Surface combat bias ? (Full Version)

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



Message

hellfirejet -> Surface combat bias ? (8/7/2009 5:39:48 PM)

I have been watching the AI V AI, and the surface combat more than anything is heavily biased in the USA's favour,the final straw for me was watching 1 CL, beat the crap out of a 1 BB, 1 CA and 2 DD's,they competed in 3 battles between them 2 at night, and 1 during the day at 20,000 yd's + the USA Light Cruiser Boise must have laser guided weapons, because she hit with nearly every broadside, while the Japanese ships crews must all be blind folded.I'm now going into the editor to see if I can track the cause of this. Because if I was the Japanese emperor,I would have every sailor in this Task force shot for incompetance.[:(]



Yamato hugger -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/7/2009 6:34:41 PM)

That was one of the issues I raised time and again. Never once even came close to breaking even with the Japs with even forces in surface combats in 1941. Hell I caught the Houston, 2 CLs and a bunch of DDs with the Kongo and company and hardly scratched them. But they did actually turn around (one of the few times an allied SCG was turned back).



TheOx -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/7/2009 6:40:04 PM)

Weird, I'm seeing this as well. The IJN forces have been getting the short end of the stick with me as well. Not sure why, I had chalked it up to dumb luck, but if others are seeing it perhaps it needs to be addressed.



John Lansford -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/7/2009 7:12:46 PM)

I've only had one surface battle between true SWTF's, early on when ABDA was at full strength and they ran into a BB TF with Mutsu and Ise in it.  I figured I'd lose half the force, instead the two BB's took multiple hits and lost an escorting DD, while I had Houston take serious damage and about half a dozen other ships take moderate damage.  All managed to get out of combat and retired safely; had my ships still had torpedoes instead of firing them all off at merchant ships that same turn, the carnage for the IJN would have probably been worse.  None of my ships were hit by LL torpedoes either even though there were at least two CA's that had them.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/7/2009 7:25:52 PM)

First, surface combat is being watched and evaluated as part of our post-release look at the game as a whole for the first and second updates. Second, we did do extensive testing on this pre-release and the overall result was that the Japanese did not have as much of an advantage as in WITP, but they were certainly not ineffective. The variable nature of combat means that just about anything can happen and you need to run a LOT of tests (i.e. 50-100) to really see what the pattern is.



Speedy Gonzales -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/7/2009 7:58:43 PM)

I had Houston, Boise and a few destroyers run into a japanese TF consisting of 2 BB's. some CL's and some destroyers. Houston and all but one destroyers are gone. I landed a few hits on the BB's but nothing serious. Boise got moderately damaged and ran, unfortunately north towards the Phillippines which means I have to sail here right through the japanes fleet to get her back to safety.

So if there is a bias, I did not profit from it [:D]



TheOx -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/7/2009 8:15:00 PM)

Ok, good enough for me. Must just be my roll of the dice then.



dclaw -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/7/2009 8:43:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy Gonzales

So if there is a bias, I did not profit from it [:D]


Me neither. Playing as the allies against the AI a couple days ago, I sent a taskforce composed of the Houston along with 2 CLs and 6 DDs at a suspected Japenese landing force in the eastern PI. Ran into a Japenese SCTF composed of 2 CLs and about 4 DDs (memory is a little hazy on that detail). I was pretty excited, thinking that I'd have a good shot given my superiority in tonnage and weight of shell. I ended up losing the Houston and 3 or 4 DDs and taking serious damage to one of the CLs. Japenese toll? 2 DDs sunk and some miscellaneous hits on the CLs.

For whatever it's worth, it wasn't the Japenese gunnery that caused the most havoc, but their darned LL torps. I think I'd almost rather face battleship guns than those things.



jwilkerson -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/7/2009 9:25:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

That was one of the issues I raised time and again. Never once even came close to breaking even with the Japs with even forces in surface combats in 1941. Hell I caught the Houston, 2 CLs and a bunch of DDs with the Kongo and company and hardly scratched them. But they did actually turn around (one of the few times an allied SCG was turned back).


Before GOLD I went back and did some regression testing - and compared stock WITP results to AE results - I was surprised in that the results were more similar than I expected - this was one reason we released with what we had. In other words there is a bit of a "bias" in WITP also.

In digging around as to why - one reason that is standing out is the US 5"/38 which has an accuracy of 200 versus a similar Japanese weapon the 5"/50 3YT with accuracy 80. These WITP stock numbers are replicated in AE. Evening out these accuracies seems to go a long way towards redressing the "bias" for both WITP and AE. Can't this this is the only issue but in testing it seems to be the first one that makes a significant difference.

One thing that does NOT seem to impact surface combat much in either stock WITP or AE is the crew experience - I've tried adjusting that up and down - and within any rational range of experience difference there is little to no impact. Experience would NOT be a "high leverage" factor for Naval Combat (unlike Air Combat - where experience is a key factor).




Miller -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/7/2009 10:21:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

That was one of the issues I raised time and again. Never once even came close to breaking even with the Japs with even forces in surface combats in 1941. Hell I caught the Houston, 2 CLs and a bunch of DDs with the Kongo and company and hardly scratched them. But they did actually turn around (one of the few times an allied SCG was turned back).


Your issue was very valid. Should have been looked at more pre-release[:-]



John Lansford -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/7/2009 11:53:56 PM)

I've sunk three CA's for the loss of 1 CA and two CL's so far in the first month of battle.  However, all three of my cruisers were lost due to air attack, not surface battles.  I've had two DD's sunk by torpedo hits and three others from gunfire, and numerous ships damaged, but IMO the IJN had a great advantage over the Allies in 1942 surface battles, especially at night.  They trained for it, their ships were optimized for it, and so were their weapons.  The Allies were disorganized and while individual ships fought heroically, they were in general outclassed by the Japanese until better training and weapons arrived later in 1942.



GB68 -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/8/2009 12:29:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

but IMO the IJN had a great advantage over the Allies in 1942 surface battles, especially at night.  They trained for it, their ships were optimized for it, and so were their weapons.  The Allies were disorganized and while individual ships fought heroically, they were in general outclassed by the Japanese until better training and weapons arrived later in 1942.


This is my understanding of the historical outcomes early in the war also. But it does not seem to be reflected in AE. Especially in night time Surface Combat.

quote:

In digging around as to why - one reason that is standing out is the US 5"/38 which has an accuracy of 200 versus a similar Japanese weapon the 5"/50 3YT with accuracy 80. These WITP stock numbers are replicated in AE. Evening out these accuracies seems to go a long way towards redressing the "bias" for both WITP and AE. Can't this this is the only issue but in testing it seems to be the first one that makes a significant difference.



I've come across this anomaly in perusing the editor also. I do believe the allied weapon control systems , historically, were superior. But the huge difference in accuracies of the weapons is unrealistic and does seem to affect combat results significantly. Perhaps one of the AE team could explain how these numbers were concluded.




Erik Rutins -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/8/2009 12:45:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller
Your issue was very valid. Should have been looked at more pre-release[:-]


Did you read what Joe and I wrote as well?



PaxMondo -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/8/2009 2:56:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GB68


...

I've come across this anomaly in perusing the editor also. I do believe the allied weapon control systems , historically, were superior. But the huge difference in accuracies of the weapons is unrealistic and does seem to affect combat results significantly. Perhaps one of the AE team could explain how these numbers were concluded.




The significant advantage was the IJN spotting was much better at night. This isn't genetic or anything, simply training. As oft stated, IJN were trained for night combat in realistic conditions. Through Oct 42, the IJN should enjoy really good 1st/2nd round salvos before a coordinated response from the Allies. Read up on even the USN accounts of the actions off Guadacanal in Aug-Oct 42, tells the same tale. The IJN had LL torps in the water and within hitting range B4 the USN was aware they were under fire. Training.

Since this is experience, it would suggest that since the current experience effect is negligible that the model might need a tweak to get this a bit more realistic.

Then, when the USN gets radar, this really negates this surprise and the gun accuracy take over. Surface Actions in early '43 had dramatically different results. USN was trained up AND radar really removed the surprise.

Just my thoughts ...



Mynok -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/8/2009 3:01:57 AM)


Yeah, it seems a bit unfortunate that the Japanese training advantage is nullified for the most part.

Did some interesting playing with the Guadalcanal scenario. Put together the CAs and set them up for a fast night run-in to contest the invasion, with retirement set, expecting them to zoom in, do some combat and zoom back out to avoid air attacks. What actually happened is they got surprised by two different cruiser TFs, then retreated SOUTH?!?! [X(] [X(]

Needless to say, they were destroyed by the carrier planes. Time to rethink surface combat tactics as Japanese for sure.




DivePac88 -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/8/2009 3:34:58 AM)

In 3 naval engagements in the Sulu Sea and Celebes Sea areas, against the AI playing as the Allies in December 1941 (grand campaign). I have lost 1x CA, 1x CL, 3x DD, and have had 1xCL (Boise), and 2x DD badly damaged. For these losses I have sunk 1x CVL, 1xCA, 2x DD, 1x PB, 7x xAKs, and also damaged 1x CL, 1x CS, 2x DD, 5+ xAKs.

These 3 actions all had a realistic feel about them, and being at night all seemed to give the advantage to the side that had the first sighting. But one really realistic factor that I’ve noticed is that the major damage inflected on Allied ships was by torpedoes, where as the major damage to Japanese ships was from Gunfire (apart from the CVL).



tigercub -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/8/2009 4:14:46 AM)

I will keep waiting before i starting my Grand Campaign.

Tiger!



Puhis -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/8/2009 11:51:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

Did some interesting playing with the Guadalcanal scenario. Put together the CAs and set them up for a fast night run-in to contest the invasion, with retirement set, expecting them to zoom in, do some combat and zoom back out to avoid air attacks. What actually happened is they got surprised by two different cruiser TFs, then retreated SOUTH?!?! [X(] [X(]

Needless to say, they were destroyed by the carrier planes. Time to rethink surface combat tactics as Japanese for sure.




I've run that about ten times now, and results are like you said. Usually japanese cruisers are surprised, and are hammered by the allies. It seems that japanese ships don't know how to use those guns or torpedoes. And that retreating does not work. Sometimes japanese ships just don't retreat at all, or they retreat a few hexes south and US CV planes destroy them. Yesterday I tried to run fast transport TF of 2 CLs to Tassafaronga. There was allied TF (2 AKs and 2 DD) unloading troops, so my TF retreated to Tulagi(??), which is US base now...

So please, can somebody tell me how the retreating works, or does it work at all?



Sardaukar -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/8/2009 11:58:57 AM)

I think early war Allied radar is too overpowered, in sense that Allied TFs get way too many surprise attacks during the night, especially US ships.



BeastieDog -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/8/2009 12:25:36 PM)

I could rarely replicate the early historical Japanese success in surface combat in WitP. I learned to use the Betty-Nell standoff weapons and the KB for my offensive punch and the surface fleet for bombardment. I haven't got that far in AE ( still studying turn 1).



John Lansford -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/8/2009 1:28:03 PM)

I've noticed that retreating TF's, if they've still got some move capability left, often react right back into the same combat.  I've got PT boats at Tawi Tawi that I send to Jolo to hit the transport TF's based there; when they retreat they retreat EAST, then move right back into Jolo, often meet the same TF, retreat back EAST, and end up with all their movement gone and at least 3 hexes from Tawi Tawi.  I've seen this happen with larger ships as well.  It's as if whatever toggle exists for retreating TF's that says 'withdraw towards base' isn't being turned on, and it appears that as long as they've got ammo they'll keep getting into fights even if the ships are already shot up.



wpurdom -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/8/2009 2:58:21 PM)

quote:

In digging around as to why - one reason that is standing out is the US 5"/38 which has an accuracy of 200 versus a similar Japanese weapon the 5"/50 3YT with accuracy 80. These WITP stock numbers are replicated in AE. Evening out these accuracies seems to go a long way towards redressing the "bias" for both WITP and AE. Can't this this is the only issue but in testing it seems to be the first one that makes a significant difference.

One thing that does NOT seem to impact surface combat much in either stock WITP or AE is the crew experience - I've tried adjusting that up and down - and within any rational range of experience difference there is little to no impact. Experience would NOT be a "high leverage" factor for Naval Combat (unlike Air Combat - where experience is a key factor).


Addressing the accuracy of the weapons is no more important than giving more importance to nighttime experience in nighttime battle. We're missing the "What was that?" "Where am I?" effect of night battle when we don't weight crew experience (TF experience was also very important - but I don't think it's practical to deal with in AE - forces with some training together did lots better, in my impression). If you look at the Med in WWII, I think it's clear that if you exchange crews and co's, the Italians beat the Brits. Similarly for the experience in the Pacific up until 1943 - experience makes a huge difference.

Spotting wasn't the only factor. Before 1943, the Japs did much better in reacting after they were surprised. They had experience and doctrine, got off torpedoes, manuevered, reloaded and reorganized quickly.

Proposal - for nightime fighting only, in addition to the other effects of experience, try making nightime experience a multiple on the accuracy of both gunfire and torpedoes - so if a crew has a 40 nightime rating their accuracy is reduced by 60%.

Here is a summary of Morrison's accounts of the surface naval battles in the Dutch Indies - lots of confusion and inaccuracy!

Battle of Balikpapan - 4 US DD’s surprise 12 Japanese transports at anchor. They apparently evade a distinct pciket DD. The close in ASW cover is 3 PC’s and 1 AM. The US ships with an uninterrupted opportunity to enter the middle of the Japanese formation and fire all their torpedoes sink 3 transports and a PC with torpedoes with no substantial damage done with gunfire. A Netherlands sub sinks another transport. The Japanese DD covering force heads out into the Gulf to look for subs rather than closing with the transports to protect them.
Badung Strait - 1st phase De Ruyter, Java, 5 Dutch DD’s and 2 US DD’s attack 2 Jap DD’s and a transport. Dutch DD runs aground. A Jap DD and Dutch CL exchange gunfire at point-blank ground with no hits. Transport hit by torpedoes and gunfire and a Dutch DD is sunk by torpedoes. Ineffective exchange of gunfire between DD’s followed by Jap DD’s attacking each other.
2nd phase Tromp and 4 US DD’s attack, DD Stewart hit by gunfire with superficial damage, CL exchanges gunfire with Jap DD’s, one superficial hit on Oshio, several hits on Tromp. 2 reinforcing Jap DD’s arrive and 4 US DD’s attack Michishio with gunfire leaving it dead in the water with 96 casualties - it survives.
Java (daytime) Nachi, Haguro, Jintsu & 7 DD’s v. Houston, Exeter, Java, De Ruyter, Perth, 5 US, 3 Br. and 3 Dutch DD’s - long range gunfire (more than an hour) and long-range torpedo launches until Exeter takes a critical hit which cuts her speed in half and breaks up the column - results in Dutch DD being sunk by a long-range torpedo spread. Close in fighting among lighter ships follows as Allied heavies break off and Brit DD is sunk by gunfire.
(Nightime) close-in exchange of gunfire results in sinking of two Dutch CL’s with no damage to Jap fleet, British DD sunk by torpedo or mine before general action.



DrewMatrix -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/8/2009 8:14:12 PM)

Here is my most recent surface battle (ie not chosen for any reason other than it occured this turn):

Day Time Surface Combat, near Manado at 77,100 (Allied TF was on react. mid ocean, daytime), Range 20,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
     BB Yamashiro, Shell hits 14
     CL Yubari
     DD Mutsuki, Shell hits 4,  heavy fires
     DD Kisaragi, Shell hits 12,  heavy fires,  heavy damage
Results
................Sy-Fl-En-FI
Yamashiro...04-02-02-02 Shell hits 14
Yubari........00-00-00-00
Mutsuki......44-38-18-04 Shell hits 4,  heavy fires
Kisaragi......Sunk  heavy fires,  heavy damage


Allied Ships
     CL De Ruyter, Shell hits 11,  heavy fires,  heavy damage
     CL Tromp, Shell hits 2
     DD Alden, Shell hits 1
     DD Edsall
     DD John D. Edwards
     DD Whipple, Shell hits 2, and is sunk
     DD Banckert
     DD Witte de With, Shell hits 2,  heavy fires
     DD Kortenaer
     DD Piet Hein

Results
.................Sy-Fl-En-FI
De Ruyter....63-73-35-99 Shell hits 11,  heavy fires,  heavy damage
Tromp ........03-03-00-00 Shell hits 2
Alden..........04-00-01-00 Shell hits 1
Edsall..........00-00-00-00
JD. Edwards.00-00-00-00
Whipple.......Sunk Shell hits 2
Banckert......00-00-00-00
Wte de With.23-30-27-00 Shell hits 2,  heavy fires
Kortenaer.....00-00-00-00
Piet Hein......00-00-00-00

Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions: 30,000 yards
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 20,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 20,000 yards
Closed to 8,000 yards, then opened to 13,000 then closed again to 9,000 then opened to 20,000 (no more combat) and disengaged. Torpedoes fired but no torp hits
The damage values are taken by opening the autosave after the battle so they are not affected by Fog of War, and they include any preexisting minor damage and any repairs that occurred that turn. De Ruyter looks sure to sink, making the initial odds

IJ BB, CL 2xDD
Al 2xCL 8xDD
and results

IJ lose 1 DD
Al lose 1 CL, 1 DD

That all looks very reasonable to me



jimh009 -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/8/2009 10:18:23 PM)

I didn't have much luck with a surface warfare TF against the Japs BB TF, either...Houston was sunk as was a DD, although the allies did sink a DD and damage a cruiser. Soooo much of surface warfare at nighttime revolves around that "random" thing...it really can go down any which way. If one side or the other gets surprise, the results will likely be very different than expected!



jimh009 -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/8/2009 10:24:21 PM)

quote:

surprised by two different cruiser TFs, then retreated SOUTH?!?!

Needless to say, they were destroyed by the carrier planes. Time to rethink surface combat tactics as Japanese for sure.




I've run that about ten times now, and results are like you said. Usually japanese cruisers are surprised, and are hammered by the allies. It seems that japanese ships don't know how to use those guns or torpedoes. And that retreating does not work. Sometimes japanese ships just don't retreat at all, or they retreat a few hexes south and US CV planes destroy them. Yesterday I tried to run fast transport TF of 2 CLs to Tassafaronga. There was allied TF (2 AKs and 2 DD) unloading troops, so my TF retreated to Tulagi(??), which is US base now...

So please, can somebody tell me how the retreating works, or does it work at all?


This can happen to the allies too, though...it's not just a Jap problem. Several times I've had PT boats and one surface TF retreat the wrong direction...away from their home base.

On the other hand, I try to keep an open mind about this. Is there any surefire guarantee in real life that a surface TF that tries to retreat will always be able to retreat directly toward home? Following a surface fight, the ships could very well be in a completely different orientation than before the fight started...with the "victor" standing between the "vanquished" and the home base of the vanquished. Thus, the vanquished would have to take a detour, perhaps even a wide one, to get away from the victorious task force.

Whether or not this is happening in AE too much, I won't comment. But I certainly can see how this would happen in real life.



EUBanana -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/8/2009 10:26:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jimh009
On the other hand, I try to keep an open mind about this. Is there any surefire guarantee in real life that a surface TF that tries to retreat will always be able to retreat directly toward home? Following a surface fight, the ships could very well be in a completely different orientation than before the fight started...with the "victor" standing between the "vanquished" and the home base of the vanquished.


This more or less happened at Jutland...



AttuWatcher -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/8/2009 10:53:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jimh009
Whether or not this is happening in AE too much, I won't comment. But I certainly can see how this would happen in real life.


Is this actually simulated in AE or figment of imagination?[&:]



Scott_USN -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/9/2009 6:21:04 AM)

I ran this 6 times just to see what would happen and pretty much the same results each time.

The KB just seemed to be in the right spot at the right time so I thought I would see for myself the Doomsday Allied Fleets at work... after 40 mins or so I was a bit bored. Not that I would do this in my game of course, mostly because simple fact is if you don't kill the CV's they will KILL YOU after the surface fight.

But anyway each fight is pretty much the same give or take a hit and I did score a hit on the Akagi 5 times with same results... nothing.

I suppose I should have wiped them out and been drinking tea by noon...


Day Time Surface Combat, near Koggala at 30,52, Range 25,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
     CV Kaga
     CV Shokaku
     CV Zuikaku
     CV Akagi, Shell hits 1
     BB Kongo, Shell hits 3
     BB Haruna, Shell hits 3,  on fire
     CA Chikuma, Shell hits 2
     CA Chokai
     CA Nachi, Shell hits 1
     CL Tama, Shell hits 6,  on fire
     DD Hagikaze
     DD Arashio
     DD Minegumo
     DD Akatsuki
     DD Ikazuchi
     DD Yakaze, Shell hits 1
     DD Tatsukaze, Shell hits 1,  on fire
     DD Kyukaze

Allied Ships
     BB Revenge, Shell hits 6
     BB Royal Sovereign, Shell hits 8
     BB Ramilles, Shell hits 1
     BB Resolution, Shell hits 3,  on fire
     CA Dorsetshire, Shell hits 3,  on fire
     CA Cornwall
     CA Exeter, Shell hits 3,  on fire
     CL Enterprise
     CL Emerald, Shell hits 1
     CL Dauntless, Shell hits 1
     CL Capetown, Shell hits 3
     DD Isaac Sweers, Shell hits 1,  on fire
     DD Tjerk Hiddes
     DD Hotspur, Shell hits 1
     DD Nizam



Reduced visibility due to Rain
Maximum visibility in Rain: 29,000 yards
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 30,000 yards
Range closes to 25,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 25,000 yards
BB Royal Sovereign engages CV Kaga at 25,000 yards
BB Kongo engages BB Royal Sovereign at 25,000 yards
CA Nachi engages CA Exeter at 25,000 yards
BB Royal Sovereign engages DD Tatsukaze at 25,000 yards
BB Royal Sovereign engages DD Minegumo at 25,000 yards
Range closes to 22,000 yards
BB Resolution engages BB Kongo at 22,000 yards
BB Royal Sovereign engages BB Haruna at 22,000 yards
BB Revenge engages BB Haruna at 22,000 yards
BB Haruna engages BB Royal Sovereign at 22,000 yards
BB Kongo engages CA Cornwall at 22,000 yards
CA Dorsetshire engages CA Nachi at 22,000 yards
CA Chokai engages CA Dorsetshire at 22,000 yards
CA Chikuma engages CA Dorsetshire at 22,000 yards
CL Enterprise engages CA Nachi at 22,000 yards
BB Revenge engages DD Arashio at 22,000 yards
Range closes to 18,000 yards
BB Resolution engages BB Haruna at 18,000 yards
BB Ramilles engages CV Zuikaku at 18,000 yards
BB Haruna engages BB Royal Sovereign at 18,000 yards
BB Kongo engages BB Revenge at 18,000 yards
BB Revenge engages BB Haruna at 18,000 yards
BB Kongo engages BB Revenge at 18,000 yards
CA Dorsetshire engages CA Nachi at 18,000 yards
CL Capetown engages CA Nachi at 18,000 yards
CA Chikuma engages CA Dorsetshire at 18,000 yards
CL Dauntless engages DD Yakaze at 18,000 yards
DD Ikazuchi engages BB Royal Sovereign at 18,000 yards
BB Royal Sovereign engages DD Minegumo at 18,000 yards
DD Hagikaze engages DD Nizam at 18,000 yards
Range closes to 16,000 yards
BB Resolution engages BB Kongo at 16,000 yards
BB Ramilles engages CV Zuikaku at 16,000 yards
BB Haruna engages BB Royal Sovereign at 16,000 yards
BB Revenge engages BB Haruna at 16,000 yards
BB Haruna engages CA Exeter at 16,000 yards
CA Chokai engages CA Cornwall at 16,000 yards
CA Nachi engages CL Dauntless at 16,000 yards
CL Capetown engages CL Tama at 16,000 yards
CA Chikuma engages CL Dauntless at 16,000 yards
CL Tama engages CL Emerald at 16,000 yards
CA Nachi engages CL Enterprise at 16,000 yards
DD Tatsukaze engages DD Nizam at 16,000 yards
DD Yakaze engages DD Nizam at 16,000 yards
DD Minegumo engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 16,000 yards
DD Minegumo engages DD Nizam at 16,000 yards
DD Arashio engages DD Nizam at 16,000 yards
DD Hagikaze engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 16,000 yards
Range closes to 13,000 yards
BB Kongo engages BB Resolution at 13,000 yards
BB Revenge engages BB Haruna at 13,000 yards
BB Haruna engages CA Exeter at 13,000 yards
BB Royal Sovereign engages BB Kongo at 13,000 yards
CL Tama engages CA Dorsetshire at 13,000 yards
CA Chikuma engages CL Capetown at 13,000 yards
CA Exeter engages CA Chikuma at 13,000 yards
CL Emerald engages CA Chokai at 13,000 yards
DD Tjerk Hiddes engages DD Kyukaze at 13,000 yards
DD Hagikaze engages DD Hotspur at 13,000 yards
DD Ikazuchi engages DD Nizam at 13,000 yards
DD Akatsuki engages DD Nizam at 13,000 yards
DD Nizam engages DD Minegumo at 13,000 yards
Range closes to 11,000 yards
BB Haruna engages BB Ramilles at 11,000 yards
BB Haruna engages CA Exeter at 11,000 yards
CA Cornwall engages CL Tama at 11,000 yards
CL Emerald engages CA Nachi at 11,000 yards
CA Chikuma engages CL Capetown at 11,000 yards
CA Chikuma engages CL Capetown at 11,000 yards
CA Chikuma engages CL Emerald at 11,000 yards
DD Isaac Sweers engages DD Kyukaze at 11,000 yards
DD Tatsukaze engages DD Nizam at 11,000 yards
DD Akatsuki engages DD Hotspur at 11,000 yards
DD Ikazuchi engages DD Hotspur at 11,000 yards
DD Tjerk Hiddes engages DD Akatsuki at 11,000 yards
DD Nizam engages DD Minegumo at 11,000 yards
Range closes to 8,000 yards
BB Ramilles engages CV Zuikaku at 8,000 yards
BB Kongo engages BB Royal Sovereign at 8,000 yards
BB Kongo engages BB Revenge at 8,000 yards
CA Nachi engages CA Exeter at 8,000 yards
CL Tama engages CA Cornwall at 8,000 yards
CA Dorsetshire engages CA Nachi at 8,000 yards
CL Capetown engages CL Tama at 8,000 yards
CL Tama engages CL Dauntless at 8,000 yards
CL Tama engages CL Capetown at 8,000 yards
CL Tama engages CL Enterprise at 8,000 yards
DD Akatsuki engages DD Nizam at 8,000 yards
DD Yakaze engages DD Nizam at 8,000 yards
DD Ikazuchi engages DD Hotspur at 8,000 yards
DD Isaac Sweers engages DD Hagikaze at 8,000 yards
DD Minegumo engages DD Hotspur at 8,000 yards
DD Tjerk Hiddes engages DD Hagikaze at 8,000 yards
Range increases to 13,000 yards
DD Nizam engages CV Akagi at 13,000 yards
BB Revenge engages CV Zuikaku at 13,000 yards
BB Royal Sovereign engages CV Shokaku at 13,000 yards
BB Resolution engages CV Kaga at 13,000 yards
CA Chikuma engages CA Exeter at 13,000 yards
BB Kongo engages BB Revenge at 13,000 yards
CA Dorsetshire engages CA Chikuma at 13,000 yards
CA Chokai engages CA Dorsetshire at 13,000 yards
CL Dauntless engages CA Chikuma at 13,000 yards
CL Emerald engages CA Chokai at 13,000 yards
CL Tama engages CL Enterprise at 13,000 yards
DD Akatsuki engages DD Nizam at 13,000 yards
DD Yakaze engages DD Hotspur at 13,000 yards
DD Ikazuchi engages DD Nizam at 13,000 yards
DD Nizam engages DD Akatsuki at 13,000 yards
Range increases to 16,000 yards
DD Hotspur engages CV Akagi at 16,000 yards
BB Revenge engages CV Zuikaku at 16,000 yards
BB Kongo engages BB Royal Sovereign at 16,000 yards
BB Kongo engages BB Revenge at 16,000 yards
CA Exeter engages CA Chokai at 16,000 yards
CL Tama engages CA Cornwall at 16,000 yards
CA Nachi engages CA Exeter at 16,000 yards
CA Chokai engages CL Capetown at 16,000 yards
CL Dauntless engages CA Nachi at 16,000 yards
CL Emerald engages CL Tama at 16,000 yards
CA Chikuma engages CL Enterprise at 16,000 yards
DD Nizam engages DD Ikazuchi at 16,000 yards
DD Nizam engages DD Yakaze at 16,000 yards
DD Tjerk Hiddes engages DD Ikazuchi at 16,000 yards
DD Hotspur engages DD Akatsuki at 16,000 yards
DD Minegumo engages DD Nizam at 16,000 yards
Range increases to 20,000 yards
BB Resolution engages BB Haruna at 20,000 yards
CL Dauntless engages CV Zuikaku at 20,000 yards
BB Royal Sovereign engages BB Kongo at 20,000 yards
BB Haruna engages BB Revenge at 20,000 yards
BB Resolution engages BB Haruna at 20,000 yards
BB Revenge engages BB Kongo at 20,000 yards
CL Emerald engages CA Nachi at 20,000 yards
CA Chokai engages CL Capetown at 20,000 yards
CL Dauntless engages CA Nachi at 20,000 yards
CL Emerald engages CA Chikuma at 20,000 yards
CL Enterprise engages CA Chikuma at 20,000 yards
BB Resolution engages DD Yakaze at 20,000 yards
BB Ramilles engages DD Arashio at 20,000 yards
Range increases to 24,000 yards
BB Resolution engages BB Haruna at 24,000 yards
BB Ramilles engages CV Zuikaku at 24,000 yards
BB Resolution engages CV Kaga at 24,000 yards
BB Haruna engages BB Resolution at 24,000 yards
BB Kongo engages CA Cornwall at 24,000 yards
CA Nachi engages CL Enterprise at 24,000 yards
CA Chokai engages CL Enterprise at 24,000 yards
CA Chokai engages CL Dauntless at 24,000 yards
CL Emerald engages CA Nachi at 24,000 yards
CL Enterprise engages DD Kyukaze at 24,000 yards
BB Resolution engages DD Tatsukaze at 24,000 yards
BB Ramilles engages DD Yakaze at 24,000 yards
BB Royal Sovereign engages DD Ikazuchi at 24,000 yards
BB Ramilles engages DD Akatsuki at 24,000 yards
BB Revenge engages DD Arashio at 24,000 yards
Task forces break off...



Scott_USN -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/9/2009 6:30:54 AM)

As for the Air complaints here was my follow up air attack, which is typical. Perhaps some people are just having bad luck or maybe I am having bad luck ? :)


Japanese aircraft
     A6M2 Zero x 58



Allied aircraft
     Blenheim IV x 37
     Hudson IIIa x 6
     Hurricane IIb Trop x 7
     B-17D Fortress x 3


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
     Blenheim IV: 16 destroyed
     Hudson IIIa: 1 damaged
     Hurricane IIb Trop: 2 destroyed
     B-17D Fortress: 3 damaged

Japanese Ships
     CV Kaga
     CA Chokai
     CV Zuikaku
     CV Akagi
     CV Shokaku



Scott_USN -> RE: Surface combat bias ? (8/9/2009 6:31:54 AM)

Here is what happens if you don't kill the CV's right after the surface fight

Morning Air attack on TF, near Koggala at 30,52

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 21,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 45 minutes

Japanese aircraft
     A6M2 Zero x 5
     B5N2 Kate x 24
     D3A1 Val x 3



Japanese aircraft losses
     B5N2 Kate: 2 destroyed, 12 damaged
     D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied Ships
     BB Ramilles, Bomb hits 1
     BB Royal Sovereign, Torpedo hits 5,  on fire,  heavy damage
     CA Dorsetshire, Torpedo hits 2,  heavy fires,  heavy damage
     CL Dauntless
     CL Capetown, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
     BB Resolution,  on fire
     BB Revenge, Torpedo hits 1



Aircraft Attacking:
      3 x D3A1 Val diving from 2000'
              Naval Attack:  1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
     23 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
              Naval Attack:  1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo



And the Afternoon Attack

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Koggala at 30,52

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 160 NM, estimated altitude 21,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 60 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 10
B5N2 Kate x 30
D3A1 Val x 26



Allied aircraft
Sea Hurricane Ib x 8


Japanese aircraft losses
B5N2 Kate: 3 destroyed, 14 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed, 7 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Sea Hurricane Ib: 2 destroyed

Allied Ships
BB Resolution, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
BB Ramilles, Bomb hits 5, Torpedo hits 3, on fire
CA Cornwall
CL Dauntless, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CL Enterprise, Torpedo hits 1
CA Exeter



Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
8 x D3A1 Val diving from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
16 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
18 x D3A1 Val diving from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
9 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo

CAP engaged:
No.880 Sqn FAA with Sea Hurricane Ib (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(8 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 49 minutes

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring BB Ramilles



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.171875