surface ships 'raider' exploit? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan



Message

sillyflower -> surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/18/2020 9:37:59 PM)


In more than 1 game now I've found it extremely hard to damage them because they can't be found. Tell that to the real Bismark.

Anyway, while that might be reasonable out at sea (I'm not an expert in naval warfare), it is ridiculous when they are in port.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/19/2020 12:53:04 AM)

Read up on how they sank it. It took 1/2 the UK navy to find it. Germany can't send it's fleet out every single turn forever. It will eat their oil.

You should also be buying some patrol groups. You think you have a large enough navy, you don't.



sillyflower -> RE: surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/19/2020 8:05:41 AM)

Tx Alvaro. I'm well aware of the effort it took to sink the Bismark (and how few days it took) but my real whinge is about not being able to attack them in port effectively when they are in raider mode vs normal.



malkarma -> RE: surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/19/2020 8:20:29 AM)

Port attacks wherenīt easy. Just some examples:
In order to try to sink the Tirpitz, the RAF sent a Lancaster's squadron. Each of them was loaded with a bomb designed to destroy dam's walls, because they didnīt considered feasible to use the carriers in that operation.
Taranto was a surprise attack against a unprepared oponent.
Pearl Harbour was the result of the combined efforts of 6 battle carriers with elite crews.
The Germans had docks with concrete roofs to protect their subs fleet.
The attack against the Alexandria port was a reckless plan that no one even considered would be succesful...even the Italians. Those minisubs never saw action again.

Also we need to take in consideration that level bombing is not efficient in the task of sink a warship.



sillyflower -> RE: surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/19/2020 8:37:43 AM)

I'm sorry, Malkarma, but you have missed my point. Putting ships in port into raider mode, as opposed to normal, should not make it harder to attack.

How easy it was to attack ships in port generally is a different question, with which I am not concerned in this thread.



malkarma -> RE: surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/19/2020 11:11:35 AM)

I understand your point. My point is that is too easy to attack ports. Even with max AA enemy air units can easily score hits. So even if the "raider setup" itīs a weird solution, it can help to correct what I think that is an issue.

This said, if the "raider setup", becomes in an invulnerability shield, then I agree with you that we have a problem here.
When a ship is in a port you shouldn't have to make a search roll to attack it, because you actually know where it is.
Maybe Alvaro can write a command to automatically pass the search roll when you attack a port? Do you think that this command would solve the issue?.



sillyflower -> RE: surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/19/2020 12:48:34 PM)

Something like this seems sensible.



kennonlightfoot -> RE: surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/19/2020 4:09:04 PM)

quote:

You should also be buying some patrol groups. You think you have a large enough navy, you don't.


How do you use patrol groups to find enemy ships?
I haven't seen them react to enemy ship movements unless attacked by them.
Also, I haven't seen that "+1" from an attack attempt translate into any other groups being able to spot better.



Cigar King -> RE: surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/20/2020 1:10:18 AM)

quote:

Read up on how they sank it. It took 1/2 the UK navy to find it.


While it's true the British committed a sizable force to track down the Bismarck, this is more a case of them trying to cover their options rather than trying to find the Bismarck. The British had a very good idea where she was especially since they had her tailed early on. Intelligence and radio intercepts made that possible. The real question, after the Hood was sunk was could they catch her, and sans a lucky torpedo hit, they would likely have been unable to before she reached Breast.



Harrybanana -> RE: surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/20/2020 3:49:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

quote:

You should also be buying some patrol groups. You think you have a large enough navy, you don't.


How do you use patrol groups to find enemy ships?
I haven't seen them react to enemy ship movements unless attacked by them.
Also, I haven't seen that "+1" from an attack attempt translate into any other groups being able to spot better.


I agree with you that "spotting +1" seems to have little or no effect on subsequent efforts to locate a raider. At least I can't recall a single time that I "spotted" a raider with one fleet and then successfully found it with another. It seems the only benefit of having several fleets is that it gives you more chances. But actually locating the enemy is pointless unless you have the superior force (just ask the Hood and the Exeter). So if you don't know how many ships are in the raiding fleet (and you usually don't) than this limits how many groups you will want to have.



sillyflower -> RE: surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/20/2020 8:38:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

quote:

You should also be buying some patrol groups. You think you have a large enough navy, you don't.


How do you use patrol groups to find enemy ships?
I haven't seen them react to enemy ship movements unless attacked by them.
Also, I haven't seen that "+1" from an attack attempt translate into any other groups being able to spot better.


I agree with you that "spotting +1" seems to have little or no effect on subsequent efforts to locate a raider. At least I can't recall a single time that I "spotted" a raider with one fleet and then successfully found it with another. It seems the only benefit of having several fleets is that it gives you more chances. But actually locating the enemy is pointless unless you have the superior force (just ask the Hood and the Exeter). So if you don't know how many ships are in the raiding fleet (and you usually don't) than this limits how many groups you will want to have.


Indeed - especially as the patrol gRoup has to attack to spot enemy. So much for radar and spotter planes on the heavier warships.

Anyway, you've even got me going OT now because this thread is about the absurdity not being able to find ships in harbour if they are in raider mode, even if you have a whole battle fleet lurking offshore so the ships in harbour can be seen with the naked eye. [sm=00000506.gif]



AlvaroSousa -> RE: surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/20/2020 2:32:10 PM)

Ok so say the Bismark is out. You send out 5 small fleets of single ships. Chance of one finding is small ~33% that one finds.

But there is a good chance you will get some +1 spotting which increases their chance to be found.

Not you have a 2-3 CV fleets nearly to come in for the hits.

The Germans need a good chance to escape. Raider mode means "I don't want to engage, I want to avoid" and fleet mode is "I want to kill you".

You have to think of the German fleet as a threat. For the Germans losing that fleet is a very high cost. Sending that fleet out is also dangerous. It costs oil to do so. If it gets sunk the UK and USSR have free reign of the seas and can do whatever they want. The Italian navy now will get sunk.

So yea you must put effort and thought to sink it. This isn't SC3 where you don't know where it is and the fleet runs around each turn and you have to guess. This is WarPlan where you see the counter but have incomplete information.



Harrybanana -> RE: surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/20/2020 3:55:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

Ok so say the Bismark is out. You send out 5 small fleets of single ships. Chance of one finding is small ~33% that one finds.

But there is a good chance you will get some +1 spotting which increases their chance to be found.

Not you have a 2-3 CV fleets nearly to come in for the hits.

The Germans need a good chance to escape. Raider mode means "I don't want to engage, I want to avoid" and fleet mode is "I want to kill you".

You have to think of the German fleet as a threat. For the Germans losing that fleet is a very high cost. Sending that fleet out is also dangerous. It costs oil to do so. If it gets sunk the UK and USSR have free reign of the seas and can do whatever they want. The Italian navy now will get sunk.

So yea you must put effort and thought to sink it. This isn't SC3 where you don't know where it is and the fleet runs around each turn and you have to guess. This is WarPlan where you see the counter but have incomplete information.


Alvaro, you make some good points and if this is the way the game system works I think we would all be happy with that. But what we are saying is:

1. When an enemy fleet is in port your chance of locating it should be the same whether it is in "fleet" mode or "raider" mode. This does not appear to be the case. Will you be fixing this?

2. Our collective gaming experience is that the +1 spotting does not appear to increase the odds of other ships locating the raiding fleet. You say the chance of locating a raiding fleet is a base 33% (I assume this is in clear weather). By how much does +1 spotting increase the chances of locating the enemy fleet (just by +1% to 34%)? Are you sure this is working? Are the +1 Spottings cumulative?

3. If you send out a single ship patrol group and it successfully locates the Bismark, it will be sunk in the ensuing combat. But does the fact it successfully located the Bismark increase the chances of other fleets to locate the Bismark? In other words, lets say I send out 4 patrol groups to find the Bismark. The 1st one "spots" it. The 2nd and 3rd fail to spot or locate it. The 4th one locates it and is sunk. So now I send in my CV fleet to sink the Bismark, what are my odds of locating it? If my +1 Spotting and my actually locating it with my patrol groups significantly increased my chances of the CV fleet getting a strike in than the game is working. But my gaming experience is that the odds of my CV fleet locating the Bismark are still not good and I will have lost a patrol group for nothing.



sillyflower -> RE: surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/20/2020 4:08:19 PM)

Alvaro' this is not about the Bismark running around in the Atlantic.

I keep trying to say that my complaint is solely about raider mode making ships in port much harder to attack. It's not even a secret that ships are in port. If you are in a port, you can be seen easily because you cannot hide. Full stop. No exceptions. OK there is sort of 1 historic exception. The Carthaginian fleet which was kept in a secret port inside the commercial one, and the Romans didn't have aerial recce assets to enable to see it, until they took the city and found it.



Harrybanana -> RE: surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/20/2020 9:58:40 PM)

OK, so for Sillyflower all he cares about is the answer to my question 1. But for me, I would still like answers to my questions 2 and 3.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/21/2020 2:31:22 PM)

Ok so I checked. Raider was flagged in port so I fixed it. That should triple the chances of a CV attacking a port from 5% to 15%. I forgot to code that in.

Attacking ships in port wasn't an easy task for any air unit.

So basically it runs like this. A land based air can attack any port freely. How effective it is well that's another matter.

A CV fleet needs to make a spot check. There are so many things that can go wrong. But with the correction to the code it should be a 15% chance per strike. I also increased the +1 spot chance on failed searches by +5% for a total of 35%.

I want you to think about all the successful port strikes from CVs. How often, how well did they succeed and what was the planning.

Now think of all the naval battles. Where did they take place? With the exception of Bismarck they all took place near shore. It is incredibly difficult to find a fleet in the middle of the Atlantic.

The default level for any hex in the middle of nowhere that is very low recon is 1

[image]local://upfiles/45679/11FB44CCEA92404F8AD4FA4FD2898120.jpg[/image]



sillyflower -> RE: surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/21/2020 3:32:43 PM)

Thanks Alvaro. That seems fairer re port attacks

Re your other points, the only port strikes I know of in the west (other than ) Were

Taranto. Enabled by significant aerial recce from Malta but there were many other such successful strike to Italian ports inc Taranto itself.

Axis also had a lot of success bombing ships + subs in the Malta harbours (sic). I've just finished reading the excellent 'Malta under siege' by James Holland. Lots of other ships were sunk in other harbours in N. Africa. Then there was Oran - no difficulty in spotting the French fleet.In other words, when you knew the ships were there (not difficult due to air recce) it was quite easy if defences were light. Defensive bombers would make life difficult and precise night navigation was often difficult.

Lack of naval battles at sea can be attributed simply to lack of opportunity.I don't think the Germans tried after the Bismanrk's failure. There were the inshore fights related to the Norway Landings, others in the Med, but v. few excursions by axis fleets to allow such a battle. I don't think the allies had much difficulty in tracking down + killing surface raiders once they were in the right neighbourhood. Finding and tracking a fleet was have been much easier, and easier than in the Pacific because the area was much smaller. Similarly the axis had no difficulty in finding and attacking the Malta convoys. See eg Tirpitz' unsuccessful last foray. Ultra played a huge part but the Allies don't have that, any more than the radar without which the battle of Britain would have ended with invasion and conquest.



Nirosi -> RE: surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/22/2020 12:51:26 AM)

Hi All,

What would the interception bonus be for each of the "detection and electronics aadvancement" path level (against subs especialy)? I can only assume that strat/tact bombers equiped with radar have better chance but can not find it.

Thanks in adavance,



LiquidSky -> RE: surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/22/2020 1:02:08 PM)


You do know that anyone with a large surface fleet can port attack and get a surface combat in his favour, right? Don't use carriers, they are not very good at port attacks, just drive all your BB's up and sink the fleet in port



MorningDew -> RE: surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/22/2020 1:56:52 PM)

quote:


I want you to think about all the successful port strikes from CVs. How often, how well did they succeed and what was the planning.


I ask myself that about invasions all the time (meant to be funny-ish) :):):)



sillyflower -> RE: surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/22/2020 2:21:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky


You do know that anyone with a large surface fleet can port attack and get a surface combat in his favour, right? Don't use carriers, they are not very good at port attacks, just drive all your BB's up and sink the fleet in port



This only works if the ships in port are in fleet mode, and carriers do v. well in that situation too in my experience. The whole point of this thread is about the fact that fleets in port AND in raider mode are pretty much invulnerable.



MorningDew -> RE: surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/22/2020 3:57:27 PM)

From just released beta notes:

Fixed raider mode working while in port for naval detection



sillyflower -> RE: surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/22/2020 4:01:56 PM)

Alvaro had promised that a few posts ago, but is the beta released? I only use official betas



MorningDew -> RE: surface ships 'raider' exploit? (7/22/2020 4:10:35 PM)

A new beta was just posted



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.351563