RE: Tree v Yammy - The Allied Perspective

RE: Tree v Yammy - The Allied Perspective (Full Version)

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

Message

Nikademus -> RE: Tree v Yammy - The Allied Perspective (5/26/2009 5:25:52 PM)
alot depends on how much major flood damage there is. If it's high your ship is in danger and can't really move either (to another port) so, at least for me, that would be a prime candident for a critical rating while in the shipyard

JWE -> RE: Tree v Yammy - The Allied Perspective (5/26/2009 5:25:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bobogoboom so once i repair the minor flood damage can i sail her back to the west coast without fear of it sinking? There is a (random) chance that ships with major FlotDam will have repairs give way and start flooding again. Bigger the Major FlotDam, bigger the chance; faster you try to go, bigger the chance. Try putting ships with big Major FlotDam numbers into the yard at Pearl for a while. When Major FlotDam gets down to about 25-30 or so, pull them out and send em off to the coast. But just make sure that before you go the only FlotDam you got is Major FlotDam, i.e., everything else cofferdamed and pumped out. Back to the Tree v Yammy show.

Erik Rutins -> RE: Tree v Yammy - The Allied Perspective (5/26/2009 5:46:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bobogoboom so once i repair the minor flood damage can i sail her back to the west coast without fear of it sinking? That's the general idea. The Major flotation damage represents actual holes in the hull. The Minor flotation damage represents the fact that part of the ship is now filled with sea water and will need to be pumped out. If you get rid of all the Minor damage, you can assume that the water has been pumped out and the holes "patched". That's not a guarantee of safety (there is a small chance that patches will leak or fail and Minor flotation damage will accrue again once a ship that still has Major flotation damage is underway) but I would feel confident getting a ship with no Minor flotation damage from PH to the West Coast at Cruise speed as long as its Major flotation damage was not extremely high.

bobogoboom -> RE: Tree v Yammy - The Allied Perspective (5/26/2009 6:16:33 PM)
cool thanks guys. plus it makes sense from a historical perspective. temporary repairs sometimes failed.

Walloc -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 7:29:13 PM)
Having followed the "debates" over the PH strikes in the recent AARs and the "rebuttles"/explanation from the AE team and Erik Rutins. I looked at bit at the numbers behind the PH strikes given in these PARTICULAR AARs from these PH strikes. Im very well aware these ARENT representive, just trying to explain why these strikes seem to turn out the way the do. Maybe, underlining maybe some thing can be learned from that and if deemed so, up for possible tweeking in post-patches. First off, im not here to yell broken or the opposite. As shown in multiple threads by AE team members and Erik R the sunken BBs vary quite when making a sample data by doing PH strikes multiple times. What isnt reported by the AE members and Erik is the number of hits on other ships than BBs in their test samples. Why that could be importand, hopefully will be obvious later on. My figurs are exclusivly drawn from the data in the AAR on day 1 in Tree's first post in this thread. I assume(could be wrong) even with FoW on, semi confirmed from the later post showing whats left in PH after the strike, that the number of hits and on in the AAR is fairly accurate if not 100% so. Port attacking: Kates 85, number of torpedo hits: 75 = 88,2%, number of different ships hit: 33 Vals 76, number of bomb hits: 71=94.67%, number of diffirent ships hit: 34 Assuming that the torpedoes have a dud rate of maybe(underlining his is purely speculation on my part) around 10%. Taken from WiTP numbers. That leaves the port attacking planes both torpedo and bombers with a hit ratio of around 95%. If u remove the planes shot down, but i got no way of telling if it happens pre or post release of bombs/torpedoes u cound hit near 100% hit marks. Even considering that PH was a suprise attack having a 95%(possibly 95%+) hit rate is very very very impressive. My point being having that kinda hit rate in a unopposed training excercise would be IMO some what more than expected. U'd be hard pressed to ever see such numbers. Not only that. There seem to be no "overkills". No planes attacking alrdy sinking/sunk ships. As soon as one ship is down all the other pilots seem to know to attack other targets. Seen by the IMO high number of different ships hit. This seems a picture perfect strike. A text book strike, with nothing i mean nothing going wrong at all. Near 100% hits, near 100% awareness by the pilots. While the historical strike was an utter supprise atleased the historical 1st strike there was some flak, some friction. Obviously things didnt go 100% and question is if they ever can. That it could go to 100% seems IMO an impossibilty. Some things always goes just a bit wrong. I mean I couldnt set up a better strike than the above. Every thing goes very very nearly a 100% per plan or even better. U cant really better the "plan". I know this is a game with alot of abstractations and i dont AT ALL mind different results. I welcome it. Non the less the possibility of such a perfect strike. This suggests to me that possibly if deemed needed to tweek PH strikes. That looking in the the math model behind hits ratio, number of ships attack(pilot awareness) there is possibly room for a change. Or maybe(i dont know the code obviously) rather how the supprise bonus are applied. Maybe there should be more randomness making picture perfect strikes like this, impossble. NOT that they always or even near that, happens, as ably shown in number of BBs sunk in the test examples given by the AE team and Erik R. I still hold out a final "judgement" in that in the test samples given by AE team members and Erik R i/we got no info on total number of hits, number of ships attacked(pilot awareness) and so on. So u cant necesarrily generalize from this. It just seems to me that the math model behind the scene in this instance of the game. Possibly/ in some cases lacks showing friction and that again if deemed wanted, a possible avenue of approche in tweeking PH strikes. Kind regards, Rasmus

treespider -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 7:49:08 PM)
In regards to the Pearl Harbor strike ... just remember there is one important variable that has been overlooked by many of you. I will now try to explain that variable... About 40 years ago on the summer solstice at approximately 10:38 am EST the stars were arranged in such a fashion in the universe as to cause a radiological altering of my DNA sequencing. This unfortunately is not an uncommon event and many of you (not all but many) have also been so affected. The side effect of this alteration has been to impart a negative influence on random numbers generated in connection with my existence. On rare insistences when the stars in the universe achieve various different alignments this side affect can be mitigated.

treespider -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 7:52:34 PM)
Received a note from Yammy late yesterday...evidently the last turn I sent him has caused him to chip a tooth. He has been in extreme pain ever since and has not been able to work on the turn...perhaps this evening after dental treatment we will be able to resume our programming.

Walloc -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 7:54:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider In regards to the Pearl Harbor strike ... just remember there is one important variable that has been overlooked by many of you. I will now try to explain that variable... About 40 years ago on the summer solstice at approximately 10:38 am EST the stars were arranged in such a fashion in the universe as to cause a radiological altering of my DNA sequencing. This unfortunately is not an uncommon event and many of you (not all but many) have also been so affected. The side effect of this alteration has been to impart a negative influence on random numbers generated in connection with my existence. On rare insistences when the stars in the universe achieve various different alignments this side affect can be mitigated. Sounds u are about to hit the jackpot soon. Karma is with you! Start playing [;)] Kind regards, Rasmus P.S My above post is intended purely as a tool for learning if needed/wanted, by pointing out things that IMO, taken into account of the statiscal uncertainty are hard pressed to explain/make happen. Even accounting for the aligment of stars and ect [:D] I tried hard to point out u cant necesarily generalize, but u can learn about this particular instance. Question is IMO, if such a thing is wanted as a possibilty. P.P.S Whether is this some thing to act on or not. Or possibly alrdy have been discussed and made a decision on is ofc not some thing im privy too nor in the decision making loop on.

herwin -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 8:16:41 PM)
Unbelievable performance given what I remember about pre-war proving ground figures. 1. The best USN dive bombing performance against non-manoeuvring passive targets in peacetime was about 67% hits. 2. Half the US battleships were screened from torpedo attack--hence the use of heavy AP bombs against them. 3. The best USN level bombing performance against non-manoeuvring passive targets in peacetime was about 20-30% hits. This was the reason for the development of dive bombing. 4. The best USN torpedo attack performance against non-manoeuvring passive targets in peacetime was comparable to the level bombing performance. (At 800 yards, the target occupied about 30 degrees if it was stationary, and about 10 degrees if it was moving at 25 knots and had to be led. The pHit for a 10 degree target was about 10%.) The historical performance statistics make good sense for non-manoeuvring surprised (but hardly passive) targets. 90-100% hits are well over the top.

JWE -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 9:17:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin Unbelievable performance given what I remember about pre-war proving ground figures. 1. The best USN dive bombing performance against non-manoeuvring passive targets in peacetime was about 67% hits. 2. Half the US battleships were screened from torpedo attack--hence the use of heavy AP bombs against them. 3. The best USN level bombing performance against non-manoeuvring passive targets in peacetime was about 20-30% hits. This was the reason for the development of dive bombing. 4. The best USN torpedo attack performance against non-manoeuvring passive targets in peacetime was comparable to the level bombing performance. (At 800 yards, the target occupied about 30 degrees if it was stationary, and about 10 degrees if it was moving at 25 knots and had to be led. The pHit for a 10 degree target was about 10%.) The historical performance statistics make good sense for non-manoeuvring surprised (but hardly passive) targets. 90-100% hits are well over the top. Well then, we�ll just defer release until you provide us with a pseudo code specification that implements what you think is appropriate. Since you are so damn smart and are the self anointed professional expert in all these areas, it should be a simple evening�s exercise for you. Otherwise bugger-off. You are damn right I�m pissed. It�s people like you that make some of us feel like it�s just not worth it anymore. Maybe Joe and Erik and others will proceed, but far as I�m concerned, you and others like you can go whine and try to impress everybody else as much as you like. I�m finished.

Terminus -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 9:19:06 PM)
I can't even get mad at herwin any more. He just bores me...[:D]

kfmiller41 -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 9:50:18 PM)
I can only hope the JWE and the rest of the Developers and playtesters don't assume that Herwin speaks for the majority of us who enjoy the game for what it is, which is a damn fun historically based wargame. I have gotten more enjoyment out of this one game than of 100's of others I have bought over the years. I find it insulting to the people who have tried to make the game better to have thier efforts verbally trashed by others who don't have to do the work but can sit back and criticize it because they feel it doesn't perfectly reflect history as it happened. DUH it is a game. If you want history as it happened go read a book and let these fine people finish the project. I know I appreciate all the hard work and effort you all put in to make a fun game even better. Thanks

Nikademus -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 9:55:30 PM)
[:'(] [image]local://upfiles/452/F6926521EEB3404E99AD3ADEDD3A7DE2.jpg[/image]

Terminus -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 9:56:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: miller41 I can only hope the JWE and the rest of the Developers and playtesters don't assume that Herwin speaks for the majority of us who enjoy the game for what it is, which is a damn fun historically based wargame. We know you don't. Back to the AAR.

Erik Rutins -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 10:03:46 PM)
John also does not speak for the whole Dev team and I'm disappointed that chose to vent his frustrations in this way. One of the things that's great about this development team is that we have a lot of dedicated, expert people who have devoted a LOT of their time, experience and expertise to this game. That means they are doers and not salesmen or PR people though and dealing with customers is not everyone's forte. However, we'd rather have the team accessible to you all than not, because frankly we're very proud of what they've accomplished and overall, they can explain it better than anyone else. I have absolutely no problem with these posts, though I really think that people are beating a completely dead horse. Why? Well, you're over-analyzing a few AAR posts. Do you really think that DBs and TBs hit 90+% of the time in AE? How do you the explain the situations in my tests where I had 0 BBs and a total of 3 other ships sunk? The truth is there's a LOT of variability in AE (just as there is in WITP). Also, playing on Hard with the Surprise rules on makes the Japanese quite effective in that first day's strikes. This is a high end result and analyzing it to extrapolate anything other than that it's a high end result is pointless. Let's move on and please stop worrying and jumping to conclusions. A lot of folks with a LOT of knowledge of WWII and realistic results have designed and played AE. Nothing will ever be perfectly realistic, but AE is a lot closer to perfect in that regard than the original WITP, IMHO. Regards, - Erik

IronWarrior -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 10:11:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE quote: ORIGINAL: herwin Unbelievable performance given what I remember about pre-war proving ground figures. 1. The best USN dive bombing performance against non-manoeuvring passive targets in peacetime was about 67% hits. 2. Half the US battleships were screened from torpedo attack--hence the use of heavy AP bombs against them. 3. The best USN level bombing performance against non-manoeuvring passive targets in peacetime was about 20-30% hits. This was the reason for the development of dive bombing. 4. The best USN torpedo attack performance against non-manoeuvring passive targets in peacetime was comparable to the level bombing performance. (At 800 yards, the target occupied about 30 degrees if it was stationary, and about 10 degrees if it was moving at 25 knots and had to be led. The pHit for a 10 degree target was about 10%.) The historical performance statistics make good sense for non-manoeuvring surprised (but hardly passive) targets. 90-100% hits are well over the top. Well then, we�ll just defer release until you provide us with a pseudo code specification that implements what you think is appropriate. Since you are so damn smart and are the self anointed professional expert in all these areas, it should be a simple evening�s exercise for you. Otherwise bugger-off. You are damn right I�m pissed. It�s people like you that make some of us feel like it�s just not worth it anymore. Maybe Joe and Erik and others will proceed, but far as I�m concerned, you and others like you can go whine and try to impress everybody else as much as you like. I�m finished. Wow... unbelievable. Guess I'll go bugger off as well, so much for a guy trying to help out and make some observations. Apparently the devs of this game are above that. I won't support a game with devs of this mindset. Time for me to retreat to devs such as ageod that appreciate efforts from the community. [sm=scared0018.gif] You lot should be thankful to have someone such as herwin who is knowledgeable and takes the time to point these things out. Instead of seeing it as an attempt to improve the game, you seem to take it as some immature slight or bruise to your ego. Shameful.

Erik Rutins -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 10:13:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronWarrior Wow... unbelievable. Guess I'll go bugger off as well, so much for a guy trying to help out and make some observations. Apparently the devs of this game are above that. I won't support a game with devs of this mindset. Time for me to retreat to devs such as ageod that appreciate efforts from the community. [sm=scared0018.gif] You lot should be thankful to have someone such as herwin who is knowledgeable and takes the time to point these things out. Instead of seeing it as an attempt to improve the game, you seem to take it as some immature slight or bruise to your ego. Shameful. Please see my post above, JWE does not speak for the whole team and the team is not comprised of salesmen or PR specialists. Quite a few have thin skins, particularly with regard to this labor of love. I don't condone that type of reply, but you'll hear many different voices from the folks who worked on this game - there are a LOT of people on that team. The official voices of the team as far as what you should consider the policy are me and Joe. Regards, - Erik

Walloc -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 10:15:41 PM)
Erased

Nikademus -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 10:16:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronWarrior You lot should be thankful to have someone such as herwin who is knowledgeable and takes the time to point these things out. There's a difference between being helpful and suggestive and obnoxious and overly critical....and the PH thing has been more beaten to death than my remote-eating pitbull. All involved on the AE team are well aware of the unique conditions of the PH raid. Developers and testers are human beings, same as everyone else. There are limits.

Erik Rutins -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 10:25:28 PM)
Nikademus, I disagree. Herwin is operating based on very limited data from the game and (as with some other members of the public and the dev team) seems to have a tendency to overreact. That does not warrant the response he got from John. All it needed was another "don't extrapolate large conclusions from very small data sets" reminder. If anyone on the team has a problem with this, please feel free to e-mail me and I'll explain in more detail what our forum policies are. Regards, - Erik

Terminus -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 10:28:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: IronWarrior You lot should be thankful to have someone such as herwin who is knowledgeable and takes the time to point these things out. There's a difference between being helpful and suggestive and obnoxious and overly critical....and the PH thing has been more beaten to death than my remote-eating pitbull. All involved on the AE team are well aware of the unique conditions of the PH raid. Developers and testers are human beings, same as everyone else. There are limits. Your pitbull's been beaten to death? It's a ZOMBIE! AAAIIIHHH!!![:D]

sven6345789 -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 10:30:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: IronWarrior You lot should be thankful to have someone such as herwin who is knowledgeable and takes the time to point these things out. There's a difference between being helpful and suggestive and obnoxious and overly critical....and the PH thing has been more beaten to death than my remote-eating pitbull. All involved on the AE team are well aware of the unique conditions of the PH raid. Developers and testers are human beings, same as everyone else. There are limits. yup, goes back to 2004 if i reckon correctly! Oh boy...

herwin -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 10:32:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE quote: ORIGINAL: herwin Unbelievable performance given what I remember about pre-war proving ground figures. 1. The best USN dive bombing performance against non-manoeuvring passive targets in peacetime was about 67% hits. 2. Half the US battleships were screened from torpedo attack--hence the use of heavy AP bombs against them. 3. The best USN level bombing performance against non-manoeuvring passive targets in peacetime was about 20-30% hits. This was the reason for the development of dive bombing. 4. The best USN torpedo attack performance against non-manoeuvring passive targets in peacetime was comparable to the level bombing performance. (At 800 yards, the target occupied about 30 degrees if it was stationary, and about 10 degrees if it was moving at 25 knots and had to be led. The pHit for a 10 degree target was about 10%.) The historical performance statistics make good sense for non-manoeuvring surprised (but hardly passive) targets. 90-100% hits are well over the top. Well then, we�ll just defer release until you provide us with a pseudo code specification that implements what you think is appropriate. Since you are so damn smart and are the self anointed professional expert in all these areas, it should be a simple evening�s exercise for you. Otherwise bugger-off. You are damn right I�m pissed. It�s people like you that make some of us feel like it�s just not worth it anymore. Maybe Joe and Erik and others will proceed, but far as I�m concerned, you and others like you can go whine and try to impress everybody else as much as you like. I�m finished. My apologies. OK, for dive bombing, the problem was not hitting the target lengthwise, but beamwise. Start with a variance for the system performing optimally, and add in variances for the other factors to get a total variance. Calculate the resulting standard deviation. Use a typical beam for the ship category being attacked and assume a normal distribution. Draw a random number and see whether you hit or got a close near miss. Typically, the standard deviation against a moving target was around 150 feet. Against a static target, it was more like 30-50 feet. AA fire introduced some variance since it distracted the pilot. For level bombing, the analysis would be similar, but with a standard deviation at 10,000 feet dominated by systematic effects rather than motion--about 300 feet based on USN figures. For torpedo attacks, the target was a subtended angle, and motion was a bitch. Systematic factors were big--a standard deviation of about 30 degrees, probably because the pilot had to aim the aircraft. The effect of motion (25 knots) was to reduce the subtended angle to about 10 degrees for a capital ship and about 5 degrees for a destroyer. That happened because you had to lead the ship. Dropping distance was about a half mile. I assume the assembled multitude has more accurate figures.

Nikademus -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 10:33:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Your pitbull's been beaten to death? It's a ZOMBIE! AAAIIIHHH!!![:D] As my vet says....."You can't kill a terrier".......not even after she stole my jumbo sized choclate peanut butter cup and ate it all. It just gave her a peculiar series of bowel movements for half a week. [:D]

Erik Rutins -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 10:44:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronWarrior Wow... unbelievable. Guess I'll go bugger off as well, so much for a guy trying to help out and make some observations. Apparently the devs of this game are above that. I won't support a game with devs of this mindset. Time for me to retreat to devs such as ageod that appreciate efforts from the community. I should also point out that this dev team came largely _from_ the community and many have devoted their personal time to this true labor of love. We have supported them, we are proud of them, we could not replace them - they really know their stuff. Keep that in mind. A lot of these folks as a result also have a history with other members of the community, which has at times made the dev-community relationship a bit more interesting than usual. Regards, - Erik

Akos Gergely -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 11:14:00 PM)
Erik, I feel sympathy for you guys, the pressure is really building on you as release approaches. Please hold out for these last few weeks, I know it was a lot of work for you and I really feel sorry for those who criticize the game before it is even released. I'm sure AE will be as perfect as a game on this level can possibly be but obviously the expectations are very high from the crowd. So take a deep breath, and please carry on with the AAR and I truly hope JWE won't quit, he is a very nice guy with a lot of knowledge and would be a shame to see him walking away that close to the finish line.

treespider -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 11:18:20 PM)
Still waiting for the turn from Yammy..but I think this is what lead to the chipped tooth....[:D]. He posted this in the dev forum a couple of days ago. AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 12, 41 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Jolo at 73,88, Range 1,000 Yards Japanese Ships DD Fubuki DD Shinonome DD Usugumo, Shell hits 1 DD Shirakumo DD Isonami DD Shirayuki DD Hatsuyuki Allied Ships MTB 11 MTB 26 MTB 27 Reduced sighting due to 35% moonlight Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 35% moonlight: 2,000 yards Range closes to 3,000 yards... Range closes to 1,000 yards... Doyle W. gains tactical advantage DD Hatsuyuki engages MTB 27 at 1,000 yards DD Shirayuki engages MTB 27 at 1,000 yards DD Hatsuyuki engages MTB 11 at 1,000 yards MTB 11 engages DD Shirakumo at 1,000 yards DD Usugumo engages MTB 27 at 1,000 yards Range increases to 2,000 yards DD Usugumo engages MTB 26 at 2,000 yards MTB 26 engages DD Isonami at 2,000 yards Task forces break off... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Jolo at 73,88, Range 1,000 Yards Japanese Ships DD Fubuki DD Shinonome DD Usugumo DD Shirakumo DD Isonami DD Shirayuki DD Hatsuyuki Allied Ships MTB 11 MTB 26 MTB 27 Reduced sighting due to 35% moonlight Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 35% moonlight: 1,000 yards Range closes to 1,000 yards... DD Isonami engages MTB 27 at 1,000 yards DD Isonami engages MTB 26 at 1,000 yards DD Isonami engages MTB 11 at 1,000 yards DD Shirakumo engages MTB 27 at 1,000 yards DD Fubuki engages MTB 27 at 1,000 yards Range increases to 2,000 yards DD Hatsuyuki engages MTB 27 at 2,000 yards DD Isonami engages MTB 26 at 2,000 yards DD Isonami engages MTB 11 at 2,000 yards DD Shirakumo engages MTB 27 at 2,000 yards DD Shinonome engages MTB 27 at 2,000 yards Doyle W. orders Allied TF to disengage Task forces break off... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Singkawang at 56,88, Range 1,000 Yards Japanese aircraft no flights Japanese aircraft losses No Japanese losses Japanese Ships CL Kashii, Shell hits 23, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk PB Eifuku Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire PB Sozan Maru, Shell hits 16, and is sunk PB Naruto Maru #3 PB Tokotsu Maru, Shell hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage Allied Ships CL Durban, Shell hits 6 DD Vampire DD Electra Reduced sighting due to 35% moonlight Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 35% moonlight: 5,000 yards Range closes to 2,000 yards... Range closes to 1,000 yards... CL Kashii engages CL Durban at 1,000 yards CL Kashii engages DD Electra at 1,000 yards CL Kashii engages DD Vampire at 1,000 yards PB Sozan Maru sunk by CL Durban at 1,000 yards CL Durban engages PB Eifuku Maru at 1,000 yards Cazalet, P.J.L. orders Allied TF to disengage Range increases to 2,000 yards CL Kashii sunk by CL Durban at 2,000 yards CL Durban engages PB Tokotsu Maru at 2,000 yards CL Durban engages PB Naruto Maru #3 at 2,000 yards CL Durban engages PB Eifuku Maru at 2,000 yards Range increases to 8,000 yards CL Durban engages PB Tokotsu Maru at 8,000 yards DD Electra engages PB Tokotsu Maru at 8,000 yards Task forces break off... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Singkawang at 56,88, Range 1,000 Yards Japanese Ships PB Tokotsu Maru, Shell hits 20, and is sunk Allied Ships CL Java DD Van Nes DD Evertsen DD Van Ghent Reduced sighting due to 28% moonlight Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 28% moonlight: 1,000 yards Range closes to 3,000 yards... Range closes to 1,000 yards... van Straelen, Ph.B. crosses the 'T' Range increases to 2,000 yards CL Java engages PB Tokotsu Maru at 2,000 yards DD Evertsen engages PB Tokotsu Maru at 2,000 yards PB Tokotsu Maru sunk by CL Java at 2,000 yards Combat ends with last Japanese ship sunk... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Time Surface Combat, near Pontianak at 55,89, Range 1,000 Yards Japanese Ships PB Eifuku Maru PB Naruto Maru #3, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk Allied Ships PT TM-4 PT TM-5 PT TM-6 PT TM-7 PT TM-8 PT TM-9, Shell hits 1, and is sunk Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions: 7,000 yards Range closes to 12,000 yards... Range closes to 6,000 yards... CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 6,000 yards Range closes to 1,000 yards... Wanamaker U. gains tactical advantage PT TM-6 engages PB Naruto Maru #3 at 1,000 yards Range increases to 2,000 yards PB Naruto Maru #3 engages PT TM-9 at 2,000 yards PT TM-7 engages PB Naruto Maru #3 at 2,000 yards PB Naruto Maru #3 engages PT TM-5 at 2,000 yards PB Naruto Maru #3 engages PT TM-4 at 2,000 yards Range increases to 4,000 yards PB Eifuku Maru engages PT TM-9 at 4,000 yards PT TM-7 engages PB Naruto Maru #3 at 4,000 yards PB Eifuku Maru engages PT TM-6 at 4,000 yards PB Naruto Maru #3 engages PT TM-7 at 4,000 yards PT TM-6 engages PB Naruto Maru #3 at 4,000 yards Range increases to 5,000 yards PT TM-9 sunk by PB Naruto Maru #3 at 5,000 yards PT TM-6 engages PB Naruto Maru #3 at 5,000 yards Range increases to 6,000 yards PT TM-8 engages PB Naruto Maru #3 at 6,000 yards Range closes to 5,000 yards PB Naruto Maru #3 engages PT TM-5 at 5,000 yards PB Naruto Maru #3 sunk by PT TM-8 at 5,000 yards Range closes to 3,000 yards PB Eifuku Maru engages PT TM-8 at 3,000 yards PB Eifuku Maru engages PT TM-6 at 3,000 yards Range closes to 2,000 yards PT TM-8 engages PB Eifuku Maru at 2,000 yards PB Eifuku Maru engages PT TM-7 at 2,000 yards PB Eifuku Maru engages PT TM-5 at 2,000 yards orders Japanese TF to disengage PT TM-7 engages PB Eifuku Maru at 2,000 yards PT TM-6 engages PB Eifuku Maru at 2,000 yards PB Eifuku Maru engages PT TM-8 at 2,000 yards PB Eifuku Maru engages PT TM-7 at 2,000 yards PT TM-4 engages PB Eifuku Maru at 2,000 yards PB Eifuku Maru engages PT TM-8 at 2,000 yards PB Eifuku Maru engages PT TM-7 at 2,000 yards PT TM-8 engages PB Eifuku Maru at 2,000 yards Range increases to 6,000 yards Range increases to 10,000 yards Range increases to 16,000 yards Task forces break off... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Time Surface Combat, near Singkawang at 56,88, Range 18,000 Yards Japanese Ships xAK Hokko Maru, Shell hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage xAK Zinzan Maru, Shell hits 7, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage xAK Kinkasan Maru, Shell hits 26, and is sunk xAK Giyu Maru, Shell hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage xAKL Hakka Maru, Shell hits 8, and is sunk xAKL Haguro Maru, Shell hits 11, and is sunk xAKL Kembu Maru, Shell hits 7, heavy fires, heavy damage xAKL Kiko Maru, Shell hits 7, heavy fires, heavy damage xAKL Kaika Maru, Shell hits 8, and is sunk xAKL Kaishi Maru, Shell hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage xAKL Anbo Maru, Shell hits 1 Allied Ships CL Java DD Van Nes DD Evertsen DD Van Ghent Japanese ground losses: 2444 casualties reported Squads: 41 destroyed, 54 disabled Non Combat: 59 destroyed, 89 disabled Engineers: 3 destroyed, 12 disabled Guns lost 16 (6 destroyed, 10 disabled) Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions: 28,000 yards Range closes to 18,000 yards... CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 18,000 yards CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 18,000 yards CL Java engages xAK Kinkasan Maru at 18,000 yards DD Van Nes engages xAK Kinkasan Maru at 18,000 yards CL Java engages xAK Kinkasan Maru at 18,000 yards DD Van Nes engages xAK Kinkasan Maru at 18,000 yards DD Evertsen engages xAKL Kaika Maru at 18,000 yards DD Evertsen engages xAKL Kembu Maru at 18,000 yards DD Evertsen engages xAKL Hakka Maru at 18,000 yards Range closes to 15,000 yards DD Van Ghent engages xAK Kinkasan Maru at 15,000 yards CL Java engages xAK Hokko Maru at 15,000 yards CL Java engages xAKL Kaika Maru at 15,000 yards DD Evertsen engages xAKL Kiko Maru at 15,000 yards DD Van Nes engages xAKL Hakka Maru at 15,000 yards Range closes to 14,000 yards CL Java engages xAK Kinkasan Maru at 14,000 yards CL Java engages xAK Kinkasan Maru at 14,000 yards DD Van Nes engages xAK Kinkasan Maru at 14,000 yards DD Van Nes engages xAKL Kaishi Maru at 14,000 yards Range closes to 12,000 yards DD Evertsen engages xAK Giyu Maru at 12,000 yards DD Van Ghent engages xAK Kinkasan Maru at 12,000 yards DD Evertsen engages xAK Kinkasan Maru at 12,000 yards DD Evertsen engages xAK Hokko Maru at 12,000 yards DD Evertsen engages xAKL Kaishi Maru at 12,000 yards DD Van Nes engages xAKL Kaika Maru at 12,000 yards DD Evertsen engages xAKL Kiko Maru at 12,000 yards DD Van Nes engages xAKL Kembu Maru at 12,000 yards DD Evertsen engages xAKL Haguro Maru at 12,000 yards DD Van Nes engages xAKL Hakka Maru at 12,000 yards Range closes to 9,000 yards CL Java engages xAK Kinkasan Maru at 9,000 yards DD Van Ghent engages xAK Kinkasan Maru at 9,000 yards DD Evertsen engages xAK Zinzan Maru at 9,000 yards DD Van Nes engages xAK Kinkasan Maru at 9,000 yards DD Evertsen engages xAKL Haguro Maru at 9,000 yards DD Van Ghent engages xAKL Hakka Maru at 9,000 yards CL Java engages xAK Kinkasan Maru at 9,000 yards DD Van Ghent engages xAK Kinkasan Maru at 9,000 yards DD Evertsen engages xAK Kinkasan Maru at 9,000 yards DD Van Nes engages xAK Hokko Maru at 9,000 yards DD Van Nes engages xAKL Kiko Maru at 9,000 yards DD Van Ghent engages xAKL Haguro Maru at 9,000 yards DD Evertsen engages xAKL Hakka Maru at 9,000 yards DD Van Ghent engages xAK Kinkasan Maru at 9,000 yards DD Evertsen engages xAK Zinzan Maru at 9,000 yards DD Van Nes engages xAK Kinkasan Maru at 9,000 yards DD Van Ghent engages xAKL Kaika Maru at 9,000 yards DD Van Ghent engages xAKL Kiko Maru at 9,000 yards DD Van Nes engages xAKL Kembu Maru at 9,000 yards DD Van Nes engages xAKL Haguro Maru at 9,000 yards xAKL Hakka Maru sunk by DD Van Ghent at 9,000 yards Range closes to 8,000 yards DD Van Ghent engages xAK Giyu Maru at 8,000 yards DD Van Ghent engages xAK Kinkasan Maru at 8,000 yards DD Evertsen engages xAK Zinzan Maru at 8,000 yards CL Java engages xAK Hokko Maru at 8,000 yards DD Van Ghent engages xAKL Anbo Maru at 8,000 yards CL Java engages xAKL Kaishi Maru at 8,000 yards DD Evertsen engages xAKL Kaika Maru at 8,000 yards DD Van Nes engages xAKL Kembu Maru at 8,000 yards DD Evertsen engages xAKL Haguro Maru at 8,000 yards Range increases to 9,000 yards CL Java engages xAK Giyu Maru at 9,000 yards DD Van Ghent engages xAK Kinkasan Maru at 9,000 yards DD Evertsen engages xAK Zinzan Maru at 9,000 yards DD Van Nes engages xAK Kinkasan Maru at 9,000 yards DD Van Ghent engages xAKL Anbo Maru at 9,000 yards DD Van Nes engages xAKL Kiko Maru at 9,000 yards DD Van Nes engages xAKL Kembu Maru at 9,000 yards van Straelen, Ph.B. orders Allied TF to disengage Range increases to 10,000 yards CL Java engages xAK Kinkasan Maru at 10,000 yards DD Van Nes engages xAK Kinkasan Maru at 10,000 yards xAK Kinkasan Maru sunk by DD Evertsen at 10,000 yards DD Evertsen engages xAKL Anbo Maru at 10,000 yards DD Van Nes engages xAKL Kaishi Maru at 10,000 yards xAKL Kaika Maru sunk by CL Java at 10,000 yards Range increases to 14,000 yards DD Van Ghent engages xAK Zinzan Maru at 14,000 yards DD Van Nes engages xAK Hokko Maru at 14,000 yards DD Van Ghent engages xAKL Anbo Maru at 14,000 yards xAKL Haguro Maru sunk by DD Van Nes at 14,000 yards Range increases to 18,000 yards CL Java engages xAK Giyu Maru at 18,000 yards DD Van Ghent engages xAK Zinzan Maru at 18,000 yards DD Evertsen engages xAKL Kiko Maru at 18,000 yards DD Evertsen engages xAKL Kembu Maru at 18,000 yards Task forces break off... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Time Surface Combat, near Singkawang at 56,88, Range 20,000 Yards Japanese Ships xAK Hokko Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage xAK Zinzan Maru, Shell hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage xAK Giyu Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage xAKL Kembu Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage xAKL Kiko Maru, Shell hits 1, and is sunk xAKL Kaishi Maru, Shell hits 3, and is sunk xAKL Anbo Maru Allied Ships CL Durban DD Vampire DD Electra Japanese ground losses: 53 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 1 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled) Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions: 30,000 yards Range closes to 18,000 yards... CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 18,000 yards Japanese TF attempts to evade combat Range increases to 19,000 yards... CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 19,000 yards Range increases to 20,000 yards... CL Durban engages xAK Zinzan Maru at 20,000 yards xAKL Kaishi Maru sunk by CL Durban at 20,000 yards CL Durban engages xAKL Kiko Maru at 20,000 yards Task forces break off... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Time Surface Combat, near Pontianak at 55,89, Range 1,000 Yards Japanese Ships PB Eifuku Maru, Shell hits 2 Allied Ships PT TM-4 PT TM-5 PT TM-6 PT TM-7 PT TM-8 Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions: 3,000 yards Range closes to 2,000 yards... Range closes to 1,000 yards... PB Eifuku Maru engages PT TM-8 at 1,000 yards Range increases to 2,000 yards PB Eifuku Maru engages PT TM-8 at 2,000 yards Range increases to 3,000 yards Range increases to 4,000 yards Range closes to 2,000 yards PT TM-8 engages PB Eifuku Maru at 2,000 yards PT TM-5 engages PB Eifuku Maru at 2,000 yards Range increases to 3,000 yards Range closes to 2,000 yards PT TM-7 engages PB Eifuku Maru at 2,000 yards PB Eifuku Maru engages PT TM-4 at 2,000 yards Task forces break off... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Time Surface Combat, near Singkawang at 56,88, Range 20,000 Yards Japanese Ships xAK Hokko Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage xAK Zinzan Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage xAK Giyu Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage xAKL Kembu Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage xAKL Anbo Maru Allied Ships CL Durban DD Vampire DD Electra Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions: 29,000 yards CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 20,000 yards Allied TF attempts to evade combat Range increases to 20,000 yards... Both Task Forces evade combat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Time Surface Combat, near Singkawang at 56,88, Range 20,000 Yards Japanese Ships xAK Mikasa Maru xAK Aso Maru PB Nako Maru #2 Allied Ships CL Durban DD Vampire DD Electra Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions: 28,000 yards Range closes to 19,000 yards... CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 19,000 yards Allied TF attempts to evade combat Range increases to 20,000 yards... Both Task Forces evade combat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Time Surface Combat, near Singkawang at 56,88, Range 20,000 Yards Japanese Ships xAK Hokko Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage xAK Zinzan Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage xAK Giyu Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage xAKL Kembu Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage xAKL Anbo Maru Allied Ships CL Durban DD Vampire DD Electra Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions: 24,000 yards Range closes to 19,000 yards... Range closes to 17,000 yards... Range increases to 18,000 yards... Range closes to 15,000 yards... Range closes to 14,000 yards... CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 14,000 yards Allied TF attempts to evade combat Range increases to 19,000 yards... CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 19,000 yards Range increases to 20,000 yards... Both Task Forces evade combat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Time Surface Combat, near Singkawang at 56,88, Range 20,000 Yards Japanese Ships xAK Hokko Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage xAK Zinzan Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage xAK Giyu Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage xAKL Kembu Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage xAKL Anbo Maru Allied Ships CL Durban DD Vampire DD Electra Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions: 25,000 yards Range increases to 20,000 yards... Both Task Forces evade combat

treespider -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 11:19:22 PM)
I think Durban ran out of ammo...

ny59giants -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 11:27:56 PM)
Too many transports, not enough escorts. [:D] More evidence of the increased FOW working better.

kfmiller41 -> RE: Tree v Yammy / my take on the PH "debate" (5/26/2009 11:52:21 PM)
ouch[X(]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

8.671875