Royal Navy Admirals

Royal Navy Admirals (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Tom Hunter -> Royal Navy Admirals (12/31/2005 2:00:28 PM)
I have been looking at leaders a lot lately, trying to maximize the fighting capabilities of my forces. One of the things I have noticed is the lack of ability and in particular the lack of agression of the Royal Navy admirals. The most aggressive navy in WWII was the Royal Navy. If you look at the desire to seek combat, willingness to use BBs in combat, losses, number of surface actions fought the Royal Navy is number one in all of them. But in this game they almost never have agression ratings over 50, just a handful of 60s. How did Phillips, who took his ships North into very dangerous waters get an agression rating of 25? Because he got sunk? Somerville was one of the better admirals of the war but you would not know it from his ratings. Did he get downgraded because he did not try to intercept KB with a collection of R Class BBs during the Indian Ocean raid? It seems to me that if your going to make leadership important then you should make some attempt and historical accuracy in the leadership. I don't think (though I am about to find out) that anyone would argue that the admirals of the Royal Navy were notabley worse commanders than the admirals of the US Navy but that is what this game says. Comments?

String -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (12/31/2005 2:15:29 PM)
IMHO it just looks like that noone bothered to evaluate the RN admirals so they were given generic ratings.

Terminus -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (12/31/2005 2:43:44 PM)
Considering how many of them have exactly the same numbers, I'd say that's probably correct.

Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (12/31/2005 3:14:54 PM)
Actual ratings especially for admirals seems completly wrong for me. I can't understan why admirals who never had any significant assignment to task forces have so high ratings? I can assume that those who commanded CV TF's were best suited for that work, so why let's say Bellinger who was commander of Catalinas have better ratings than other admirals and is better suited to command CVs? This looks kind a weird for me.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (12/31/2005 3:56:15 PM)
Agreed. But, I'm not a big leader guy anyway. When/if they fix it I'll start complaining again. One of the things I suggested would be to have the leaders skills remain "generic" at face value until tested in combat or in a job for "long enough", then the real randomized ratings appear. Nothing like putting a grandma in charge of a submarine.

Black Mamba 1942 -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (12/31/2005 4:05:34 PM)
I agree Ron.[;)] This would give unproven leaders a chance to prove themselves. Then they would improve or lose exp based on the outcome of combat. Just another "pipe dream" though.[:D]

ADavidB -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (12/31/2005 4:10:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter I have been looking at leaders a lot lately, trying to maximize the fighting capabilities of my forces. One of the things I have noticed is the lack of ability and in particular the lack of agression of the Royal Navy admirals. The most aggressive navy in WWII was the Royal Navy. If you look at the desire to seek combat, willingness to use BBs in combat, losses, number of surface actions fought the Royal Navy is number one in all of them. But in this game they almost never have agression ratings over 50, just a handful of 60s. How did Phillips, who took his ships North into very dangerous waters get an agression rating of 25? Because he got sunk? Somerville was one of the better admirals of the war but you would not know it from his ratings. Did he get downgraded because he did not try to intercept KB with a collection of R Class BBs during the Indian Ocean raid? It seems to me that if your going to make leadership important then you should make some attempt and historical accuracy in the leadership. I don't think (though I am about to find out) that anyone would argue that the admirals of the Royal Navy were notabley worse commanders than the admirals of the US Navy but that is what this game says. Comments? If the RN admirals had more appropriate ratings they might do "too well" against Japanese admirals... Admirals that attack, bombers that fly...gee what will I want next?...[;)] Dave Baranyi

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (12/31/2005 4:16:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ADavidB quote: ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter I have been looking at leaders a lot lately, trying to maximize the fighting capabilities of my forces. One of the things I have noticed is the lack of ability and in particular the lack of agression of the Royal Navy admirals. The most aggressive navy in WWII was the Royal Navy. If you look at the desire to seek combat, willingness to use BBs in combat, losses, number of surface actions fought the Royal Navy is number one in all of them. But in this game they almost never have agression ratings over 50, just a handful of 60s. How did Phillips, who took his ships North into very dangerous waters get an agression rating of 25? Because he got sunk? Somerville was one of the better admirals of the war but you would not know it from his ratings. Did he get downgraded because he did not try to intercept KB with a collection of R Class BBs during the Indian Ocean raid? It seems to me that if your going to make leadership important then you should make some attempt and historical accuracy in the leadership. I don't think (though I am about to find out) that anyone would argue that the admirals of the Royal Navy were notabley worse commanders than the admirals of the US Navy but that is what this game says. Comments? If the RN admirals had more appropriate ratings they might do "too well" against Japanese admirals... Admirals that attack, bombers that fly...gee what will I want next?...[;)] Dave Baranyi ...might get accused of Allied Fanboyism[X(]

pauk -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (12/31/2005 4:29:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker If the RN admirals had more appropriate ratings they might do "too well" against Japanese admirals... Admirals that attack, bombers that fly...gee what will I want next?...[;)] Dave Baranyi ...might get accused of Allied Fanboyism[X(] greetings... Ron, bombers don't fly isn't only Allied issue. If you have time and goodwill check my AAR - you will find that i was complaining about it in half of my posts. Dave, i'm starting to suspect that ratings have nothing with outcome of the game: #1. In my game against String, i assigned Tanaka but he get managed to be suprised and had kicked his ass (TFs are about the same strengh) #2. In my PBEM as Allies i've sent Force Z to Kuching and get spanked from Haruna and Kongo TF. #3. Had same situation as Japanese there but in that case Haruna and Kongo got their portion. don't get me wrong, i'm not whining. But i'm more and more conviced that "dice roll" rules this game....

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (12/31/2005 4:35:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pauk quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker If the RN admirals had more appropriate ratings they might do "too well" against Japanese admirals... Admirals that attack, bombers that fly...gee what will I want next?...[;)] Dave Baranyi ...might get accused of Allied Fanboyism[X(] greetings... Ron, bombers don't fly isn't only Allied issue. If you have time and goodwill check my AAR - you will find that i was complaining about it in half of my posts. Dave, i'm starting to suspect that ratings have nothing with outcome of the game: #1. In my game against String, i assigned Tanaka but he get managed to be suprised and had kicked his ass (TFs are about the same strengh) #2. In my PBEM as Allies i've sent Force Z to Kuching and get spanked from Haruna and Kongo TF. #3. Had same situation as Japanese there but in that case Haruna and Kongo got their portion. don't get me wrong, i'm not whining. But i'm more and more conviced that "dice roll" rules this game.... I was not taking a shot at you personally, just fanboys, Allied or Jap.[8D] I was taking a shot at the game design in general. Basing flight op readiness on "morale of individuals". Sheesh. What ever happenned to issuing an order in this design?

pauk -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (12/31/2005 4:42:20 PM)
do not worry, i get your point[:)]

ADavidB -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (12/31/2005 7:33:26 PM)
quote: Dave, i'm starting to suspect that ratings have nothing with outcome of the game: Pauk - I've played with leaders a lot, both against the AI and in PBEM. I've found that changing poor or mediocre land leaders to good ones can cause a big difference in combat results. The same thing for going from good leaders to bad leaders. I've also found that changing air leaders can make a big difference in the willingness of air units to take off, as well as their general performance. I've done replays with ship commanders against the AI and found big differences in success in battle. Am I ready to publish these results in a peer-reviewed journal? [:D] No, but I have enough confidence in what I have seen to strive very hard to put good leaders in charge of important operations. In the absence of Eric, Mike or even GG stopping by to tell me otherwise, I am going to continue to play the game as if the various qualities of the leaders have an impact. My belief is that leadership qualities are part of the entire mix of factors that are added up to tell the game which side should get which results - with a random factor thrown in, of course. One thing is that I usually don't use my "best" admirals for critical situations because I've seen results like you mentioned. But on the other hand I've seen "good" leaders make a big difference over "bad" leaders enough times that I prefer to put "good" leaders in place if I have a chance. Cheers - Dave Baranyi

acmejeff -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (12/31/2005 10:07:13 PM)
quote: One thing is that I usually don't use my "best" admirals for critical situations because I've seen results like you mentioned. But on the other hand I've seen "good" leaders make a big difference over "bad" leaders enough times that I prefer to put "good" leaders in place if I have a chance. Guess I am confused. If you have proven to yourself that Leaders make a difference why wouldn't you use the "best" admirals in critical situations?

Captain Ed -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (12/31/2005 10:13:18 PM)
I used the best RN Admiral for this battle. Admiral Willis he has since been Knighted. This is from MarkVII`s AAR. I was pleased. 'BATTLE THREE' was another daylight surface action involving my other surface force in the area. After watching half the first round I could not bear to watch anymore so no "hit counts" were counted as I hit the escape button to get the battle over with. A decisive Royal Navy victory that will be talked about for decades! ***Day Time Surface Combat, near Trimcomalee at 15,25*** Japanese Ships BB Kongo, Shell hits 60, on fire, heavy damage BB Haruna, Shell hits 62, on fire, heavy damage....(ends up 99-69-22 damage, SCUTTLED) CA Suzuya, Shell hits 68, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk CA Kumano, Shell hits 51, and is sunk CL Yura, Shell hits 52, on fire, heavy damage(SINKS) DD Arashi, Shell hits 21, and is sunk DD Asashio, Shell hits 14, and is sunk DD Shinonome, Shell hits 14, and is sunk DD Isonami, Shell hits 20, and is sunk DD Shirayuki, Shell hits 25, and is sunk DD Hatsuyuki, Shell hits 22, and is sunk DD Yugiri, Shell hits 21, and is sunk Allied Ships BB Warspite, Shell hits 19, on fire BB Revenge, Shell hits 27, on fire BB Royal Sovereign, Shell hits 12, on fire BB Resolution, Shell hits 4 CA Dorsetshire, Shell hits 11 CA Cornwall, Shell hits 5 CA Exeter, Shell hits 3 CL Enterprise, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk CL Dauntless, Shell hits 2 CL Glasgow DD Isaac Sweers, Shell hits 14, and is sunk DD Tjerk Hiddes, Shell hits 9, and is sunk DD Arrow DD Foxhound, Shell hits 13, and is sunk DD Pakenham, Shell hits 12, and is sunk DD Paladin, Shell hits 15, and is sunk --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

dereck -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (12/31/2005 10:24:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter I have been looking at leaders a lot lately, trying to maximize the fighting capabilities of my forces. One of the things I have noticed is the lack of ability and in particular the lack of agression of the Royal Navy admirals. The most aggressive navy in WWII was the Royal Navy. If you look at the desire to seek combat, willingness to use BBs in combat, losses, number of surface actions fought the Royal Navy is number one in all of them. But in this game they almost never have agression ratings over 50, just a handful of 60s. How did Phillips, who took his ships North into very dangerous waters get an agression rating of 25? Because he got sunk? Somerville was one of the better admirals of the war but you would not know it from his ratings. Did he get downgraded because he did not try to intercept KB with a collection of R Class BBs during the Indian Ocean raid? It seems to me that if your going to make leadership important then you should make some attempt and historical accuracy in the leadership. I don't think (though I am about to find out) that anyone would argue that the admirals of the Royal Navy were notabley worse commanders than the admirals of the US Navy but that is what this game says. Comments? This is going to create a firestorm but I'm feeling happy from celebrating at home with a 4-pack of wine coolers and don't care so .... I've noticed that there are a LOT of British/ANZAC leaders who have EXACTLY the same ratings and and very few which are classified as "aggressive". On the other hand just about every Jap leader is "aggressive" which makes me think that whoever "researched hah" the data for this game seemed to give more attention to the Japs than the allies. Japanese leaders weren't necessarily more "aggressive" than allied leaders - equating aggression with a fanatical desire to commit suicide in stupid-ass bonzai charges which only shortened a battle (to the allies benefit) doesn't seem to me like the Jap leaders were at all any better than allied leaders.

tsimmonds -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (12/31/2005 10:33:57 PM)
Someone would do the WitP world a great service by developing a utility that would go through the leader files and set each and every leader to: Leadership: 50 Inspiration: 50 Land: 50 Naval: 50 Air: 50 Administration: 50 Aggression: 50 Or 60, or 75, or whatever. That way those of us who recognize how important leaders are to the game engine, but who are also fed up with disappearing leaders and tired of futzing around with the whole creaky subsystem, could just stop wearing out brain cells over it and get on with beating our heads against the other more entertaining walls WitP provides....

ADavidB -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (12/31/2005 10:35:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: acmejeff quote: One thing is that I usually don't use my "best" admirals for critical situations because I've seen results like you mentioned. But on the other hand I've seen "good" leaders make a big difference over "bad" leaders enough times that I prefer to put "good" leaders in place if I have a chance. Guess I am confused. If you have proven to yourself that Leaders make a difference why wouldn't you use the "best" admirals in critical situations? "Best" is a relative term. The Game ranks leaders by agression. So if you use the "auto leader" option when putting together a task force the Game will give you the leader with the highest agression ranking. However, that leader may well have other characteristics that are very poor. You are often much better off choosing someone with more balanced leaderships stats. I also tend to use my "best" leaders for the Head Quarters rather than for individual task forces. This way they get to influence the units under their commands. So, for example, getting replacements and building bases is very important to me, therefore a HQ leader with superior statistics will improve the odds of my units getting replacements, my bases building, my ships repairing, my planes repairing, my planes flying, and so on. The difference in battle between "the best" naval commander and a "good" naval commander isn't as big as between a "Good" naval commander and a bad naval commander. If you want to test this, try out a TF with one of those Japanese "super leaders" who show up commanding US ships from time-to-time (they are pilots who have been scrambled around in the data base). They won't wipe out an opposing "good" naval commander despite having better statistics. (If they were really good, do you think that any of us would have complained about the Leader Bug? [;)] ) My belief is that there are thresholds that are crossed in the decision matrix of the game. Once you cross a given threshold there isn't an incremental improvement in result. The clearest example of this is the 80 Experience threshold for skip bombing. It is a gate, not a slope. Once you are through it you can skip bomb, but being at 90 experience won't improve your chances beyond what they are once you pass that initial barrier. Cheers - Dave Baranyi

acmejeff -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (12/31/2005 10:53:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ADavidB quote: ORIGINAL: acmejeff [ quote: quote]One thing is that I usually don't use my "best" admirals for critical situations because I've seen results like you mentioned. But on the other hand I've seen "good" leaders make a big difference over "bad" leaders enough times that I prefer to put "good" leaders in place if I have a chance. Guess I am confused. If you have proven to yourself that Leaders make a difference why wouldn't you use the "best" admirals in critical situations? "Best" is a relative term. The Game ranks leaders by agression. So if you use the "auto leader" option when putting together a task force the Game will give you the leader with the highest agression ranking. However, that leader may well have other characteristics that are very poor. You are often much better off choosing someone with more balanced leaderships stats. Okay, so in fact you are using your "best" leaders for a given task based upon all thier skills. I didn't realize the computer picks TF Leaders based primarily on Aggression so thanks for that bit of information. I tend to review all my TF Leaders that are going in harms way and replace as needed and have noticed some computer picks with high Aggression but totally inept in other skill areas. Now I know why.

ADavidB -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (12/31/2005 11:11:35 PM)
quote: Okay, so in fact you are using your "best" leaders for a given task based upon all thier skills. I didn't realize the computer picks TF Leaders based primarily on Aggression so thanks for that bit of information. I tend to review all my TF Leaders that are going in harms way and replace as needed and have noticed some computer picks with high Aggression but totally inept in other skill areas. Now I know why. That's right. The computer will choose a very agressive leader for you who has miserable naval and inspiration stats. Then that leader will agresssively blunder into combat and get creamed... This is also important for troops. Even base force leaders - a BF leader with lousy inspiration will take forever to get replacements compared to a better leader. Dave Baranyi

The Dude -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (1/1/2006 1:11:56 AM)
prior to starting a scenario is it not possible to edit your leaders stats in the editor and just go from there?

dtravel -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (1/1/2006 1:37:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: The Dude prior to starting a scenario is it not possible to edit your leaders stats in the editor and just go from there? I've done data entry work. Manually changing all ten stats of a couple thousand entries thru a user-unfriendly interface can, literally, drive one to suicide.

acmejeff -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (1/1/2006 1:52:51 AM)
quote: This is also important for troops. Even base force leaders - a BF leader with lousy inspiration will take forever to get replacements compared to a better leader. Dave Baranyi I have changed Division/Bde Leaders, Armor/Engineer Leaders, HQ Leaders, Surface/Air Combat TF Leaders and all Air Squadron Leaders but never thought to check on my BF Leaders. Good heavens, my next turn will be a nightmare! It must be done though. I guess I should be thankful that there are not Production Leaders too! Would Inspiration or Admin be more important for BF Leaders?

bradfordkay -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (1/1/2006 5:30:16 AM)
"So, for example, getting replacements and building bases is very important to me, therefore a HQ leader with superior statistics will improve the odds of my units getting replacements, my bases building, my ships repairing, my planes repairing, my planes flying, and so on." "Would Inspiration or Admin be more important for BF Leaders?" This is now getting to what has been on my mind. Oviously, the leader of a major area HQ (CenPac, SWPac, etc) is of high import. Will a leader with a high administration rating make bases build up more quickly? My guess is that if inspiration affects replacements, then yes. So, maybe we should discuss what we believe each rating affects. What does administration affect? Base building speed? Base repair speed? Ship repair speed? Air unit repair? Air unit replacements? Ground unit replacements?

JeffroK -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (1/1/2006 7:28:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dereck quote: ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter I have been looking at leaders a lot lately, trying to maximize the fighting capabilities of my forces. One of the things I have noticed is the lack of ability and in particular the lack of agression of the Royal Navy admirals. The most aggressive navy in WWII was the Royal Navy. If you look at the desire to seek combat, willingness to use BBs in combat, losses, number of surface actions fought the Royal Navy is number one in all of them. But in this game they almost never have agression ratings over 50, just a handful of 60s. How did Phillips, who took his ships North into very dangerous waters get an agression rating of 25? Because he got sunk? Somerville was one of the better admirals of the war but you would not know it from his ratings. Did he get downgraded because he did not try to intercept KB with a collection of R Class BBs during the Indian Ocean raid? It seems to me that if your going to make leadership important then you should make some attempt and historical accuracy in the leadership. I don't think (though I am about to find out) that anyone would argue that the admirals of the Royal Navy were notabley worse commanders than the admirals of the US Navy but that is what this game says. Comments? This is going to create a firestorm but I'm feeling happy from celebrating at home with a 4-pack of wine coolers and don't care so .... I've noticed that there are a LOT of British/ANZAC leaders who have EXACTLY the same ratings and and very few which are classified as "aggressive". On the other hand just about every Jap leader is "aggressive" which makes me think that whoever "researched hah" the data for this game seemed to give more attention to the Japs than the allies. Japanese leaders weren't necessarily more "aggressive" than allied leaders - equating aggression with a fanatical desire to commit suicide in stupid-ass bonzai charges which only shortened a battle (to the allies benefit) doesn't seem to me like the Jap leaders were at all any better than allied leaders. Re the Aussie leaders, and some Brits as well. Many of these have very poor ratings, especially those for Morshead, Vasey & Allen. Each who had succesfully led Divisions in the Desert for some years. Some of the British also suffer. I think Slim is recommended as a "Rear Area Unit" commander Is this to do with a lack of knowledge by those who assigned points?? For untried Leaders, Which would be most US & many Japanese, I would support a 50pts +/- 10% and experience gained/lost as per battles fought, NOT based on their historical history

Tom Hunter -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (1/1/2006 6:49:33 PM)
Captain Ed Though you won the Japanese did extremely well. You have to look at the numbers of like types, total numbers of ships and think of the ships firing on opposite numbers as per doctrine. This line up actually looks somewhat like the battle between Oldendorfs slow BBs and the two doomed Japanese BBs in the Phillipines, the US BBs did not even get hit. It is still a major British victory but the Japanese really took a pound of flesh. I'm not saying there is any problem with the result, I have seen more lop sided results in other AARs with similar correlations of force and this result is certainly within the realm of possibility. I am just staying the Brits got beat up pretty bad in the course of winning the fight.

ADavidB -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (1/1/2006 7:14:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter Captain Ed Though you won the Japanese did extremely well. You have to look at the numbers of like types, total numbers of ships and think of the ships firing on opposite numbers as per doctrine. This line up actually looks somewhat like the battle between Oldendorfs slow BBs and the two doomed Japanese BBs in the Phillipines, the US BBs did not even get hit. It is still a major British victory but the Japanese really took a pound of flesh. I'm not saying there is any problem with the result, I have seen more lop sided results in other AARs with similar correlations of force and this result is certainly within the realm of possibility. I am just staying the Brits got beat up pretty bad in the course of winning the fight. Tom, never-the-less, I certainly would be happy with that sort of result in this game....[;)] Dave Baranyi

madmickey -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (1/1/2006 8:05:13 PM)
The leadership numbers are not well done and the RAF is especially bad. But Tom, what major Japanese warship was sunk by the British Navy? What major amphibious landing accomplished and when were they done?

diesel7013 -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (1/1/2006 9:19:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: madmickey The leadership numbers are not well done and the RAF is especially bad. But Tom, what major Japanese warship was sunk by the British Navy? What major amphibious landing accomplished and when were they done. I think this is a good point - while in REAL life - the abilities of the RN were far and above this game - the acutal activites were very 2nd fiddle to the US... Japan has a hard enough time in this game without giving them a juggernaught of a RN to face - and giving the RN a quality ( game terms ) commander to go with a human directing them is just not fair! Other than the singing of the pink painted Haguro in the last month of the war by 5 RN destroyers, they weren't really involved in any serious confrontations with Japan's Navy after Singapore fell ( I belive, can't remember off hand ) without being under US command and control. I'm guessing, at best, that what the designers were trying to do was limit the ability of the human player to exercise control over the RN and put too much more pressure on Japan then they already can.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (1/1/2006 9:29:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: madmickey The leadership numbers are not well done and the RAF is especially bad. But Tom, what major Japanese warship was sunk by the British Navy? What major amphibious landing accomplished and when were they done? Haguro in a classic DD night attack for one. Easily equal to any Japanese night attack/victory during the war with any of the Japanese vaunted night fighting experience advantages.

Tom Hunter -> RE: Royal Navy Admirals (1/1/2006 9:29:31 PM)
"The leadership numbers are not well done and the RAF is especially bad. But Tom, what major Japanese warship was sunk by the British Navy? What major amphibious landing accomplished and when were they done. " Aside from Pearl Harbor the Japanese navy never sunk a US BB, does that mean they should not be able to? The game is either about using the capabilities of the forces you have or it is not. I think there is a real argument for making a WitP type game with no China and no India, or a highly abstract version of them. I don't buy either the play balance arguement or the "historically the (insert country) did not do X so in the game they should not be able to." argument either because the whole game is fun because you don't have to do what the actaul participents did. It is very easy to imagine the RN playing a different role in the war, and if it does the RN in the game ought to reflect the real Royal Navy not some imagined force with similar names.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.359375