Some points of discussion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Carriers At War



Message

Nugget -> Some points of discussion (6/14/2007 7:31:17 AM)

Maybe some you guys could help me with these.

1 - Japanese Destroyers.

I've noticed that Japanese destroyers are extremely durable! I had one of them, the Yamagumo (I think its an Asahio class?), absorb 4 bomb hits from Helldivers and 5 torpedo hits from Avengers before it finally succumbed to the damage.[X(][X(] I've also noticed on several ocasions that a single hit from a dive bomber or a torpedo bomber will only cause 1 bar of damage (I turned on accurate combat results to check all this.). It just seems a little unusual.

2 - AI strikes.

This is more annoying than anything else but I've also noticed that the incoming AI strikes target my carriers with extreme effectiveness while my own pilots attack whoever they want. For example, during a recent battle of the Phillipine Sea I had 6 ships either sunk or damaged from Japanese attacks, every single one of them was a carrier![:@][:@] When I finally managed to locate the Japanese Fleet after destroying the land based airforce, I launched my attacks and either sunk or damaged a little bit of everything from destroyers up to carriers. I'm not sure if this was a fluke or if anyone else has noticed something similar.

I don't know if it's just me but this was really annoying! Don't get me wrong, I love this game and if I wasn't already engaged to a extremely beautiful, young and talented woman I would be marrying it!

P.S. That last bit is just in case she reads this![:D][:D]

Cheers

Nugget



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/14/2007 7:50:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nugget

AI strikes.

This is more annoying than anything else but I've also noticed that the incoming AI strikes target my carriers with extreme effectiveness while my own pilots attack whoever they want. For example, during a recent battle of the Phillipine Sea I had 6 ships either sunk or damaged from Japanese attacks, every single one of them was a carrier![:@][:@] When I finally managed to locate the Japanese Fleet after destroying the land based airforce, I launched my attacks and either sunk or damaged a little bit of everything from destroyers up to carriers. I'm not sure if this was a fluke or if anyone else has noticed something similar.


There's a weird sort of logic among developers that I'd characterize, thusly:

"If our AI sucks badly enough, then, let's just cheat, give ourselves bigger bullets, thicker vests, and so on."

As near as I can tell, that's not an issue with CaW. With this game, it's more like:

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander!"

I can take issue all day long with this and that aspect of the game, but I see no cheats in play.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



e_barkmann -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/14/2007 8:00:05 AM)

yep the AI relies on the same routines as the human player, and can make similar mistakes.

It's an interesting point that many players (including myself I suspect) will quickly forget good luck moments but will grimly hang on to bad luck events a game has dealt them, with some determination [:)]



Nugget -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/14/2007 8:15:19 AM)

I'm not doubting the AI in the game, it's more a reflection on my command style. Or lack of![:D]

But the destroyer thing is slightly more annoying. I hit another with 4 Dauntless bombs and it only had 3 bars of damage. Is there something I could be doing wrong????



Nugget -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/14/2007 8:19:19 AM)

Woohoo! The Shiratsuyu has finally sunk! It only took 3 bombs and 5 torpedoes! (I wish there was a button to insert sarcasm!) Unfortunately the Akatsuki is still steaming merrily along after what is now 5 bomb hits and only 4 bars of damage.[:@]



Nugget -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/14/2007 8:21:34 AM)

Its gone now. 10 bombs and 2 torpedoes.



blastpop -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/14/2007 1:32:11 PM)

Are you using limited intel option for hits?

Hits can be inflated by excited pilots...



Adam Parker -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/14/2007 2:28:11 PM)

Tell me about it.

BUT I SANK THE YAMATO! I SANK THE YAMATO! [:)]

But they still took my carriers away [:(]

Was there an historical difference between the bomb effectiveness of the sides? In 2 hits the Japs took out the deck of the Big E but in 2 hits I scored 1 black bar on the Akagi.

Btw side note: My last three games of Midway as the US have been heart pumpers and different every time with no early finishes: US Decisive, Jap Decisive, Draw. That last one was the most tense yet. I just couldn't find the big Jap carriers until the end.



Massattack -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/14/2007 2:51:39 PM)


Another factor to consider is cloud cover. If your TG is in clear weather, higher chance enemy strike will find your carriers. If enemy TG is in cloud, particularly dark cloud, more chance your strike aircraft will randomly attack ships other than carriers. Also pilot experience level has an affect on ship id skills. What I don't know is if a second wave attack will have a higher propensity to go after already burning ships.

Regards



Gregor_SSG -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/14/2007 3:41:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nugget

Maybe some you guys could help me with these.

1 - Japanese Destroyers.

I've noticed that Japanese destroyers are extremely durable! I had one of them, the Yamagumo (I think its an Asahio class?), absorb 4 bomb hits from Helldivers and 5 torpedo hits from Avengers before it finally succumbed to the damage.[X(][X(] I've also noticed on several ocasions that a single hit from a dive bomber or a torpedo bomber will only cause 1 bar of damage (I turned on accurate combat results to check all this.). It just seems a little unusual.

2 - AI strikes.

This is more annoying than anything else but I've also noticed that the incoming AI strikes target my carriers with extreme effectiveness while my own pilots attack whoever they want. For example, during a recent battle of the Phillipine Sea I had 6 ships either sunk or damaged from Japanese attacks, every single one of them was a carrier![:@][:@] When I finally managed to locate the Japanese Fleet after destroying the land based airforce, I launched my attacks and either sunk or damaged a little bit of everything from destroyers up to carriers. I'm not sure if this was a fluke or if anyone else has noticed something similar.

I don't know if it's just me but this was really annoying! Don't get me wrong, I love this game and if I wasn't already engaged to a extremely beautiful, young and talented woman I would be marrying it!

P.S. That last bit is just in case she reads this![:D][:D]

Cheers

Nugget


Hmmm, where to start the answer, facts first or philosophy? Lets go with facts.

Japanese destroyers are no more durable than any others. I once had one take 9 bomb hits before sinking. I sent the savegame to programmer who duly reported that the destroyer had just been extremely lucky, and I, as the bombing player, had been unlucky.

Targeting is also subject to some randomness. It's done by men rather than machines, so it naturaly varies.

The AI does not cheat on either targeting or damage. In fact the combat routines have no idea if they're calculating a combat for a human or AI player.

The reason why a problem is perceived is that our brains are not computers. They give a much greater weighting to the processing and memory of negative events than they do to positive ones. While this undoubtedly help stop our neolithic ancestors from being devoured by crocodiles while making carefree visits to croc infested waterholes, it poses a problem for game designers.

We go through this with each of our games, yet the cause is always the same. With lots of people playing lots of games and huge numbers of virtual dice being rolled, some unusual results are bound to occur.

However, I'm happy to report that there is a solution. The more you play, the more chance you have of some spectacular good luck happening to you - just remember it when it happens!

Gregor



Toby42 -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/14/2007 3:42:07 PM)

Switch sides and play as the Japanese. If "Bad" luck still follows you, OH Well!!![&:]



Unhappy -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/14/2007 4:12:16 PM)

There is a 'Vulnerability' setting for ships in the ship class editor that "...modifies how much damage each weapon hit does." (Manual, 46) This is an eight step setting from '0 Highly Flammable' to  '7 Very Robust'.  Many of the Japanese destroyers (and some US ones too) are at step 5 (4 - Average).  So for people creating customs scenarios you might want to lower this setting so DDs are not as durable.  You can also adjust the 'Fire Control' and 'Damage Control' for each ship in the ships editor screen and I would consider lowering these on DDs as well.

My question is does the Armour setting (in the ships class editor) influence dive bombing and torpedo attacks equally or not?  I don't think that it should especially since some of the Japanese carriers have massive belt armour according to the editor but most of the damage done to those carriers (at least in the early scenarios) will come from Dive Bombers plunking bombs on un-armoured flight decks.

The editor is kind of fun...but I find it pretty unstable.  Is there a process to follow to get better results?



CTB123 -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/14/2007 4:18:35 PM)

Unhappy,

Can you give some more specific results on what you are finding unstable about the editor?




Unhappy -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/14/2007 4:27:58 PM)

Well - at the moment I'm trying to modify the Coral Sea scenario to create a hypothetical invasion of eastern Australia (mostly because I can't figure out the .SRF files and am restricted to using the existing maps). Anyway - I accidently removed a ship - the DD Oite from the ship line up - realizing that I re-added the Oite but everytime I go into the Task Group editor and try to select 'Invasion Force' the editor CTD. If I try to clear all Taskgroups it CTD. So basically I made one mistake and now I can't edit the taskgroups. I had just started working on it so I guess I'll just start over and try to avoid making any mistakes.



Nugget -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/15/2007 5:43:37 AM)

I do know that the japanese did construct the ships in a more effective way than the Americans, by this I mean that as a whole their ships are more durable and don't spread damage as much. Admittedly this changed later in the war when they were using less refined fuel oil in their ships, but that is another matter.

I have turned on accurate combat results until I can get a fair idea of what happens when I hit someone, after thinking this through late last night I decided to have a go with th IJN and I noticed something that made me smile. The effects of Japanese bombs and Americans bombs are the same results that I get when I play as the USN. So its not just me!

It does look like the game is biased towards the Japanese in terms of pilot skill early in the war and later in the war it loks like their discipline is what sets them apart. Which from what I've read is an accurate reflection of real life.

Is this correct? Because it would be an awesome bit of programming if you had.



Gregor_SSG -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/16/2007 7:11:59 AM)

Just on the subject of damage, how would you feel if, playing as the Japanese and over the course of a day, you hit a US fleet carrier with four bombs, three torpedoes and two spontaneous kamikaze attacks, and yet failed to sink it? Would you be complaining to SSG about damage routines and seemingly invincible US carriers?

Would you be even more annoyed if you were told that US side had put multiple ship borne torpedoes and about 400 rounds of 5" shellfire into their own stationary carrier and still failed to sink it?

This was the real life fate of the USS Hornet in the Battle of Santa Cruz. The Japanese were compelled to finish the job with another 4 ship launched torpedoes of their own before the Hornet finally sank.

This is why the damage system in Carriers at War needs the variability it has. Remember, it should all even out in the long run.

Gregor



jazman -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/16/2007 7:42:43 AM)

Just play a couple games with accurate combat results (no limited intel) and you'll know the actual damage you are doing. Tell us if you see any destroyers getting blasted and surviving. With limited intel, you can't say, "that ship took X hits" and know that that ship really did take X hits.



bradfordkay -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/16/2007 9:31:12 AM)

It's been a long time since I've played CAW (still waiting on the backorders to be filled), so some of this may or may not have any relevance.

Japanese carriers did have substantially better armoured main decks than did US ones. If your dive bombers are hitting at extended range, then the bombs they're carrying have to get a lucky hit to penetrate the flight deck. At normal range, the bigger bombs will get through.

The US carriers have an unarmoured flight deck which means nearly every bomb will penetrate to the hanger deck, which can cause nasty repurcussions if caught with planes, fuel and orndance scattered about (as happened to the Japanese at Midway).

The USN learned from the loss of the Lexington at Coral Sea, and flooded the aviation fuel lines with CO2 when attacked loomed. The Japanese took a bit longer to learn this. In the USN, every sailor is trained in damage control, but not so in the IJN - so when damage control teams are decimated in an attack the Japanese ships are in deep kimchee whereas the USN vessels have a decent chance.

Now, is there Fog Of War in the combat reports in CAW? That is, are we really seeing five bomb hits and four torpedo hits or is that only what our pilots are reporting? EDIT: jazman just answered that last question.



Nugget -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/17/2007 10:47:44 AM)

Hey guys, please don't get me wrong I'm not having a go at CAW! All this thread does is registers my frustration at my inability to sink Japanese ships. I'm sure this has got a whole lot to do with me and not the game, so if anyone out there thinks that I'm having a go at CAW, Matrix or SSG I'm sorry but you have the wrong idea.

Jazman, as I have said before I have turned on acuurate combat results just to make sure that I was actually talking about the right thing.

Bradfordkay - I understand that about Japanese ships and armour during WW2, I have been studying ship design and naval warfare spefically from WW1 and WW2 for the last quarter century, and yes if you are at the limit of your maxium range then the bombs won't be as large and therefore will not penetrate as much as the standard size. However as pretty much every destroyer during WW2 was constructed from high tensile steel no thicker than 3/8ths of an inch so I don't think the difference between a 250 pound bomb and a 500 pound bomb would have all that much difference, as the force with which it would hit when dropped from a dive bomber would be roughly equilavent to receiving one shell from a heavy cruisers 8 inch gun.

Now if anyone again thinks I'm complaing about the game, please don't construe it that way because I truly enjoy playing this game and am in no way knocking it. I was just wondering if anyone else had noticed the same thing, if they hadn't obviuosly I was doing something wrong.

And Gregor, I understand about the variability of ship damage during battle. There are many instances were a single blow has been devasting or conversely a ship has taken an inordinate amount of damage and survived. As I said above I was just wondering if anyone else had encountered the same thing as myslef regarding destroyers.

So I apologise to everyone if I have caused any problems and I hope everyone continues to have fun.

Cheers

Nugget.



Adam Parker -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/17/2007 1:26:09 PM)

Hi Nugget, one issue affecting this will also be that we don't know where the bomb's/torps have hit and therefore can't gauge the criticality of them in terms of survivability. Did they graze the destroyers? Did they impact areas that could be water tightened etc?

Related to this is the extreme vulnerability that I'm finding, of my US ships/CV's in the 1942 scenarios. I haven't seen any evidence of superior US damage control. Things just sink quickly and the brilliant bomb/torp aim of the Jap AI isn't helping! [X(][:)]

How have you fared playing vs a US AI in the scenarios you've experienced this dilemma? Is the US AI less able to cripple your Jap TG's as well? I've yet to try playing as the IJN.



elmo3 -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/17/2007 1:58:59 PM)

Doesn't the game have fog of war with regard to reporting hits and even sinkings?



The Warden -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/17/2007 2:33:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

Related to this is the extreme vulnerability that I'm finding, of my US ships/CV's in the 1942 scenarios. I haven't seen any evidence of superior US damage control. Things just sink quickly and the brilliant bomb/torp aim of the Jap AI isn't helping! [X(][:)]


After getting some results that seemed odd to me I opened up the Wake scenario in the editor and checked the fire control and damage control ratings of the American and Japanese carriers. It turns out that the Japanese carriers actually had BETTER fire control ratings and identical damage control ratings. Is this really historically accurate?



Massattack -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/17/2007 2:36:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Doesn't the game have fog of war with regard to reporting hits and even sinkings?


In "options" you can choose to have "accurate combat results" ticked if you want to remove FOW for hits and sinkings. Sighting reports are also subject to FOW.

Regards



Nugget -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/17/2007 2:46:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

Hi Nugget, one issue affecting this will also be that we don't know where the bomb's/torps have hit and therefore can't gauge the criticality of them in terms of survivability. Did they graze the destroyers? Did they impact areas that could be water tightened etc?

Related to this is the extreme vulnerability that I'm finding, of my US ships/CV's in the 1942 scenarios. I haven't seen any evidence of superior US damage control. Things just sink quickly and the brilliant bomb/torp aim of the Jap AI isn't helping! [X(][:)]

How have you fared playing vs a US AI in the scenarios you've experienced this dilemma? Is the US AI less able to cripple your Jap TG's as well? I've yet to try playing as the IJN.


Its true you don't know where the bombs and torps have hit, however considering how small a destroyer is this shouldn't make that much of a difference, espcially when it comes to torpedoes. The very nature of a torpedoes lends itself to great damage to any ship as they are designed to strike below the armour belt, of which a destroyer doesn't have any anyway!

The good news about all this was that I have played as the IJN and I've noticed the same results, USN ships are easily put down (early in the war anyway) and IJN ships are decidedly harder. However the more I play, which unfortunately isn't as often as I would like, the more results are balancing themselves out.

I've only tried the IJN in a handful of the early war scenarios and I've found it extremely easy to win with them. But then again I've found it easy to win as the USN later in the war too. Its a very good balance of challenges throughout the game. Its when you swap them around that it becomes fun! I still haven't managed better than a draw as the USN in the Battle of the Coral Sea yet!




Nugget -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/17/2007 2:52:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Warden

After getting some results that seemed odd to me I opened up the Wake scenario in the editor and checked the fire control and damage control ratings of the American and Japanese carriers. It turns out that the Japanese carriers actually had BETTER fire control ratings and identical damage control ratings. Is this really historically accurate?



I believe at the start of the war this would have been accurate however this changed rapidly as the Americans very quickly learnt from their mistakes and it didn't take them long to have some of best damage control and fire prevention systems of the war.



CapnDarwin -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/17/2007 5:20:50 PM)

Nugget,

A lot of the game is good luck, timing, placement of units (or more to the point using the weather as cover), and searching in the right areas. I just finished playing my first time as the Americans at Coral Sea and took a decisive victory by heavily damaging one main IJN carrier forcing it to retire early in the fight, then sinking the other main carrier 2 days later. Only the Shoho got away clean. My carriers never saw an IJN scout (that I'm aware of). I was also able to harrass other minor groups with land based air. I try to be really careful and defensive as the US force and counter punch when a group is sighted. I sacrifice torpedo attacks to get in dive bombers at range to keep my location secret as long as possible.

All in all a fun game! [:)]



Staggerwing -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/17/2007 6:00:23 PM)

quote:

In the USN, every sailor is trained in damage control, but not so in the IJN - so when damage control teams are decimated in an attack the Japanese ships are in deep kimchee whereas the USN vessels have a decent chance.


I was under the impression that this service-wide phenomenon of all sailors being
trained as firemen first regardless of actual job was the result of what happened
on the USS Forrestal in 1967 (when John McCain's A-4 was struck by an malfunctioning
rocket while loaded up with bombs on the flightdeck). More than a hundred personnel were
killed IIRC.



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/17/2007 6:48:13 PM)

A couple of points about damage in the game:

U.S. carriers go down more often than their Japanese counterparts because they take more hits. While they should be able to absorb more punishment because they were better built and had superior damage control capability, so long as about fifty-percent of IJN ordnance is finding its mark, the American carriers will suffer horribly. And I think that this is realistic. The way for the U.S. player to limit the scope of the catastrophe is to disperse his carriers as much as possible.

My only beef in this regard is that such a low percentage of U.S. VB an VS score hits. I believe that the dive-bomber aircrew are under-rated. These weren't kids fresh out of flight school. "Training" with the fleet had been vigorous in the six months before and after Pearl Harbor. If the hit percentage went up, the sinkings of IJN carriers would go up proportionately. Even in this, however, I'd like to do more analysis of the combat results, USN VB and VS attacking carriers, before stating this overemphatically.

What I would raise holy-hell about at this point, however, is the tendency of both sides carrier a/c to go after escorts. Even this is a tangle, though, because it's not always completely clear what's happening. For instance, did that flight attack a destroyer (which were darn near impossible to hit, btw) knowing full well that they were essentially wasting an opportunity to damage or destroy a critical enemy asset, or because the leader thought that all the carriers in the TG were already neutralized? Obviously, it makes a big difference, but because the inner workings of the CaW are so much a mystery to us, as is frequently the case with these games, we never really know.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



bradfordkay -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/17/2007 8:57:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Staggerwing

quote:

In the USN, every sailor is trained in damage control, but not so in the IJN - so when damage control teams are decimated in an attack the Japanese ships are in deep kimchee whereas the USN vessels have a decent chance.


I was under the impression that this service-wide phenomenon of all sailors being
trained as firemen first regardless of actual job was the result of what happened
on the USS Forrestal in 1967 (when John McCain's A-4 was struck by an malfunctioning
rocket while loaded up with bombs on the flightdeck). More than a hundred personnel were
killed IIRC.


I got this information from Shattered Sword (p277).

"First, the total number of damage-control personnel on board a JApanese vessel was drastically lower than on a comparable US warship. Whereas in 1942 a US carrier could effectively number almost every one of its nonaviation staff as being able to contribute to damage-control efforts in some capacity, a Japanese carrier might only have between 350 and 400 men trained out of a creww of 1500-2000."

It is possible that Parshall and Tully mistook modern USN methods for those used in 1942, I think that is unlikely considering the level of research they performed in the creation of their work.

I think that after the Forrestal incident the USN increased the amount of damage-control training its sailors received, but that in WW2 every able bodied seaman did receive a fair amount of such training.



Gregor_SSG -> RE: Some points of discussion (6/18/2007 4:30:32 AM)

The US learned its lessons about damage control the hard way, but it did learn them. Progress could be uneven, a war damage report on the loss of the Hornet states that although the fires started by the attacks were eventually extinguished, they were fed by excess clothing, upholstered furniture and the like, which should already have been removed. However the same report considered that overall damage control and salvage efforts on the Hornet were improved over those employed when the Yorktown was lost.

In this, as in so many other areas, the Japanese preferred to ignore the lessons of history, and paid the price.

Gregor




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6523438