(Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

LargeSlowTarget -> (2/15/2003 1:24:07 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus [B]Dont recall any BB-AK interactions off the top of me. [/B][/QUOTE] Not in the PTO, but German BBs (or BCs) Scharnhorst & Gneisenau as well as CAs (e.g. Hipper) engaged British convoys in the Atlantic and off Norway and sank quite a few freighters. Of course this had been their specific mission, they were used as kind of über-AMCs. Will fully functional AMC/Raider/Hilfskreuzer be represented in WitP? I'd like to second some suggestions, notably the 'at sea-interception', the 'not used to operate together'-penalty, and the the 'flagship selection with bad radar/commo-penalty for leadership'-issue. I also like the flash/kill graphics and the 'opposing forces on top and bottom instead left/right' suggestion - your own force in the foreground and the enemy in the back, with the silhouette size depending on range and with weather/search light/muzzle flash/tracer/splash/hit/fire/explosion-effects - oops sorry, I've played too much Fighting Steel... Anyway, watching naval battles in UV while clenching fists and gritting teeth is part of the fun, and better graphics would add a lot more flavor. As tri71669 has observed: [I]"...we happened to let a naval battle unfold and suddenly everyone was glued to the edges of thier seats with interest in who the winner would be and the damages."[/I] [edit for sp]

pasternakski -> (2/15/2003 2:07:20 AM)
Byron, I'm not suggesting anything that detailed. Consider, though, that the current game attempts (IMHO, lamely) to depict a surface battle. Why not improve it? No surface battle ever fought looked like what is in UV (with the possible exception of the opening positions at Salamis).

SamRo -> Must say Type ?93? (2/17/2003 11:13:19 PM)
Long lance baby!!!! ye!!! im the usn 2.20 in uv, & as I would expect IJN CA & DD, keep my Surface groups well at bay!

Admiral DadMan -> (2/18/2003 3:15:52 AM)
I would like to see what ship got hit by what type ordinance. As it stands now, you just see the total. Something like this: ________________________________________________ AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 11/30/42 Weather: Partly Cloudy Night Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 38,40 Japanese Ships BB Musashi, Shell hits: 3x16in/45, 6x8in/55, 5x8in/50, 4x5in/38, on fire, heavy damage CA Suzuya, Shell hits 6x8in/55, on fire CL Natori, Shell hits 1x5in/38 DD Akigumo, Shell hits 8x5in/38, on fire, heavy damage DD Kagero, Shell hits 4x5in/38, on fire, heavy damage DD Tanikaze, Shell hits 3x5in/38, on fire DD Oshio, Shell hits 14x5in/38, on fire, heavy damage DD Asagumo, Shell hits 12x5in/38, on fire, heavy damage DD Murasame, Shell hits 2x8in/50, on fire DD Yudachi, Shell hits 5x5in/38, on fire, heavy damage DD Kawakaze, Shell hits 17x5in/38, and is sunk DD Mikazuki, Shell hits 16x5in/38, and is sunk Allied Ships BB South Dakota, Shell hits: 1x6.1in/60 CA Pensacola CA New Orleans CA Astoria CA San Francisco, Shell hits: 1x8in/50 CA Vincennes, Shell hits: 1x8in/50 CA Canberra CL Helena, Shell hits: 1x5.5in/50 CL Phoenix, Shell hits: 2x5.5in/50, Torpedo hits 1, on fire CL Nashville, Shell hits: 3x5.5in/50 CL Boise CL Honolulu, Shell hits: 2x5.5in/50, Torpedo hits 1, on fire DD Fletcher DD Duncan DD Lansdowne DD McCalla DD Patterson DD Gridley DD Craven

Drongo -> Straight change to existing routine (2/24/2003 4:48:54 PM)
I was prompted by a recent UV surface naval combat to put forward a suggested change to the routines. The target allocation routine is one that I have disliked since getting the game. The battle was between (IJN) 10 CAs and 6 CLs vs (USN) 2 CAs and 8 DDs. The Japanese delivered a surprise long lance attack with about 60% of their ships involved, hitting 1 USN CA and 2 DDs. After that opening, the battle settled down to a slugging match as follows. First round : The 2 IJN CAs paired off with the 2 USN CAs and then the other 8 IJN CAs each selected a USN DD each, leaving the 6 IJN CLs free to choose any target. The damaged USN CA (from the torp hit) exchanged fire with its IJN CA opponent, both scoring serious hits. The other USN CA outshot its opposing CA, damaging it severely without taking any hits in return. The other 8 CAs happily began pulverising the allied DDs (the range did not allow the allied DDs to penetrate their opposing CAs armour). 2 of the free CLs went after some now damaged DDs but the other 4 CLs decided to engage the 2 USN CAs (for no effect as they couldn't penetrate the armour). The 2 USN CAs had no such problem, badly damaging 2 of the CLs with their return fire. Given the chaos of historical night combat (pre good quality centimetric radar and experienced operators, etc), the initial inefficient targeting is understandable. However, at some point, a ship facing an enemy in an obviously higher weight division would normally realise when it's holding the rough end of the stick. Also, the 8 CAs happily belting the crap out of poor little DDs should also realise that a 5 to 1 advantage in CAs will only be an advantage if the superior firepower is brought to bear on the USN CAs. Second Round : 2 USN DDs sank after the first full combat round. What happened in the 2nd round now that the IJN had 2 free CAs? Did they pitch in and help their now crippled CA brothers from being pummeled by the USN CAs? Why no, they targeted burning USN DDs of course. What did the CLs do after getting smacked around by the USN CAs? They attacked them again of course (this time without any torpedoes). Aftermath : 3 consecutive battles (10 rounds) later, the Japanese TF finally broke off the combat. 1 USN CA was crippled and sinking. 1 USN CA was UNTOUCHED. 4 DDs were sunk and 2 were crippled. The IJN had a CA crippled and sinking, another with heavy damage, a CL sunk and 3 others with heavy damage. All of this was done by the 2 USN CAs (including the crippled one). Except for one IJN CA for one round, the (eventually) 4 unengaged IJN CAs continually went after burning DDs. The bulk of the unengaged CLs persisted in targeting the 2 USN CAs. Yes, I know ships at night will not see the whole picture but it's kind of the wrong way round, especially over 10 rounds. When you read accounts of historical night battles, you tend to notice that, given time, most ships were able to eventually identify the types of enemy ships within their sphere of combat (big flash - big ship, little flash - little ship, etc). I suspect one of the culprits may be the way the UV routine allocates targets depending on a ships position in the battle order. But that is just an observation as I know nothing of how the routines are programmed:p . As a suggestion, I'd put forward the following. First round of combat, could do with a look (especially torp target allocation in surprise attacks) but it could be left as is so as to represent opening night confusion. Second round and thereafter, experience/radar check to do the following for the round's target selection. Torpedo armed ship - target preference : a visible high value target (ie DD or IJN CL should attempt to engage CA (or USN CL) or higher). Non torpedo armed ship - target preference - same class (best) or smaller. If no other target, engage a larger ship but consider evading like buggery (see next). Non torpedo armed ship engaged by larger ship - target preference : the larger firing ship. However, the smaller ship should be considered evading (low chance to hit and be hit). Larger ship engaged by smaller ship - target preference : the smaller ship but using only secondary batteries. Main guns used only if large ship not engaged with another of the same class. If a ship fails the targeting check, it follows current UV targeting logic. I'm sure people can find faults all over the place with my suggestion (probably full of logic traps). Be nice, I made it all up (not the battle, of course) as I wrote. The concept obviously needs development. But the intentions were good. :p Just trying to work within the existing UV/(WitP?) model.

mdiehl -> (2/24/2003 9:55:05 PM)
The combat report that you describe seems perfectly reasonable for a night combat.

Nikademus -> (2/25/2003 5:33:21 AM)
You may be a victim of too much weak Aussie beer Drongo but i like your suggestions anyway :p I've been very much in favor of an EXP/Radar check for some time and would like to see further penalties placed against SC radar sets when fighting in close terrain hexes. I have also been continually disatisfied with gunnery resolution routines coupled with EXP. IJN in particular rarely if ever outshoots a US warship with substantially lower EXP ratings. The overall results dont always appear skewed though because there's usually a torp hit or two to balance things up. Take away the torp hits though and IJN TF's regularily get outshoot regardless of tactical situation or EXP levels.

demonterico -> (2/25/2003 3:29:35 PM)
If the combat simulations can be improved thats great. If they can't be improved, then put them in WITP as they are. I would be greatly disappointed if WITP didn't have them. Do I always watch them? No, not all the time, but there are times when I can't take my eyes off of them. They can be very dramatic to say the least, and if an important engagement is taking place you can be d--- sure I'm watching. For those who think they are to long and boring, thats what the done button is for. Now there is something that can be improved upon. Make the buttons bigger. Although I cannot claim to have enough expertise in the subject to speak with authority, it does seem to me that naval battles do continue on when I feel one side should be attempting to disengage. I've also seen attacks made by TFs that were seriously out gunned, when in my opinion the smaller TF should have been attempting to evade combat. However, it is possible it was to late for such maneuvers. The last thing I want to say is just because A happens it doesn't necessarily mean that B will follow. In war there is only one absolute, and that is, there are no absolutes. Therefore, I hope the game designers will continue to write code that attempts to recreate the actual physical and histroical events as acurately as possible. I've said it before and I'll say it agian, Thanks Matrix your doing a great job.

Drongo -> (2/25/2003 7:52:03 PM)
Posted by Nik [QUOTE]You may be a victim of too much weak Aussie beer Drongo[/QUOTE] This coming from someone who probably couldn't last through the first round of a shiela's drinking contest.

Drongo -> (2/25/2003 7:55:51 PM)
Posted by demontercio [QUOTE]If the combat simulations can be improved thats great. If they can't be improved, then put them in WITP as they are.[/QUOTE] Agreed, but considering they're looking for suggestions, why not take the opportunity.

demonterico -> (2/26/2003 11:42:44 AM)
Drongo I agree completely. I didn't mean to suggest that there shouldn't be player input. In fact since first entering the Matrix forums I've been quite impressed by the general high quality and intellegence of the posts here. I'm sure that many UV players will have excellent suggestions for the game developers. After posting yesterday I thought of something I could add to my suggestions. I would like to see more rational choices made on which ammunition is used. I hate it when my CAs use up all their 8" ammo on some PG or other small fry. Thats what they had all those 5" guns for.

Drongo -> No worries (2/26/2003 5:42:10 PM)
Sorry mate, if my comment sounded a bit abrupt. Writing it and reading it can be worlds apart in meaning.

demonterico -> (2/26/2003 11:44:12 PM)
Hey no problemm. I just want to be sure I wasn't misunderstood. I have to be careful along those lines. My mouth often works faster than my brain. This was a first for me. First time I've been called "mate" by an Aussie.

EricLarsen -> Less graphics, better results (2/27/2003 5:41:56 AM)
While the combat system for UV was okay I think it needed some improvement in giving historically accurate results. Personally I found the graphics for UV to be old-style EGA standard stuff and therefore not real interesting to watch. It's also rather too abstract with, as one replier put it "like a junior high school dance where the boys line up on one side and the girls line up on the other side and nobody dances". While it might be great to have some super duper topdown scalable view as in SSI's old Great Naval Battle series it would detract from the overall strategic game. I for one don't want to see a great strategic/operational game ruined by the development team wasting too much time trying to incorporate some grand tactical battle system that adds nothing but some unnecessary chrome to the game. The game that comes to mind most is Evil Empire Interactive's Napoleon 1813, a great operational game concept ruined by trying to incorporate a worthless tactical battle generator. Neither portion of the game worked and this is a prime case of trying to do too much in a game and losing sight of the game's objective. I sure hope that WitP doesn't go down this drain as it would be a shame to waste a great strategic/operational game with some slick dysfunctional tactical battle generator. If someone needs to be distracted by the eye candy then keep the current abstract tactical system and keep concentrating on giving us good historically accurate battle results in our combat reports. Personally I don't watch the combat animations and I'm only interested in the combat report since I'm more interested in playing the next turn and setting up new things to do. My impression of UV's naval combat was that ships sank too fast. It seemed like it didn't take that much to sink a battleship whereas when I read history it seems like they were some tough suckers to sink. I'd like to see some improvement in realism in this area. Eric Larsen

Drongo -> (2/27/2003 11:39:00 AM)
Posted by Demontercio [QUOTE]This was a first for me. First time I've been called "mate" by an Aussie.[/QUOTE] Relax, it doesn't mean we're engaged or anything.;) Unless, of course, you own a brewery.

demonterico -> (2/27/2003 12:50:26 PM)
quote: __________________________________________________ Relax, it doesn't mean we're engaged or anything. __________________________________________________ Yeah and now I suppose you wont respect me in the morning.

Aussie -> (2/28/2003 6:01:01 AM)
[I]Yeah and now I suppose you wont respect me in the morning.[/I] He might if you cooked breakfast:D

demonterico -> (2/28/2003 6:52:12 AM)
Does he like moldy rice balls and sake?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.609375