RE: Surface Combat Sux

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Surface Combat Sux

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 >> RE: Surface Combat Sux

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 7:31:38 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Given poor visability (rain) and an excess in defender numbers, the only real problem I
have with the result's you show is that the ships that were sighted and hit should have
taken a worse beating. With Nine attackers concentraiting on those 7 defenders, the
rest excaping makes some sense..., but those that were being "Run Down" and shot
up should probably have suffered more sinkings.

Except in the most rare of circumstance any merchie caught on the open sea would be dead meat, and if given the chance would lower its colors, depending on cargo and orders and mindset, naturally. Regardless, all "caught" should be rendered hors de combat.

Results of 59 hits on any given merchie are rediculous in and of themselves. A few hits and away with you, one way or the other.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 211

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 7:33:22 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Day Time Surface Combat at 61,74

Japanese Ships
AO Hayasui, Shell hits 39, and is sunk
TK Choran Maru, Shell hits 3 (21/6/6)
TK Gen'yo Maru, Shell hits 66, and is sunk
TK Kyokuto Maru
TK Nihon Maru, Shell hits 6, on fire (42/13/49)
TK San Pedro Maru
AK Genoa Maru
AK Getuyo Maru, Shell hits 3, on fire (55/21/17)
AK Glasgow Maru
AK Gosyu Maru
AK Goyo Maru
AK Hague Maru
AK Hakkai Maru
AK Hakodate Maru
AK Hakonesan Maru
AK Hakubasan Maru
AO Medan Maru, Shell hits 12, on fire, heavy damage (83/72/49)
TK Kyokuho, Shell hits 4, on fire (42/26/36)

Allied Ships
CA Minneapolis
CL Cleveland
CL Montpelier
DD Anthony
DD Aulick
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Charles Badger
DD Beale
DD Bell

More ships ... only some ships spotted (weather Rain)

Here's my question ... do you expect more of those ships to be sunk? Like all of them?

I need to know what you expect to happen.

What exactly does radar do again? I'm beginning to wonder if it does anything at all besides detect aircraft and maybe increase accuracy of gunfire. All these ships are SG equipped (exception maybe Minneapolis) yet the APs remain undetected.

Which Americanships were "undetected" during the battle? Does anyone not find this strange that ships in a TF, especially the aggressor force, would be somehow unable to participate because they are undetected?

Short answer: no.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 212

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 7:37:13 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

I hadn't read anything simlar from you, Frag, and so didn't realize this was your position. However, I would argue something of this magnitude ought not to have gotten out of beta, but have been put on the old "wish list" a year or so ago.

Then you completely fail to understand our role. We simply test what we are given to see if it is broken. If broken, we report what is broken. Don't assume I have *any* position on things. I look for problems and note them then pass them on. It seems a lot of folks are under the impression that we control the game developers

As to the magnitude ... thats subjective.

If there is a problem, the problem needs to be localized better because not all agreeing that there is actually a problem.

Very few naval battles that I am aware of were fought to the death. Ships are far too precious for that.

From what I have been able to gather from these types of posts ... there are two separate complaints.

a) completely unescorted ships should be getting murdered. They are not currently.

b) large formations of ships don't parse out well with damage done.

I don't fail to understand "our role," you do.

You have an obligation over and above whatever corny document Matrix and/or 2by3 give you to sign to try and make this product as good as possible. If you can't understand that then you ought not to be a playtester. I don't care whose toes you step on along the way, I don't care if you're summarily dumped as tester, your ultimnate role and objective as a tester remains as stated above.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 213

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 7:40:20 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

Does anyone not find this strange that ships in a TF, especially the aggressor force, would be somehow unable to participate because they are undetected?

As the animation runs, you will see some of the ships join in after the initial round ... these are ships that were out of position coming in to join the fight.

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 214

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 7:40:38 PM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

I hadn't read anything simlar from you, Frag, and so didn't realize this was your position. However, I would argue something of this magnitude ought not to have gotten out of beta, but have been put on the old "wish list" a year or so ago.

Then you completely fail to understand our role. We simply test what we are given to see if it is broken. If broken, we report what is broken. Don't assume I have *any* position on things. I look for problems and note them then pass them on. It seems a lot of folks are under the impression that we control the game developers

As to the magnitude ... thats subjective.

If there is a problem, the problem needs to be localized better because not all agreeing that there is actually a problem.

Very few naval battles that I am aware of were fought to the death. Ships are far too precious for that.

From what I have been able to gather from these types of posts ... there are two separate complaints.

a) completely unescorted ships should be getting murdered. They are not currently.

b) large formations of ships don't parse out well with damage done.

"Then you completely fail to understand our role. We simply test what we are given to see if it is broken. If broken, we report what is broken. Don't assume I have *any* position on things."

Betas also point out design suggestions, flaws, potential problems etc, but they can only ask for a change.

"It seems a lot of folks are under the impression that we control the game developers."

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 215

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 7:45:08 PM

Nikademus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

I hadn't read anything simlar from you, Frag, and so didn't realize this was your position. However, I would argue something of this magnitude ought not to have gotten out of beta, but have been put on the old "wish list" a year or so ago. And then screeeeeeamed! for incessantly ever since. (Behind closed doors, of course. )

Screaming tends to be non-condusive towards winning over the powers that be.

The tests I did were not posted on the public forum.

_____________________________

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 216

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 7:46:00 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Very few naval battles that I am aware of were fought to the death. Ships are far too precious for that.

I think these kinds of engagements ought to be rare in the Pacific. The larger convoys were mainly sailing within interior lines for the Japanese and were strongly escorted in the case of the Allies (I stress strongly, even though the USN had some bad hair days off Savo Island and elsewhere in the Solomons, still the convoys were protected, and of course you know what happened up in the Phillipines when the Combined Fleet decided to sally).

But. When these engagements do take place all merchies caught need to be deep sixed. Perhaps one in a hundred might wiggle off the hook and find a friendly squall to paddle away in, but that should be it. The majority of these merchies need to be sighted, and the vast majority of those then should go glubglubglub.

As noted previously, the entire routine should be upgraded to show only those ships actually sighted on the screen. Why show unsighted ships on the screen? How stupid is that?

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 217

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 7:47:41 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

I hadn't read anything simlar from you, Frag, and so didn't realize this was your position. However, I would argue something of this magnitude ought not to have gotten out of beta, but have been put on the old "wish list" a year or so ago. And then screeeeeeamed! for incessantly ever since. (Behind closed doors, of course. )

Screaming tends to be non-condusive towards winning over the powers that be. The tests I did were not posted on the public forum.

There are many different kinds of "screams," my friend.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 218

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 7:49:48 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Does anyone not find this strange that ships in a TF, especially the aggressor force, would be somehow unable to participate because they are undetected?

As the animation runs, you will see some of the ships join in after the initial round ... these are ships that were out of position coming in to join the fight.

You're misquoting me here. Those were Ron's words. (I happen to agree with him, but point of order, please.

)

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 219

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 7:51:17 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Certainly a more acceptable result, FRAG. But it still begs one big question.
ALL of the attacking ships have a MINIMUM 20-knot speed advantage over
any of the defenders; and they outnumber them over 2:1. Which means that
within a single hour of the daylight game phase, they can all move from over
the horizon to boarding distance. The defenders are virtually defenseless.
How do ANY of them survive? The game keeps making it happen virtually
every time..., but never supplies a rational for this "Houdini-like" ability. If
some of the defenders escaped maybe 1/4th to 1/3rd of the time you could
say it was unusual conditions (rain squalls, Islands, mix-up orders, etc) and be
in the realms of believability. But it seems to occur virtually EVERY time? And
that just doesn't make any sense.

Hi, Depending on the range the surface ships first spot the transports and change course and when the transports spot the surface ships and begin scattering. (I think all transport versus surface ship battles have "TF scatters" message early in battle.

Now a ship moving 20 knots will not overtake a ship doing 10kts in 1 hour. It will cut the distance in half every hour. (depending on where the ships begin changing couse in reaction to each other.

(TF spot one another at 20k yards. In time pursuit moves 20k yards Transports move 10k yards. But every transport has taken a different course so the surface ship has only closed the range on 1 transport. Other transports depending on course might now have opened range to 30k. )

In order for the surface ships to fire broadsides thay must assume a course that results in opening of the range or take a course 15 degrees or so from the target ship and wait. Each surface ship will be able to do this to 1 target. The transports are no longer in formation. The surface ships speed advantage allows them to manoveor to avoid the transports fire and of course the larger surface ships can begin firing while out of range of return fire but any DD that uses guns or torpedos is in range for return fire.

If there are 6 transports and they each upon contact with enemy TF assume a course 60 degrees (12 transports do a 30 degree course difference) from one another they will be running in all directions. A surface ship cannot close the range with one without opening the range with all the others.

Of course TF in restricted waters might not have the option of going in every direction but I think if you picture a fan and open it in the direction of the open sea you'll notice that if you track down any one line you open the distance with all the others. Also the transports might risk running aground (not shown in WITP) and enter waters where pursuit unlikely from larger ships)
In battles around ports and restricted waters the TF would have to have a pilot or be familair with the area to just break formation and allow each ship to pick a target and give chase.

Ship captains do not always see everything and they often make the wrong choice. (They still collide today) Just turning the wrong way for a few minutes before realizing it can open or close range. Nothing should be considered "automatic" There were battles in WW2 (and all through history) where the side on paper that should have had an easy victory failed to win (and sometimes even lost outright)

OK now that I've said all that. Nothing I've said means that if there is a real problem it will not be fixed. I'm only posting because I am seeing quite a few miconceptions about ships and naval battles. Ships do not turn like cars or stop like cars or fly. A ship in formation only moves out of formation under orders and when it does so it executes a preplanned movement. (Like soldiers drilling doing a by the right flank or a column left)
Nothing happens instantly. Ship Captains do not stand on the bridge shouting "left full rudder, right full rudder" They plot their position and the position they want to move to. In formation they execute turns on command. If the TF leader orders a left turn to bring all guns to bear then the target is going to open the range. If the target does a full right turn while the TF does a full left turn they are now openiing the range at the combined speeds (range is opening now at 30kts) No matter which way you turn your ship the target can turn the other. If you just keep a CBDR (contant bearing decreasing range) you can only use your forward guns.

If the lead ship in a TF spots enemy TF at 20k yards this means the rear ship in this TF could be at 30k yards from the contact. (ships in line 1k between ships rear ship in 10 ship TF is 10k behind foward ship) At same time the ship you spot at 20k is part of 10 ship TF the lead ship of this TF could be another 10k out. (Distance from your rear ship to lead enemy ship is 40k) Once you begin to engage the ship at 20k you lose the chance to catch the one at 40k

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 220

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 7:56:33 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

You have an obligation over and above whatever corny document Matrix and/or 2by3 give you to sign to try and make this product as good as possible. If you can't understand that then you ought not to be a playtester. I don't care whose toes you step on along the way, I don't care if you're summarily dumped as tester, your ultimnate role and objective as a tester remains as stated above.

If you don't understand by now that my only interests in doing this is to make the game better, I really have no idea what to say. It is much easier to work from the inside then the outside. Being dumped is rather counter productive to improving the game.

There is no purpose to denying a problem exists as it does not get things fixed.

The role we play here is sorting out the *real* problems from the subjective complaints. I can tell you is it not exactly what one would call enjoyable. It tends to make you the whipping boy for everyone who is having a bad day.

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 221

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 8:00:14 PM

Nikademus

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

cheer up Frag....noones called you an Axis fanboy yet......you AXIS FANBOY!!!!

_____________________________

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 222

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 8:02:10 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

(TF spot one another at 20k yards. In time pursuit moves 20k yards Transports move 10k yards. But every transport has taken a different course so the surface ship has only closed the range on 1 transport. Other transports depending on course might now have opened range to 30k. )

In order for the surface ships to fire broadsides thay must assume a course that results in opening of the range or take a course 15 degrees or so from the target ship and wait. Each surface ship will be able to do this to 1 target. The transports are no longer in formation. The surface ships speed advantage allows them to manoveor to avoid the transports fire and of course the larger surface ships can begin firing while out of range of return fire but any DD that uses guns or torpedos is in range for return fire.

If there are 6 transports and they each upon contact with enemy TF assume a course 60 degrees (12 transports do a 30 degree course difference) from one another they will be running in all directions. A surface ship cannot close the range with one without opening the range with all the others.

Your points are somewhat valid but onesided.

Why would a ship need to turn broadsides on a slow merchie? Chasing rounds could bring it to a half fast. And why would the combat fleet continue to sail as a unit? More likely its commander would send individual ships after various merchies and collect quite a haul in the process. Plus, assuming chasing rounds early in the conflict a warship could cripple more than one merchie (in theory), thus leaving these bobbing on the water to deal with at leisure later.

I don't pretend ot have any definitive answer to all these questions of the thread, but it's apparent the naval model at present can't handle daylight actions well. Which is the overall point of this thread.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 223

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 8:06:29 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

You have an obligation over and above whatever corny document Matrix and/or 2by3 give you to sign to try and make this product as good as possible. If you can't understand that then you ought not to be a playtester. I don't care whose toes you step on along the way, I don't care if you're summarily dumped as tester, your ultimnate role and objective as a tester remains as stated above.

If you don't understand by now that my only interests in doing this is to make the game better, I really have no idea what to say. It is much easier to work from the inside then the outside. Being dumped is rather counter productive to improving the game.

There is no purpose to denying a problem exists as it does not get things fixed.

The role we play here is sorting out the *real* problems from the subjective complaints. I can tell you is it not exactly what one would call enjoyable. It tends to make you the whipping boy for everyone who is having a bad day.

I appreciate your effort and have no doubt you want to make a difference for the best of reasons. Try not to take offense always. But when it comes to playtesting the restricted definition you apply to that role does not set well here.

As for me, I'm not having a bad day. The sky is robin-egg blue here.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 224

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 8:34:21 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

(TF spot one another at 20k yards. In time pursuit moves 20k yards Transports move 10k yards. But every transport has taken a different course so the surface ship has only closed the range on 1 transport. Other transports depending on course might now have opened range to 30k. )

In order for the surface ships to fire broadsides thay must assume a course that results in opening of the range or take a course 15 degrees or so from the target ship and wait. Each surface ship will be able to do this to 1 target. The transports are no longer in formation. The surface ships speed advantage allows them to manoveor to avoid the transports fire and of course the larger surface ships can begin firing while out of range of return fire but any DD that uses guns or torpedos is in range for return fire.

If there are 6 transports and they each upon contact with enemy TF assume a course 60 degrees (12 transports do a 30 degree course difference) from one another they will be running in all directions. A surface ship cannot close the range with one without opening the range with all the others.

Your points are somewhat valid but onesided.

Why would a ship need to turn broadsides on a slow merchie? Chasing rounds could bring it to a half fast. And why would the combat fleet continue to sail as a unit? More likely its commander would send individual ships after various merchies and collect quite a haul in the process. Plus, assuming chasing rounds early in the conflict a warship could cripple more than one merchie (in theory), thus leaving these bobbing on the water to deal with at leisure later.

I don't pretend ot have any definitive answer to all these questions of the thread, but it's apparent the naval model at present can't handle daylight actions well. Which is the overall point of this thread.

Hi, I think if you run tests where the TF has a aggresive flag officer in command and run the same test with a cautious ship captain in command you'll find the flag officer does at least 4x as much damage. The question as I see it presented in this thread is "is that enough damage" I really do not think a TF that opens fire on another TF is going to inflict a lot of damage where only the forward guns are employed against targets presenting the smallest angle. (This is where ship ratings would matter most) When does the surface TF decide to break formation? At start it likely does not even see entire enemy TF. The major mistake in the surface combat routine is showing the player too much info in the animation. Because the player sees every ship he thinks that every one of his ships sees every enemy ship. (Even when a ship reveals it's name in the animation not every other ships sees it)

So one of my problems remains that the surface TF cannot breakup in pursuit of ships it does not see. And it can't damage ships it does not fire at because it cannot see them. If each ship goes off in pursuit of a target then the excess transports will by default escape.

It is true any ship spotted should risk damage but if a major portion of the transports are unspotted (except by the player knowing they are there because he sees them in the animation) they will not be damage.

This applies even to daylight combat. Where the hrozon can be anywhere from 5 to 25 miles. If you spot the rear ship in a TF 25 miles away and alter couse to pursue (and it changes course to evade while all the unspotted ships do the same) you will catch that ship but never know you missed encountering the others.

In WITP we know that if a surface TF is in the same hex as a friendly transport TF that any enemy surface TF will be engaged by the surface TF.

However the routine is designed where any TF commander enters an engagement not knowing complete details that we find out before the turn is over.

(Forgive my art) I just want to show what I refering to. If the surface TF (black) spots the rear ship in transport TF (blue) and rear ship comes left 90 degrees to evade and surface TF does the same to follow. The surface TF will never see the rest of transport TF. (the distance between all but the pursuit and the transport being followed will open not close.)

The result of such action would be the single transport getting all the fire from the surface TF.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/9/2004 1:38:51 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 225

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 8:38:15 PM

Nikademus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
There are many different kinds of "screams," my friend.

None of which i know that would be effective.

_____________________________

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 226

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 8:39:47 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

(TF spot one another at 20k yards. In time pursuit moves 20k yards Transports move 10k yards. But every transport has taken a different course so the surface ship has only closed the range on 1 transport. Other transports depending on course might now have opened range to 30k. )

In order for the surface ships to fire broadsides thay must assume a course that results in opening of the range or take a course 15 degrees or so from the target ship and wait. Each surface ship will be able to do this to 1 target. The transports are no longer in formation. The surface ships speed advantage allows them to manoveor to avoid the transports fire and of course the larger surface ships can begin firing while out of range of return fire but any DD that uses guns or torpedos is in range for return fire.

If there are 6 transports and they each upon contact with enemy TF assume a course 60 degrees (12 transports do a 30 degree course difference) from one another they will be running in all directions. A surface ship cannot close the range with one without opening the range with all the others.

Your points are somewhat valid but onesided.

Why would a ship need to turn broadsides on a slow merchie? Chasing rounds could bring it to a half fast. And why would the combat fleet continue to sail as a unit? More likely its commander would send individual ships after various merchies and collect quite a haul in the process. Plus, assuming chasing rounds early in the conflict a warship could cripple more than one merchie (in theory), thus leaving these bobbing on the water to deal with at leisure later.

I don't pretend ot have any definitive answer to all these questions of the thread, but it's apparent the naval model at present can't handle daylight actions well. Which is the overall point of this thread.

Hi, I think if you run tests where the TF has a aggresive flag officer in command and run the same test with a cautious ship captain in command you'll find the flag officer does at least 4x as much damage. The question as I see it presented in this thread is "is that enough damage" I really do not think a TF that opens fire on another TF is going to inflict a lot of damage where only the forward guns are employed against targets presenting the smallest angle. (This is where ship ratings would matter most) When does the surface TF decide to break formation? At start it likely does not even see entire enemy TF. The major mistake in the surface combat routine is showing the player too much info in the animation. Because the player sees every ship he thinks that every one of his ships sees every enemy ship. (Even when a ship reveals it's name in the animation not every other ships sees it)

So one of my problems remains that the surface TF cannot breakup in pursuit of ships it does not see. And it can't damage ships it does not fire at because it cannot see them. If each ship goes off in pursuit of a target then the excess transports will by default escape.

It is true any ship spotted should risk damage but if a major portion of the transports are unspotted (except by the player knowing they are there because he sees them in the animation) they will not be damage.

This applies even to daylight combat. Where the hrozon can be anywhere from 5 to 25 miles. If you spot the rear ship in a TF 25 miles away and alter couse to pursue (and it changes course to evade while all the unspotted ships do the same) you will catch that ship but never know you missed encountering the others.

In WITP we know that if a surface TF is in the same hex as a friendly transport TF that any enemy surface TF will be engaged by the surface TF.

However the routine is designed where any TF commander enters an engagement not knowing complete details that we find out before the turn is over.

(Forgive my art) I just want to show what I refering to. If the surface TF (black) spots the rear ship in transport TF (blue) and rear ship comes left 90 degrees to evade and surface TF does the same to follow. The surface TF will never see the rest of transport TF. (the distance between all but the pursuit and the transport being followed will open not close.)

I don't argue with any of that. I certainly agree the animation screen needs to be changed to show only sighted merchies. All warships then, however, need to be able to "see" that merchie (not for gunnery purposes but aware it's there for purposes of the chase so that they can then get their own sights on it).

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 227

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 8:41:04 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Prehaps only spotted ships should move into animation screen. And all unspotted ships remain unknown. Then when players see their TF catch 1 or 2 transports and sink them they would be happy but not realize that 20 others escaped.

I could be mistaken but I believe part of the single transport being hit many times is that it is the sighted ship and no other targets are inr range.

During night battles at close range the "hits" total shown often includes many small calibur hits that do no real damage to heavy ships.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/9/2004 1:43:59 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 228

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 8:44:07 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Prehaps only spotted ships should move into animation screen. And all unspotted ships remain unknown. Then when players see their TF catch 1 or 2 transports and sink them they would be happy but not realize that 20 others escaped.

Exactly! (I've only made this point about nine times now.

)

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 229

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 8:46:31 PM

Nikademus

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

it might reduce confusion i agree, but i found that my results were mostly similar regardless of whether the ships were spotted (i.e. their names apeared) or not.

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 230

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 8:48:00 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Well now that everyone understands what is actually occuring there is no need to change it. Just say "damn I could have gotten more if that knucklehead in command had seen what I see"

Really Nik, even changing TF leaders produced the same results. Now don't forget the transport TF always scatters as soon as it spots the surface TF. The scatter does not begin when the shooting begins. So I would think a great deal of the result is the scatter being impletmented. Players want to catch more of the transports and I agree that any transport spotted would be a possible target. But right away all the unspotted transports would be immune. And there are many ways a spotted ship could still escape. (many of these relate directly to the leader of the surface TF)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/9/2004 1:51:42 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 231

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 8:48:27 PM

vils

Posts: 251
Joined: 1/11/2002
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline

Thing is that ships tolerate to much damage, or.. there is to little difference between a BB and a TK in absorbing hits. The BB takes to few before its sunk, and teh TK takes to many.

I hit a TK with 21 torpedoes and some 15 1000lb bombs, and it sailed away!

_____________________________

Take Command! - Lewis E. Lyle

(in reply to velkro)

Post #: 232

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 8:53:09 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vils

Thing is that ships tolerate to much damage, or.. there is to little difference between a BB and a TK in absorbing hits. The BB takes to few before its sunk, and teh TK takes to many.

I hit a TK with 21 torpedoes and some 15 1000lb bombs, and it sailed away!

Hmmmmm don't suppose you still have the replay/file? Quite often my airstrikes cannot locate target half way through the strike. (This means the ship they are looking for has sunk)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/9/2004 1:54:12 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to vils)

Post #: 233

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 9:03:51 PM

Nikademus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Really Nik.....

Really really.

The point is that the ships escape too often too much of the time. This includes transport TF's attacked at close quarters, day , night , and especially while unloading. I am well aware of the methodologies in which merchant convoys may use to evade surface warships.

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 234

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 9:07:58 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, I'm thinking then that the scatter is too effective. It seems to me that the transports that are caught are being sunk but the players do not want the transports to be able to get away and this I think is produced at the start by their scattering. When I use a flag officer compared to a ship captain I catch more transports.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 235

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 9:08:40 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

it might reduce confusion i agree, but i found that my results were mostly similar regardless of whether the ships were spotted (i.e. their names apeared) or not.

It would reduce the perception of model error, but of course not address the actual problem.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 236

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 9:10:58 PM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Day Time Surface Combat at 61,74

Japanese Ships
AO Hayasui, Shell hits 39, and is sunk
TK Choran Maru, Shell hits 3 (21/6/6)
TK Gen'yo Maru, Shell hits 66, and is sunk
TK Kyokuto Maru
TK Nihon Maru, Shell hits 6, on fire (42/13/49)
TK San Pedro Maru
AK Genoa Maru
AK Getuyo Maru, Shell hits 3, on fire (55/21/17)
AK Glasgow Maru
AK Gosyu Maru
AK Goyo Maru
AK Hague Maru
AK Hakkai Maru
AK Hakodate Maru
AK Hakonesan Maru
AK Hakubasan Maru
AO Medan Maru, Shell hits 12, on fire, heavy damage (83/72/49)
TK Kyokuho, Shell hits 4, on fire (42/26/36)

Allied Ships
CA Minneapolis
CL Cleveland
CL Montpelier
DD Anthony
DD Aulick
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Charles Badger
DD Beale
DD Bell

More ships ... only some ships spotted (weather Rain)

Here's my question ... do you expect more of those ships to be sunk? Like all of them?

I need to know what you expect to happen.

IMHO. I would expect: The Gen'yo Maru to have either sunk or no longer be a target long before being hit 66 times. The Hayasui to be sunk or no longer a target before being hit 39 times. If the Medan Maru was an AK or TK, to see it sunk or obviously about to sink and therefore no longer a target at about this number of hits. (As an AO with a more military crew and better damage containment construction its probably about right.) To see many/most of the excess shot fired at Gen'yo Maru and Hayasui fired at otherwise unengaged ships.

Those results would be more intuitively reasonable to me personally, but at this point I haven't seen enough of these types of actions myself to form a strong opinion. (Hence why I've not posted to this thread before now. Will post results of any similar engagements from my own game if/when they occur.) The gist of the complaint(s) seem to boil down to two issues. 1) Excessive concentration of fire on a small number of targets. 2) Civilian vessels surviving what appear to be an excessive number of hits by large size rounds (which exasperates #1, if they sank faster then fire could not be excessively concentrated on them).

Possible changes to address this. a) Reduce how much damage civilian vessels can withstand (see Merchant Durability thread). b) Change surface combat routines to spread fire out more. c) Change surface combat routines so that warships do not treat civilian/merchant ships as the same kind of targets as other warships.

Gut feeling. Try small changes first. No basis for the feeling, but suspect that it would not take much to cause significantly different outcomes.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 237

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 9:10:59 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Just for the record. I would like to make it so that every unescorted ship is sunk by any TF that catches it. I don't think I will lose too many ships more then I do now. But I will certainly sink more.

The next question is then how much escort is enough to allow the transports to evade?

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 238

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 9:11:30 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I'm thinking then that the scatter is too effective. It seems to me that the transports that are caught are being sunk but the players do not want the transports to be able to get away and this I think is produced at the start by their scattering. When I use a flag officer compared to a ship captain I catch more transports.

One might expect even a junior yachtsman to do better than these fellows in the game--at least the former could be reasonably expected not to throw another fifty-odd rounds into an already-burning hulk.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 239

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 9:14:25 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Just for the record. I would like to make it so that every unescorted ship is sunk by any TF that catches it. I don't think I will lose too many ships more then I do now. But I will certainly sink more.

The next question is then how much escort is enough to allow the transports to evade?

That's a superb question. Don't know off the top of my head. It would "depend."

One might reasonably draw from historical encounters for some informed thought. A light escort might cause a little slowdown, get gobbled up, and the "chase" would merely resume a few minutes behind original schedule. A larger (say, CA or old BB) escort might well give pause to the thought of "chase" altogether and make it rather a real sea battle.

Who knows?

< Message edited by Tristanjohn -- 9/9/2004 11:15:29 AM >

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 240