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 13 14 15 16 [17]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/14/2004 2:33:22 AM

Tristanjohn

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob322

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I just raided Rabaul with 3 BB's and 4 CA's and several DD's as screen...Going in,I encountered 3 seperate groups od AK's,AG's,a couple DD's,etc..At no time did my ships fire at all targets,and generally they only sunk 1 ship per encounter..To make matters worse,the slower moving enemy *somehow* was able to slip away,even when damaged.(?)..
My ships were not low on ammo,nor fuel,and never even took a hit,but have retired(against my wishes)..NEEDS TO BE FIXED,PLEASE.....

Were they set up as a Bombardment TF? My understanding is that ships on such a mission will not spend much ammo on enemy ships they encounter as they're saving it for the bombardment mission you assigned them to. Thus, they won't shoot very much or usually at very many ships.

If so then this, too, has been changed from UV. Used to be bombardment TFs (at least of the IJN variety) cleaned house all over the sea, then proceeded to wreak havoc on their land targets as well.

< Message edited by Tristanjohn -- 9/15/2004 8:09:53 PM >

(in reply to Rob322)

Post #: 481

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/14/2004 3:11:14 AM

mogami

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

Hi, IN WITP Allied TF containing ships with ratings above 70 and lead by skilled officers will do both as well. However early war Allied TF with ships below 50 and lead by ship captains or lower rated officers will not.
If you sort through the Allied ships and compose TF of high rated ships (above 70) and set mission for day/night based on this and assign an aggresvie officer with high numbers these TF will tend to do much more (4x on avg) then the lesser TF.
It is not simply firepower in a TF that decides.
If you want early war USN TF to fight surface action then set it to surface action. If you want it to bombard then set it to bombard.

Even where no surface action occurs you will see a great more damage done the target if the TF is all skilled in night fire. If not then you may have to hit the target in daylight or accept the lesser damage inflicted at night.

(POW is bad to the bone in night surface action when mission is surface action and TF has a good leader and the other clumsey untrained Allied ships stay out of the way)

Everyone pays real close attention to the skills of their pilots. I wonder how many players when forming TF early in game even look at the crew and captain ratings of the ships before adding them . Often you could make a TF stronger by leaving out a few ships.

This is where detailed info on results (and a save before or after a turn) could help greatly in tracking down problems. It is very possible even when program works correctly to get a poor result. What we don't want is poor results when the TF should have done well but the program fails.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/13/2004 8:25:32 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 482

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/14/2004 4:31:18 AM

Mike Scholl

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob322
If so then this, too, has been changed from [pb]UV. Used to be bombardment TFs (at least of the IJN variety) cleaned house all over the sea, then proceeded to wreak havoc on their land targets as well.

Perhaps that's why it was changed... Ships generally carry only enough ammo for a
one hour engagement shooting all-out. A TF laoded with bombardment ammunition and
with a schedule to keep in unloading it can't go chasing off after eveything it runs
across en route. You'll get your bombardment, and you'll pick up a few "strays" if you
should come across any..., but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

_____________________________

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 483

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/14/2004 4:33:57 AM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

I have read this thread with great interest, and do beleive that the surface combat model could can be improved.

But looking at my results from an ongoing PBEM, there is nothing that is really "out of whack". I have taken Mogami's advice to heart and found that I am more than satisfied with my results from the allies with aggressive and capable leaders making a difference. If modeled correctly, leadership should play a major role a a factor in the outcome.

Take a look at the results through two months of play. My opponent is careful knowing my penchant for sending in surface forces, so not too many engagements. No "show stoppers" here.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/20/41

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 60,87

Japanese Ships
CA Aoba, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CA Kinugasa, Shell hits 6, on fire
CA Furutaka, Shell hits 17, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CA Kako, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Oboro, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Uzuki
DD Kikuzuki
DD Yuzuki
MSW Asahi Maru
MSW Banshu Maru #8
MSW Fumi Maru #2
MSW Seki Maru #3
PG Shoei Maru
PG Shotoku Maru, Shell hits 1
PC Sonan Maru #5
PC Sonan Maru #6
PC Takunan Maru #10
PC Ch 24
PC Ch 29
PC Ch 30
AK China Maru
AP Juko Maru
AP Kuraido Maru
AP Marsue Maru
AP Monji Maru
AP Nichiai Maru, Shell hits 3
AP Tafuku Maru
AK Venice Maru
AP Yokohama Maru

Allied Ships
CA Louisville
CA Canberra
CL Leander
CL Achilles, Shell hits 10, on fire
CL Perth
DD Voyager, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Le Triomphant

Japanese ground losses:
48 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/22/41

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Legaspi at 44,55

Japanese Ships
CVE Hosho
DD Mikazuki, Shell hits 32, and is sunk
DD Kuretake, Shell hits 14, and is sunk
PG Busho Maru, Shell hits 1
PG Kanko Maru, Shell hits 1
AP Jinshu Maru
AP Kitano Maru
AP Kiyama Maru, Shell hits 5
AP Kizan Maru
AP Kofuku Maru, Shell hits 11, on fire
AP Konan Maru
AP Nichiren Maru
AP Shozan Maru
AP Takayo Maru
AP Tasmania Maru
AP Turusima Maru
AP Tofuku Maru

Allied Ships
CA Houston, Shell hits 2
CL De Ruyter
CL Tromp
CL Boise
DD Edsall
DD Parrott, Shell hits 1
DD Peary, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Stewart
DD Witte de With

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/28/41

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval Gun Fire at Kavieng (61,86) - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

139 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
CA Louisville, Shell hits 26
DD Helm, Shell hits 5, on fire
DD Mugford
CA Pensacola, Shell hits 1
CA Indianapolis, Shell hits 17

Japanese ground losses:
289 casualties reported
Guns lost 6

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Kavieng at 61,86

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
E13A1 Jake: 5 destroyed

Japanese Ships
CA Kinugasa, Shell hits 33, and is sunk
CA Kako, Shell hits 7, on fire
MSW Asahi Maru, Shell hits 2
MSW Banshu Maru #8
MSW Fumi Maru #2
MSW Seki Maru #3, Shell hits 1
PG Shoei Maru, Shell hits 2
PG Shotoku Maru
PC Sonan Maru #5
PC Sonan Maru #6
PC Takunan Maru #10
PC Ch 24
PC Ch 29
PC Ch 30, Shell hits 3, on fire
AK China Maru
AP Juko Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
AP Kuraido Maru
AP Marsue Maru
AP Nichiai Maru
AP Tafuku Maru
AP Yokohama Maru, Shell hits 1

Allied Ships
CA Indianapolis
CA Louisville, Shell hits 2
CA Pensacola
CL Adelaide
DD Bagley
DD Blue
DD Helm, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Mugford

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/31/41

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 28,55

Japanese Ships
CA Takao, Shell hits 49, on fire, heavy damage (Sank afterwards)
CA Suzuya, Shell hits 2
CA Kumano, Shell hits 2
DD Asashio
DD Hibiki, Shell hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Kasasagi, Shell hits 5, on fire
DD Kari
DD Kiji
DD Kamo, Shell hits 1
MSW Wa 3, Shell hits 1
AP Eihuku Maru
AP Hakka Maru
AP Hakusika Maru
AP Hikade Maru
AP Josho Maru
AP Meiten Maru
AP Meiu Maru
AP Mexico Maru
AP Midori Maru
AP Sunten Maru
AP Teiun Maru

Allied Ships
BC Repulse, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage (Betty's got her the next day)
CA Cornwall, Shell hits 1
CA Exeter, Shell hits 2
CL Java, Shell hits 2
CL Danae
DD Vampire, Shell hits 1
DD Vendetta, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Van Nes
DD Tenedos, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Electra

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/02/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Night Time Surface Combat at 42,49 (Chance encounter with a Fast Transport group converted to a SC TF)

Japanese Ships
MSW Choun Maru #6, Shell hits 10, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Choun Maru #18
PG Akitsu Maru
PG Chiyo Maru, Shell hits 1
PG Chohakusan Maru, Shell hits 1
PG Kure Maru #5
AP Anzan Maru
AP Burisuben Maru
AP Chowa Maru, Shell hits 2
AP Hanakawa Maru, Shell hits 5
AP Hawaii Maru
AP Jinsan Maru, Shell hits 10, Torpedo hits 1, on fire

Allied Ships
DD Barker
DD Edsall, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Paul Jones
DD Pillsbury, Shell hits 1
DD Stewart

Japanese ground losses:
217 casualties reported
Guns lost 6

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/20/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Rabaul at 61,88

Japanese Ships
CL Nagara, Shell hits 3
DD Yukikaze
DD Tokitsukaze, Shell hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Yamakaze
DD Umikaze, Shell hits 17, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
DD Suzukaze, Shell hits 14, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CA Indianapolis, Shell hits 5
CA Louisville, Shell hits 4
CA Pensacola, Shell hits 1
CL Leander, Shell hits 9, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Blue
DD Mugford, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD John D. Ford, Shell hits 16, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
DD Pope, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Le Triomphant

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Rabaul at 61,88

Japanese Ships
CL Nagara, Shell hits 2
DD Yukikaze, Shell hits 1
DD Tokitsukaze, Shell hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
DD Yamakaze
DD Suzukaze, Shell hits 5, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CA Indianapolis, Shell hits 1
CA Louisville, Shell hits 1
CA Pensacola
CL Leander, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Blue
DD Mugford, on fire
DD Pope, on fire, heavy damage
DD Le Triomphant

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Rabaul at 61,88

Japanese Ships
APD APD-31, Shell hits 8, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Taian Maru
AP Tamaki Maru, Shell hits 21, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AP Konron Maru, Shell hits 1

Allied Ships
CA Indianapolis
CA Louisville
CA Pensacola
CL Leander, and is sunk
DD Blue
DD Mugford, on fire
DD Pope, on fire, heavy damage
DD Le Triomphant

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 02/03/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Menado at 39,67

Japanese Ships
PG Edo Maru
PG Saiko Maru, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage
PC Showa Maru #3, Shell hits 15, and is sunk
PC Showa Maru #5, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Africa Maru, Shell hits 27, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AP Kanko Maru, Shell hits 10, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CA Houston
CA Dorsetshire, Shell hits 1
CL Mauritius
CL Boise
DD Piet Hein
DD Thanet
DD Nestor
DD Pakenham
DD Paladin
DD Panther

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 484

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/14/2004 7:41:25 AM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

In the example I sited,my ships WERE on a bombardment mission and I did not know this would affect their response to "ships in their path to the objective!"..
I do not recall this being a problem in UV(yeah,I'm wunnathem)LOL.......
I also failed to mention was playing against a good AI..

_____________________________

(in reply to denisonh)

Post #: 485

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/14/2004 8:28:21 AM

mogami

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

Hi, TF are assigned a "Surface combat" rating that decides if they will start a surface battle. Transport TF that encounter any enemy TF are not going to start a battle.
Surface Combat TF that encounter any enemy TF are always going to start a battle.
Bombardment mission has a high "start a battle" number but it also has another mission to do. It will try to complete the assigned mission. This means if it runs into an enemy surface combat TF that tries to prevent the bombardment the bombardment TF will keep fighting surface action as long as it has ammo to use in bombardment afterwards. However a transport TF is not trying to prevent the bombardment TF from bombarding so as soon as the bombardment TF can break off it will (and since this is only what the transport TF want to do it always happens. A surface combat TF might just begin a new battle after a bombardment TF breaks off if the bombardment TF is still trying to bombard.

These short battles occured a lot in UV. What is being overlooked here is that the Japanese in UV and WITP encountered US surface combat TF. (not transports) But if the TF commander is aggresive and he has good ships with him he will sometimes do a lot of damage even to a transport TF but these cases are the exception that are being used as the rule.

It is quite simple and logical. If you want to sink ships send a surface combat TF. If you want to bombard send a bombardment TF.

If the enemy transports escape mostly unharmed from your surface combat TF make sure you save the file so it can be looked at to detirmine why.

As you compose your TF look at the ships. Don't send a TF of ships under 50 with no leader (flag officer not ship captain) or a poor leader and then when the TF fails to do anything post it as a bug or program weakness. (you would not send pilots under 50 on missions and post they fail to hit anything because you know before they fly they are unlikely to hit anything but they will learn from flying the mission so you do it. The ships will learn from the mission but they won't do much while they are learning. Look at the ratings before and after the mission. But you really don't want ships under 50 running into enemy surface combat TF's. They will get slaughtered and do little in return. They get surprised and they don't hit anything and they sink to damage that trained ships would contain. A TF with 1 ship below 50 can be surprised because of that one ship. This allows the enemy to fire free every ship in their TF before the battle even begins. If your bombardment TF surprises an enemy transport TF it should fire away for at least 1 round. You might lose the chance of surprise by having 1 ship with bad ratings in the TF.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/14/2004 1:33:35 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 486

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/14/2004 8:38:17 AM

tabpub

Posts: 1019
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area
Status: offline

<picking at Mogami's brain> purely for his greater experience with the routines...

Would you reccomend using a tandem Bmbdt TF and SC TF instead of one larger Bmbdt TF. ex.- you have 2 BBs 2 CAs and 8 DDs available. You presume that there are no subs nor mines present. Would you lump them together or send the heavy units in the Bmbmt TF and the DDs in a SC TF? I personally would lean toward the latter, keeping the DDs out of CD harms way as much as possible and attempting to either keep enemy surface units off the Bmbdmt TF or engage any transport type units that might be present. Thoughts?

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 487

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/14/2004 8:55:25 AM

mogami

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

Hi, Well I usally know in advance what enemy TF are present. I send my TF after enemy transport TF so I use surface combat. I don't like to bombard enemy bases that I am going to capture in the next few days. I want them intact and I want all the goodies there as well (fuel and supply)
The TF you cannot always be sure will be in hex is enemy surface combat TF that is not in the target hex but set to react. I cannot tell a bombardment TF from a surface Combat TF when my patrol planes spot it. And I would not leave transport TF at base where I thought either was going to show up.
It's not hard to protect transports at your own bases. Just have surface TF within 6 hexes set to react. It's covering them at enemy bases. You have to have escorts in side the TF or a surface TF for every hex.

I will attack known enemy TF before hexes. So if I know they are there I send surface TF.
If I think there might be enemy reaction I send a surface combat TF.
I send bombardment TF when I think the road is clear and I am out to damage enemy aircraft or ground units. I don't attack hexes with CD before hitting it with air attack.

The game is just "Rock, Scissors, Paper"

_____________________________

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

(in reply to tabpub)

Post #: 488

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/14/2004 9:20:56 AM

tabpub

Posts: 1019
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area
Status: offline

It is all well and good that you do everything so methodically; which is a perfectly fine way of "attacking" the situation. But, I will remind you that
a) sometimes your search aircraft don't "bring home the bacon" all the time. I have had a Japanese CVL group sail right through the Philippine archipeligo w/o being seen early in the war.

b) the situation outlined applies more to the DEI from the allied side. Proposed situation might be...J has grabbed a forward airfield and has based 2 engine bombers there; this is known as they are now flying in areas where they were not earlier. Weather is predicted to be bad for the near future, hvy precip both in south and Indian areas (this presumes that weather follows the normal E-W travel...or would it be the other way south of the Equator...hmm...)

c) so, the idea would be to send in the TF's to bloody the bomber groups. There would be minimal/no CD presence as this base was just recently taken, but the "possibility" of the presence of enemy shipping is presumed, whether or not it has been sighted.

Finally, you mention the REACT setting for covering multiple bases on the defense. I have had prior situations where a patrolling force didn't react; if the enemy TF is not sighted before entering the base, no react seems to occur. So, if you don't have "total" air coverage around an area, an enemy TF can (in my experience) slip through and not trigger the react.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 489

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/14/2004 2:41:51 PM

Culiacan Mexico

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Have i mentioned lately that this item is not only a wish list item....but one that is now being seriously looked at.... Could have sworn i mentioned it two....three....four times now....

_____________________________

"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 490

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/14/2004 4:28:53 PM

mogami

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

Hi, CM it is being looked at. And to look at it completly we need valid cases of the programs failure. Even after the "fix" is in place there will cases where TF set to bombard encounter enemy transport TF and fail to "convert" into a surface combat TF. They will fire at what they can as they proceed with their bombardment mission.

To be a true example of the program being at fault.

The TF shoul be a surface combat TF that fails to engage unescorted enemy transports.
In daylight it should "spot" and fire at more then at night.
The only complaint being looked at is where spotted transports are not fired at by surface combat TF. Examples of bombardment TF at night ignoring transports remains a valid game result not being viewed as requiring any change at present. (At least this is my understanding of what is in progress)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/14/2004 9:51:18 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Culiacan Mexico)

Post #: 491

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/14/2004 4:47:20 PM

Nikademus

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

Have patience guys. I am confident that the issue will be addressed. If more saves are needed I have plenty of test example templates I can dig out. (since i've been an advocate of improvements in the surface TF vs transport TF routine since UV daze)

Nothing can be guranteed of course but then again ya'all knew that

_____________________________

(in reply to Culiacan Mexico)

Post #: 492

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/14/2004 8:48:04 PM

Rob322

Posts: 578
Joined: 8/16/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Have patience guys. I am confident that the issue will be addressed. If more saves are needed I have plenty of test example templates I can dig out. (since i've been an advocate of improvements in the surface TF vs transport TF routine since UV daze)

Nothing can be guranteed of course but then again ya'all knew that

Why would you let that get in the way of a good fight?

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 493

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/14/2004 8:55:11 PM

Nikademus

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

Your right....but you guys have ways to go before you begin to rival the "Bizmark thread"....

_____________________________

(in reply to Rob322)

Post #: 494

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/14/2004 11:28:29 PM

Adnan Meshuggi

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline

bah, this is not even a babybismark-thread...
the good old bt... how does it come to such sad end...

_____________________________

Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 495

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/14/2004 11:52:51 PM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

I cannot believe I just wasted 2 hours of my life reading this thread!

Writes out 1000 times:
"If the thread has more than 5 pages it is unlikely to be edifying"

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)

Post #: 496

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/15/2004 1:16:53 AM

BartM

Posts: 107
Joined: 7/18/2004
Status: offline

this only confirms my wish list for a better way to sort leaders and an ability to "dismiss" leaders who will simply have no use (20's raitings) be removed from the list.

from all the debate on the surface comabts, I really haven't experienced too many "weird" resutls save the dreaded "bees" being all over the place, but found a good method for killing them :)

quote:

Everyone pays real close attention to the skills of their pilots. I wonder how many players when forming TF early in game even look at the crew and captain ratings of the ships before adding them . Often you could make a TF stronger by leaving out a few ships.

This is where detailed info on results (and a save before or after a turn) could help greatly in tracking down problems. It is very possible even when program works correctly to get a poor result. What we don't want is poor results when the TF should have done well but the program fails.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/13/2004 8:25:32 PM >

I completely agree with you Mogami !

Would love to see a better way to handle leaders (overall) as it is still as clumbsy as in PAC.

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 497

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/15/2004 10:31:10 AM

Culiacan Mexico

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi, CM it is being looked at. And to look at it completly we need valid cases of the programs failure. Even after the "fix" is in place there will cases where TF set to bombard encounter enemy transport TF and fail to "convert" into a surface combat TF. They will fire at what they can as they proceed with their bombardment mission.

To be a true example of the program being at fault.

The TF shoul be a surface combat TF that fails to engage unescorted enemy transports.
In daylight it should "spot" and fire at more then at night.
The only complaint being looked at is where spotted transports are not fired at by surface combat TF. Examples of bombardment TF at night ignoring transports remains a valid game result not being viewed as requiring any change at present. (At least this is my understanding of what is in progress)

My only �question� was regarding unescorted merchant ships intercepted during daytime. The results seemed somewhat odd. It almost seemed like the subroutine didn�t check to see if the opposing taskforce did or didn�t have proper escort or that it treated merchant ships and combat ships the same (just differently equipped). I lacking the knowledge into how this part of the program is both implemented and the checks made.

Perhaps there is no check to determine if a fleet is properly escorted� perhaps there is.
Perhaps the problem lies deeper in the subroutine� I am ignorant has to how this is all programmed, and probably wouldn�t understand if it was explained to me.

My only belief at this point is an intercepting taskforce and its commander would historically have been more aggressive in both attacking and pursuing an unescorted merchant convoy than one properly escorted. Perhaps in such a situation the taskforce commander aggression should be multiplied by 50%, 75%, or ?.

My ignorance into what all is involved in the process of taskforce interception means I am unable to make any more effective input into the discussion� if I every did.

< Message edited by Culiacan Mexico -- 9/15/2004 10:33:09 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 498

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/15/2004 6:37:33 PM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

We, as users/players have no idea concerning the implementation details of the program, nor should we really care. All we have are the results that seem out of whack. While it's always nice to have someone post the implementation details as an explaination of why something might be happenning a certain way, it's not really our job to then start battering away at those details. All we have to go on are the aggregate results.

In this thread we have a boiled down issue that involves surface combat TF's engaging totally unescorted transport TF's in daylight where only one transport takes 90+% of all shell hits. We've even see posters further boil that down to the surface combat TF's need to be "mixed" for that to happen (i.e. 2CL 6DD) as all DD TF's deliver the scatter pattern most expect for some reason...

Now WHY that happens or what is done, specifically to fix it, is of no concern to me. That's the developer's problem to deal with. All I'm interested in are the results. Of course, if people are actually seeing one of these engagements in the first place it generally means the guy owning the unescorted transport TF is likely playing poorly (as in the AI....).

(in reply to Culiacan Mexico)

Post #: 499

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/15/2004 10:17:07 PM

Montrose

Posts: 72
Joined: 8/30/2003
From: Gloucstershire UK
Status: offline

It's perfectly simple, and FWIW I'll post it once again....

Drop Detection Levels As The Targetting Determinant!

ALL of your surface combat problems will stop completely when this single sensible step is done. EVERY SINGLE ONE!

_____________________________

I spend my time building castles in the air, but in the end all of them, and I, blow away in the wind.

- Don Juan

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 500

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/15/2004 10:27:17 PM

Mr.Frag

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

Would be nice if that had anything to do with it

(in reply to Montrose)

Post #: 501

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/16/2004 12:50:28 AM

freeboy

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

If we change the surface combat rutines, maybe we could add tf scatter, merchies would scattere, sailing in a convoy is hard work, let alone in a battle

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 502

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/16/2004 12:58:27 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Montrose

It's perfectly simple, and FWIW I'll post it once again....

Drop Detection Levels As The Targetting Determinant!

ALL of your surface combat problems will stop completely when this single sensible step is done. EVERY SINGLE ONE!

You are persistant!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Montrose)

Post #: 503

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/16/2004 1:01:51 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

My main gripe with the system is not so much this, but how the TFs break off. Look at my AARs for the initial tests of the WPO mod.

The TFs sight each other at 26,000 yards.
The TFs Open Fire at 21,000 yards.
The range eventually dwindles to 8,000 yards.

All that is good, and historical. But suddenly you see (Task forces break off).
In real life, unless both sides made smoke, the fleets would continue ito fire, while OPENING the range. Only after a second combat round at say 21,000 yards should the TFs actually break off. But ceasing fire at 8,000 is just plain unhistorical.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 504

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/16/2004 1:15:45 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

My main gripe with the system is not so much this, but how the TFs break off. Look at my AARs for the initial tests of the WPO mod.

The TFs sight each other at 26,000 yards.
The TFs Open Fire at 21,000 yards.
The range eventually dwindles to 8,000 yards.

All that is good, and historical. But suddenly you see (Task forces break off).
In real life, unless both sides made smoke, the fleets would continue ito fire, while OPENING the range. Only after a second combat round at say 21,000 yards should the TFs actually break off. But ceasing fire at 8,000 is just plain unhistorical.

It would help if there was some form of cause and effect relationship tied into the range and engage/disengage determinations. How many times do we see a small TF re engage a superior TF simply because it has no other option available?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 505

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/16/2004 6:22:34 AM

Tristanjohn

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob322
If so then this, too, has been changed from [pb]UV. Used to be bombardment TFs (at least of the IJN variety) cleaned house all over the sea, then proceeded to wreak havoc on their land targets as well.

Perhaps that's why it was changed... Ships generally carry only enough ammo for a
one hour engagement shooting all-out. A TF laoded with bombardment ammunition and
with a schedule to keep in unloading it can't go chasing off after eveything it runs
across en route. You'll get your bombardment, and you'll pick up a few "strays" if you
should come across any..., but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I agree, Mike, though the BTF ought to as its priority go after any surface ships it runs across first. Assuming ammo to spare, then it could revert to its original bombardment mission.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 506

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/16/2004 6:34:33 AM

Mike Scholl

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob322
If so then this, too, has been changed from [pb]UV. Used to be bombardment TFs (at least of the IJN variety) cleaned house all over the sea, then proceeded to wreak havoc on their land targets as well.

Perhaps that's why it was changed... Ships generally carry only enough ammo for a
one hour engagement shooting all-out. A TF laoded with bombardment ammunition and
with a schedule to keep in unloading it can't go chasing off after eveything it runs
across en route. You'll get your bombardment, and you'll pick up a few "strays" if you
should come across any..., but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I agree, Mike, though the BTF ought to as its priority go after any surface ships it runs across first. Assuming ammo to spare, then it could revert to its original bombardment mission.

It depends. With a primary load-out of HE ammo (for the bombardment) there are
some constraints on what you can go "haring after". Plus, the bombardment could
be crucial in the combat at the hex that's to be bombarded. How'd you like to be a
Marine headed ashore on "Godforsaken Island" and be told the pre-landing bombard-
ment was cancelled because "Admiral Numbnuts" had decided it was more important
to chace down some empty transports. Things like that get Admirals "Fragged"...

_____________________________

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 507

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/16/2004 8:48:58 AM

Culiacan Mexico

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

We, as users/players have no idea concerning the implementation details of the program, nor should we really care. All we have are the results that seem out of whack. While it's always nice to have someone post the implementation details as an explaination of why something might be happenning a certain way, it's not really our job to then start battering away at those details. All we have to go on are the aggregate results.

In this thread we have a boiled down issue that involves surface combat TF's engaging totally unescorted transport TF's in daylight where only one transport takes 90+% of all shell hits. We've even see posters further boil that down to the surface combat TF's need to be "mixed" for that to happen (i.e. 2CL 6DD) as all DD TF's deliver the scatter pattern most expect for some reason...

Now WHY that happens or what is done, specifically to fix it, is of no concern to me. That's the developer's problem to deal with. All I'm interested in are the results. Of course, if people are actually seeing one of these engagements in the first place it generally means the guy owning the unescorted transport TF is likely playing poorly (as in the AI....).

Since I am ignorant as to how this is programmed, it might appear that the problem resides with just unescorted merchant ships, but it reality it could be much more involved. Perhaps all surface combat is skewed, but it is just most noticeable when unescorted convoys are intercepted.

The programmers know (Inshala) how this is all implemented and can determine what needs a tweek.

_____________________________

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 508

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/16/2004 6:31:28 PM

Tristanjohn

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob322
If so then this, too, has been changed from [pb]UV. Used to be bombardment TFs (at least of the IJN variety) cleaned house all over the sea, then proceeded to wreak havoc on their land targets as well.

Perhaps that's why it was changed... Ships generally carry only enough ammo for a
one hour engagement shooting all-out. A TF laoded with bombardment ammunition and
with a schedule to keep in unloading it can't go chasing off after eveything it runs
across en route. You'll get your bombardment, and you'll pick up a few "strays" if you
should come across any..., but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I agree, Mike, though the BTF ought to as its priority go after any surface ships it runs across first. Assuming ammo to spare, then it could revert to its original bombardment mission.

It depends. With a primary load-out of HE ammo (for the bombardment) there are
some constraints on what you can go "haring after". Plus, the bombardment could
be crucial in the combat at the hex that's to be bombarded. How'd you like to be a
Marine headed ashore on "Godforsaken Island" and be told the pre-landing bombard-
ment was cancelled because "Admiral Numbnuts" had decided it was more important
to chace down some empty transports. Things like that get Admirals "Fragged"...

AP/HE load-outs fall outside the scope of this simulation's ability (desire, if you will) to detail. Also, in the same vein how would you like to be that marine thinking, "You mean Numbnuts is going to pound ground over there while my ship gets blown out of the water over here?"

Having said that, I'd love to see such detail as you suggest. But then I'd love to see more finely-grained articulation with regard to TF assignments (i.e. TGs and such within TFs replete with hierarchal orders sets), yet I know perfectly well that that just isn't on the cards.

Let's face it. The game is presented at a time scale (twelve-hour pulses) which is not properly supported in many areas by rules and dynamics--hell, they ought to also have kept the UV map scale while they were at it--and the result of this dubious mix must be, at the least, inconsistent play here and there. And isn't that just what we see?

Sometimes it's necessary to wink and get on with it. I'll tell you one thing more. I'd hate to be some Grigsby out there trying to satisfy me.

< Message edited by Tristanjohn -- 9/16/2004 8:33:26 AM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)