RE: Surface Combat Sux

RE: Surface Combat Sux (Full Version)

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

Message

Nikademus -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 10:53:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag Not too sure I can agree to that one ... at night ... how do you know it's not escorted? For all you know, the groups massive escort is heading right for you as you pick on a couple of ships near the edge of the pack ... suddenly your tasty treat turns into a couple of BB's! [X(] I view night encounters as always iffy If the commander is competant enough and his crews well trained enough, they will be able to both take advantage of the golden opportunity presented (the achieving of the goal of the mission) confident that if any escort does show up that it will be dealt with when it happens. The emphasis is of course on competant. Mikawa was certainly worried about escorts. That didn't stop him or his crews from acting decisively each time he sighted and engaged enemy warships. I wouldn't expect such a commander and crews to preform any differently or any less decisively just because they are suddenly facing the quarry that brought them out there.

mogami -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 10:56:47 PM)
Hi, Does anyone think that when trying to prove a negative there will be unanimous agreement? "OK this never happened, but if it did this would have been the result" The disagreement is OK. The debate is OK. In only 2 points is it not OK. When it becomes personal. And when it is working as it is supposed to be working but still considered broken. No matter what stance the designers take they will have a "loyal opposition" Personally I tend to think things are always too bloody. And even with watered down combat the game (Like most war-games) will produce loss rates that make WW2 look like a skirmish. (I've played Gettysburg games where the total loss combined exceeded 100k men) In a normal surface battle there is a good chance (or should be) that no ship gets hits and every ship expends ammo. In WITP it is most common for one side to thrash the other. Why? Because early in the war the IJN outnumbers the Allies and the crews and leaders have higher numbers. The Japanese do not have to send a surface TF out that does not contain a BB or several CA while at the point of contact the Allies have 1 BB 1 BC and 1 CA with a horde of odd duck CL.. The combat record of these ships is not very impressive. Nothing suggest to me that they would wipe out anything night or day. The one thing that is certain is in WITP they will do better then they actually did in the war. So I tend to view lack of results as more accurate a result of combat then excessive results. But this is strictly my personal opinion.

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 11:04:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi, Why not. Are daylight surface actions not also confused? What in daylight allows a ship firing its forward guns only in pursuit to target multiple targets? In a surface combat where both sides want to fight they assume couse and formation that allows the fight to proceed. A transport TF is going to be trying to get away. While you are sinking this ship, that other ship is getting away. Once you finish the first you have to relocate the second and that might not be possible. We can make the program as bloody as we want. This does not make it any more realistic. No combat result can be predicted before the action occurs. There is more here then just X number of surface ships versus X number of transports result in X number of transports being lost. Certainly the lower the range the first contact is made will make it harder for the transports to evade. But a large part of the following results will be comparing the two TF leaders. The fact that the combat "breaks off" so soon tells me the scatter is being used. If the game treated it as normal surface battle there would be more rounds and after one action ended another would begin. (like in normal surface versus surface actions) There is absolutely nothing you can do to convince anyone on this forum that one AK/AP/TK ship in a 20 ship AK/AP/TK TF taking 95% of the shell hits from a 6-8 ship surface combat TF is in any way a realistic combat result. There is no logic on earth that can justify that.

RAM -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 11:06:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980 There is absolutely nothing you can do to convince anyone on this forum that one AK/AP/TK ship in a 20 ship AK/AP/TK TF taking 95% of the shell hits from a 6-8 ship surface combat TF is in any way a realistic combat result. There is no logic on earth that can justify that. That's exactly my point of view.

mogami -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 11:14:01 PM)
Hi, Well you should say there is no logic on earth that will convince you. Since I don't have a problem with it and I have served on board ship chasing other ships. I have served with officers I trusted and others who scared me. Just like in any combat situation the end result is often decided by skill and not by numbers. There has been absoluty no consideration allowed for anything but calculation of fire power. We can spread the discussion to include all bombers caught unescorted will be shot down. In any event the portion of players who are happy with it as it presently is will have to conform to changes brought about to make other players happy. It will have little to no impact on me personally because I am normally the player with the surface TF in these situations and not the player with unescorted transports. All I can do is gain from the changes.

mogami -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 11:34:31 PM)
Hi, Now had this TF stayed to fight it out in normal surface action I would expect more of it to have been lost. However since it was fleeing it all the directions of the compass from the start I think the surface TF accounted for a good haul. Day Time Surface Combat at 59,72 Japanese Ships AO Hayasui TK Choran Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire TK Gen'yo Maru, Shell hits 25, and is sunk TK Kyokuto Maru TK Nihon Maru TK San Pedro Maru, Shell hits 24, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk AK Genoa Maru AK Getuyo Maru AK Glasgow Maru AK Gosyu Maru, Shell hits 25, and is sunk AK Goyo Maru, Shell hits 20, and is sunk AK Hague Maru, Shell hits 28, on fire, heavy damage AK Hakkai Maru AK Hakodate Maru AK Hakonesan Maru, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk AK Hakubasan Maru, Shell hits 9, on fire, heavy damage AO Medan Maru, Shell hits 6, on fire TK Kyokuho, Shell hits 1 Allied Ships BB Indiana, Shell hits 1 BB Alabama BB Iowa BB New Jersey CA Indianapolis CA Louisville CA Salt Lake City CA New Orleans CL Birmingham CL St. Louis CL Honolulu DD Anthony DD Aulick DD Charles Ausburne DD Charles Badger DD Beale DD Bell DD Bennett DD Bennion DD Boyd DD Bradford DD Braine DD Clarence Bronson DD Brown DD Bryant 2 Japanese sank after battle. 7 out of 17 (41 percent of engaged ships lost in a single action) Many people are acting like the battle is now over. A naval battle can last several days. If I want to split up my TF now and pursue I can. The orginal post said the enemy TF was back the next day however he could have ordered his TF back again as well. The result of a battle is when 1 player says the battle is over by not continuing it. In this case here the Allied player could wipe out the entire Japanese TF by splitting his TF. It might require more then 1 day. We are also forgetting time it seems to me. Sinking many ships requires the surface TF to do a good deal of steaming. I don't think it would happen in a single movement phase. (8 hours from start to finish. Minus time required to move into hex minus time saved for retire by TF with those orders Minus time for tracking down ships.)

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 11:34:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi, Well you should say there is no logic on earth that will convince you. Since I don't have a problem with it and I have served on board ship chasing other ships. I have served with officers I trusted and others who scared me. Just like in any combat situation the end result is often decided by skill and not by numbers. There has been absoluty no consideration allowed for anything but calculation of fire power. We can spread the discussion to include all bombers caught unescorted will be shot down. In any event the portion of players who are happy with it as it presently is will have to conform to changes brought about to make other players happy. It will have little to no impact on me personally because I am normally the player with the surface TF in these situations and not the player with unescorted transports. All I can do is gain from the changes. Why do you folks always take such a black and white stance on EVERYTHING? 1 in 20 ships taking 95% of the hits is completely assinine no matter how you look at it, leadership, experience, anything. History does not in any way validate that. But that does not mean all 20 take 5%. That's just as assinine as the former! It is perfectly logical, say for the lead/first-encountered ship to take 50-60% maybe 65-70% at night, with #2 taking another 25% or so, with the rest scattered about, maybe half the other taking at least one or two hits with maybe 8-10 escaping completely unhit. It is a matter of DEGREE. There are some aspects of this game that are in the EXTREME and that's what most people get worked up about.

RAM -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 11:38:04 PM)
Mogami, in a surface fight between combatants, I agree, the results are mostly decided by skill... however no ammount of great skill can prevent a surface commander with 25 slow, cumbersome transports full of troops and supplies to avoind losing a great number of his ships against a couple of battleships, half a dozen cruisers and a good number of destroyers. in a similar fashion, there's no way that a completely lacking commander would order 90% of his TF fire to be directed at ONE Transport to pound it until it's nothing but long-time-gone rubbish while he sees many others; to then engage other ONE transport, pound it to hell without firing at the other ships he sees...before fleeing at once. THAT is what it's out of any explanation or logic...not the fact that superior numbers don't win a battle (which has been the case in many places×)

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 11:38:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi, Now had this TF stayed to fight it out in normal surface action I would expect more of it to have been lost. However since it was fleeing it all the directions of the compass from the start I think the surface TF accounted for a good haul. Day Time Surface Combat at 59,72 Japanese Ships AO Hayasui TK Choran Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire TK Gen'yo Maru, Shell hits 25, and is sunk TK Kyokuto Maru TK Nihon Maru TK San Pedro Maru, Shell hits 24, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk AK Genoa Maru AK Getuyo Maru AK Glasgow Maru AK Gosyu Maru, Shell hits 25, and is sunk AK Goyo Maru, Shell hits 20, and is sunk AK Hague Maru, Shell hits 28, on fire, heavy damage AK Hakkai Maru AK Hakodate Maru AK Hakonesan Maru, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk AK Hakubasan Maru, Shell hits 9, on fire, heavy damage AO Medan Maru, Shell hits 6, on fire TK Kyokuho, Shell hits 1 Allied Ships BB Indiana, Shell hits 1 BB Alabama BB Iowa BB New Jersey CA Indianapolis CA Louisville CA Salt Lake City CA New Orleans CL Birmingham CL St. Louis CL Honolulu DD Anthony DD Aulick DD Charles Ausburne DD Charles Badger DD Beale DD Bell DD Bennett DD Bennion DD Boyd DD Bradford DD Braine DD Clarence Bronson DD Brown DD Bryant 2 Japanese sank after battle. 7 out of 17 (41 percent of engaged ships lost in a single action) Sorry, not buying the "extrapolate the exception to be the norm" line. That's the kind of result that be the norm, but it seldom is. I personally have yet to have that kind of result in any game I've played. Below is the OVERWHLEMING norm Day Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 67,97 Japanese Ships AP Arizana Maru AP Eiko Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire AP Kisaragi Maru, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AP Somedono Maru, Shell hits 48, on fire, heavy damage Allied Ships CA Minneapolis CL Detroit CL St. Louis CL Phoenix DD Mugford DD Ralph Talbot DD Henley DD Dale DD Aylwin DD Allen DD Litchfield Japanese ground losses: 556 casualties reported Guns lost 14 Sorry, but that's simply INSANE. There is no logic on the planet that can justify that kind of result. NONE. But yet, that is the NORMAL in the game.

mogami -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 11:43:44 PM)
Hi, OK you are upset because a single Japanese ship in a TF of 4 escaped?

RAM -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 11:46:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi, OK you are upset because a single Japanese ship in a TF of 4 escaped? He, don't know, but I'm for sure WELL upset because out of more than 55 APs only two got sunk. let's go with the report of the battle I spoke about, before I go back to my game... quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Singkawang at 25,57 Japanese Ships MSW W.1, Shell hits 3, and is sunk MSW W.2 AP Aikoku Maru AP Asama Maru AP Awajisan Maru AP Ayato Maru AP Ayatosan Maru, Shell hits 1 AP Chihaya Maru, Shell hits 25, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AP Daifuku Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire AP Gosei Maru AP Hakozaki Maru AP Hikade Maru, Shell hits 2 AP Hikawa Maru, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AP Hokuriku Maru AP Huso Maru AP Iwaki Maru AP Josho Maru AP Kaika Maru AP Kashi Maru AP Kasuga Maru AP Kasui Maru AP Kinjosan Maru AP Kisogawa Maru AP Kiyozumi Maru AP Koan Maru AP Kogi Maru AP Kogyo Maru AP Koryu Maru AP Koshu Maru #3 AP Kuroshio Maru AP Marsue Maru AP Meiko Maru AP Meisho Maru AP Meiyo Maru AP Midori Maru AP Mogamigawa Maru AP Nichiai Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire AP Nichiryu Maru AP Nissen Maru #2 AP Nitta Maru AP Nojima Maru AP Ryugi Maru AP Ryujo Maru AP Santos Maru AP Shoho Maru AP Sumiyoshi Maru AP Syoka Maru AP Taibun Maru AP Takuei Maru AP Tatibana Maru AP Tatsuho Maru AP Tatumiya Maru AP Tatuta Maru AP Teiun Maru AP Teiyo Maru AP Tsunushima Maru AP Ume Maru AP Victoria Maru AP Yoshinogawa Maru AP Yuzan Maru AP Tamatsu Maru, Shell hits 14, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage if someone finds this normal, or acceptable, then I must resign my colors, because nothing will convince him otherwise [edit] the combat report doesn't list the allied ships in the combat, weird but true. Ships there were BB PoW, BB Revenge, CA Houston (flagship), CA Dorsetshire, CA Cornwall 3 CLs and 6 DDs The Houston was the flagship so I could put an american officer of high agressiveness and capability into the TF[/edit].

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 11:49:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi, OK you are upset because a single Japanese ship in a TF of 4 escaped? No, upset that one in four slow, large targets going against 8 fast, agile pursuers takes 94% of all hits while two others take the remaining 3% and one doesn't get hit at all??? That is patently insane and beyond even the furtherest stretch of rational logic. But that combat result is the NORM. And as such, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that formula needs a tweek of sorts. And before you ask, a LOGICAL result would be: AP Arizana Maru, shell hits 6, on fire AP Eiko Maru, Shell hits 8, on fire AP Kisaragi Maru, Shell hits 12, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AP Somedono Maru, Shell hits 26, on fire, heavy damage That's what I'd expect to be the arithmetic mean of 20 such daylight engagements with this pursuit group....

mogami -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 11:50:06 PM)
Hi, I can't see what is doing the damage so I can say. However any ship that is torpedoing another is not "catching" any other ship. With that many ships there is no way more then a fraction of them will be caught. (A ship on all points of the compass? pick one the others will get away.)

CV8 Hornet -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 11:53:58 PM)
It seems to me that we are talking about 60 miles hexes. That's a lot of area to get lost in. Wouldn't the battle at Savo have included the Allied transports in the same hex as attacking Japanese surface forces and the defending allied cruisers?

RAM -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 11:54:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi, I can't see what is doing the damage so I can say. However any ship that is torpedoing another is not "catching" any other ship. With that many ships there is no way more then a fraction of them will be caught. (A ship on all points of the compass? pick one the others will get away.) What's exactly "a fraction" for you, out of a transport TF of more than 55 transports escorted by TWO MSWs?... See, Mogami, I would accept your arguments, I would think that even a 15% of losses could be explainable, yet out of a TF of some 58 ships that means 7-8 enemy transports sunk...Personally I fail to see why the cruisers and some destroyers can go for some of the fleeing transports while the BBs and the rest of the DDs go for the rest, but I am willing to take 15%. Heck, I'd take 10%, meaning 5-6 transports sunk. But I Sank ONLY TWO transports, possibly THREE at the most, fer christsakes!!!!!!... The allied force doesn't come in the report txtfile, as I already said in my edit avobe...but I can go into the game and give you the exact names of the ships involved, as, other than hte PoW and the Revenge, the TF is intact.

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 11:56:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RAM quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi, OK you are upset because a single Japanese ship in a TF of 4 escaped? He, don't know, but I'm for sure WELL upset because out of more than 55 APs only two got sunk. let's go with the report of the battle I spoke about, before I go back to my game... quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Singkawang at 25,57 Japanese Ships MSW W.1, Shell hits 3, and is sunk MSW W.2 AP Aikoku Maru AP Asama Maru AP Awajisan Maru AP Ayato Maru AP Ayatosan Maru, Shell hits 1 AP Chihaya Maru, Shell hits 25, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AP Daifuku Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire AP Gosei Maru AP Hakozaki Maru AP Hikade Maru, Shell hits 2 AP Hikawa Maru, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AP Hokuriku Maru AP Huso Maru AP Iwaki Maru AP Josho Maru AP Kaika Maru AP Kashi Maru AP Kasuga Maru AP Kasui Maru AP Kinjosan Maru AP Kisogawa Maru AP Kiyozumi Maru AP Koan Maru AP Kogi Maru AP Kogyo Maru AP Koryu Maru AP Koshu Maru #3 AP Kuroshio Maru AP Marsue Maru AP Meiko Maru AP Meisho Maru AP Meiyo Maru AP Midori Maru AP Mogamigawa Maru AP Nichiai Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire AP Nichiryu Maru AP Nissen Maru #2 AP Nitta Maru AP Nojima Maru AP Ryugi Maru AP Ryujo Maru AP Santos Maru AP Shoho Maru AP Sumiyoshi Maru AP Syoka Maru AP Taibun Maru AP Takuei Maru AP Tatibana Maru AP Tatsuho Maru AP Tatumiya Maru AP Tatuta Maru AP Teiun Maru AP Teiyo Maru AP Tsunushima Maru AP Ume Maru AP Victoria Maru AP Yoshinogawa Maru AP Yuzan Maru AP Tamatsu Maru, Shell hits 14, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage if someone finds this normal, or acceptable, then I must resign my colors, because nothing will convince him otherwise [edit] the combat report doesn't list the allied ships in the combat, weird but true. Ships there were BB PoW, BB Revenge, CA Houston (flagship), CA Dorsetshire, CA Cornwall 3 CLs and 6 DDs The Houston was the flagship so I could put an american officer of high agressiveness and capability into the TF[/edit]. This is quite normal in the game, but I find it a bit illogical. This isn't as bad as the one I'm making my point with (you've got two ships at least taking a significant portion of the hits instead of just one). But in such a large target TF, a decent attack commander should have the ability to engage in an attack with a wider spread than that.

mogami -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 11:58:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980 quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi, OK you are upset because a single Japanese ship in a TF of 4 escaped? No, upset that one in four slow, large targets going against 8 fast, agile pursuers takes 94% of all hits while two others take the remaining 3% and one doesn't get hit at all??? That is patently insane and beyond even the furtherest stretch of rational logic. But that combat result is the NORM. And as such, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that formula needs a tweek of sorts. And before you ask, a LOGICAL result would be: AP Arizana Maru, shell hits 6, on fire AP Eiko Maru, Shell hits 8, on fire AP Kisaragi Maru, Shell hits 12, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AP Somedono Maru, Shell hits 26, on fire, heavy damage That's what I'd expect to be the arithmetic mean of 20 such daylight engagements with this pursuit group.... Hi, If it was the "norm" then evey post would be the same. I've posted results that are much worse then that (from the Japanese POV) What kind of hits? When a DD gets to within AA range it begins firing AA and MG scoring "hits" but so what? So the one enemy ship DIW took AA/MG fire as every ship in your TF went by pursing the ones that took the other "3" percent. Sometimes it appears to me that everyone thinks everyship in their TF has a firing solution on every enemy ship from start to finish of a naval battle and all they really need is the control to "direct " the fire. Every ship has a rating, every leader has a rating. WITP is not a tactical game. You do not get to decide the tactical outcome of battles and no one here knows what the little cyber battle resolving during the animation actually looks like. It is not 2 opposing lines of ships firing at each other. In no combat it what is taking place two neat lines of ships firing at each other. It is just so you can see who hit what with what. That is all. I want to know does every battle between surface ships and unescorted transports result in only 1 transport being lost in daylight actions. (I don't think so since I just posted one where 41 percent of the transports were sunk) In that AAR with the 50+ Japanese there are Japanese ships taking torpedo hits. They were the unlucky ships the USN pursued.

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 11:58:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CV8 Hornet It seems to me that we are talking about 60 miles hexes. That's a lot of area to get lost in. Wouldn't the battle at Savo have included the Allied transports in the same hex as attacking Japanese surface forces and the defending allied cruisers? I my fourship example all four were spotted and identified, all with in line of sight of the attackers. All slow 10 knot targets being pursued by 30+ knot attackers.

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/10/2004 12:06:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami quote: ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980 quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi, OK you are upset because a single Japanese ship in a TF of 4 escaped? No, upset that one in four slow, large targets going against 8 fast, agile pursuers takes 94% of all hits while two others take the remaining 3% and one doesn't get hit at all??? That is patently insane and beyond even the furtherest stretch of rational logic. But that combat result is the NORM. And as such, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that formula needs a tweek of sorts. And before you ask, a LOGICAL result would be: AP Arizana Maru, shell hits 6, on fire AP Eiko Maru, Shell hits 8, on fire AP Kisaragi Maru, Shell hits 12, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AP Somedono Maru, Shell hits 26, on fire, heavy damage That's what I'd expect to be the arithmetic mean of 20 such daylight engagements with this pursuit group.... Hi, If it was the "norm" then evey post would be the same. I've posted results that are much worse then that (from the Japanese POV) What kind of hits? When a DD gets to within AA range it begins firing AA and MG scoring "hits" but so what? So the one enemy ship DIW took AA/MG fire as every ship in your TF went by pursing the ones that took the other "3" percent. Sometimes it appears to me that everyone thinks everyship in their TF has a firing solution on every enemy ship from start to finish of a naval battle and all they really need is the control to "direct " the fire. Every ship has a rating, every leader has a rating. WITP is not a tactical game. You do not get to decide the tactical outcome of battles and no one here knows what the little cyber battle resolving during the animation actually looks like. It is not 2 opposing lines of ships firing at each other. In no combat it what is taking place two neat lines of ships firing at each other. It is just so you can see who hit what with what. That is all. I want to know does every battle between surface ships and unescorted transports result in only 1 transport being lost in daylight actions. (I don't think so since I just posted one where 41 percent of the transports were sunk) First off, I don't have that many of these ever happen. I have started 14 games, all the main campaign (#15 or Lemurs #26) most of which make it to about Feb 42, one is in early Apr 42. Out those I have had fewer than a dozen of these actually happen. But in EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, the transport TF suffers major damage or a sinking on only one ship with maybe one other getting at least some significant (greater than 20%) damage. Last week I had an 8 AK TF get ambushed by 6 Dutch DD's and 2 CL and lost one and had about 60% Flt damage on a second, the other six got away virtually unharmed. Daylight attack. Based on the postings here, I'd say that is the norm for most of us. Sometimes I think you must be playing on a different game build than everyone else.....no one ever seems to have anywhere near the kind of results you ever seem to post.

mogami -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/10/2004 12:07:05 AM)
Hi, You read the animation better then I do. How do you know they were all observed by every ship in your TF? Or could it be that the 1 that got away was only spotted by 1 of your ships and that ship also saw another target and fired at it instead? That half your TF only saw one ship and pounded it. That of the other half only part of them saw the other 2. I mean from the animation, the combatreport or anything ever placed in the manual do you know that every one of your ships saw every other ship. In that AAR with 50 ships there is nothing to suggest any of them were saw by the USN except by a single ship as they passed out of sight.

mogami -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/10/2004 12:15:01 AM)
Hi, I think target selection goes down a path like this. 1. Enemy ship spotted 2. Enemy Ship in range Where more then 1 enemy ship are spotted and in range a value is assigned and target with highest value is selected to fire at. Combat does not occur at ranges given. Combat begins at ranges given and where the range is closing the range for next round decrease. Where ranges opening the range increases. When no target in range the TF "break contact" I don't think a TF leader would be unhappy with sinking 2 out of 4 enemy ships in the length of time 1 movement/combat phase represents. These are not all day battles. None of them can last more then 8 hours and next phase the surface TF is all reformed and moving again. So however far one of these ships move to chase it has to move back before the end of phase. If you want to pursue in the following orders phase you break up your TF and pursue. Transports scatter at outset. Transports are not trying to fire but evade. Even a 10 kt ship is hard to hit when it is evading. (At 10k a ship doing 10kts will move more then it's length in the time your shells require to travel) You don't aim at a target but at the empty space it will occupy when your shot gets there. If the target does not fill up that space you miss)

RAM -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/10/2004 12:17:15 AM)
Japanese Ships damaged during the combat: MSW W.1, Shell hits 3, and is sunk AP Ayatosan Maru, Shell hits 1 AP Chihaya Maru, Shell hits 25, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AP Daifuku Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire AP Hikade Maru, Shell hits 2 AP Hikawa Maru, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AP Nichiai Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire AP Tamatsu Maru, Shell hits 14, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage So, out of a TF of some 55+ transports you're telling me that they saw only a single ship. quote: In that AAR with 50 ships there is nothing to suggest any of them were saw by the USN except by a single ship as they passed out of sight. Barring the fact that most of the ships in the screen had name on it (meaning they were well known and spotted), at least SEVEN Transports were clearly seen, as at least SEVEN transports were fired upon and hit. It just happens that out of 47 gun hits, 39 were inflicted on TWO ships, meaning that 82.9% of my naval TF gunfire, seeing AT LEAST Seven transports (in fact they saw many more of them as their names were visible), was directed at those TWO ships even while they were already clearly doomed. This simply isn't correct, no matter what. As I said, I leave this debate with you as impossible not because you aren't a reasonable guy (that you are) but because I'm getting the feel that no matter what is put before you will be dismissed with an ad-hoc rational explanation that could make sense on 10% of the cases...but not on 90% of them, as is the problem now. As I said, I leave this debate with you as impossible...that you try to defend that out of a TF of more than 55 transports, only SEVEN are seen (while the tactical screen said otherwise) and only TWO of them get 82.9% of my gun's attention is out of my reach and comprehension. Maybe I'm too brainchallenged to understand it, but so are most of the people who have intervened in this thread.

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/10/2004 12:18:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi, You read the animation better then I do. How do you know they were all observed by every ship in your TF? Or could it be that the 1 that got away was only spotted by 1 of your ships and that ship also saw another target and fired at it instead? That half your TF only saw one ship and pounded it. That of the other half only part of them saw the other 2. I mean from the animation, the combatreport or anything ever placed in the manual do you know that every one of your ships saw every other ship. In that AAR with 50 ships there is nothing to suggest any of them were saw by the USN except by a single ship as they passed out of sight. The logical error you always make is trying to parse every AAR posted and try and come up with a rational explanation, based on the designed model, as to why THAT PARTICULAR AAR might have happenned. You fail to see the forest for the leaves on the trees. Stand back and look at the BIG PICTURE. It is clear from the 11 pages in this thread that almost ALL posters are getting results in these engaments where one ship is taking 90+% of all the attacker's shots. Each, individually, might be able to be explained away in terms of the arithmetical model as being within game parameters. But the results AS A WHOLE, the forest, MAKES NO SENSE!!! Across the breadth of the game, amongst all players, the combat results should be showing a much wider damage spread on unescorted TF's being engaged by the 6-10 ship Cl/DD surface TF's. Fortunately for us, the developers seem to have come to the same general conclusion.

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/10/2004 12:22:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RAM Japanese Ships damaged during the combat: MSW W.1, Shell hits 3, and is sunk AP Ayatosan Maru, Shell hits 1 AP Chihaya Maru, Shell hits 25, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AP Daifuku Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire AP Hikade Maru, Shell hits 2 AP Hikawa Maru, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AP Nichiai Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire AP Tamatsu Maru, Shell hits 14, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage So, out of a TF of some 55+ transports you're telling me that they saw only a single ship. quote: In that AAR with 50 ships there is nothing to suggest any of them were saw by the USN except by a single ship as they passed out of sight. Barring the fact that most of the ships in the screen had name on it (meaning they were well known and spotted), at least SEVEN Transports were clearly seen, as at least SEVEN transports were fired upon and hit. It just happens that out of 47 gun hits, 39 were inflicted on TWO ships, meaning that 82.9% of my naval TF gunfire, seeing AT LEAST Seven transports (in fact they saw many more of them as their names were visible), was directed at those TWO ships even while they were already clearly doomed. This simply isn't correct, no matter what. As I said, I leave this debate with you as impossible...that you try to defend that out of a TF of more than 55 transports, only SEVEN are seen (while the tactical screen said otherwise) and only TWO of them get 82.9% of my gun's attention is out of my reach and comprehension. Maybe I'm too brainchallenged to understand it, but so are most of the people who have intervened in this thread. Yes Mogami obviously has his heels dug in on this one, as completely ILLOGICAL as it is. Fortunately, it appears the developers are not so dug in. 10 pages indicates that this is an unacceptable logic BUG. I simply have a hard time, sometimes, following Mogami's logic process. Your post, and those of the ones claiming this problem, seem perfectly LOGICAL to me. It is OBVIOUS this is a problem. It's not a big one, it simply appears a formula or check needs a MINOR tweek.

mogami -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/10/2004 12:23:56 AM)
Hi, No there is trouble because some people cannot concive that while they might see 100 ducks flying overhead they can only shoot at few. More shooters will hit more ducks but they also might shoot the same duck. It's not simply how many do I see. It's how many can I sink before moving to the next target. The target on the other hand is going in every direction. Once you get the first one you can't get all the rest. You might get another. And when this round of combat is done the battle is not over unless you say it is over and leave the area. If you want to pursue the next orders phase is the time to decide. Unless before the combat you had told the leader to retire in which case he has save movement that he might have used killing ships to leave the hex. Does anyone really suppose that a TF with 50+ transports could be destroyed in less then 8 hours?

Tankerace -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/10/2004 12:26:07 AM)
I'd guess, in all honesty, that to sink that many ships would take at least 72 hours, assuming a good sized surface TF, a dozen subs, and good airpower.

mogami -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/10/2004 12:28:16 AM)
Hi, I think it was decided that in order to have statisics that could be used to base any conclusion you needed over 1400 samples. (The transports move 1 hex every half phase. If the battle began in the center of a hex and lasted 8 hours and there were more then 6 transports at start that survived there would be a transport in every adjecent hex before the turn was over. )

RAM -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/10/2004 12:32:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi, No there is trouble because some people cannot concive that while they might see 100 ducks flying overhead they can only shoot at few. More shooters will hit more ducks but they also might shoot the same duck. Firstly, when the duck falls, noone keeps it shooting while the dead bird's falling from the sky. In WitP everyone keep pounding the poor duck until even its own duck-mother would think it was her meal, not her son, if she saw the remains. Secondly, I can accept two ships firing at the same target, maybe three. 14 ships firing at the same burning sinking piece of scrap forever makes no sense, at all. quote: Does anyone really suppose that a TF with 50+ transports could be destroyed in less then 8 hours? Please don't distort what I said. I already said that even a 15% loss on the convoy would be acceptable for me (I would take it a bit on the low side on what I could expect, but I would accept it with no problems). That means 7-8 ships out of 55. I sank 2...maybe 3 after the (lucky, because if there had been none that ship would've also escaped) torpedo hit on one of the "unnattended" transports. I don't beg for a 55+ convoy being destroyed from first to last transport. Never have. So your comment is out of context and purpose here and can mislead any casual reader on what I'm pointing out. All I'm asking is for realistic loss % on them. 3 out of a 55 convoy means a 6% loss. Under such an amazing amount of firepower from far faster ships, and without protection nearby, sorry but 6% loss is just plain ridiculous. And the fact that to achieve that 6% loss I have been devoting 82.9% of my firepower is even more plainly ridiculous. There are things undefendible, and this is one. You're not going to change your point of view (that is clear at this stage). Thankfully like ZOOMIE1980 said, the developers have changed theirs and we'll hopefully see it fixed. That it's what matters to me, after all [:)]

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/10/2004 12:32:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi, No there is trouble because some people cannot concive that while they might see 100 ducks flying overhead they can only shoot at few. More shooters will hit more ducks but they also might shoot the same duck. It's not simply how many do I see. It's how many can I sink before moving to the next target. The target on the other hand is going in every direction. Once you get the first one you can't get all the rest. You might get another. And when this round of combat is done the battle is not over unless you say it is over and leave the area. If you want to pursue the next orders phase is the time to decide. Unless before the combat you had told the leader to retire in which case he has save movement that he might have used killing ships to leave the hex. Does anyone really suppose that a TF with 50+ transports could be destroyed in less then 8 hours? Again and again and again......The major mistake the testers have made in testing this game, is they take the notion that because each instance of a test performs within the defined design parameters if that part of the game, that that automatically means the the whole thing, over its entire breadth, is performing within performance parameters. That is almost NEVER the case in the real world. The FACTS are that large number of posters are seeing combat results with 6-10 surface combat ships engaging unescorted transport TFs where only one or two ships are taking 95% of the hits and damage. If I've a 100 ducks and five shooters we might get 3 ducks. If I've got 50 shooters I will get 20 or more ducks. If I have 200 shooters I should get over half the ducks. In WiTp that 200 shooters is still getting only 2 ducks! That is INSANE! Even though I can probably logically explain in each instance why only two got shot. Logically being able to explain each, individual, AAR does NOT mean something is NOT wrong. And that is what you fail to be able to understand.

anarchyintheuk -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/10/2004 12:35:29 AM)
I agree with what you're saying but I think the combat routine just makes it look a little bit worse than it is in terms of one ship getting a huge percentage of hits inflicted. When ship A hits ship B the computer adjusts the sys/flt/fire damage of B and, assuming sys damage affects speed and speed affects hit probability, B is now more likely to be hit by the next shot that A fires. If A is a ship w/ high ROF weapons and hits B early in A's firing sequence, B will quickly get to 100/100 sys/float damage, virtually guaranteeing A hitting B when it fires. Unfortunately, A and B aren't aware that B is sunk until the entire combat round (all the ships on both sides have fired) is over so the hits rapidly accumulate. The ship may have actually sunk on the 5th or 6th shot, it just won't know it. It also prevents A from engaging any other ship for the round.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.671875