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

Tankerace -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 6:39:18 AM)
This entire thread has turned from a problem with Surface combat to a flame Mogami thread. If any body wants the surface combat fixed (assuming it is broken), help fix it. Flaming Mog ain't going to do any good.

Tristanjohn -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 6:53:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace This entire thread has turned from a problem with Surface combat to a flame Mogami thread. If any body wants the surface combat fixed (assuming it is broken), help fix it. Flaming Mog ain't going to do any good. Who is flaming poor Mogami? Mostly people have leaned over backward to be nice and polite, including moi. The problem at question isn't hard to find. The question is 1) how often does it occur and 2) are you satisfied with that rate of occurrence? Sheesh, this exact same complaint is fairly identical to what we see in UV. How about finally changing it to something a bit more . . . realistic? As for the rest of it: all I hear is a whine going back to UV, mostly regarding the silly air model. Yet I notice now Zeros aren't so indestructible and Bettys not so devastating and so on, so apparently it's the case someone in design was listening and realized the air model wasn't so hot back then. Of course the "complainers" still get regulalrly bashed for not having a clue about what they were/are talking about. Sound familiar? That's a cute fraternity you guys have. But how about just fixing the problems and dropping the schmalz?

RAM -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 6:57:04 AM)
Heya again, Mogami [:)] First of all, I'm not trying to be out to get you, believe me ;). I just think that here you're defending something hardly believable, at it's best. I've already aknowledged that my opinion is based on "just" 8 night surface combats (one of PTs so I don't extract conclussions from it), however the 7 other ones pointed out the same tendency: to over-uber-super-duper-smash a couple of ships while the rest were more or less left alone even while they were positively detected, and they were of much more value. Not to mention the fact that the target fired upon usually had already had enough for ten lives to boot. I can't subscribe a whole undefeatable opinion out of 7 combats, true. However what I've seen matches closely what I've seen posted by many other members of this board at this thread and some others. Some of them, true, gave their opinion in bad manners, but many others, perfectly polite and putting in front the fact that they love this game for all it's worth, also gave a lot of accounts of a similar tendency. I have given a lot of details of some of my surface encounters (on my first post in this thread you'll find them), so anything else you want to know I'll be happy to tell so you can give me a hint on anything I've missed. Again, I'm not trying to get you by any means. heck, I said I thought (and I think) that your contributions in this boards are worth a lot...I just think that you're trying to defend something by any means, when (At least from my point of view) there's no way to take this particular issue as correct. I would write a bit more along this line to give you a more thorough answer to your long post, but I'm falling asleep and the bigger lines of what I wanted to reply are already said, so I'm off to bed...hope my point of view is a bit clearer now :)

Joel Billings -> RE: Mogami: My public defense (9/8/2004 7:07:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn Mogami, the poster who criticized you stood on solid ground with respect to the remark you wrote re "complainers." Much of what you write, though, has merit. You seem like a pretty good guy. Why not just ligten up a little and stop seeing all these conspiracies? As for Joel: either you haven't been around (as you write of others) or have that same "short memory" you accuse those same people of having. When it comes to after-market support Joel's record is nothing short of horrendous, and that's a matter of public record. As for Gary: I'm on record giving him highest marks across the board for designing fun games. I'd cry if he retired. And Matrix always gets high marks from me for general support and the willingness to go the extra yard. Couldn't fault them. Again, why not get off your high horse and stop preaching and talking down to folks? People pay cash for these games and deserve the right to complain when they see fit. Many of the complaints have merit, all are well meant I'm sure. Learn to live with that. Glad you finally said a few nice words about Mogami. He really is just trying to help and we are lucky to have him as a tester and player of WitP. Also glad you like what Gary does. So do I. We've enjoyed working together for over 20 years making games and we hope to keep doing it for awhile. Gotta go now. I'm brainwashing a new batch of testers in a few hours.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Mogami: My public defense (9/8/2004 7:33:02 AM)
Maybe the simplest solution would be to simply change the DL of Merchant Ships in Daylight to 99% and have fire actually REDUCE the DL of a target during daylight? After all, a burning ship in DAYLIGHT's main visable componant is SMOKE. The flames show up at NIGHT. but aren't significant in daylight. The major problem here is that the system seems to be built to deal with night action concerns (as much as it reflects anything), and produces really silly results during the day.

Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 8:31:18 AM)
velkro – A Brit TF consisting of the Revenge, 1 CA, 4 CLs, and 2 DDs intercept 26 Japanese TKs, AKs, and APs with not a single warfighting ship amongst the Japanese TF. Out of the 26, 13 of them are already smoking after numerous air raids. This TF is moving at about 6 knots due to damaged ships… it was daytime and the Japanese TF was SLOW. The Brits had full load of ammo and fuel and was set to "Patrol". The commander was "top notch" for the Brits… In my game, the Jap convoy was moving at 6 KNOTS, deep inside MY LBA range and wayyyy outside of his, and getting shadowed by recon planes. My slowest ship was a 20-knotter…Japanese were near Soerbaja…out of range of any known Jap airfields quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi, I think people do a lot better when they just post combat reports where the testers developers can see them and then explain as much as the circumstance as they can without trying to define where the game is broken. If the game is in fact producing results unintended then posting results is enough. But what we often read is no posted results just general comments and then a lecture on how the game was written using 1865 code and interfered with by non programmers and defended by the loyal unqualified Matrix testers. It is hard to sort out what we need to look out when the same people keep posting to every thread where someone with a real concern and no ax to grind posts a result that puzzles them. I don’t know. While velkro didn’t include a combat report, his description gives a fairly clear picture of the situation: A Japanese task force of 26 merchant vessels penetrates deep into the DEI without naval escort or carrier/land based air support. It is spotted by Allied recon and attacked from the air for at least two days (damaging much of the fleet) before the surface combat fleet closes in for the kill. There were historic reasons this type of operation (deep penetration without support) wasn’t done… this should have been a slaughter, but it wasn’t. Perhaps it was a fluke, but under the circumstances velkro described... it better be a one in a thousand or something in the subroutine needs a ‘tweak’. Historically, I can’t imagine a sane command… at least one who isn’t completely desperate… doing what was done in this PBEM. There are reasons why, hopefully the game models that to some extent. From Nikademus – “A current wish list item is to improve this aspect of the naval model by increasing aggressiveness vs ill defended or undefended merchants.” Hard to argue with that, if the result velkro saw isn’t a complete fluke. quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami It is hard to sort out what we need to look out when the same people keep posting to every thread where someone with a real concern and no ax to grind posts a result that puzzles them. No axe grinding smiley is available... so I used a chainsaw. [sm=00000055.gif]

Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Mogami: My public defense (9/8/2004 8:32:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joel Billings ... Gotta go now. I'm brainwashing a new batch of testers in a few hours... [:D]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 9:16:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Xian Okay. Here are my 2 cents. The way the game simulates the enagement of a large surface task force against a convoy is correct. Just look at Convoy PQ-17. Standard allied modus operandus in the event that the convoy is attacked by a surface TF is to disperse to minimize your losses (so yes, 60 mile hexagon is a lot of territory) The PQ-17 was sunk by subs that took advantage of the dispersed convoy without escorts. Also surface TFs tend to stay together as a cohesive unit, which is impeding their ability to cover all 9352.8 square miles of the hexagon. The only thing worse for the career of a naval TF commander than not sinking an undefended convoy is to run into an enemy TF that sinks your dispersed TF because you went hunting for an "undefended convoy." PQ 17 was dispersed based on information stating that Tirpitz was at sea so is not a great example of the situation being discussed. They had plenty of time to widely disperse and as it turned out, the decision was both premature (hindsight is wonderful) and tragic. In the majority of cases we see in WITP, the convoys are anchored and in the process of unloading AND are not forwarned by recon of the enemies presence as many players over extend their amphibious ops past safe covering forces. (See Mogami's excellent set of first turn house rules.) Because of this, dispersion would necessarily be less timely and effective and the enemy should be able to deal quite a blow. If proper steps are taken to protect ones invasion forces, they should be relatively safe. Point is is that the consequences of poor coverage of invasions/convoys is lacking as the model very frequently allows the convoy to get away relatively unharmed.

Tankerace -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 9:18:48 AM)
Solution: Tactical nukes. But seriously, I agree. Don't know who said it, but it seems to me the model is based (or is) the model used in Uncommon Valor, in which night attacks were the norm. So, it seems to me that the game might be treating all naval combat, day or night, as night battles, the only difference being the ranges involved.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 3:09:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Tarigo, Lupo and Duisburg convoys during the battle of the Mediterannean. Complete annihilation of two of the three convoys. The Lupo convoy saw some serious confusion on the part of the British, but even in this case, a single cruiser (Orion) manage to destroy 10 of the enemy transports. Those were Italians - sure you don't want to see that modelled in WITP? [:D] Weren't those "10 enemy transports" in case of Lupo actually "caiques", ie. very small coastal craft akin to barges in WITP? And are you sure it was only Orion on the British side, not the whole cruiser squadron? Cruiser squadron vs. lone DE + 10x AG barges is verymuch different than CA vs. DE + 10x AK. In that action Lupo was hit with no less than 18 6in shells - another brave escort taking punishment trying to save the conwoy, just like those PGs in WITP people complain so much about. Duisburg - here we have defensive action that is not simply bad, it's embarassing for the Italians. Perhaps such embarassments should be modeled in WITP, but then you'd have even bigger protests from the players who got "Duisburg-ed" while their ships buzzed around too afraid to shoot. In the Pacific such escort embarassments were rare, maybe they have to be modelled for UV-Med? [:D] O. Weren't those "10 enemy transports" in case of Lupo actually "caiques", ie. very small coastal craft akin to barges in WITP? And are you sure it was only Orion on the British side, not the whole cruiser squadron? Yeah, they were caiques. I used it as an example of the sheer volume of targets engaged. Orion did ten all by her lonesome. Other cruisers bag a bunch as well. Cruiser squadron vs. lone DE + 10x AG barges is verymuch different than CA vs. DE + 10x AK. Well, how about POW, Repulse, Danae, Stronghold, and Tenedos vs 16 Med AP...no escort at all.[:D]

Bradley7735 -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 5:33:18 PM)
Ok, so I asked if there were any convoys in WWII that were wiped out by surface combat. This entire forum came up with 3 convoys in the Med. (And one of these were composed of barges?). In another thread, I hinted that if someone had the historic results of the battle of Samar, there'd be screaming of surface combats aren't modeled correctly. (20+ surface ships vs 6 CVE and 6 escorts, with only 3 escorts and 1 CVE sunk, and 3 attacking CA sunk) I sincerely hope that Matrix does NOT change the code to increase damage done to transports in surface engagements. I feel they currently tend to take too much punishment when compared to historic battles. Why would a surface force pound one lowly PG to dust?? Because it might be identified as a DD and the admiral is worried about his BB taking a torpedo or two. (S&G vs Glorius in the North Sea give you an example of why you need to concentrate on the DD escort?) Why would AK's escape? Rain squalls, smoke laid by escorts, low feul in the attackers bunkers, possibility of enemy air strikes, cowardly/incompetent comanders, possibility of SS attacks on the attackers, one lucky hit in the map room of the flagship spooks the admiral in charge (Savo Island), etc, etc. 97 out of 100 surface fleets vs transports should have around 20% of the transports sunk, with the rest escaping. Only in the Midway type lucky battles will you sink or damage them all. (hence the 2 examples in the med) If you control the air and the sea, you can pick them off the next day. If not, then congratulate yourself on delaying an invasion and killing some ships/troops and call it a day. more of my 2 cents. BC - Official Mogami Fanboy Club

Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 6:00:57 PM)
well, only because some posters did not answer the "surface-tf wipe out a convoi" question answered it is not true that were only 3 incidents in the mediteran Scharnhorst & Gneisenau killed some small convoys Admiral Scheer did the same Admiral Hipper did, afer defeating the glorious but helpless defence of the Jervis Bay (Aux Cruiser) The more important question is, what had happen IF a convoy had to challenge a warship taskforce....cause normaly no sane comander will send undefended convoys out in the ocean.... cause they know it is dead mead for an attacker.... so landings without a strong cover up should be forbidden, at last some respectable defence force should be there (or you have so much airforce and had some heavy fightings that you (fow) belive there is no more enemy ships...) we speak about a battleship tf against undefended helpless transports, at day. In calm waters, with good sight (if i am wrong, please correct me)... with a tf that was out in the ocean to stop this landings, that know about the landing and should have the ability to defeat them.... if the convoy would escape scattered into 5 directions, after got hit badly, i would agree... but one undefended AP that will be sacrificed by the rest and the convoy come back later and do the landing go on is not really good. If one of the things you mentioned (DD lay smoke screen, rain squall, etc.. ) would happen, this could explain it. But some people said, it is cause of the night combat-engine... here i agree, at night the escape chance is much better and not all ships should be killed. but i still stand to the "10 warships against 20 ak´s at daylight without any other problems is 20 lost ak´s....even with me at the comander..." and this would be right, cause a player who send out troops in a convoy without cover should be punished, not improved....

Bradley7735 -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 6:19:24 PM)
Those German ships did not kill entire convoys. Yes, they charged in and sank a few. They also tracked down and sank a few the next day. If you read about the Jervis Bay, you'll know she was considered to save the majority of the convoy she was protecting. The AK's do not line up and wait to be shot. They scatter and most will escape. Whoever controls the air and the sea will decide what happens the next day. (more AK's sunk or the AK's survive). 10 surface ships vs 20 ak's should almost never result in 20 sunk ak's. Anyone who has ever been out to sea knows you never have a mirror surface ocean and limitless visibility. Especially in the tropical area's of the world. Why does Maui have the wettest and dryest spot in the US? Because it rains EVERY day on one side of Maui. Rain squalls do a lot to hide ships. If we were playing PBEM and I sent in AK's and you sank 3 or 4 out of 20, I'd have been handed a very serious tactical defeat. If I choose to send the survivors back in the next day, I should be court martialed. WITP does have a habit of sending AK's back into harms way, which might be a flaw in the AI, but not in the way surface battles are done. Mogami has posted results of 50% sunk. I've personally seen results of 50% or better sunk. I certainly don't think we should be seeing results of 100% sunk. Except the one in a million chance. BC - Official Mogami Fanboy Club

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 6:50:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bradley7735 Those German ships did not kill entire convoys. Yes, they charged in and sank a few. They also tracked down and sank a few the next day. If you read about the Jervis Bay, you'll know she was considered to save the majority of the convoy she was protecting. The AK's do not line up and wait to be shot. They scatter and most will escape. Whoever controls the air and the sea will decide what happens the next day. (more AK's sunk or the AK's survive). 10 surface ships vs 20 ak's should almost never result in 20 sunk ak's. Anyone who has ever been out to sea knows you never have a mirror surface ocean and limitless visibility. Especially in the tropical area's of the world. Why does Maui have the wettest and dryest spot in the US? Because it rains EVERY day on one side of Maui. Rain squalls do a lot to hide ships. If we were playing PBEM and I sent in AK's and you sank 3 or 4 out of 20, I'd have been handed a very serious tactical defeat. If I choose to send the survivors back in the next day, I should be court martialed. WITP does have a habit of sending AK's back into harms way, which might be a flaw in the AI, but not in the way surface battles are done. Mogami has posted results of 50% sunk. I've personally seen results of 50% or better sunk. I certainly don't think we should be seeing results of 100% sunk. Except the one in a million chance. BC - Official Mogami Fanboy Club Nobody is actually asking for the friggin' moon here, fanboy. What the concern is about is quite clear, and if you bothered to read this thread "thoroughly", you would know we are not crying for more bloody jello. At the moment, there is no vital need to escort your APs against surface forces as the law of averages pretty much assures you of 10% losses. This blows. There are also an entire other set of factors which have been pointed out here once again as adversely affecting surface combat results and probability. I don't think any of us here are veterans of these naval actions, but we are history buffs, enthusiasts, history teachers, what have you, and we see a problem.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 7:12:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: velkro A Brit TF consisting of the Revenge, 1 CA, 4 CLs, and 2 DDs intercept 26 Japanese TKs, AKs, and APs with not a single warfighting ship amongst the Japanese TF. Out of the 26, 13 of them are already smoking after numerous air raids. This TF is moving at about 6 knots due to damaged ships. So, I turn on the combat display so I can see my fun. You would think it would be a shooting gallery, right? WRONG! For some odd reason, every one of my ships decides to pummel a damaged TK and a damaged AP. Each of those two Japanese ships received like 55 hits. Not one other ship was even shot at!!! What the heck!!!???!!! Is my peoples stupid or is this a software glitch!?!? If you think about it, the Brits should have taken out like at least half of those tubs...it was daytime and the Japanese TF was SLOW. The Brits had full load of ammo and fuel and was set to "Patrol". REMEMBER THIS??? It's the original post that started this thread. EIGHT (not one or two) Surface Combat Vessels (slowest speed 21 kts, fastest in the 30's) intercept 26 TOTALLY UNESCORTED Merchant Ships (HALF of which are already damaged and NONE of which can exceed 12 kts) in broad daylight and good visability! And the Game produces the TOTALLY IDIOTIC and INDEFENSABLE result of two already-half sunk Merchants "finished off" while the rest escape! Anyone with a three digit IQ has got to realize that this is a bunch of BS! Had the already damaged half of the convoy been pounded while the still in good shape half scattered and ran, no one would have been complaining. Had there been a reason- able escort to "sacrifice itself" (3-4 DD's or something, not a PC and 3 MSW) the result would have been dissappointing but perhaps acceptable. Had the Brits been "low ammo/low fuel" a case could be made. But the result cited in the circumstances involved is patently absurd, and the Designers need to pay some attention.

Tristanjohn -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 7:35:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: velkro A Brit TF consisting of the Revenge, 1 CA, 4 CLs, and 2 DDs intercept 26 Japanese TKs, AKs, and APs with not a single warfighting ship amongst the Japanese TF. Out of the 26, 13 of them are already smoking after numerous air raids. This TF is moving at about 6 knots due to damaged ships. So, I turn on the combat display so I can see my fun. You would think it would be a shooting gallery, right? WRONG! For some odd reason, every one of my ships decides to pummel a damaged TK and a damaged AP. Each of those two Japanese ships received like 55 hits. Not one other ship was even shot at!!! What the heck!!!???!!! Is my peoples stupid or is this a software glitch!?!? If you think about it, the Brits should have taken out like at least half of those tubs...it was daytime and the Japanese TF was SLOW. The Brits had full load of ammo and fuel and was set to "Patrol". REMEMBER THIS??? It's the original post that started this thread. EIGHT (not one or two) Surface Combat Vessels (slowest speed 21 kts, fastest in the 30's) intercept 26 TOTALLY UNESCORTED Merchant Ships (HALF of which are already damaged and NONE of which can exceed 12 kts) in broad daylight and good visability! And the Game produces the TOTALLY IDIOTIC and INDEFENSABLE result of two already-half sunk Merchants "finished off" while the rest escape! Anyone with a three digit IQ has got to realize that this is a bunch of BS! You probably meant two-digit IQ there, unless you're thinking in decimal points this morning. [:D] quote: Had the already damaged half of the convoy been pounded while the still in good shape half scattered and ran, no one would have been complaining. Had there been a reason- able escort to "sacrifice itself" (3-4 DD's or something, not a PC and 3 MSW) the result would have been dissappointing but perhaps acceptable. Had the Brits been "low ammo/low fuel" a case could be made. But the result cited in the circumstances involved is patently absurd, and the Designers need to pay some attention. The concept of "screens" I think needs to be investigated further. I've only seen this one time that I can recall, where the silly AI sent an air-combat TF to Lunga. On the surface-engagement battle screen a gaggle of DDs and CLs and CAs were positioned in front of the three CVs, and when I'd finished off the "screen" the action broke off, simulating, I suppose, the escape of those CVs (thanks to the screening action, of course). No such "screen" is depicted when, say, DDs escort a merchant convoy, where all the ships (space permitting) are just bunched together. I think it ought to be like in the case above, unless the escorted merchant convoy is surprised. What do you think?

Mike Scholl -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 7:38:49 PM)
No John...., I figured someone with only a two digit IQ might NOT realize this was BS.

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 7:39:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl REMEMBER THIS??? It's the original post that started this thread. EIGHT (not one or two) Surface Combat Vessels (slowest speed 21 kts, fastest in the 30's) intercept 26 TOTALLY UNESCORTED Merchant Ships Once again, it's not 26 ships!! Only the ships that are "named" during the combat animation are seen! Others remain unseen, undetected. Your little virtual AI admiral thought he was engaging 3 or 4 ships. He, for example, sunk 2 outright, and left other two in what he believed was "sinking state". He never knew there were another 22 AKs in that TF or hex. Now you may complain about detection routines, but combat routines themselves seem generally OK to me. A small tweak here and there would be welcome perhaps, but it's not a show stopper. O.

Tristanjohn -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 7:43:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl No John...., I figured someone with only a two digit IQ might NOT realize this was BS. Okay, then. But really, how smart does one need to be on some of this stuff? [:)]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 7:43:50 PM)
quote: The concept of "screens" I think needs to be investigated further. I've only seen this one time that I can recall, where the silly AI sent an air-combat TF to Lunga. On the surface-engagement battle screen a gaggle of DDs and CLs and CAs were positioned in front of the three CVs, and when I'd finished off the "screen" the action broke off, simulating, I suppose, the escape of those CVs (thanks to the screening action, of course). No such "screen" is depicted when, say, DDs escort a merchant convoy, where all the ships (space permitting) are just bunched together. I think it ought to be like in the case above, unless the escorted merchant convoy is surprised. What do you think? This was no screen. It was simply overlap on the animation screen I bet. There is no actual ship stationing or role delineation from what I have seen. Just a big group of ships blasting away Nelson style. I just want to add that it's the results which will satisfy me, and most likely many others. Combat animations are simply eye candy but have a very negative effect on the gamers view of what is actually being simulated. As it unfolds on the screen, nothing makes alot of sense, but this is not really the intention. The end result is. Get the final results in the strike zone and the issue would be a non one.

Tristanjohn -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 7:48:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl REMEMBER THIS??? It's the original post that started this thread. EIGHT (not one or two) Surface Combat Vessels (slowest speed 21 kts, fastest in the 30's) intercept 26 TOTALLY UNESCORTED Merchant Ships Once again, it's not 26 ships!! Only the ships that are "named" during the combat animation are seen! Others remain unseen, undetected. Your little virtual AI admiral thought he was engaging 3 or 4 ships. He, for example, sunk 2 outright, and left other two in what he believed was "sinking state". He never knew there were another 22 AKs in that TF or hex. Now you may complain about detection routines, but combat routines themselves seem generally OK to me. A small tweak here and there would be welcome perhaps, but it's not a show stopper. O. Oleg, I agree completely, it's not a show stopper. It is, however, something that irks some of us and is furthermore something that could in all probability be changed (corrected from my point of view). As for what's spotted, a better implementation for spotting would be to only have on screen those ships spotted, with names appearing almost never. I mean it's like those Bettys with super binoculars who constantly read "PT-175" from how many thousand feet up? [:D]

Tristanjohn -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 7:54:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: The concept of "screens" I think needs to be investigated further. I've only seen this one time that I can recall, where the silly AI sent an air-combat TF to Lunga. On the surface-engagement battle screen a gaggle of DDs and CLs and CAs were positioned in front of the three CVs, and when I'd finished off the "screen" the action broke off, simulating, I suppose, the escape of those CVs (thanks to the screening action, of course). No such "screen" is depicted when, say, DDs escort a merchant convoy, where all the ships (space permitting) are just bunched together. I think it ought to be like in the case above, unless the escorted merchant convoy is surprised. What do you think? This was no screen. It was simply overlap on the animation screen I bet. There is no actual ship stationing or role delineation from what I have seen. Just a big group of ships blasting away Nelson style. I just want to add that it's the results which will satisfy me, and most likely many others. Combat animations are simply eye candy but have a very negative effect on the gamers view of what is actually being simulated. As it unfolds on the screen, nothing makes alot of sense, but this is not really the intention. The end result is. Get the final results in the strike zone and the issue would be a non one. Well, I wondered about that at the time and it's the only time I've seen it, but no, there was no overlap, as you put it, as that would occur with the row closest to the screen edge completely filled up, whereas in this case the only ships positioned there were the CVs, with just a few escorting ships in the row next nearest the enemy (Allies). I wish someone in the know (actually you'd fit that bill, but apparently you haven't heard of this or seen it yourself) would come forward and say whether or not a "screen" of this sort is implemented when a TF with CVs in it engages.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 7:55:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko Once again, it's not 26 ships!! Only the ships that are "named" during the combat animation are seen! Others remain unseen, undetected. Your little virtual AI admiral thought he was engaging 3 or 4 ships. He, for example, sunk 2 outright, and left other two in what he believed was "sinking state". He never knew there were another 22 AKs in that TF or hex. O. Straw Dog, Oleg. Read velcro's posts again. The Japanese were a 26-ship TF. Nothing about only seeing four ships (and had it been only four, there is NO EXCUSE for all of them not to be sunk.). MS Convoys travel together with a few hundred yards between ships. They aren't spread out all over 3,000 square miles of ocean hiding behind trees. The attacker is closing the distance at twice the speed the defender can run, so his ability to spot is getting better all the time. And the MS were being shadowed by friendly A/C in the example, so the Brit CO knew EXACTLY what he was looking for. It's a flaw in the system. It's a big game, so there are bound to be some. Why defend an obvious problem with a bunch of totally silly rationalizations?

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 8:01:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn -whether or not a "screen" of this sort is implemented when a TF with CVs in it engages. Hmmm, never came across this.[&:] If it exists, it could be used vs PTs when they engage a surface combat TF with heavies or any other TF which would employ one.

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 8:03:31 PM)
Wow, a contentious thread without one single ZOOMIE post! OK, here's my take. 1) Regardless of what Mogami has seen in his AAR's, it seems his results are almost always different than what almost every casual player is getting. I don't know why, but it certainly seems that way. It is CLEAR that we have a large number of players who seeing the same general result from major surface engagements, i.e. one or two ships sucking up almost ALL the fire, even in daylight engagements. I have played about a dozen and half games now, in fits and starts (completed none) and have maybe had 10 or 12 what I would call major engagements (something other than Uber-PT boats attacking things...an already bloodied dead-horse issue). In EVERY SINGLE ONE of them I have seen this effect. I passed it off as intentional design to simulate what must be the norm for the WWII era.... 2) If this is NOT indeed the intent, then the game suffers from a classical "work distribution" bug on a queue or list, very similar to the telemarketing issue of ensuring Agents 1 and 2 in a call center don't get killed while Agents 3, 4, 5, and so on spend their day playing uninterrupted WitP turns on their workstations.... 3) And more generally, most poster must understand what we have here with WitP is the actual BETA phase of the game. What the "Beta Testers" were doing was actual pre-release ALPHA testing. That equates to the Vertical Market software market as the predelivery System Tests. When that is done we release software to the Customer and then the Customer enters what we call the Customer Acceptance testing period, otherwise known a the BETA test period. That is what we are in right now, for all practical purposes. Microsoft and other mass-market companies do the same thing. They internally test OS's and office suites then "release" them to a large group of volunteer customers that have no idea what to really expect or to look for, just a feature list and explanation of how they are supposed to work. Only after that group has had it for while and there have been a series of fixes is the product actually released to the general public. Bottom line until anywhere from 2 to 4 MAJOR patches have been release can anyone consider WitP to be a "finished" product.

Tristanjohn -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 8:04:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn -whether or not a "screen" of this sort is implemented when a TF with CVs in it engages. Hmmm, never came across this.[&:] If it exists, it could be used vs PTs when they engage a surface combat TF with heavies or any other TF which would employ one. Not sure I got that, Ron. Could you explain further?

Bradley7735 -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 8:09:17 PM)
Everyone has their right to an opinion. Mine is that I think the surface combat resolution is pretty ok. If anything it should be toned down a little. I tend to look at things as they could have occured, historically. I'm not looking for a doom game. I'd prefer to see Lexington II, not re-spawned US CV's. I'd like to see US PT's miss a little more than they do now. I haven't seen results in my games that seem rediculous when looking at surface battles (non-PT). If I had the results of the combat that started this thread, I'd write it off as: The transports took an awful beating by air. So, they were completely scattered throughout 60 square miles because of the air attacks. I was pretty damn lucky to kill 2 to 4 of them with my surface force. I don't think you should ever see a result of 20 AK's sunk in one battle. They don't line up like ducks at a shooting range. Maybe the attacking surface force was spotted by air 20 miles before they engaged the AK's. So, the AK's spread out sooner than the attacker would have liked. I should also say that I play conservatively, so in my WITP game, I have only seen 5 or so surface battles vs AK's. None of them seemed wrong to me. I have had hundreds of examples from UV, so most of what I say now relates to that game. I am not aware of a difference between the games, but if there is, then there could be a problem. I assume they have the same code, though.

Tristanjohn -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 8:13:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bradley7735 Everyone has their right to an opinion. Mine is that I think the surface combat resolution is pretty ok. If anything it should be toned down a little. I tend to look at things as they could have occured, historically. I'm not looking for a doom game. I'd prefer to see Lexington II, not re-spawned US CV's. I'd like to see US PT's miss a little more than they do now. I haven't seen results in my games that seem rediculous when looking at surface battles (non-PT). If I had the results of the combat that started this thread, I'd write it off as: The transports took an awful beating by air. So, they were completely scattered throughout 60 square miles because of the air attacks. I was pretty damn lucky to kill 2 to 4 of them with my surface force. I don't think you should ever see a result of 20 AK's sunk in one battle. They don't line up like ducks at a shooting range. Maybe the attacking surface force was spotted by air 20 miles before they engaged the AK's. So, the AK's spread out sooner than the attacker would have liked. I should also say that I play conservatively, so in my WITP game, I have only seen 5 or so surface battles vs AK's. None of them seemed wrong to me. I have had hundreds of examples from UV, so most of what I say now relates to that game. I am not aware of a difference between the games, but if there is, then there could be a problem. I assume they have the same code, though. I've no problem with you sticking to your guns, Bradley. Didn't know I'd challenged you in that area.

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 8:16:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bradley7735 Everyone has their right to an opinion. Mine is that I think the surface combat resolution is pretty ok. If anything it should be toned down a little. I tend to look at things as they could have occured, historically. I'm not looking for a doom game. I'd prefer to see Lexington II, not re-spawned US CV's. I'd like to see US PT's miss a little more than they do now. I haven't seen results in my games that seem rediculous when looking at surface battles (non-PT). If I had the results of the combat that started this thread, I'd write it off as: The transports took an awful beating by air. So, they were completely scattered throughout 60 square miles because of the air attacks. I was pretty damn lucky to kill 2 to 4 of them with my surface force. I don't think you should ever see a result of 20 AK's sunk in one battle. They don't line up like ducks at a shooting range. Maybe the attacking surface force was spotted by air 20 miles before they engaged the AK's. So, the AK's spread out sooner than the attacker would have liked. I should also say that I play conservatively, so in my WITP game, I have only seen 5 or so surface battles vs AK's. None of them seemed wrong to me. I have had hundreds of examples from UV, so most of what I say now relates to that game. I am not aware of a difference between the games, but if there is, then there could be a problem. I assume they have the same code, though. I think what have here is a matter of degree. I had one significant surface combat last week that was typical of what I see and most others have seen. 2CA, 2CL and 6DD's engage a force of 12AP and 6 AK's. 1AP gets something like 55 shell hits and 10 Torpedo hits, 1AK gets like 12 shell hits and 2 torp hits and the others get a smattering of one or two shell hits, many get none. This was a daylight engagement. Now is that normal? I think that needs to be toned down at least a little bit? For those think that's normal and well modelled I'd like to see verifiable historical references of such engagements, if there are any. I don't think anyone expects an equal distribution of hits across all 18 ships; that would be as unrealistic as one ship taking 97% of all hits. The answer is probably a fine tuning of the target selection forumla, at least in daylight....

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 8:23:52 PM)
Anchored amphibious TFs in the process of unloading ARE sitting ducks,and should be modelled as such. Can you imagine what would have happened to the Guadalcanal invasion fleet off Lunga if Mikawa had continued on after spanking the heavies? Can you further imagine what would have happenned if the Lunga invasion was performed as many do in WITP, and the player did not provide a covering force of cruisers and lesser warships as close escort? It would be like alot like someone let a pack off dingos into a maternity ward. I'm with you on the reality vein, buddy. That's why this thread exists.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.234375