair weather at 22000 yards. Killed one PC and three Transports.

Since the transports are at least 10 knots slower and its daylight, how the hell do ANY of them manage to escape? It seems like the surface ai pounds the hell out of a few guys and lets the rest go. Have had cruisers to this too. Any competent captain at this time would in my estimation know that if he's spotted say four 8" or larger direct shell hits on a unarmored Transport to switch to a new target to cripple that one.

Also why does the hex speed seem not to match the ship speed. A ship going say 25 knots set to full speed should cover in a 24 hour period more hexes then I typcially seem them cover. Are the hexes much bigger than the 60 miles suggested in the manual?

Post #: 1

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/16/2004 5:35:13 AM

rogueusmc

Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline

Ships rarely took a direct course....the zigzagged alot.

And the TF is only as fast as it's slowest member.

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army

(in reply to doomonyou)

Post #: 2

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/16/2004 6:31:56 AM

ian77

Posts: 627
Joined: 4/27/2004
From: Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomonyou

Surface ships vs. Transports.

Due to the AI on several occasions I caught nearly unescorted tranports with surface ships. I can't seem to really kill them.

Example I caught eleven Japanese AP's and AK's with Two PCs near borneo with the Prince of Wales, the repulse and four DD's in daylight, fair weather at 22000 yards. Killed one PC and three Transports.

Since the transports are at least 10 knots slower and its daylight, how the hell do ANY of them manage to escape? It seems like the surface ai pounds the hell out of a few guys and lets the rest go. Have had cruisers to this too. Any competent captain at this time would in my estimation know that if he's spotted say four 8" or larger direct shell hits on a unarmored Transport to switch to a new target to cripple that one.

Also why does the hex speed seem not to match the ship speed. A ship going say 25 knots set to full speed should cover in a 24 hour period more hexes then I typcially seem them cover. Are the hexes much bigger than the 60 miles suggested in the manual?

Just a thpught, but wouldnt the transport convoy scatter when your surface fleet hove in sight? A 10kn merchant man headed east and a 10kn headed west soon vanish from each other over the horizon. The six "hunters" can only chase so many helpless AKs at once, and you probably would not want the DD escorts headed east while the BBs go west. Also we may know exactly how many enemy ships are in the convoy, but 22000 yards vivibility is over the horizon, so your TF may only have seen 30% of the enemy TF.

< Message edited by ian77 -- 7/16/2004 4:31:45 AM >

(in reply to doomonyou)

Post #: 3

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/16/2004 6:37:32 AM

Zorfwaddle

Posts: 263
Joined: 3/16/2001
From: Pensacola, FL
Status: offline

In Scen 15, I tried to escaped from a PI port with 7 unloaded AK's and they got engaged by a Japanese DD force (AFAIKR) and got slaughtered. I havent seen a reverse situation yet....

Regards,

_____________________________

"AK-47. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every m****rf****r in the room. Accept no substitutes." Ordell Robbie - "Jackie Brown"

(in reply to doomonyou)

Post #: 4

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/16/2004 7:43:03 AM

JohnK

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline

Someone playing a game as the Japanese and getting a historical Savo Island result (massacre of US cruisers, no damage to yourself, but not a scratch on 50+ enemy transports in the same hex) would probably be upset.

However, I agree that transport TFs with as little as one escort can often be invulnerable.

Your entire TF will engage one PC or MSW and not get a single hit on any of the transports, and then the action will be broken off; have seen this 3-4 times so far in one game and it's only through Dec. 27 1941.....(I'm Allies vs. Computer.)...I've seen it with "patrol/do not retire" attacks as well as retirement attacks, and I've seen it in daylight.

< Message edited by JohnK -- 7/16/2004 5:43:06 AM >

(in reply to doomonyou)

Post #: 5

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/16/2004 8:22:28 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ian77

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomonyou

Surface ships vs. Transports.

Due to the AI on several occasions I caught nearly unescorted tranports with surface ships. I can't seem to really kill them.

Example I caught eleven Japanese AP's and AK's with Two PCs near borneo with the Prince of Wales, the repulse and four DD's in daylight, fair weather at 22000 yards. Killed one PC and three Transports.

Since the transports are at least 10 knots slower and its daylight, how the hell do ANY of them manage to escape? It seems like the surface ai pounds the hell out of a few guys and lets the rest go. Have had cruisers to this too. Any competent captain at this time would in my estimation know that if he's spotted say four 8" or larger direct shell hits on a unarmored Transport to switch to a new target to cripple that one.

Also why does the hex speed seem not to match the ship speed. A ship going say 25 knots set to full speed should cover in a 24 hour period more hexes then I typcially seem them cover. Are the hexes much bigger than the 60 miles suggested in the manual?

Just a thpught, but wouldnt the transport convoy scatter when your surface fleet hove in sight? A 10kn merchant man headed east and a 10kn headed west soon vanish from each other over the horizon. The six "hunters" can only chase so many helpless AKs at once, and you probably would not want the DD escorts headed east while the BBs go west. Also we may know exactly how many enemy ships are in the convoy, but 22000 yards vivibility is over the horizon, so your TF may only have seen 30% of the enemy TF.

If the convoy can scatter, so too should the combat TF be able to split off in pursuit and annihilate the separate parts.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to ian77)

Post #: 6

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/16/2004 8:32:17 AM

ian77

Posts: 627
Joined: 4/27/2004
From: Scotland
Status: offline

[
If the convoy can scatter, so too should the combat TF be able to split off in pursuit and annihilate the separate parts.
[/quote]

But would 2 BBs and their 4 DD escorts scatter and head off over the horizon chasing fleeing AKs who they may not even have sighted, just a big blurry blip on the radar? I dont think sinking a third of an enemy TF is a poor result on the open sea. I am sure if he had caught them inshore or even better, unloading

then the carnage would have been much higher.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 7

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/16/2004 8:44:09 AM

Xargun

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline

You guys also have to remember... warships only carry limited ammo and sometimes its a LONG way to a port for more... WOuld you shoot your last 20 shots at a stupid AK or save it incase you run into a real warship on the way home ? Imagine 2 BBs coming home from an excellent raid on enemy shipping - they tored through a bunch of AKs, TKs and even some APs and have 5 shots of ammo left for their main guns.... Then about 100 miles from their home port, they get jumped by a fast TF of IJN DDs.. At first the BBs go.. "Nothing to be afraid of.. Those little cans can't hurt us with their little guns... Kill them..." The Bs open fire and damage some of the DDs and miss the rest and 'click' they are out of ammo... Now they have taken a few hits from the DDs guns and suffered no real damage that is UNTIL the DDs get close and fire a couple dozen torps at them.. These torps will rip them apart - especially older BBs...

Part of the reason they don't lay waste to all enemy ships is the conservation of ammo. A warship will not fire its last round of ammo (talking combat round here) unless absolutely forced too - and sure as hell not at some unarmed ship... just because you don't know what you might run into on the way home....

I just think you have to take the game for what it is, try to get improvements and live with the rest... Just remember... there is NO WAY AKs or any other merchie can OUTRUN a warship.. So you don't kill them today... You have tomorrow... and the next day.. and the next...

Xargun

(in reply to ian77)

Post #: 8

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/16/2004 8:49:28 AM

ian77

Posts: 627
Joined: 4/27/2004
From: Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun

You guys also have to remember... warships only carry limited ammo and sometimes its a LONG way to a port for more... WOuld you shoot your last 20 shots at a stupid AK or save it incase you run into a real warship on the way home ? Imagine 2 BBs coming home from an excellent raid on enemy shipping - they tored through a bunch of AKs, TKs and even some APs and have 5 shots of ammo left for their main guns.... Then about 100 miles from their home port, they get jumped by a fast TF of IJN DDs.. At first the BBs go.. "Nothing to be afraid of.. Those little cans can't hurt us with their little guns... Kill them..." The Bs open fire and damage some of the DDs and miss the rest and 'click' they are out of ammo... Now they have taken a few hits from the DDs guns and suffered no real damage that is UNTIL the DDs get close and fire a couple dozen torps at them.. These torps will rip them apart - especially older BBs...

Part of the reason they don't lay waste to all enemy ships is the conservation of ammo. A warship will not fire its last round of ammo (talking combat round here) unless absolutely forced too - and sure as hell not at some unarmed ship... just because you don't know what you might run into on the way home....

I just think you have to take the game for what it is, try to get improvements and live with the rest... Just remember... there is NO WAY AKs or any other merchie can OUTRUN a warship.. So you don't kill them today... You have tomorrow... and the next day.. and the next...

Xargun

TRUE... and yes there are one hell of a lot of tomorrows in this game, though not for the dutch units!

(in reply to Xargun)

Post #: 9

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/16/2004 8:56:25 AM

MadDawg

Posts: 374
Joined: 6/24/2004
Status: offline

Something which I dont think is considered in an engagement is if the transport task force is unloading troops or supplies and thus are stationary targets.

Ive seen several examples where Ive have a large task force (BBs inlcuded) attack an unloading task force and only hit 2-3 out of 10 ships. The real annoying part is that those other transport ships continue to unload thier troops as if nothing had happened.

Dawg

(in reply to doomonyou)

Post #: 10

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/16/2004 9:09:13 AM

MadDawg

Posts: 374
Joined: 6/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun

Part of the reason they don't lay waste to all enemy ships is the conservation of ammo. A warship will not fire its last round of ammo (talking combat round here) unless absolutely forced too - and sure as hell not at some unarmed ship... just because you don't know what you might run into on the way home....

Actually I usually dont have a problem with the amount of fire they give, just the fact that they tend to unload it all onto 2 or 3 ships.

If they unload the same amount of ammo over all spotted ships I think the overall feel of such a naval engagement would be much more realistic....for instance maybe only 1 heavily damaged out of 10 but 5-6 with light damage of which 2 were left burning, as oppose to 2-3 being sunk and thats it.

Dawg

< Message edited by MadDawg -- 7/16/2004 7:31:39 AM >

(in reply to Xargun)

Post #: 11

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/16/2004 2:58:10 PM

barbarrossa

Posts: 359
Joined: 3/25/2004
From: Shangri-La
Status: offline

In my POW group intercept mission, I had good dispersion of fire at all enemy ships and with much greater accuracy from main battery fire. Making the comparison with surface action in UV -- I'm pleased that it's better in WiTP.

_____________________________

"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe

"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model

(in reply to MadDawg)

Post #: 12

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/16/2004 3:47:59 PM

mccavage

Posts: 21
Joined: 7/5/2004
Status: offline

I certainly agree with the ammo conservation theory and while it seems that firing algorithims may overconcentrate on escorting warships, the other issue as to why transport groups survive versus surface warships is that naval gunnery is at best, pretty inaccurate.

It takes a surprisingly large number of shells fired to sink even the average tub of an AK and from a distance, the firing vessel can't immediately determine when fatal damage has been inflicted so invariably the tendency is to keep shooting until the target is clearly sinking.

I love to know the hit % at Samar for the IJN, but even versus a handful of escorts with only harassing aircraft attacks, Kurita put out a pretty large expenditure of ammunition for meager results. I suspect the hit % for Scharnhorst & Gneisnau when they encountered a convoy in their early war raiding was equally awful.

(in reply to Xargun)

Post #: 13

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/16/2004 6:26:43 PM

doktor1957

Posts: 134
Joined: 6/6/2004
Status: offline

I think the non-anihilation of transport convoy's is pretty realistic. IIRC, there were no cases in WWII of a convoy being completely wiped out, although PQ13 came close. So many factors come into play. Off the top of my head:
1) What is the commander's mind state? Is he worried about escorts, enemy air, subs? His fuel state? Does he want to get home and see his wife?

(in reply to mccavage)

Post #: 14

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/16/2004 6:32:56 PM

2Stepper

Posts: 948
Joined: 1/19/2003
From: North Burbs of Omaha
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnK
However, I agree that transport TFs with as little as one escort can often be invulnerable.

Your entire TF will engage one PC or MSW and not get a single hit on any of the transports, and then the action will be broken off; have seen this 3-4 times so far in one game and it's only through Dec. 27 1941.....(I'm Allies vs. Computer.)...I've seen it with "patrol/do not retire" attacks as well as retirement attacks, and I've seen it in daylight.

This point kinda goes back to what I said before in another thread about sighting. I think individual surface actions should show SIGHTED ships only. If that PC or MSW is the only ship seen in the battle and the raiders jump on it? Well then I don't want to even SEE the transports. Heck you can even list it as such in the post battle report as sighted vs unsighted. ASSUMING as you complete the surface combat check that other surface ships don't see the AK's.

Just hypothetical and a wishlist item I know, but if it's able to be done it might alleviate a lot of the ire folks have about seeing a surface combat TF attack a transport TF full of troops and only kill one. If only two surface raiders and one transport are seen in the battle? Why not just show them on screen? Just a thought...

_____________________________

"Send in the Infantry. Tanks cost money... the dead cost nothing..." :)

(in reply to JohnK)

Post #: 15

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/16/2004 9:24:57 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

The issue of Surface combat TF's vs transport TF's (particularily lightly or undefended ones) is being looked at by the developers. No promises of course.

From a historical standpoint. The reason for the dearth of examples is quite simply because navies did what they could to ensure it didn't happen due to the potentially disasterous results that could incur. Certainly the question of how WATCHTOWER might have proceeded had Mikawa gone ahead and fullfilled his original objective (smashing the invasion transports) has been endlessly debated.

On the issue of ammo conservation, i would have to disagree with this logic. Catching an undefended transport fleet is the 'wet dream' of any admiral worth his salt. The support and transport of troops and supply is a large chunk of the reason why navies exist in the first place. Destroying warships is all fine and good (and has clouded the judgement of more than one commander) but the merchants and what they carry are the heart of any campaign and the fleet(s) exist to protect them and prevent disasters.

keep in mind too that the scenerio mussed about includes both anchored TF's as well as those at sea.

_____________________________

(in reply to 2Stepper)

Post #: 16

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/16/2004 11:49:30 PM

JohnK

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktor1957

I think the non-anihilation of transport convoy's is pretty realistic. IIRC, there were no cases in WWII of a convoy being completely wiped out, although PQ13 came close. So many factors come into play. Off the top of my head:

NOBODY is demanding that convoys be "annihilated."

What people are complaining about are repeated examples of TFs with 6+ warships encountering enemy tranport convoys escorted by 1-2 PCs or MSWs, and the ships only even FIRING at the PC or MSW, and none of the transports being damaged; even the convoy was involved in a landing operation at the time.

You can't even do as well as the old flush-deckers did at Balikpapan.....(4 US Flush-deckers vs. an anchored force escorted by ELEVEN assorted PCs/MSWs....)

Here are some Atlantic examples:

Scheer, BY ITSELF, against a convoy at sea that scatters, in the famous fight vs. Jervis Bay, ends up getting 5 of the transports...

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau sank 16 ships of a convoy at sea over two days before a British BB showed up and they fled...

Hipper got 7 ships out of an unescorted convoy once...sailing alone.

(in reply to doktor1957)

Post #: 17

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/16/2004 11:53:46 PM

Toro

Posts: 578
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: 16 miles southeast of Hell (Michigan, i.e.), US
Status: offline

From my perspective, I've sunk a number of transports in these situations. In fact, it seems those are the only ships I'm sinking (okay, I've deep-sixed a handful of PCs or MWs). But, I am sinking transports in these engagements...

(in reply to JohnK)

Post #: 18

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/17/2004 12:00:44 AM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

While I've seen low sink rates in UV, in my only warship vs. transport action so far in WitP, it was one U.S. CL vs. 3 PC's and 4 AP's. The lone CL sank all three PC's and two of the AP's. I figured the escorts gave at least two of the transports the chance to escape this lone CL w/ such "mad skillz".

_____________________________

(in reply to JohnK)

Post #: 19

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/17/2004 3:20:31 AM

doomonyou

Posts: 144
Joined: 6/26/2002
Status: offline

I see a lot of people have experienced this too.

In response to those who claim the "scatter" issue, I agree to a limited extent but in my example it would have been hideously easy for TF commander to send even just two DD rushing in to check it out while he hangs back and lands 12 and 14" shells on the ships he can see. Those two close in DD's would (being probably 20 knots faster than any transport) be able to run quite wild in there.

I would certainly in any 10+ ship convoy be surprsied by a total wipeout but my example should have resulted in 7+ ships sunk and the rest damaged with perhaps one unscathed survivor.

(in reply to doomonyou)

Post #: 20

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/17/2004 4:03:48 AM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

Does anyone have any real world data?

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

(in reply to doomonyou)

Post #: 21

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/17/2004 6:44:06 AM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

I have real world data

(in reply to siRkid)

Post #: 22

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/17/2004 3:20:53 PM

doomonyou

Posts: 144
Joined: 6/26/2002
Status: offline

This just happened this morning in the way of data, The Tatsujin Maru was damaged PRIOR to this combat by dutch submarine 0-19. Range at the time was reported as 4000 yards, these ships WERE DISEMBARKING TROOPS AND SUPPLIES to take the unstaffed Allied base a Jolo.

This battle should have been a godawful total massacre with perhaps four to six ships surviving and slinking away in various states of damage.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/22/41

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Jolo at 38,59

Japanese Ships
ML Ikitsushima, on fire
MSW Tomozono Maru #3, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AP Igasa Maru, Shell hits 27, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Kembu Maru, heavy damage
AP Kiko Maru, Shell hits 6, heavy damage
AP Tarushima Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Tatsujin Maru, on fire
AP Teiryu Maru
AP Tenryu Maru
AP Toyo Maru #2
AP Ujigawa Maru
AP Yamafuku Maru
AP Zyuyo Maru
AP Chinko Maru
AP Daitei Maru
AK Tokiwasan Maru

Allied Ships
CL Marblehead, Shell hits 3
CL Boise
DD Barker
DD Bulmer
DD Paul Jones
DD Parrott
DD Stewart

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 23

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/17/2004 3:56:27 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomonyou

Surface ships vs. Transports.

Due to the AI on several occasions I caught nearly unescorted tranports with surface ships. I can't seem to really kill them.

Example I caught eleven Japanese AP's and AK's with Two PCs near borneo with the Prince of Wales, the repulse and four DD's in daylight, fair weather at 22000 yards. Killed one PC and three Transports.

Since the transports are at least 10 knots slower and its daylight, how the hell do ANY of them manage to escape? It seems like the surface ai pounds the hell out of a few guys and lets the rest go. Have had cruisers to this too. Any competent captain at this time would in my estimation know that if he's spotted say four 8" or larger direct shell hits on a unarmored Transport to switch to a new target to cripple that one.

Also why does the hex speed seem not to match the ship speed. A ship going say 25 knots set to full speed should cover in a 24 hour period more hexes then I typcially seem them cover. Are the hexes much bigger than the 60 miles suggested in the manual?

I'm with you that this is a problem. I caught a group of 16 Japanese Transports unloading
troops at Davao with 12 DD's and 4 Cruisers. Davao is in a Gulf, so there wasn't any-
place for them to run..., they were pinned against the beach. I had a full load of Ammo
and Torpedoes. Net result was 2 Jap AK's sunk, 4 damaged, and 10 untouched. It's a
game "flaw" or "decision" you probably are going to have to learn to live with. I chased
this force for 2 more turns and 5 of them are still untouched (5 sunk and 6 damaged) and
I'm running out of ammo. On the bright side, it works both ways, so you may be saved
from your own follies on occasion as well. But it is annoying.

(in reply to doomonyou)

Post #: 24

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/17/2004 5:12:23 PM

McNaughton

Posts: 113
Joined: 4/13/2004
Status: offline

Lets look at some criteria here.

There are many things not being looked at here. If you had a surface combat TF, geared for battlefleet action, would you want to split it up in a chase in a region of 100 square kilometers in hostile territory against transports, when you could be jumped by enemy surface TFs at any moment? So, if you were with the Prince of Wales, Repulse, and 4 destroyers, chances are you wouldn't sent each ship on its own to chase after a transport. Imagine explaining to your commander why you sent off the Prince of Wales UNESCORTED into a sub infested seazone!

ALL raiding TFs mentioned had one thing, they were SMALL. Between 1-4 vessels. Also, in virtually all of these instances (Balikpapan especially) they got almost total surprise. Also, even these actions didn't result in total annihalation. Also, the Pacific War was NOT known for its raider tactics. All that have been mentioned were the SUCCESSFUL raider attacks. The number of transport vessels sunk by surface warships is completely neglegable when you compare the numbers sunk by aircraft.

When a Transport TF is unloading it is indeed stationary, BUT ships are not all neatly lined up for you to go and batter with your fleet. Ships are scattered about the port, some close to land (so you cannot see them shiloetted against the shore), while others are further out. Imagine going INTO a port, and trying to manoever around blasting transports. The only time this has EVER happened was when the Warspite ventured in to Narvik, which was VERY risky. Chances are, if you attack a TF that is unloading you are only ever going to SEE and be able to ENGAGE the ships on the outer end of the port, with those on the inner rings protected by the geography of the port, as well as the smoking wreckage of the ships further out. Take a look at pictures of ships in port and you will understand what I am talking about. Ships can continue to unload because they were in the inner ring of transports, and it would be better to unload then to try and exit the port by going through the enemy TF.

The 4 destroyers attacking Balikpapan was as much a fluke as Midway was. They achieved total surprise because the IJN escorts were out hunting a Dutch submarine that just fired on them moments before the American destroyers entered. The US destroyers were not spotted by the Japanese merchants, as they were assumed to be IJN escorts. This was a one and a million situation, and even here only 6 transports were sunk, and these were empty. Remember, these are FULL day turns, a lot can happen in a day, while battles only last a few minutes.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 25

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/17/2004 5:23:48 PM

McNaughton

Posts: 113
Joined: 4/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomonyou

I see a lot of people have experienced this too.

In response to those who claim the "scatter" issue, I agree to a limited extent but in my example it would have been hideously easy for TF commander to send even just two DD rushing in to check it out while he hangs back and lands 12 and 14" shells on the ships he can see. Those two close in DD's would (being probably 20 knots faster than any transport) be able to run quite wild in there.

I would certainly in any 10+ ship convoy be surprsied by a total wipeout but my example should have resulted in 7+ ships sunk and the rest damaged with perhaps one unscathed survivor.

If this was SO easy, then why have very few convoys ever been wiped out? Most of the situations of wiped out convoys was when you had a few transports (2-4) escorted by one escort, against an equal number of enemies (2-6 Cruisers and Destroyers). The IJN was able to do this late in the NEI campaign as they had numeric equality, and total ship numbers were low (it is easier to escape a battle of 10 vs 10 ships than it is 4 vs 4).

Battles are NEVER perfect, and NEVER end up with such an accurate set of ordering and successful engagements as you proposed, especially with high numbers of ships. INVARIABLY, in large engagements, there tend to be ships that draw the focus of the fleet, which EVERYONE tends to go after. This happened more than what you propose happen. It happened at Dogger Bank, virtually all of the Savo Island battles, the Gambier Bay, etc. Why? Because in raider attacks, ships become autonomous, and the chain of command desinigrates, with attacks being that of opportunity rather than of a planned fireplan.

Most of the successful anti-transport engagments were flukes of luck (Balikpapan), or were small numbers of raiders engaging small numbers of transports. Increasing the numbers of BOTH sides will not mean that the rate of kills will increase as well, but actually decrease due to the chaos of battle. Raider tactics are VERY chaotic, and in large ship battles it would degenerate and the TF commander would soon lose control of the situation, resulting in ships attacking the wrong targets, and others slipping away. It is just plain and simple.

(in reply to doomonyou)

Post #: 26

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/17/2004 6:00:33 PM

Black Cat

Posts: 615
Joined: 7/4/2002
Status: offline

I agree that the lack of major sinkings when you surprise a undefended Transport TF can be very disappointing, it`s happened to me as the US in the early going in the Campaign Game, however when I learned to handle my SC TF`s better I did better. Understanding the Game phases and how the AI moves it`s ships , and yours, as well as the time factors envolved, and how to use the ships speeds are important in hex -hex movement IMO.

I now leave 2- 4 DD`s in the hex the Transport TF will likely flee to after the surface combat phase, set the the attacking TF on retire in the base direction that will place it next phase in the other or same liklely hex the Transports will flee to.

Since there are usually only 3 hexs that the Transports can exit too, you have good odds that you will catch them on the next turn. Using this method I wiped out a 12 ship Japanese Transport TF over 3 turns at Davo in 1/42.

(in reply to McNaughton)

Post #: 27

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/17/2004 6:25:41 PM

Black Cat

Posts: 615
Joined: 7/4/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

Does anyone have any real world data?

Yes The famous US Night Action off Balikpapan on Jan 24 1942.

Four old Destroyers, Pope, Ford, Paul Jones and Parrott achived total surprise vs 12 unloading Transports and 3 PC`s silhouetted by shore fires, steaming at high speed, at point blank range they engaged with all torps and gunfire.

Only 4 transports and one PC were sunk under what can only be called ideal conditions for the US Forces.

The details are here and worth reading before the Matrix team starts tinkering with that part of the game.

The History of US Naval Operations in WW II. by Samuel Eliot Morison. Vol III, Pages 285 - 91.

Morison`s comments on this action are well worth reading as well.

(in reply to siRkid)

Post #: 28

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/17/2004 7:10:17 PM

JohnK

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: McNaughton

If this was SO easy, then why have very few convoys ever been wiped out?

You're arguing against a strawman.

Exactly ZERO people are demanding the game be changed so weakly defended convoys are always "wiped out."

It's just in the range of possible results large forces ALL firing at a lone PC or MSW escort with NO or almost no shots fired at the transports seems to be an exceedingly common result.

(in reply to McNaughton)

Post #: 29

RE: I now played a full game and a two material issues ... - 7/18/2004 4:18:36 AM

doomonyou

Posts: 144
Joined: 6/26/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnK

quote:

ORIGINAL: McNaughton

If this was SO easy, then why have very few convoys ever been wiped out?

You're arguing against a strawman.

Exactly ZERO people are demanding the game be changed so weakly defended convoys are always "wiped out."

It's just in the range of possible results large forces ALL firing at a lone PC or MSW escort with NO or almost no shots fired at the transports seems to be an exceedingly common result.

This is precisely my point...I have no issue with historical accuracy. I don't even mind the explanation that Japanese escorts even small ones, when placed in a situation of that type, would charge wildly into the enemy forcing an unusual concentration of fire...but, as the above post states, I have NEVER seen in about 15 or so of these situations where a reasonably powerful force catches an enemy "non-combat" TF anything other then a beating on a few ships of the dozen or so. In most of these cases these ships also have seaplanes and could quite easily launch one and have it zero them in on larger groups etc as most warships can litterally double the speed of a transport.

Perhaps historically this didn't happen alot, agreed. But many things in my games did not happen historically (for example I have NEVER seen the island of wake stand for ANYTHING close to its historically resistance time, typically by a factor of 10) nor are the dutch remembered as creating the vicious Death fortress of Kendari where Japanese invasion task forces and even the CVL Rujyo went ot die...

BTW if these Jap AK/AP convoys are so spread out that I can never encounter them in bulk in my zone of fire, why can't my SS's slaughter the hell out of them since thier escorts must be thirty miles away? If twelve ships are so spread out that a Surface TF consisting of a ship capable of firing effectively at 22000 yards in daylight cannot catch more than say three ships at a time together when its 12 knots faster than them, then they cannot be in effective anti-submarine formations for mutual support by the escorts.

Lastly, The ships don't scatter. I would have no problem if thier was an "overpower" option, where a "non-combat" TF encounters the Yamamoto and a Cruiser and Five DD's adn just F'ing blows hell for leather in 360 degrees with smoke and screaming and wild drunking dancing....Appearing the next day in six hexes all seperated and headed automatically in one direction or another to escape. But the next morning these enemy task forces are always just crusing along all reformed and happy. They like flow around your ships, its like trying to punch your way to victory against a swarm of bees.

(in reply to JohnK)

Post #: 30