Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

This entire thread has turned from a problem with Surface combat to a flame Mogami thread. If any body wants the surface combat fixed (assuming it is broken), help fix it. Flaming Mog ain't going to do any good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Mogami, the poster who criticized you stood on solid ground with respect to the remark you wrote re "complainers." Much of what you write, though, has merit. You seem like a pretty good guy. Why not just ligten up a little and stop seeing all these conspiracies?

As for Joel: either you haven't been around (as you write of others) or have that same "short memory" you accuse those same people of having. When it comes to after-market support Joel's record is nothing short of horrendous, and that's a matter of public record.

As for Gary: I'm on record giving him highest marks across the board for designing fun games. I'd cry if he retired. And Matrix always gets high marks from me for general support and the willingness to go the extra yard. Couldn't fault them.

Again, why not get off your high horse and stop preaching and talking down to folks? People pay cash for these games and deserve the right to complain when they see fit. Many of the complaints have merit, all are well meant I'm sure. Learn to live with that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi, I think people do a lot better when they just post combat reports where the testers developers can see them and then explain as much as the circumstance as they can without trying to define where the game is broken. If the game is in fact producing results unintended then posting results is enough. But what we often read is no posted results just general comments and then a lecture on how the game was written using 1865 code and interfered with by non programmers and defended by the loyal unqualified Matrix testers. It is hard to sort out what we need to look out when the same people keep posting to every thread where someone with a real concern and no ax to grind posts a result that puzzles them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami
It is hard to sort out what we need to look out when the same people keep posting to every thread where someone with a real concern and no ax to grind posts a result that puzzles them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
... Gotta go now. I'm brainwashing a new batch of testers in a few hours...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xian

Okay. Here are my 2 cents. The way the game simulates the enagement of a large surface task force against a convoy is correct.

Just look at Convoy PQ-17. Standard allied modus operandus in the event that the convoy is attacked by a surface TF is to disperse to minimize your losses (so yes, 60 mile hexagon is a lot of territory) The PQ-17 was sunk by subs that took advantage of the dispersed convoy without escorts. Also surface TFs tend to stay together as a cohesive unit, which is impeding their ability to cover all 9352.8 square miles of the hexagon.

The only thing worse for the career of a naval TF commander than not sinking an undefended convoy is to run into an enemy TF that sinks your dispersed TF because you went hunting for an "undefended convoy."

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Tarigo, Lupo and Duisburg convoys during the battle of the Mediterannean. Complete annihilation of two of the three convoys. The Lupo convoy saw some serious confusion on the part of the British, but even in this case, a single cruiser (Orion) manage to destroy 10 of the enemy transports.

Those were Italians - sure you don't want to see that modelled in WITP?

Weren't those "10 enemy transports" in case of Lupo actually "caiques", ie. very small coastal craft akin to barges in WITP? And are you sure it was only Orion on the British side, not the whole cruiser squadron?

Cruiser squadron vs. lone DE + 10x AG barges is verymuch different than CA vs. DE + 10x AK.

In that action Lupo was hit with no less than 18 6in shells - another brave escort taking punishment trying to save the conwoy, just like those PGs in WITP people complain so much about.

Duisburg - here we have defensive action that is not simply bad, it's embarassing for the Italians. Perhaps such embarassments should be modeled in WITP, but then you'd have even bigger protests from the players who got "Duisburg-ed" while their ships buzzed around too afraid to shoot. In the Pacific such escort embarassments were rare, maybe they have to be modelled for UV-Med?

O.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Those German ships did not kill entire convoys. Yes, they charged in and sank a few. They also tracked down and sank a few the next day. If you read about the Jervis Bay, you'll know she was considered to save the majority of the convoy she was protecting. The AK's do not line up and wait to be shot. They scatter and most will escape. Whoever controls the air and the sea will decide what happens the next day. (more AK's sunk or the AK's survive).

10 surface ships vs 20 ak's should almost never result in 20 sunk ak's. Anyone who has ever been out to sea knows you never have a mirror surface ocean and limitless visibility. Especially in the tropical area's of the world. Why does Maui have the wettest and dryest spot in the US? Because it rains EVERY day on one side of Maui. Rain squalls do a lot to hide ships.

If we were playing PBEM and I sent in AK's and you sank 3 or 4 out of 20, I'd have been handed a very serious tactical defeat. If I choose to send the survivors back in the next day, I should be court martialed. WITP does have a habit of sending AK's back into harms way, which might be a flaw in the AI, but not in the way surface battles are done. Mogami has posted results of 50% sunk. I've personally seen results of 50% or better sunk. I certainly don't think we should be seeing results of 100% sunk. Except the one in a million chance.

BC - Official Mogami Fanboy Club

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: velkro
A Brit TF consisting of the Revenge, 1 CA, 4 CLs, and 2 DDs intercept 26 Japanese TKs, AKs, and APs with not a single warfighting ship amongst the Japanese TF. Out of the 26, 13 of them are already smoking after numerous air raids. This TF is moving at about 6 knots due to damaged ships. So, I turn on the combat display so I can see my fun.

You would think it would be a shooting gallery, right?

WRONG!

For some odd reason, every one of my ships decides to pummel a damaged TK and a damaged AP. Each of those two Japanese ships received like 55 hits. Not one other ship was even shot at!!! What the heck!!!???!!! Is my peoples stupid or is this a software glitch!?!? If you think about it, the Brits should have taken out like at least half of those tubs...it was daytime and the Japanese TF was SLOW. The Brits had full load of ammo and fuel and was set to "Patrol".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: velkro
A Brit TF consisting of the Revenge, 1 CA, 4 CLs, and 2 DDs intercept 26 Japanese TKs, AKs, and APs with not a single warfighting ship amongst the Japanese TF. Out of the 26, 13 of them are already smoking after numerous air raids. This TF is moving at about 6 knots due to damaged ships. So, I turn on the combat display so I can see my fun.

You would think it would be a shooting gallery, right?

WRONG!

For some odd reason, every one of my ships decides to pummel a damaged TK and a damaged AP. Each of those two Japanese ships received like 55 hits. Not one other ship was even shot at!!! What the heck!!!???!!! Is my peoples stupid or is this a software glitch!?!? If you think about it, the Brits should have taken out like at least half of those tubs...it was daytime and the Japanese TF was SLOW. The Brits had full load of ammo and fuel and was set to "Patrol".

REMEMBER THIS??? It's the original post that started this thread. EIGHT (not one or two)
Surface Combat Vessels (slowest speed 21 kts, fastest in the 30's) intercept 26 TOTALLY
UNESCORTED Merchant Ships (HALF of which are already damaged and NONE of which
can exceed 12 kts) in broad daylight and good visability! And the Game produces the
TOTALLY IDIOTIC and INDEFENSABLE result of two already-half sunk Merchants "finished
off" while the rest escape! Anyone with a three digit IQ has got to realize that this is a
bunch of BS!

quote:

Had the already damaged half of the convoy been pounded while the still in good shape
half scattered and ran, no one would have been complaining. Had there been a reason-
able escort to "sacrifice itself" (3-4 DD's or something, not a PC and 3 MSW) the result
would have been dissappointing but perhaps acceptable. Had the Brits been "low ammo/low fuel" a case could be made. But the result cited in the circumstances involved
is patently absurd, and the Designers need to pay some attention.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

REMEMBER THIS??? It's the original post that started this thread. EIGHT (not one or two)
Surface Combat Vessels (slowest speed 21 kts, fastest in the 30's) intercept 26 TOTALLY
UNESCORTED Merchant Ships

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

No John...., I figured someone with only a two digit IQ might NOT realize this was BS.

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

REMEMBER THIS??? It's the original post that started this thread. EIGHT (not one or two)
Surface Combat Vessels (slowest speed 21 kts, fastest in the 30's) intercept 26 TOTALLY
UNESCORTED Merchant Ships

Once again, it's not 26 ships!!

Only the ships that are "named" during the combat animation are seen! Others remain unseen, undetected. Your little virtual AI admiral thought he was engaging 3 or 4 ships. He, for example, sunk 2 outright, and left other two in what he believed was "sinking state". He never knew there were another 22 AKs in that TF or hex.

Now you may complain about *detection* routines, but *combat* routines themselves seem generally OK to me. A small tweak here and there would be welcome perhaps, but it's not a show stopper.

O.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

The concept of "screens" I think needs to be investigated further. I've only seen this one time that I can recall, where the silly AI sent an air-combat TF to Lunga. On the surface-engagement battle screen a gaggle of DDs and CLs and CAs were positioned in front of the three CVs, and when I'd finished off the "screen" the action broke off, simulating, I suppose, the escape of those CVs (thanks to the screening action, of course).

No such "screen" is depicted when, say, DDs escort a merchant convoy, where all the ships (space permitting) are just bunched together. I think it ought to be like in the case above, unless the escorted merchant convoy is surprised.

What do you think?

This was no screen. It was simply overlap on the animation screen I bet. There is no actual ship stationing or role delineation from what I have seen. Just a big group of ships blasting away Nelson style.

I just want to add that it's the results which will satisfy me, and most likely many others. Combat animations are simply eye candy but have a very negative effect on the gamers view of what is actually being simulated. As it unfolds on the screen, nothing makes alot of sense, but this is not really the intention. The end result is. Get the final results in the strike zone and the issue would be a non one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


Once again, it's not 26 ships!!

Only the ships that are "named" during the combat animation are seen! Others remain unseen, undetected. Your little virtual AI admiral thought he was engaging 3 or 4 ships. He, for example, sunk 2 outright, and left other two in what he believed was "sinking state". He never knew there were another 22 AKs in that TF or hex.

O.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

-whether or not a "screen" of this sort is implemented when a TF with CVs in it engages.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

-whether or not a "screen" of this sort is implemented when a TF with CVs in it engages.

Hmmm, never came across this. If it exists, it could be used vs PTs when they engage a surface combat TF with heavies or any other TF which would employ one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Everyone has their right to an opinion. Mine is that I think the surface combat resolution is pretty ok. If anything it should be toned down a little. I tend to look at things as they could have occured, historically. I'm not looking for a doom game. I'd prefer to see Lexington II, not re-spawned US CV's. I'd like to see US PT's miss a little more than they do now.

I haven't seen results in my games that seem rediculous when looking at surface battles (non-PT). If I had the results of the combat that started this thread, I'd write it off as: The transports took an awful beating by air. So, they were completely scattered throughout 60 square miles because of the air attacks. I was pretty damn lucky to kill 2 to 4 of them with my surface force.

I don't think you should ever see a result of 20 AK's sunk in one battle. They don't line up like ducks at a shooting range. Maybe the attacking surface force was spotted by air 20 miles before they engaged the AK's. So, the AK's spread out sooner than the attacker would have liked.

I should also say that I play conservatively, so in my WITP game, I have only seen 5 or so surface battles vs AK's. None of them seemed wrong to me. I have had hundreds of examples from UV, so most of what I say now relates to that game. I am not aware of a difference between the games, but if there is, then there could be a problem. I assume they have the same code, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Everyone has their right to an opinion. Mine is that I think the surface combat resolution is pretty ok. If anything it should be toned down a little. I tend to look at things as they could have occured, historically. I'm not looking for a doom game. I'd prefer to see Lexington II, not re-spawned US CV's. I'd like to see US PT's miss a little more than they do now.

I haven't seen results in my games that seem rediculous when looking at surface battles (non-PT). If I had the results of the combat that started this thread, I'd write it off as: The transports took an awful beating by air. So, they were completely scattered throughout 60 square miles because of the air attacks. I was pretty damn lucky to kill 2 to 4 of them with my surface force.

I don't think you should ever see a result of 20 AK's sunk in one battle. They don't line up like ducks at a shooting range. Maybe the attacking surface force was spotted by air 20 miles before they engaged the AK's. So, the AK's spread out sooner than the attacker would have liked.

I should also say that I play conservatively, so in my WITP game, I have only seen 5 or so surface battles vs AK's. None of them seemed wrong to me. I have had hundreds of examples from UV, so most of what I say now relates to that game. I am not aware of a difference between the games, but if there is, then there could be a problem. I assume they have the same code, though.