RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

John Lansford -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/24/2008 11:28:52 AM)

Just last night I had a surface warfare TF surprise a transport convoy, and got a message saying the escorts had ordered the merchants to scatter and that my forces were chasing them down.  This was in the combat screen and needless to say I was a bit surprised to see it.

Then, later on, I sent two powerful SW TF's to Eniwetok and found over 200 (!!!) merchants, auxiliaries and escorts there, in multiple TF's.  The two TF's had a great time shooting up the merchants, but I think they completely destroyed only one TF; time and time again they'd blow away the little MSW's and PC's and let the merchant ships escape.



Zebedee -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/24/2008 7:55:36 PM)

Thanks Reg. I do think the engine is far more complex than some give it credit for. My problem has always been with determining what is an 'odd result' and what is an 'odd result which keeps happening when it shouldn't'. [:o] John's example is one I've seen to - the message pops up that the TF has scattered. And I do like that. But then I've seen far too many examples - even in daylight (you can get away with it against the AI hehe) - where a surface force has spent the entire combat phase beating up a couple of PCs and letting everything else hightail out of there. Once in a while is fine, but it does seem to happen far too frequently. That said, it could be that I just notice it more than on the occasions when PC1, PC2 and MSW3 get sunk in the first round of combat... Yeah, I'm confused.



John Lansford -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/24/2008 8:03:04 PM)

I'm going to replay my previous turn from last night but this time subdivide the two big SW TF's into four or five smaller ones before they go into Eniwetok, and see what happens.  There's at least 4 AS ships in there, plus a dozen or so big tankers and dozens of AP/AK's.  I figure the more TF's I've got shooting the better chance I've got to sink the majority of them...



mdiehl -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/25/2008 12:01:06 AM)

Samar could be also considered a battle in which the escorts repulsed the engaging superior TF from slow, vulnerable ships.



Reg -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/25/2008 12:29:39 PM)

I think you guys are on the right track with op points. The example I gave was a very favorable situation. I achieved surprise, engaged at point blank range (2000yds) and overwelmed the escort very quickly (I don't even think they got a chance to fire back!!).

If combat is op point based there would have been plenty of time (points) left to engage the convoy.

The examples you gave of a PC putting up a good fight against the odds and taking time to be dispatched plus the additional time required to close distant engagement ranges so the convoy escapes is probably the behaviour we want. I think it is now just a case of getting the balance right.



John Lansford -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/25/2008 1:57:58 PM)

I re-ran my turn with the two SF TF's raiding Eniwetok, but before sending them in I divided the ships equally into three TF's.  Two TF's had 4-5 cruisers and 5-6 destroyers, and the third one had a BB, 3 cruisers and 6 destroyers.  They started the turn 3 hexes from Eniwetok and I had them run in at full speed, set to disengage and head back home rather than to patrol (to get away from the Bettys).

TF #1 engaged three different transport TF's; the first one lost all the escorts (a mix of PC's and MSW's) and half the merchants.  The second convoy was a small one with only one escort and 3 merchants (all sunk).  The last fight was with what appeared to be an ASW TF with a mix of PC's, MSW's and two DD's (3/4 sunk).

The second SF TF engaged a damaged CA (Maya) with no escorts and sank her, then fought a convoy with about a dozen ships (mostly AP's and PC's), sinking 2/3 of them.  They fought a third convoy of AK's with no escorts, sinking nearly all of them.

The TF with the BB came in last and engaged a convoy of tankers, sinking all six of them, and then a transport TF, sinking about half.  None of the AS or AR ships I spotted in previous trial runs of this turn were engaged or even seen, and none of my TF's met the gigantic (three columns' worth of ships) TF I saw the first time I ran this turn.

One thing I did notice was if I hit the "Exit" button during a fight where my ships were focusing on just a few ships, in the combat report they damaged or sank nearly every ship in the convoy.  If I sit there and watch the entire fight, my ships blow just a few enemy ships away and then break off combat.  Anyone else noticed that?



el cid again -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/30/2008 12:14:37 AM)

submarines do not move or behave properly

Players should be able to decide if they engage in submerged or suface operations

Right now - subs always are surfaced. They detect like surface ships - and they are detected like surface ships - and they move at full or cruising speed like surface ships.

IF a player wanted to operate submerged by day - the sub would NOT move by day - and its chance of detecting a target would decline by a very large power - on the order of 50 - during the day. At night it would move and detect normally. On the other hand, the chance of finding the sub should decline even more - on the order of 100. A submerged sub would almost never be able to attack an enemy ship even if it is detected - in an open sea hex (USS Indianapolis case - lightning strikes). In a coastal or port hex, the chance is somewhat better. But if it has radar, the radar helps it detect - although not to engage. A sub underwater has a practical speed of 2 or 3 knots - faster than that it cannot move enen 1 hex total - and has no tactical power at all once it moved that hex. In practical terms a submerged sub is stationary.


A surfaced sub has lookouts almost as good as a surface ship does (worse only in that they are not very high up nor very numerous) - and it is able to move at full speed or cruising speed to get into a firing position.



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/30/2008 1:03:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

submarines do not move or behave properly

Players should be able to decide if they engage in submerged or suface operations

Right now - subs always are surfaced. They detect like surface ships - and they are detected like surface ships - and they move at full or cruising speed like surface ships.



That's not entirely correct, Sid. However, we have modified submarine behaviour somewhat, unless my memory fails me (which is entirely likely).

I don't agree that it should be up to the player if they fight submerged or surfaced. That's too much micromanagement for a game of stock WitP's scale, much less AE.



Shark7 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/30/2008 2:44:24 AM)

Actually most subs could make between 5-10 knots while submerged, it wasn't a matter of speed, but one of endurance. You can only stay submerged as long as the batteries lasted, then you had to surface to recharge them. Once snorkels came into play, that changed as well.



Flying Tiger -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/30/2008 6:34:14 AM)

quote:

One thing I did notice was if I hit the "Exit" button during a fight where my ships were focusing on just a few ships, in the combat report they damaged or sank nearly every ship in the convoy.  If I sit there and watch the entire fight, my ships blow just a few enemy ships away and then break off combat.  Anyone else noticed that?


Good point. i also have noticed a significant difference in combat results when i use the exit button - and would love to know whether this is just coincidence, or are the code routines different?



el cid again -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/30/2008 6:38:49 AM)

This is essentially correct

except

the US did not go for snorkels at all, until the post war era

and the Japanese had an entirely different snorkel concept than the German one (not runing main engines at all)

but this is my point: you have no range on batteries in game terms - if submerged - you are stuck in that hex

If snorkes were supported by code - you could move two hexes per turn - so range should be adjusted for that speed -- and the choice to cruise would then be = snorkeling = submerged for detection purposes (both detection of and detection by the sub)

In RHS, snorkel fitted subs have low cruising speeds and high ranges - but they are not treated differently for detection by code

Also - virtually no submarine in that era could go 10 knots. 9 knots was very good, 8 knots normal, and 7 knots occasionally - in all casese these being TOP speeds on batteries - sustainable usually for an hour. For range - which was typically 45 to 90 miles - you had to go 2 or 3 knots - or 2.5 - really slow - but UNLESS you went that slow you could never move even one hex on batteries. For tactical reasons only a sub in transit might do that - they wanted speed for a tactical situation.



Shark7 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/30/2008 9:17:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

quote:

One thing I did notice was if I hit the "Exit" button during a fight where my ships were focusing on just a few ships, in the combat report they damaged or sank nearly every ship in the convoy.  If I sit there and watch the entire fight, my ships blow just a few enemy ships away and then break off combat.  Anyone else noticed that?


Good point. i also have noticed a significant difference in combat results when i use the exit button - and would love to know whether this is just coincidence, or are the code routines different?


KB attacking PH. If I watch the fight, all of the Kate's use 800kg bombs, turn off the combat animations, and they score 3-4 torpedo hits per BB. That's pretty consistant as well.



HMSWarspite -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/30/2008 12:59:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

But if it has radar, the radar helps it detect - although not to engage.


Not quite true - radar gives the chance to spot a target when in an unsuitable position, surfaced (say to the beam), run around to get ahead, and then submerge to wait in ambush. It is not guaranteed by any means (good old zigzag can spoil things) but is better than having no radar (as is said elsewhere) if relying on visuals to do this the sub is at a disadvantage, especially if having to move at high speed on the surface t get ahead of a target.

Only really fast warships (doing 20kts plus) give a radar sub an impossible time!



Shark7 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/30/2008 6:20:22 PM)

Subs are and always have been ambush hunters anyway.  As a general rule, especially with DE subs, you're best bet it to move them into a well traveled sea lane under cover of darkness and just lurk there until something floats over you. 

Even modern DE subs are not going to catch any ship on the surface that is moving at cruise speed, but you can use intel and sonar to help position the sub so that it increases its chances of engaging.

The new AIP subs may change the tactics though.  They look promising for allowing faster movement while submerged, since they don't depend on running deisels to charge batteries.



el cid again -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/31/2008 2:56:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

But if it has radar, the radar helps it detect - although not to engage.


Not quite true - radar gives the chance to spot a target when in an unsuitable position, surfaced (say to the beam), run around to get ahead, and then submerge to wait in ambush. It is not guaranteed by any means (good old zigzag can spoil things) but is better than having no radar (as is said elsewhere) if relying on visuals to do this the sub is at a disadvantage, especially if having to move at high speed on the surface t get ahead of a target.

Only really fast warships (doing 20kts plus) give a radar sub an impossible time!


This is slightly oversimplified - but somewhat correct:

There are several cases:

A German sub with radar does NOT use it when submerged at all - the radar is built into the conning tower - on the front of it - in the form of diepoles - and so it only searches with it when surfaced - and gets no benefit when submerged

A US sub might have radar on a mast - and this can be used when submerged - and this sort of radar is almost as good as lookouts for range - and better than lookouts in bad visibility conditions

A US sub might have radar in the periscope - but that is more of a ranging tool than a search device

A Japanese sub might have radar on an antenna that is only used when surfaced - a horn like thing rather than the German dipoles - and again - it would not help when submerged

Radar increases the chance of detection - radically so in poor visibility - but less than perfectly in bad weather. IF you detect, it is like rolling a die - you might or might not be able to exploit the situation. It depends on speeds AND on base course angles - no matter how fast a ship is - if it is doing a USS Indianapolis thing (directly closing the sub) you will get into position.

A variation on this is passive radar - ESM or radar intercept. This was more used by the Axis than the Allies, and might be on a mast or on the conning tower - depending on the gear an the case. And it IS in RHS - at least one set is - a hybred radar/ESM set - where it is really a radar that was more often used in passive mode - and the range given is its range in that mode. It is late enough most Allied targets will be radiating - for by the end of WWII the Allies had developed the bad habit of "radiate practically all the time" - something we STILL do - and something the enemy exploited [See Shinano and the account of how she intercepted her hunter's radar - had the temporary initiative - but misinterpreted the meaning of the signal and the position of the submarine.]



el cid again -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/31/2008 3:05:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Subs are and always have been ambush hunters anyway.  As a general rule, especially with DE subs, you're best bet it to move them into a well traveled sea lane under cover of darkness and just lurk there until something floats over you. 

Even modern DE subs are not going to catch any ship on the surface that is moving at cruise speed, but you can use intel and sonar to help position the sub so that it increases its chances of engaging.

The new AIP subs may change the tactics though.  They look promising for allowing faster movement while submerged, since they don't depend on running deisels to charge batteries.


This is a misunderstanding. It all depends on relative speeds, positions, and correct interpretation of the data - which is often ambiguous. Is not true that a modern DE sub cannot catch a ship on the surface - and in some conditions - it should always do so. Further - if it has picked its position well - it may be almost guaranteed to have a target with a closing aspect. In fact, it is now fairly common for conventional submarines even to intercept and achieve fire control solutions on US carriers - although in part that is due to a horrible loss in USN ASW capability ("the Cold War is over, we don't need to invest in the units, training, etc")

AIP is not very useful in a tactical sense - many forms of it make noise - so you do NOT use it in combat. You use it when cruising - to extend underwater range - or to recharge after an action - without the need to surface or even snorkel.



Shark7 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/31/2008 3:26:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Subs are and always have been ambush hunters anyway.  As a general rule, especially with DE subs, you're best bet it to move them into a well traveled sea lane under cover of darkness and just lurk there until something floats over you. 

Even modern DE subs are not going to catch any ship on the surface that is moving at cruise speed, but you can use intel and sonar to help position the sub so that it increases its chances of engaging.

The new AIP subs may change the tactics though.  They look promising for allowing faster movement while submerged, since they don't depend on running deisels to charge batteries.


This is a misunderstanding. It all depends on relative speeds, positions, and correct interpretation of the data - which is often ambiguous. Is not true that a modern DE sub cannot catch a ship on the surface - and in some conditions - it should always do so. Further - if it has picked its position well - it may be almost guaranteed to have a target with a closing aspect. In fact, it is now fairly common for conventional submarines even to intercept and achieve fire control solutions on US carriers - although in part that is due to a horrible loss in USN ASW capability ("the Cold War is over, we don't need to invest in the units, training, etc")

AIP is not very useful in a tactical sense - many forms of it make noise - so you do NOT use it in combat. You use it when cruising - to extend underwater range - or to recharge after an action - without the need to surface or even snorkel.


Catch as in tail chase, intercepting is very possible by manuevering to where the ship will be going, but this is still ambush hunting, you move to where the ship is going and wait for it to come to you. But if it is moving away, the SSK (and even the SSNs) simply don't have the submerged speed to catch a surface ship. Which in itself isn't exactly true either...many subs have more than enough speed, but are so noisy moving at those speeds that they would almost certainly be detected before getting into a firing position.

A subs best weapon is its stealth. They are most effective if they can strike from ambush with complete surprise. It's just not advisable to try to chase down targets at a high rate of speed, because the noise generated negates the subs main advantage, which is stealth.



apbarog -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/31/2008 5:30:34 AM)

Will there be any changes in AE regarding the advantage to setting many small minefields as opposed to one large minefield? I'm not arguing for or against this, just that there is an advantage in WitP to breaking a ML/SS force into many 1 ship ML/SS TF's in order to drop as many minefields as possible.

Apologies if this has been asked and answered already.



spence -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/31/2008 1:57:15 PM)

quote:

submarines do not move or behave properly



In part because the operational dynamics of the submarine war are completely reversed. The Japanese possess a wide area search capability wherever they choose to station their Glen carrying submarines. The subs have intelligence on the location of convoys and direction of movement. The Glens somehow manage to fly even when the submarine is under "constant" (attacked in night phase and again in the day phase) attack by ASW forces. Meanwhile the USN submarines operate secure only in the knowledge that the vaunted and much feared 51st Road Construction Battalion is far away in Meiktila. IRL MAGIC/ULTRA was providing US/Allied subs with convoy routings and compositions and if that wasn't enough the Japanese merchies were blabbing away on the wireless providing their noon positions every day in low level code (and compromising any changes therein by giving an RDF fix to accompany their coded position).



jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/31/2008 1:59:07 PM)

Actually in stock there is a trade-off to laying lots of mine fields. There are only 4000 minefields allowed to both sides total. So if both sides lay as many minefields as possible they will run out and then no more can be laid. As Japanese, in stock, I actually think carefully about when and where to lay minefields, not laying those in the rear areas too early. But I do try to "carve out" my share of minefields, so the Allies don't get them all.

I'm not aware of any changes to the "to hit" probabilities in AE for mines - but we are adding limits to minefields also from an "ammunition" perspective. So both sides will have mines as a producible device. This will provide additional constraints for mines in AE.




el cid again -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/1/2008 1:11:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Catch as in tail chase, intercepting is very possible by manuevering to where the ship will be going, but this is still ambush hunting, you move to where the ship is going and wait for it to come to you. But if it is moving away, the SSK (and even the SSNs) simply don't have the submerged speed to catch a surface ship. Which in itself isn't exactly true either...many subs have more than enough speed, but are so noisy moving at those speeds that they would almost certainly be detected before getting into a firing position.

A subs best weapon is its stealth. They are most effective if they can strike from ambush with complete surprise. It's just not advisable to try to chase down targets at a high rate of speed, because the noise generated negates the subs main advantage, which is stealth.



well said



el cid again -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/1/2008 1:14:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

submarines do not move or behave properly



In part because the operational dynamics of the submarine war are completely reversed. The Japanese possess a wide area search capability wherever they choose to station their Glen carrying submarines. The subs have intelligence on the location of convoys and direction of movement. The Glens somehow manage to fly even when the submarine is under "constant" (attacked in night phase and again in the day phase) attack by ASW forces. Meanwhile the USN submarines operate secure only in the knowledge that the vaunted and much feared 51st Road Construction Battalion is far away in Meiktila. IRL MAGIC/ULTRA was providing US/Allied subs with convoy routings and compositions and if that wasn't enough the Japanese merchies were blabbing away on the wireless providing their noon positions every day in low level code (and compromising any changes therein by giving an RDF fix to accompany their coded position).



This was, of course, the point of the Glen and both its predecessor and its follow ons. However - it is a valid point they could not fly in many conditions - and I am using an experimental rule limiting both range and per cent flying. [First pass - range = 2 for air search or 3 for recon or 1 for attack; if searching maximum 50 per cent - and I experiment with 30 per cent too: in this form the subs are useful but not by any means reliable at detecting enemy surface forces.]

On the other hand, the Allies never seem to have problems with intercepted messages either - and the habit that bites us to this day (transmit with practically everything practically all the time is how I put it) dates from this period in our history. In fact, the enemy was able to exploit signals tactically - and in particular radar signals - which we seem to have believed was so secret and they were so backwards it was not a possibility.



el cid again -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/1/2008 1:21:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Actually in stock there is a trade-off to laying lots of mine fields. There are only 4000 minefields allowed to both sides total. So if both sides lay as many minefields as possible they will run out and then no more can be laid. As Japanese, in stock, I actually think carefully about when and where to lay minefields, not laying those in the rear areas too early. But I do try to "carve out" my share of minefields, so the Allies don't get them all.

I'm not aware of any changes to the "to hit" probabilities in AE for mines - but we are adding limits to minefields also from an "ammunition" perspective. So both sides will have mines as a producible device. This will provide additional constraints for mines in AE.




I am not able to confirm in testing that small minefields are more effective than large ones. Except in these senses:

1) Only one or two ships get hit per mine attack -

2) Sweepers clear big ones almost as easily as small ones -

the net impact being that large mine fields are not very cost effective



bradfordkay -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/1/2008 7:54:26 AM)

Joe, if there's an absolute limit of 4000 minefields, do minefields that have been cleared still count against this final limit, or does clearing a minefield add another to the number that can be laid at the moment?



witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/1/2008 8:41:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Actually in stock there is a trade-off to laying lots of mine fields. There are only 4000 minefields allowed to both sides total. So if both sides lay as many minefields as possible they will run out and then no more can be laid. As Japanese, in stock, I actually think carefully about when and where to lay minefields, not laying those in the rear areas too early. But I do try to "carve out" my share of minefields, so the Allies don't get them all.

I'm not aware of any changes to the "to hit" probabilities in AE for mines - but we are adding limits to minefields also from an "ammunition" perspective. So both sides will have mines as a producible device. This will provide additional constraints for mines in AE.


So what counts as a minefield? Is it one TF laying mines? So if a TF lays mines at the same base 20 times, is that 20 mine fields or one?



jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/2/2008 4:41:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Joe, if there's an absolute limit of 4000 minefields, do minefields that have been cleared still count against this final limit, or does clearing a minefield add another to the number that can be laid at the moment?


Totally cleared fields are returned to the free pool.



jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/2/2008 4:41:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Actually in stock there is a trade-off to laying lots of mine fields. There are only 4000 minefields allowed to both sides total. So if both sides lay as many minefields as possible they will run out and then no more can be laid. As Japanese, in stock, I actually think carefully about when and where to lay minefields, not laying those in the rear areas too early. But I do try to "carve out" my share of minefields, so the Allies don't get them all.

I'm not aware of any changes to the "to hit" probabilities in AE for mines - but we are adding limits to minefields also from an "ammunition" perspective. So both sides will have mines as a producible device. This will provide additional constraints for mines in AE.


So what counts as a minefield? Is it one TF laying mines? So if a TF lays mines at the same base 20 times, is that 20 mine fields or one?



That would be 20 fields.




bradfordkay -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/2/2008 4:42:28 AM)

Thanks, Joe, for clearing that up...[&o]



Dili -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/2/2008 7:24:49 AM)

quote:

I'm not aware of any changes to the "to hit" probabilities in AE for mines - but we are adding limits to minefields also from an "ammunition" perspective. So both sides will have mines as a producible device. This will provide additional constraints for mines in AE.


That will be great, then we can set up how many mines there were at war start, should be for torpedoes too but i suppose that is asking to much. And i hope that there will not be hardcode date limit to airplane mines but that be made set into availability device capabilities.



rockmedic109 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/2/2008 9:57:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Actually in stock there is a trade-off to laying lots of mine fields. There are only 4000 minefields allowed to both sides total. So if both sides lay as many minefields as possible they will run out and then no more can be laid. As Japanese, in stock, I actually think carefully about when and where to lay minefields, not laying those in the rear areas too early. But I do try to "carve out" my share of minefields, so the Allies don't get them all.

I'm not aware of any changes to the "to hit" probabilities in AE for mines - but we are adding limits to minefields also from an "ammunition" perspective. So both sides will have mines as a producible device. This will provide additional constraints for mines in AE.


So what counts as a minefield? Is it one TF laying mines? So if a TF lays mines at the same base 20 times, is that 20 mine fields or one?



That would be 20 fields.




So each task force lays one minefield without regard to how many minelayers are in the task force?

Next question is do you know when you've reached 4000 minefields by the numbers of mines in a hex not increasing? The mines in the ships not showing as laid?



Page: <<   < prev  40 41 [42] 43 44   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8457031