RE: Surface combat in World War II

RE: Surface combat in World War II (Full Version)

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

Message

EUBanana -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/17/2012 2:04:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CT Grognard I believe somebody once posted that with multiple bombardment runs (reloaded by nearby AEs) he saw his early-war US BBs gain about 1 experience point per bombardment, so that they increased from the low 50s to the low 60s. I think this was tested and found not to be true. I was bombarding Rabaul constantly from an AE at Shortlands, their xp didn't go up much if at all, though I wasn't doing it just for experience purposes. And I use surface ships to try and engage the enemy all the time. IMO if a cruiser has never fired its main armament in anger then something is wrong. [:D] You get a couple of points of experience from an engagement but even looking for engagements, there isn't going to be that many sea brawls for an individual ship. quote: And I respectfully submit my premise was not wrong, it was aimed at people who in this very thread still complain about early-war naval combat results. Dunno, most of the most egregiously one sided beatings I received were in mid summer 42 on to 1943, personally. [:D] After all, you're still using 1942 ships but with nerfed radar sets that make no difference. A lot of my perception of the incompetence of the Allied navies is down to reaction though which is not germane to this thread. Carriers running off in all directions to be killed in detail, it happens again and again.

AcePylut -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/17/2012 2:16:24 PM)
Combat is chaos. Witness a few of my comments based on some combat results from a PBEM I had a couple years ago involving Force Z, in early Dec '41: Combat #1: Force Z Sucks. They rode hard into battle today, into Mersing. And promptly managed to get surprised by the Japanese. Cuz you know, the allies had NO IDEA that there were ~10 task forces at Mersing. The Allies had NO IDEA that there were BB's there. :rolleyes: So battle commenced between Force Z and the Japanese Kotu Bharu sctf with it's pair of BB's, and by the time the "surprise" phase was over, the POW was resting on the bottom of the ocean. But fret not... I managed to score FOUR hits on the Japanese Fleet. Yeah!!!!! Four friggin hits, spread out over three ships (none of them BB's). (dayyum I'm ranting like our forum's most famous ranter :D ) Combat Result #2: Night Time Surface Combat, near Miri at 64,86, Range 8,000 Yards Japanese Ships CL Sendai DD Shinonome DD Shirakumo DD Isonami DD Murakumo, Shell hits 2, on fire [:@] Allied Ships [sm=nono.gif] CA Houston, Shell hits 20, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage [sm=sign0063.gif] CL Boise, Shell hits 1 Combat Result #3: The remnants of Force Z surprised a Jap SCTF in 3% moonlight and minimal range... and blasted the Mutsu to the bottom of the ocean, and got away with just a couple of scratches. It has been given orders to retire, as the speed of this assault across the DEI has shown that PH knows what he's doing... and Force Z doesn't have the aircover to survive what can be brought. PH will wipe the DUtch AF off the map in a couple of days when he decides. 3 combats. I don't have any problem with any of them, really. Don't confuse my "oh crap" ranting at losing the POW for actual "game code ranting".

Shark7 -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/17/2012 2:19:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana That said... quote: Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions: 28,000 yards CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 20,000 yards CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 20,000 yards CA Louisville engages PB Nagata Maru at 20,000 yards Range closes to 14,000 yards CA Louisville engages DD Asanagi at 14,000 yards CA Louisville engages DD Asanagi at 14,000 yards Range closes to 12,000 yards CA Louisville engages DD Yunagi at 12,000 yards Range closes to 11,000 yards CA Louisville engages DD Yunagi at 11,000 yards CA Louisville engages DD Asanagi at 11,000 yards Range closes to 10,000 yards CA Louisville engages DD Asanagi at 10,000 yards Range closes to 8,000 yards CA Louisville engages DD Yunagi at 8,000 yards DD Yunagi engages CA Louisville at 8,000 yards CA Louisville engages DD Asanagi at 8,000 yards Range increases to 10,000 yards CA Louisville engages DD Yunagi at 10,000 yards Range closes to 9,000 yards CA Louisville engages DD Yunagi at 9,000 yards CA Louisville engages DD Asanagi at 9,000 yards Range increases to 11,000 yards Range closes to 9,000 yards CA Louisville engages DD Yunagi at 9,000 yards CA Louisville engages DD Asanagi at 9,000 yards Range increases to 10,000 yards CA Louisville engages DD Yunagi at 10,000 yards CA Louisville engages xAK Kamikaze Maru at 10,000 yards CA Louisville engages xAK Tenyo Maru at 10,000 yards Range closes to 8,000 yards xAK Kamikaze Maru screened from combat - escorted by DD Yunagi CA Louisville engages DD Asanagi at 8,000 yards CA Louisville engages xAK Tenyo Maru at 8,000 yards Range increases to 9,000 yards xAK Kamikaze Maru screened from combat CA Louisville engages xAK Tenyo Maru at 9,000 yards Jensen L. orders Allied TF to disengage CA Louisville engages DD Yunagi at 9,000 yards CA Louisville engages DD Asanagi at 9,000 yards CA Louisville engages xAK Kamikaze Maru at 9,000 yards Range increases to 13,000 yards xAK Kamikaze Maru screened from combat - escorted by DD Asanagi CA Louisville engages PB Nagata Maru at 13,000 yards CA Louisville engages xAK Tenyo Maru at 13,000 yards Range increases to 19,000 yards xAK Kamikaze Maru screened from combat - escorted by DD Yunagi CA Louisville engages PB Nagata Maru at 19,000 yards CA Louisville engages xAK Tenyo Maru at 19,000 yards Range increases to 24,000 yards CA Louisville engages DD Asanagi at 24,000 yards Range increases to 29,000 yards CA Louisville engages DD Yunagi at 29,000 yards CA Louisville engages DD Asanagi at 29,000 yards Task forces break off... There weren't all that many shots fired at anything other than a DD in that particular fight. That said (x2). I dislike bringing up caveats like that because there's always a smegging caveat. You can explain just about anything with enough imagination. Allied ships consistently suck. Aside from the USN, Allied commanders are mostly naval 55 mooks who are just going to get sunk, I found it particularly noticeable with British submarines in 44. They got better durability than a Gato yet they get slaughtered, because their commanders are not up to scratch. And experience trumps hardware (not necessarily inaccurately) but experience isn't actually "experience" in the sense that it actually goes up over time. It's effectively a hardcoded, permanent competence rating. In the early part of the war it would be understandable to have your less than stellar ships/commanders in the pacific if you are the Royal Navy. After all, you are heavily engaged in trying to keep U-boats from starving the country of the resources it needs to defend itself. You send your best and brightest to end the U-boat threat in that case. The best thing you can do (and hey us JFBs do it too) is to put the best commanders you can find on your ships. And remember, having a very aggressive commander is not always the best thing, overly agressive commanders take chances they shouldn't.

Shark7 -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/17/2012 2:21:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana Fixed. Ships that arrive in 42 are gonna suck no matter what. Not according to my experience, EU Banana. Rob Brennan slugged it out with Mike a couple of times in mid-late ´42 and dealt noticable damage to the IJN SAGs. As for myself, I traded shots with Mike in the battle of Ontong Java and came out equal in Dec. ´42. Didn´t notice any ´42 ships sucking in battle, USN or RN. Some have bad commanders, yes, but you don´t replace them with better ones at your own peril anyway. It all depends on how well you set up the battle and on your love for details. [;)] shrug mine says otherwise. Yes, you can do some damage, I've seen 'fair exchanges', as in just attritional beating on each other. Not once have I seen Allied ships really lay the smack down though, as Japanese ships sometimes do. Quite often Allied ships barely even open fire, they just sit there getting blasted. As for commanders, aside from Arbuthnot and a couple of others the British don't have any competent ones. I have, as I've been on the recieving end of such a battle. When I get home from work I'll see if I still have the combat report from that turn or not.

castor troy -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/17/2012 2:45:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CT Grognard quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy Like I've said before, I don't have a problem seeing my cruiser being kept off the transports but seeing a cruiser spending 1500 shells on two enemy DD sounds quite a lot of shells, for one hit. Going with this theory, the way to go would have been building DDs only as they can't be hit but have the potential to sink any ship with their torps. I refer you to this line in my original post (Second Battle of Java Sea, 1 March 1942): "During this battle the Japanese expended 2,650 shells and 35 torpedoes to sink three American ships." and that line tells you that those 2650 shells all missed or what and the Allied ships blew up on their own? Read what I wrote, then read what you answer. [&:] Taking your real life example would end up me seeing what I would have expected, the two 1920s DDs are able to defend their convoy but one is sunk and the other one heavily damaged. Ok with me. And as this has come up too, no, I'm not bitching about coding, I'm bitching about the ongoing Jfanboyism saying all Japanese was nerfed in AE. Nerfed? Compared to what? Real life? No comment.

Shark7 -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/17/2012 3:32:30 PM)
Castor, I don't think the point of this thread was to complain about the IJN being nerfed...at least I'm not. The point (as I read it) was to show that much like the real war the early surface combats are decidedly in the IJN's favor. That changed after Guadalcanal. I have no problem with it as it is now, since Allied radar generally does start making a difference in late 1942 as it becomes more widely available.

Miller -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/17/2012 4:04:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote: ORIGINAL: Miller Once Allied radar comes into play then things even out. I havn't really noticed Allied radar doing anything much. Certainly '42/early '43 radar seemed to do nothing at all in my experience. I know radar got nerfed as it was wiping the floor with the IJN in 1942 originally. I've not got much experience of late war Allied radar on battle as the only actions I've seen with such airpower everywhere are destroyer fights. However even in 1944 Allied destroyers seem either the same or marginally less effective than IJN ones. Which is kinda weird in itself as the late war American DDs are very heavily armed. Here is what can happen when the Allies have radar and the Japs don't (gamedate April 43): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Vizagapatnam at 44,42, Range 3,000 Yards Japanese Ships CV Kaga, Shell hits 28, heavy fires, heavy damage CV Akagi, Shell hits 3, on fire BB Nagato, Shell hits 2 BB Mutsu, Shell hits 2, on fire CLAA Tenryu, Shell hits 1 CLAA Tatsuta, Shell hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage DD Isokaze DD Akatsuki DD Hibiki DD Ikazuchi DD Inazuma DD Fubuki, Shell hits 1 DD Shinonome, Shell hits 2, on fire DD Usugumo, Shell hits 1 DD Isonami DD Shirayuki DD Hatsuyuki DD Murakumo, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk Allied Ships BB South Dakota, Shell hits 5, on fire BB Indiana CA Vincennes CL Nashville DD Hull DD Monaghan DD Aylwin DD Pillsbury, Shell hits 1 DD Vendetta, Shell hits 2 DD Talbot, Shell hits 1 DMS Hovey Poor visibility due to Thunderstorms with 39% moonlight Maximum visibility in Thunderstorms and 39% moonlight: 2,000 yards Range closes to 24,000 yards... CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 24,000 yards Range closes to 19,000 yards... Range closes to 14,000 yards... CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 14,000 yards Range closes to 9,000 yards... CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 9,000 yards Range closes to 7,000 yards... Range closes to 5,000 yards... Range closes to 3,000 yards... CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 3,000 yards Allies open fire on surprised Japanese ships at 3,000 yards BB Indiana fires at CV Akagi at 3,000 yards Fuel storage explosion on CV Kaga BB South Dakota fires at CV Kaga at 3,000 yards CA Vincennes fires at CV Kaga at 3,000 yards BB South Dakota fires at BB Nagato at 3,000 yards DD Talbot launches Torpedoes at CLAA Tatsuta at 3,000 yards DD Vendetta launches Torpedoes at CLAA Tenryu at 3,000 yards BB Indiana fires at DD Murakumo at 3,000 yards DD Aylwin launches Torpedoes at DD Murakumo at 3,000 yards DD Murakumo sunk by DD Monaghan at 3,000 yards DD Vendetta fires at DD Usugumo at 3,000 yards DD Talbot fires at DD Shinonome at 3,000 yards DD Monaghan fires at DD Fubuki at 3,000 yards DD Monaghan fires at DD Inazuma at 3,000 yards Range closes to 2,000 yards BB Indiana engages CV Kaga at 2,000 yards Ammo storage explosion on CV Kaga BB South Dakota engages CV Kaga at 2,000 yards BB South Dakota engages BB Mutsu at 2,000 yards BB South Dakota engages BB Nagato at 2,000 yards BB South Dakota engages CLAA Tatsuta at 2,000 yards BB South Dakota engages CLAA Tenryu at 2,000 yards DD Pillsbury engages DD Shinonome at 2,000 yards DD Shirayuki engages DD Vendetta at 2,000 yards DD Isonami engages DD Talbot at 2,000 yards DD Aylwin engages DD Usugumo at 2,000 yards DD Aylwin engages DD Shinonome at 2,000 yards DD Fubuki engages DD Pillsbury at 2,000 yards DD Talbot engages DD Isokaze at 2,000 yards Range increases to 6,000 yards BB Indiana engages CV Kaga at 6,000 yards CA Vincennes engages CV Kaga at 6,000 yards BB South Dakota engages BB Nagato at 6,000 yards CLAA Tatsuta engages DD Talbot at 6,000 yards DD Usugumo engages DD Vendetta at 6,000 yards DD Hatsuyuki engages DD Pillsbury at 6,000 yards DD Aylwin engages DD Shirayuki at 6,000 yards DD Talbot engages DD Isonami at 6,000 yards DD Talbot engages DD Usugumo at 6,000 yards DD Shinonome engages DMS Hovey at 6,000 yards DD Pillsbury engages DD Fubuki at 6,000 yards DD Ikazuchi engages DD Vendetta at 6,000 yards DD Akatsuki engages DD Monaghan at 6,000 yards DD Talbot engages DD Isokaze at 6,000 yards BB South Dakota engages CV Akagi at 6,000 yards BB South Dakota engages CV Kaga at 6,000 yards BB South Dakota engages BB Mutsu at 6,000 yards BB South Dakota engages BB Nagato at 6,000 yards BB South Dakota engages CLAA Tatsuta at 6,000 yards CLAA Tenryu engages DD Vendetta at 6,000 yards DD Hatsuyuki engages DD Pillsbury at 6,000 yards DD Talbot engages DD Shirayuki at 6,000 yards DD Ikazuchi engages DD Monaghan at 6,000 yards DD Hull engages DD Isokaze at 6,000 yards DD Shinonome engages DMS Hovey at 6,000 yards DD Monaghan engages DD Hibiki at 6,000 yards DD Isokaze engages DD Aylwin at 6,000 yards Range closes to 5,000 yards Ammo storage explosion on CV Kaga BB Indiana engages CV Kaga at 5,000 yards BB South Dakota engages CV Kaga at 5,000 yards CA Vincennes engages CV Kaga at 5,000 yards CL Nashville engages CV Kaga at 5,000 yards Japanese Task Force Manages to Escape Task forces break off... Kaga was doomed before any of my ships even managed to get a shot off. Low visibility plus bad weather plus Allied radar is very BAAADDDD news for the IJN.....[:@]

Dili -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/17/2012 4:05:19 PM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Espero_Convoy If you want to see bad shooting: The first 6 in (150 mm) salvoes from the Allied cruisers were fired at 18:30 at the surprised Italian flotilla at a range of 18,000 yd (16,000 m). Despite heavy firing, Espero was not hit until 19:20, when the range had closed to 14,000 yd (13,000 m). By this time, Tovey had given up the chase of the other two destroyers. The 7th Squadron(5 cruisers) expended about 5,000 shells before Espero was sunk, after 130 minutes of fierce fighting. The battle exacerbated a shortage of ammunition at Alexandria so that the planned Malta convoys were suspended for two weeks

Shark7 -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/17/2012 4:11:07 PM)
Is it bad shooting, or just the fact that Naval gunfire, much like flak, is about how much lead you can put in the area? Remember, you are shooting at a pitching, moving target from the deck of a pitching, moving target. When both targets are in motion it complicates the aim exponentially.

EUBanana -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/17/2012 4:23:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 In the early part of the war it would be understandable to have your less than stellar ships/commanders in the pacific if you are the Royal Navy. After all, you are heavily engaged in trying to keep U-boats from starving the country of the resources it needs to defend itself. You send your best and brightest to end the U-boat threat in that case. If you look at many of the RN ships they have all seen action. From CA Exeter who tangled with the Graf Spee, to BB Prince of Wales who met Bismarck, to CVL Hermes who had attached Richelieu, roamed the Atlantic looking for German raiders and even captured a merchant apparently, not very many of them had been sat on their butt 1939-1941. Let alone veterans like Warspite, if any ship deserves 80/70 it's her. Thats kinda by the by though. I think the lack of learning is more of an issue. If you can say Warspite is a veteran than a ship like Houston or the Dreaded Boise could well be even more of a veteran if she survives. The experience system doesnt' really work IMO. It works as if ships are pilots, with +1 experience after a tangle. Ships dont get into that many tangles. quote: The best thing you can do (and hey us JFBs do it too) is to put the best commanders you can find on your ships. And remember, having a very aggressive commander is not always the best thing, overly agressive commanders take chances they shouldn't. If you can. The only navy that has a (more or less) unlimited pool of good commanders is the USN. It's not possible for the RN to scare up the 10-15 required competent SS skippers in '44. They only have about 5 or so, the rest are generic mooks.

castor troy -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/17/2012 4:39:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 Castor, I don't think the point of this thread was to complain about the IJN being nerfed...at least I'm not. The point (as I read it) was to show that much like the real war the early surface combats are decidedly in the IJN's favor. That changed after Guadalcanal. I have no problem with it as it is now, since Allied radar generally does start making a difference in late 1942 as it becomes more widely available. yeah, but the point of this thread being raised is my rant in my AAR. [:D] Independent of side A or B, I wonder how 1500 shells fired by a CA in daylight and excellent weather can lead to 1 hit on two enemy destroyers comissioned in the 20s. So here we may differ (not that this would be bad [:)]) because I don't think 1920s IJ DDs ruled the Sea against Northampton class cruisers.

morganbj -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/17/2012 4:52:20 PM)
Shoot, in June 1943 I had a IJN CL and a DD attack a heavy Allied TF in Koepang's hex and sink two BBs and a destroyer, for ONE hit on the Japanese DD. There were a total of four Allied BBs (2 Brit, 2 US) and six CA's and maybe 8 DDs in the TF. Really odd, but I feel better now that all the JFBs tell me that's what would have happened in the real war.

EUBanana -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/17/2012 4:57:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Miller Allies open fire on surprised Japanese ships at 3,000 yards Don't think I've ever seen that before. I usually see the Allies spot the Japanese with the radar, then they close to point blank, then the Japanese see them and both open fire simultaneously at point blank, whereupon it becomes a general furball and dire Allied night experience does its thing.

AcePylut -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/17/2012 5:00:21 PM)
quote: I wonder how 1500 shells fired by a CA in daylight and excellent weather can lead to 1 hit on two enemy destroyers comissioned in the 20s. That's something YOU have to answer for yourself, for I don't think you'll accept anyone elses answer. What you are also failing to consider is FOG OF WAR. You claim 1 hit. You may have had 10 or 20. You may have had none. What's your opopnent say about it? Me, I came up with a dozen easy reasons for a cr like this in like 2 mins. Not that you'll buy anything other than "not wad". I mean seriously - your results are consistent with the real life combat results. But yet you still whine about it. Problem is that when you whine about such stupid crap, any actual "coding" rants you bring that might have validity and dismissed, similar to the "boy who cried wolf" dismissals. Sit down, and use your imagination to describe this battle and your ships suckage in a "real life" type of combat. Include any/all variables you know (experience, morale, time of day, weather, sunlight, lucky hit on your superstructure may be the hit that wiped out your gunnery control, other fleet dl level, etc. etc. etc.). the only way you can't explain this battle is to not use your imagination. Plus, consider this, for as great as the Northampton class cruiser might have been, the US lost 3 of 6 of them. That's not a great war record for an entire class of ships. Do you know of any other class ship that lost 50% of them during the war?

AcePylut -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/17/2012 5:03:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote: ORIGINAL: Miller Allies open fire on surprised Japanese ships at 3,000 yards Don't think I've ever seen that before. I usually see the Allies spot the Japanese with the radar, then they close to point blank, then the Japanese see them and both open fire simultaneously at point blank, whereupon it becomes a general furball and dire Allied night experience does its thing. I had this action in the DEI in early 42: the remnants of Force Z (Force Z minus the POW) surprised a Jap SCTF in 3% moonlight and minimal range... and blasted the Mutsu to the bottom of the ocean, and got away with just a couple of scratches. It happens.

AcePylut -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/17/2012 5:16:55 PM)
AAR results for October 25th, 1944 Weather: Light Rain US forces: 6 CVE, 3 DD, 3 DE Japanese forces: 4 BB, 6 CA, 2 CL, 11DD Japanese sight US @ 20k yards blahblahblah Japanese close to 10,000 yards Adm Kurita decides to disengage. End results: 1 US CVE sunk, 2 DD sunk, 1 DE sunk Japanese forces moderately damaged. WTF you mean that all those Japanese ships didn’t wipe the floor of all US ships? WTF you mean the Japanese disengaged right as they got to 10,000 yards range?

Dili -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/17/2012 7:41:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 Is it bad shooting, or just the fact that Naval gunfire, much like flak, is about how much lead you can put in the area? Remember, you are shooting at a pitching, moving target from the deck of a pitching, moving target. When both targets are in motion it complicates the aim exponentially. The sea was ok. I think there is a point when it must be said it was really bad shooting.

castor troy -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/17/2012 8:51:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AcePylut quote: I wonder how 1500 shells fired by a CA in daylight and excellent weather can lead to 1 hit on two enemy destroyers comissioned in the 20s. That's something YOU have to answer for yourself, for I don't think you'll accept anyone elses answer. What you are also failing to consider is FOG OF WAR. You claim 1 hit. You may have had 10 or 20. You may have had none. What's your opopnent say about it? Me, I came up with a dozen easy reasons for a cr like this in like 2 mins. Not that you'll buy anything other than "not wad". I mean seriously - your results are consistent with the real life combat results. But yet you still whine about it. Problem is that when you whine about such stupid crap, any actual "coding" rants you bring that might have validity and dismissed, similar to the "boy who cried wolf" dismissals. Sit down, and use your imagination to describe this battle and your ships suckage in a "real life" type of combat. Include any/all variables you know (experience, morale, time of day, weather, sunlight, lucky hit on your superstructure may be the hit that wiped out your gunnery control, other fleet dl level, etc. etc. etc.). the only way you can't explain this battle is to not use your imagination. Plus, consider this, for as great as the Northampton class cruiser might have been, the US lost 3 of 6 of them. That's not a great war record for an entire class of ships. Do you know of any other class ship that lost 50% of them during the war? everything the IJ had must have been 100% crap then going with your logic because if you don't fail to remember, nothing was left in mid 45. Just trying to use your kind of argumentation. Yeah, all of the Japanese ship classes lost more than 50% during the war. Ever read a book?

AcePylut -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/17/2012 9:39:56 PM)
Oh yeeh a pair of logical fallacies from CT as if that will magically convince everyone to see the 'wisdom' of his (non) argument. Any idiot with 2 brain cells that can read and retain more than a paragraph's worth of knowledge knows that the naval ships being discussed for ineffectiveness is the US navy, not the Japanese navy. I find it really funny that you are the one bringing the ad homs as if they convince other's of your wisdom (they dont', the just make you look stupid and childish), when you're geniusness doesn't even know how the actual naval combat results from late '41 early '42 panned out. Funny that the actual combat results are far more akin to "fired all my main gun and didn't hit crap" than "fired all my main gun and didn't hit crap, this game isn't working right". If you had more knowledge about the early war battles, you'd know that. But now, it's clear that you don't, you've dug in your foot on "game code is bad cuz this one time I fired all my ammo and didn't hit squat" argument and won't bother researching the subject to discuss it intelligently, because I'm pretty sure that if you actually did research the subject, you'd see how silly you sound. Do yourself a favor my friend - go to www.google.com and start researching the subject of late '41 early '42 naval battles and come back when you have a little knowledge on the subject. Until then, until you have a little knowledge on the subject, you simply sound like a 14 year old with an e-peen bigger than your e-brain.

spence -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/17/2012 10:01:27 PM)
quote: In the early part of the war it would be understandable to have your less than stellar ships/commanders in the pacific if you are the Royal Navy. After all, you are heavily engaged in trying to keep U-boats from starving the country of the resources it needs to defend itself. You send your best and brightest to end the U-boat threat in that case Clearly all those Captains (O-6) commanding battleships and cruisers wouldn't mind in the least that they get "promoted" to commanding a corvette (O-4 or O-3 billet)on convoy duty. Nothing wrongheaded about that generalization, nothing at all[8\|]

spence -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/17/2012 11:16:50 PM)
I have wondered about the crew experience mechanisms sometimes. I will confess to knowing little about computer programming but it seems to me that the mechanisms are not accurately reflecting the changing experience of the various nationalities. I'm pretty sure that the number of ships in any Navy which engaged in surface combat more than once during the entire course of the war is rather limited. Some examples (with number of surface actions in parenthesis): USS Laffey (2), HMS Exeter (3), HIJMS Aoba (2), HIJMS Furutaka (2), HMS Warspite (lots I think) HIJMS Chokai are ones that come to mind. There are probably a bunch of DDs on both sides that fought multiple surface actions in the Solomons in 1943 but I'm not anxious to do the research at the moment. In the case of the last named the CHOKAI was the flagship at Savo Island where the IJN demonstrated stunning superiority over the USN. In her next outing she was sunk when THE IJN BATTLEFLEET attacked a group of USN escort carriers. If there is some lesson with regards to a given ship's "experience" and how that plays into the results of a battle I'll confess to not seeing it. Likewise the AOBA and KINUGASA and FURUTAKA fought the Battle of Savo Island in August 42 and the Battle of Cape Esperance only 2 months later in October. In the first the IJN surprised the USN. In the second the USN surprised the IJN and HIJMS Furutaka went to live with the fishes. I checked with the Combined Fleet website and there were no changes of command on any of those cruisers during the interval. I don't know but if their practice with ship's crew was similar to their practice with aircrew then I suspect that the crews at Cape Esperance were pretty much the same as at Savo Island. What connection to crew and/or captain's experience as it is programed in the game is apparent? Then there is USS Laffey which gave a credible if not outstanding performance at both Cape Esperance and The Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. Survived the first and got sunk in the second. HMS Exeter helped trap the Graf Spee. She may well have fought in the Mediterranean but I don't recall it. Her next chance came in the DEI where the strategic situation certainly was not conducive to her survival. She took a lucky shell that significantly affected her power plant at (1st) Java Sea and then got trapped in a piece of ocean completely dominated by the IJN surface and air. That she didn't survive the 2nd Battle of the Java Sea as a "cripple" is hardly surprising. [HMAS Perth (a very experienced captain and crew) and USS Houston also fell victim to a strategic situation that was rapidly proceeding from horrendous to worse]. How does this fit into the "experience" code? Perhaps the mechanisms for ship's crew and captain's experience needs another look.

oldman45 -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/17/2012 11:47:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AcePylut That's not a great war record for an entire class of ships. Do you know of any other class ship that lost 50% of them during the war? Lexington Class Carriers lost 50%..... sorry I couldn't resist. [;)]

freeboy -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/18/2012 12:10:24 AM)
ok, I read this about ten times... In the early war.. putting larger faster more heavily armed ships works... In the middle war same in the end war, same.. I been doing this since before we even had mio, remember the fights just to include them in witp? And, losses can be more easily absorbed by the Allies...If you are not using allied damage control, start by turning on the realistic allied damage control, often times my beat up surface guys limp along and can be patched up.. and I am very very aggressive, the best time to be is early, but dont wander into a IJN ca group expecting to pound them.. look for invasion groups.... and then as the balance slides look for any knife fight surface action, putting your ca groups into enemy shipping is bound to harm the IJN more with losses that just cannot be replaced.. which forces the issue, do they run and save up for the end or allow a 43 44 blood bath... I have seen it both ways... and if you average our the kills in mio, then you sill see over the average the more heavily armed ships do better... but heck I am not above putting a ddpt etc group on anti invasion suicide attacks... its heavenly seeing the torp hits troops ladin ships.... so from my humble yet experienced allied pbem experience the game is NOT BORKED in favor of the IJN, rather it favors those who best manage the situation and utilize suprise and force .... andas the Allied player you hold lots of cards as the IJN must move into you in first 6 months....

denisonh -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/18/2012 3:43:59 AM)
I would add that any nighttime surface engagement in the early war without radar should have a wide range of possible outcomes. Very wide. BOTH the USN and IJN were newcomers to ACTUAL naval combat. Given the IJN focused more on night engagements and torpedo tactics than the USN which was BB/cruiser focsued with daytime gunnery under good conditions being the primary training and evaluation tool does provide the IJN with an advantage in small nighttime engagments by virtue of preparation. But actual combat is not the same thing as training. If that is the case, evaluating the game model on a relatively few number of outcomes is not really analysis of the model itself. Any good combat model with have the chaos of combat to account for and as such an individual will need 30-36 outcomes under the same conditions to really have any kind of quality data to analyze the "expected outcomes" and those in the "tails" or extremes. Everybody seems to trot out a single instance as the expected value and base thier arguements on that premise.

gradenko2k -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/18/2012 3:47:01 AM)
I think part of the issue here is the difference between pre-destination and emergent behavior. That is, if I'm always going to suffer surface combat defeats in 1942-1943 because of factors that I cannot change, then that's pre-destination, and it kind of sucks. On the other hand, say I fight a virtual Battle of Java Sea and I lose because* I had a mish-mash of ships (especially with different speeds), those ships are all damaged from over-use, some of them damaged from air attacks, their commanders are junk and they're low on fuel from sailing around for weeks. Now let's say I reload to a couple of weeks earlier and shuffle the TFs to have a more consistent composition, I give them whatever R&R I can in Batavia/Soerabaja, I provide LR-CAP with whatever Buffaloes I have left, I change-up their commanders to more competent ones and I make sure they're all fully fueled. And I do much better, maybe not win, but at least make a better-than-historical dent. That's emergent behavior. I shouldn't expect to win the Battle of Java Sea if my fleets are as mismanaged as they historically were, but I'd like to think that I can make a difference if I do things ... differently. * I only mentioned the factors that are represented in WITP:AE itself. Historically, having to translate orders from Dutch to English and back was also a contributing factor to the poor performance, but then that's not modeled in this game.

Shark7 -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/18/2012 4:37:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spence quote: In the early part of the war it would be understandable to have your less than stellar ships/commanders in the pacific if you are the Royal Navy. After all, you are heavily engaged in trying to keep U-boats from starving the country of the resources it needs to defend itself. You send your best and brightest to end the U-boat threat in that case Clearly all those Captains (O-6) commanding battleships and cruisers wouldn't mind in the least that they get "promoted" to commanding a corvette (O-4 or O-3 billet)on convoy duty. Nothing wrongheaded about that generalization, nothing at all[8\|] Oh yes of course we would put all our commanders on tin pot tugs to hunt subs. You KNOW what I meant, yet you decide to make a generalization about it too. Hey I got an idea, lets send all our best ships to a back water while our capital is being starved and is under threat of attack...yeah that really makes sense. [8\|] Why do you think there was such a skeleton force defending Singapore in Dec 1941? Could it be there were more important things to defend than the Far East in 1941? For anyone wondering, the Allies lost 432 ships for a GWT of 2,172,000 tons to U-boats in the year of 1941. Japan had not yet gone to war with the Allies yet. Where would you base more of your assets in this case? I know I would not have them riding out the war in an area that was not very active...you do exactly what the RN did, you put what you deem 'enough' of a force to defend it to concentrate on defending the Atlantic convoys. And those were just the losses to U-boats in 1941, in total there were some 1299 vessels with a GWT of 4,329,000 tons lost in total that year to all causes. So once again, which threat do you take more seriously? That of course also explains the urgent need for the ramped up ship-building programs and how the Liberty ship came to play such an important part in the war. And Spence I am not going to argue with you about this, I have presented my facts and reasoning and that is that. I still stand by the fact that the RN was treating the Pacific and Indian Oceans as a far less important front than the Atlantic until the U-boat threat in the Atlantic was diminished. Therefor, while you may have some individually experienced ships, you do not have the bulk or very best of them here as they are needed to hunt U-boats along the convoy routes in the Atlantic.

Shark7 -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/18/2012 4:42:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: denisonh I would add that any nighttime surface engagement in the early war without radar should have a wide range of possible outcomes. Very wide. BOTH the USN and IJN were newcomers to ACTUAL naval combat. Given the IJN focused more on night engagements and torpedo tactics than the USN which was BB/cruiser focsued with daytime gunnery under good conditions being the primary training and evaluation tool does provide the IJN with an advantage in small nighttime engagments by virtue of preparation. But actual combat is not the same thing as training. If that is the case, evaluating the game model on a relatively few number of outcomes is not really analysis of the model itself. Any good combat model with have the chaos of combat to account for and as such an individual will need 30-36 outcomes under the same conditions to really have any kind of quality data to analyze the "expected outcomes" and those in the "tails" or extremes. Everybody seems to trot out a single instance as the expected value and base thier arguements on that premise. You need to compare literally thousands of such combats to see if the average result is within the expected model. There will always be results in the fringes of the extreme, which is why you need such a large sampling. If every player could post the results of every single surface combat they were involved in, we might be able to get a decently accurate picture of it. However, what we see in the forums are usually those extremes I mentioned...the battle that everything went wrong and some one wants to complain about it.

freeboy -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/18/2012 5:33:13 AM)
I think I have what.. 8 full run throughs in pbem.. all as Allies and thats lots of surfase action... there are HUGE variences... warost is getting your planes not to fly with sevear weather and blundering into enemy surface groups... best... hitting enemy ships beforethey unload.. its about luck but more about making your luck by putting the enemy at risk.. it Jan 43 in current game.. and my oponent has lost way more ca... but I lost more dd and cl... hard to say offthe list how the surfase works.. but to really see this one should put surface losses in context of the game.. and each is different.My current game we both had invasion fleets malled by surface groups... and we try to cover our invasions... its bloody.... The thread started as a challenge to the games integrety to acturately represent Allied and US naval ability in 42 43.. or the early war. If you sample the aar's and ask in then I think they would back me up.. its absolutely possible to beat up on the IJN early , but you must run and pick your fights... I would not want a bb v bb contest till radar and even then only if I was close to ports to patch up my tubs and had some air to harase any damaged ships.. UNLESS I could trade losses .. ie had some pressing need or though I could turn the tables .. perhaps loaded up with torp heavy cl dd groups.. etc.. Here is a related ?, do poeple take into account the moon phases>? Seems We have had some interesting no moon action in this last pbem game early... just wondering as I never really noticed before.. thanks

bradfordkay -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/18/2012 8:48:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 quote: ORIGINAL: AcePylut That's not a great war record for an entire class of ships. Do you know of any other class ship that lost 50% of them during the war? Lexington Class Carriers lost 50%..... sorry I couldn't resist. [;)] Yorktown class lost 67%, but I don't think that anyone considers them a "bust".

LoBaron -> RE: Surface combat in World War II (2/18/2012 10:15:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: CT Grognard Is it really that unjustified then to see results in 1941 and early 1942 where Japanese ships outclass US ships? quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy so? and? Naval Battle of Guadalcanal November 1942 [...] Hm. quote: There have been significant complaints from Allied players about how ineffective Allied (and especially US) combat ships seem to be versus IJN surface vessels in the early part of the war. picking out what suits him as always, hello my friend. You sure have missed the FIRST LINE of the original poster: There have been significant complaints from Allied players about how ineffective Allied (and especially US) combat ships seem to be versus IJN surface vessels in the early part of the war. using your phrasing: November 1942... Hm get it? Or do you now want to convince anybody here saying November 42 isn't early part of the war? 11 months after start, war going for how long? 1/43 or what? What I tried to show with my (I know, very complex, and difficult to interprete) post was: There was a significant difference between the OP´s intention and your interpretation of the OP´s intention. Nothing more. The value of a discussion often is a result of how clear the topic is for the participants. The worst case scenario for a discussion is, and you got a lot of experience with that, to believe you are talking about the same stuff as the other participants, but in truth are either completely off topic or drift depending on your personal taste. Actually such stuff should be tought to children as soon as they learn to talk...

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.078125