AE Surface Combat? (Full Version)

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



Message

pad152 -> AE Surface Combat? (5/23/2009 11:11:01 PM)

Way too many times in WTIP only one side fires in surface combat with no return fire, so what changes will we see in AE surface combat?




Yamato hugger -> RE: AE Surface Combat? (5/24/2009 12:11:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Way too many times in WTIP only one side fires in surface combat with no return fire, so what changes will we see in AE surface combat?



The other side is supposed to shoot back?



John Lansford -> RE: AE Surface Combat? (5/25/2009 2:28:33 PM)

As long as the combat routine no longer does the "one ship gets 120 hits on a target and no one else fires" result I'll be satisfied.  While I don't mind sinking Nagato with that many 6" shells from USS Phoenix, I think it's a bit out of the realm of possibility...



Erik Rutins -> RE: AE Surface Combat? (5/25/2009 2:56:58 PM)

I haven't seen that in AE. With that said, given the variability in WITP in general I suppose anything is possible, but I haven't seen that yet.



pad152 -> RE: AE Surface Combat? (5/25/2009 3:41:54 PM)

My point is, any ship that is in range and being fired at, should shot back, this is not always the case with WITP.




Erik Rutins -> RE: AE Surface Combat? (5/25/2009 3:47:31 PM)

I would slightly amend that statement to say "as long as it can also see the enemy". There were some night battles I can think of that were quite confused, where ships took fire and still weren't sure where it was coming from, as least as far as being able to effectively direct fire back.



pad152 -> RE: AE Surface Combat? (5/25/2009 4:24:42 PM)

The ships did fire back, only at the wrong target, friendly fire is not simulated in WTIP, are you saying it's now simulated in AE?



Wirraway_Ace -> RE: AE Surface Combat? (5/25/2009 4:32:31 PM)

Not to steal Knavey's thunder, but it would go something like this: "It is November 42, and it seems like the entire IJN used one of my brand new Dakota class BBs for target practice in a night action and she barely even fired back! The BB had both SG and SC radar operational when she went into the night action. This never could have happened!"



W T Door -> RE: AE Surface Combat? (5/27/2009 2:34:35 PM)

In a similar vein, is the coast artillery any better than it was in stock? I've toured CA sites in various parts of the world (what? like the rest of you don't have any strange hobbies....) and one of the things that struck me was how the spotting stations and fire control rooms seemed to have everythihng pretty well dialed in, using things like silhouettes of the area under observation and photographs to aid the spotters. I was never sure if the dismal showing of CA was a play balance thing or just a design miscalculation. I don't expect them to be invincible, but you'd think they would score more hits, particularly the massed long range weapons around Manila (plus I find it a little unlikely that hits with 12" rifles would have so little effect).

I watched a show on Singapore last night and it got me to thinking about this (also the show made me wonder about Yamashita's rate of advance in stock, he seems to cover the distance that took at least six weeks in about 3 days, even with bicycles this seems a bit much).



vettim89 -> RE: AE Surface Combat? (5/27/2009 2:54:04 PM)

Well as far as night combat goes, once a ship is hit and on fire, it tended to draw all the other fire. Likewise in situations where radar fire control was being used, in general the biggest blip got the bulk of the fire. There were several engagements in the Solomons in 1943 where when the Japanese were under fire before they spotted the Allied ships they attempted to disengage. In the battle off Vila Standmore, I don't think the IJN fired a shot. In the Battle of Vella Gulf, not a single USN ship was hit.

It is widely accepted now that Admiral Scott was killed by a salvo from CA San Francisco in the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal



Q-Ball -> RE: AE Surface Combat? (5/27/2009 3:04:00 PM)

I don't mind the WITP routines with one exception: I would like to see PTs die more than one at a time. Other than that, I'm good![8D]



RevRick -> RE: AE Surface Combat? (5/27/2009 3:17:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

Not to steal Knavey's thunder, but it would go something like this: "It is November 42, and it seems like the entire IJN used one of my brand new Dakota class BBs for target practice in a night action and she barely even fired back! The BB had both SG and SC radar operational when she went into the night action. This never could have happened!"


This is a primary example of the "Kaptain Klutz Rule" in operation, according to my reading! If the captain (Gatch) hadn't ordered the circuit breakers wired closed, the SG and SC may have returned to operational status during the shooting. But, then again, it could be that it was his plan to get his ship back to the states, or at least, Pearl, for some more liberty call!



Nikademus -> RE: AE Surface Combat? (5/27/2009 3:24:18 PM)

A ship thats fired on does not always have a target to fire back on. [&:]



aciddrinker -> RE: AE Surface Combat? (5/27/2009 5:15:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

My point is, any ship that is in range and being fired at, should shot back, this is not always the case with WITP.




In battle near Savo, most allied crussier's was sunk before they oriented what happaens. Some of them not opened fire becouse commanders was thinking that they are under friendly fire ... This is just one example from many ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Savo_Island



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9052734