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

Nomad -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 8:32:14 PM)
Just to stick my toe in the water here, it seems( I have no real knowledge ) that each SHIP checks the DL when it is time for it to fire. That would explain why all ships seem to fire at one or two blazing ships. I would think it better if at the start of a combat round the entire TF select targets for each firing ship. You might still get most ships firing at a few targets but at least the DL levels should be fairly even at the start.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 8:36:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad Just to stick my toe in the water here, it seems( I have no real knowledge ) that each SHIP checks the DL when it is time for it to fire. That would explain why all ships seem to fire at one or two blazing ships. I would think it better if at the start of a combat round the entire TF select targets for each firing ship. You might still get most ships firing at a few targets but at least the DL levels should be fairly even at the start. Assuming none have taken any previous combat damage I'd guess.

Bradley7735 -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 9:05:56 PM)
Hi Tristanjohn, Sorry, my response wasn't directed to you. I can only peek at the forum from work, so my responses come in slower than I'd like. It was really a general response to many. Ron, I agree with you re unloading transports. They should be hit repeatedly if spotted. But remember the battle in early 42 when US flushdeckers found some AP's unloading. I think long after the war it was decided that the Jap defenders did more damage to AP's than the US DD's did. Either way, they didn't sink the entire invasion force. But, in an unloading case, I'd agree that more than 50% of the AP's could get decimated. bc

Erik Rutins -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 9:34:06 PM)
Hi all, I haven't ready every single post in this thread, but I've scanned through and gotten the gist of things. I understand that, historical examples aside, those results can seem too weak if they are consistent. However, if you are concerned with surface combat, trying to convert other posters or argue with testers or developers won't help move things along. The best way to present the case is to set up a test save in the tutorial scenario and run it quite a few times (say more than 20) in both night and day and cautious and aggressive commanders to prove the normal result. Then post the save and the results here. With all due respect, that will help move things along much more quickly than revisiting just one or a few cases. My understanding is that this is already being looked into by the testers, but the above is a way to help constructively with that process. Regards, - Erik

Tristanjohn -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 9:44:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker I'm with you on the reality vein, buddy. That's why this thread exists. I'm not so sure that's why this thread exists, Ron . . . but I'd like to believe it does. [;)]

neuromancer -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 11:22:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kaiser73 And please guys, let's be realistic. why defending always everything in WITP. i love this game, but this doesn't mean we have to defend the undefendable. That is the definition of a fanboy. When you are a fanboy of X, X is perfect, and can do no wrong, ever. Its not just the guys willing to come up with the thinnest explanations possible to support something in WitP - and no matter what you tell them, they will never change their minds. No I've seen it many, many, many, many... (etc.) times before. Some people are like that, never figured out why. "I like something. Its good, therefor it is PERFECT!" I've never figured out how A leads to B. There are quite a few things in my life that I like, or even love, but under no circumstances are they perfect. My girlfriend for example. Great lady. Probably most important person or thing in my life. But she ain't perfect, no chance. There are things about her I would change if I could (for instance, her frequent use of the phrase 'kit and kaboodle'). And yet I'm supposed to attach the perfection label to a computer game? I think not. Now the nice thing about a game as opposed to a gf, is things can be changed. Alter so code, release a patch, ta da! I don't think there is a Gloria 1.1 patch coming out any time soon. Fortunately, Gloria 1.0 doesn't have any serious bugs that I consider reason enough to leave her on the shelf for a while. [;)] (Okay, neuro has lost it...) Anyway, I must echo the sentiment. There is clearly a problem with the targeting routines in the UV and WitP surface combat routines. It is silly. It should be fixed. That doesn't mean that you cannot still love the game. It just means you should stop providing the really thin 'real world' explanations for why the game does the same dumb things over, and over, and over (uncommon events in the real world becoming the norm in the game... strangely almost alwas centered around targetting, air to surface, and surface to surface).

Tankerace -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/8/2004 11:43:00 PM)
Well, In my game the dirty sons of.....the Rising Sun, have decided to invade the Canal months early (4/29/42). Fortunately, I had a US Cruiser/Destroyer TF present. Here are the combat Results. 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Somedono Maru was pounded into driftwood, by 8, 6 and 5 inch shells. However, as she became increasingly hit, the ships shifted targets, crippling 1 other merchie and damaging another. A Result like this, in a combat I didn't even expect, I can live with.

neuromancer -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 12:02:59 AM)
Better I will agree. But still, that ship would have SUNK long before you got to 48 shell hits. Which gets back to checking for sinking is done too infrequently.

Tankerace -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 12:21:19 AM)
That I'll agree with.

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 1:29:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace Well, In my game the dirty sons of.....the Rising Sun, have decided to invade the Canal months early (4/29/42). Fortunately, I had a US Cruiser/Destroyer TF present. Here are the combat Results. 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Somedono Maru was pounded into driftwood, by 8, 6 and 5 inch shells. However, as she became increasingly hit, the ships shifted targets, crippling 1 other merchie and damaging another. A Result like this, in a combat I didn't even expect, I can live with. This is VERY typical of what I have consistantly seen. It's a bit excessive.

Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 12:14:53 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. 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. Velkro - In addition, I spotted about 18 of the 26 ships during the surface action (the names appeared on the combat display). The surface fleet spotted 18 out of the 26 and was only able to hit 2 of that 18. Some of these 18 ships were already damage and unable to move at full speed (restricted to 6 knots), while the intercepting task force had ships able to travel at 30 knots. Maybe the subroutine is working correctly, but such results are interesting don�t you think?

Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 12:21:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bradley7735 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 Velkro - In addition, I spotted about 18 of the 26 ships during the surface action (the names appeared on the combat display). The intercepting task force intercept 2 out of 18 ships spotted (not dispersed over 60 miles). I could understand someone arguing that it was just extremely poor luck� fair enough. We could thing discuss if it was 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000, but for you to claim 2 out of 18 was �pretty damn lucky�. Interesting.

Tristanjohn -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 5:38:33 PM)
TTT

Mike Scholl -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 5:56:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980 quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace Well, In my game the dirty sons of.....the Rising Sun, have decided to invade the Canal months early (4/29/42). Fortunately, I had a US Cruiser/Destroyer TF present. Here are the combat Results. 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Somedono Maru was pounded into driftwood, by 8, 6 and 5 inch shells. However, as she became increasingly hit, the ships shifted targets, crippling 1 other merchie and damaging another. A Result like this, in a combat I didn't even expect, I can live with. This is VERY typical of what I have consistantly seen. It's a bit excessive. Let me get this straight. Four unescorted 12-knot merchants sailing directly towards eleven 30+ knot combat vessels in broad daylight and none are sunk? One isn't even engaged? And you call that "excessive"??? What would you view as "normal"??? Do you think one of the AK's should have rammed a DD? I would charicterize the results above as pitifully dissappointing from the Allied side; and a cause for joyous celebration by the Japanese.

Mr.Frag -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 6:24:12 PM)
Sorry, just not seeing that. Night Time Surface Combat at 61,74 Japanese Ships AK Hakkai Maru, Shell hits 28, and is sunk AK Hakodate Maru, Shell hits 48, and is sunk AK Hakonesan Maru, Shell hits 14, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage (sinks immediately after combat ends) AK Hakubasan Maru, Shell hits 59, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk Allied Ships CA Minneapolis CL Cleveland CL Montpelier DD Anthony DD Aulick DD Charles Ausburne DD Charles Badger DD Beale DD Bell I really think you guys need to be putting aggressive commanders in your surface fleets.

Bradley7735 -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 6:26:56 PM)
Hi Frag, I think what they're saying is that daylight surface combats are messed up. (only one or two ships fired at.) Your example is night combat. Unfortunately, in WITP, I haven't had enough daylight combats to really give an opinion. I personally think night combats are being done well. But, I think the gist of this thread is daylight surface combats vs unescorted AP's. bc

Mr.Frag -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 6:33:52 PM)
quote: Your example is night combat. Unfortunately, in WITP, I haven't had enough daylight combats to really give an opinion. I personally think night combats are being done well. But, I think the gist of this thread is daylight surface combats vs unescorted AP's. Daylight on the way ... Day Time Surface Combat at 61,74 Japanese Ships AK Hakkai Maru, Shell hits 30, and is sunk AK Hakodate Maru, Shell hits 27, on fire, heavy damage (sunk immediately after combat ended) AK Hakonesan Maru AK Hakubasan Maru Allied Ships CA Minneapolis CL Cleveland CL Montpelier DD Anthony DD Aulick DD Charles Ausburne DD Charles Badger DD Beale DD Bell

Tristanjohn -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 6:44:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980 quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace Well, In my game the dirty sons of.....the Rising Sun, have decided to invade the Canal months early (4/29/42). Fortunately, I had a US Cruiser/Destroyer TF present. Here are the combat Results. 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Somedono Maru was pounded into driftwood, by 8, 6 and 5 inch shells. However, as she became increasingly hit, the ships shifted targets, crippling 1 other merchie and damaging another. A Result like this, in a combat I didn't even expect, I can live with. This is VERY typical of what I have consistantly seen. It's a bit excessive. Let me get this straight. Four unescorted 12-knot merchants sailing directly towards eleven 30+ knot combat vessels in broad daylight and none are sunk? One isn't even engaged? And you call that "excessive"??? What would you view as "normal"??? Do you think one of the AK's should have rammed a DD? I would charicterize the results above as pitifully dissappointing from the Allied side; and a cause for joyous celebration by the Japanese. quote: Somedono Maru I have a feeling that by "excessive" Zoomie meant all those redundant hits on Somedono Maru.

Tristanjohn -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 6:47:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: Your example is night combat. Unfortunately, in WITP, I haven't had enough daylight combats to really give an opinion. I personally think night combats are being done well. But, I think the gist of this thread is daylight surface combats vs unescorted AP's. Daylight on the way ... Day Time Surface Combat at 61,74 Japanese Ships AK Hakkai Maru, Shell hits 30, and is sunk AK Hakodate Maru, Shell hits 27, on fire, heavy damage (sunk immediately after combat ended) AK Hakonesan Maru AK Hakubasan Maru Allied Ships CA Minneapolis CL Cleveland CL Montpelier DD Anthony DD Aulick DD Charles Ausburne DD Charles Badger DD Beale DD Bell I'd run that test with 1) 3x as many transports 2) twenty times or so. And just to be complete I'd run it from both sides with similarly rated Allied and Japanese surface-combat commanders.

Mr.Frag -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 6:55:54 PM)
Same test ... better weather. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Time Surface Combat at 61,74 Japanese Ships AK Hakkai Maru, Shell hits 32, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage (sunk immediately after) AK Hakodate Maru, Shell hits 2 AK Hakonesan Maru, Shell hits 42, and is sunk AK Hakubasan Maru, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage (88/42/30) Allied Ships CA Minneapolis CL Cleveland CL Montpelier DD Anthony DD Aulick DD Charles Ausburne DD Charles Badger DD Beale DD Bell

Nikademus -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 6:57:00 PM)
I ran similar tests a long time ago. My findings are generally similar to the thread originator. In general comprable sized or larger sized transport TF's will escape with only light or at best moderate losses regardless of circumstances. Primary reason for this is that the engine treats Surface TF vs Transport TF 'as' Surface vs Surface. i.e. they exchange a few rounds of fire, then mutually break off. An exception can be when a large surface TF engages a small transport TF...under those circumstances you can achieve a large degree of damage vs the TF. Based on my test findings, the recommendation i forwarded (and currently on the wish list) is that it be made that surface TF vs transport TF be made more aggressive to simulate a commander's realization that he has in a sense, "hit the jackpot" and realizes he has achieved the goal of breaking through to a vulnerable transport fleet, instead of treating said TF as a combat TF with comprable firepower (and a chance to sig damage you in return)

Tristanjohn -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 6:59:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag Same test ... better weather. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Time Surface Combat at 61,74 Japanese Ships AK Hakkai Maru, Shell hits 32, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage (sunk immediately after) AK Hakodate Maru, Shell hits 2 AK Hakonesan Maru, Shell hits 42, and is sunk AK Hakubasan Maru, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage (88/42/30) Allied Ships CA Minneapolis CL Cleveland CL Montpelier DD Anthony DD Aulick DD Charles Ausburne DD Charles Badger DD Beale DD Bell Again, my advice is to change your test criteria according to my suggestion above. For what it's worth I haven't had one of these engagements yet in WitP so I've no particular ax to grind here. But I can't imagine people fabricating their results--what would be the point? Soooo . . . I remain with food for thought and doubt re the WitP naval model. It sure seems to be performing no better then it did in UV.

Tristanjohn -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 7:03:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus I ran similar tests a long time ago. My findings are generally similar to the thread originator. In general comprable sized or larger sized transport TF's will escape with only light or at best moderate losses regardless of circumstances. Primary reason for this is that the engine treats Surface TF vs Transport TF 'as' Surface vs Surface. i.e. they exchange a few rounds of fire, then mutually break off. An exception can be when a large surface TF engages a small transport TF...under those circumstances you can achieve a large degree of damage vs the TF. Based on my test findings, the recommendation i forwarded (and currently on the wish list) is that it be made that surface TF vs transport TF be made more aggressive to simulate a commander's realization that he has in a sense, "hit the jackpot" and realizes he has achieved the goal of breaking through to a vulnerable transport fleet, instead of treating said TF as a combat TF with comprable firepower (and a chance to sig damage you in return) I hadn't read anything simlar from you, Frag, and so didn't realize this was your position. However, I would argue something of this magnitude ought not to have gotten out of beta, but have been put on the old "wish list" a year or so ago. And then screeeeeeamed! for incessantly ever since. (Behind closed doors, of course. [:D])

Mike Scholl -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 7:10:11 PM)
Certainly a more acceptable result, FRAG. But it still begs one big question. ALL of the attacking ships have a MINIMUM 20-knot speed advantage over any of the defenders; and they outnumber them over 2:1. Which means that within a single hour of the daylight game phase, they can all move from over the horizon to boarding distance. The defenders are virtually defenseless. How do ANY of them survive? The game keeps making it happen virtually every time..., but never supplies a rational for this "Houdini-like" ability. If some of the defenders escaped maybe 1/4th to 1/3rd of the time you could say it was unusual conditions (rain squalls, Islands, mix-up orders, etc) and be in the realms of believability. But it seems to occur virtually EVERY time? And that just doesn't make any sense.

Mr.Frag -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 7:18:08 PM)
Day Time Surface Combat at 61,74 Japanese Ships AO Hayasui, Shell hits 39, and is sunk TK Choran Maru, Shell hits 3 (21/6/6) TK Gen'yo Maru, Shell hits 66, and is sunk TK Kyokuto Maru TK Nihon Maru, Shell hits 6, on fire (42/13/49) TK San Pedro Maru AK Genoa Maru AK Getuyo Maru, Shell hits 3, on fire (55/21/17) AK Glasgow Maru AK Gosyu Maru AK Goyo Maru AK Hague Maru AK Hakkai Maru AK Hakodate Maru AK Hakonesan Maru AK Hakubasan Maru AO Medan Maru, Shell hits 12, on fire, heavy damage (83/72/49) TK Kyokuho, Shell hits 4, on fire (42/26/36) Allied Ships CA Minneapolis CL Cleveland CL Montpelier DD Anthony DD Aulick DD Charles Ausburne DD Charles Badger DD Beale DD Bell More ships ... only some ships spotted (weather Rain) Here's my question ... do you expect more of those ships to be sunk? Like all of them? I need to know what you expect to happen.

Tristanjohn -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 7:25:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag Day Time Surface Combat at 61,74 Japanese Ships AO Hayasui, Shell hits 39, and is sunk TK Choran Maru, Shell hits 3 (21/6/6) TK Gen'yo Maru, Shell hits 66, and is sunk TK Kyokuto Maru TK Nihon Maru, Shell hits 6, on fire (42/13/49) TK San Pedro Maru AK Genoa Maru AK Getuyo Maru, Shell hits 3, on fire (55/21/17) AK Glasgow Maru AK Gosyu Maru AK Goyo Maru AK Hague Maru AK Hakkai Maru AK Hakodate Maru AK Hakonesan Maru AK Hakubasan Maru AO Medan Maru, Shell hits 12, on fire, heavy damage (83/72/49) TK Kyokuho, Shell hits 4, on fire (42/26/36) Allied Ships CA Minneapolis CL Cleveland CL Montpelier DD Anthony DD Aulick DD Charles Ausburne DD Charles Badger DD Beale DD Bell More ships ... only some ships spotted (weather Rain) Here's my question ... do you expect more of those ships to be sunk? Like all of them? I need to know what you expect to happen. That's an excellent question and really needs to be asked of everyone joining this thread. I'm not sure how to answer it. I suppose it would depend on how much detail Gary were willing to add to the surface-combat routines, such as spotting information, what the weather is like "inside that hex" (squalls would mitigate possibly, just for example), whether the convoy scattered (we'd expect it to but at what range, and then how does the combat force react?), and then does the combat force send a parcel after one ship and another parcel after another? What? It gets involved fast. I'd think the fewer the merchies the less likely any would escape. That strikes me as superficially correct. Agree on that? Thanks for taking the time, Frag. This is a system wrinkle that needs ironing.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 7:26:15 PM)
Given poor visability (rain) and an excess in defender numbers, the only real problem I have with the result's you show is that the ships that were sighted and hit should have taken a worse beating. With Nine attackers concentraiting on those 7 defenders, the rest excaping makes some sense..., but those that were being "Run Down" and shot up should probably have suffered more sinkings.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 7:26:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag Day Time Surface Combat at 61,74 Japanese Ships AO Hayasui, Shell hits 39, and is sunk TK Choran Maru, Shell hits 3 (21/6/6) TK Gen'yo Maru, Shell hits 66, and is sunk TK Kyokuto Maru TK Nihon Maru, Shell hits 6, on fire (42/13/49) TK San Pedro Maru AK Genoa Maru AK Getuyo Maru, Shell hits 3, on fire (55/21/17) AK Glasgow Maru AK Gosyu Maru AK Goyo Maru AK Hague Maru AK Hakkai Maru AK Hakodate Maru AK Hakonesan Maru AK Hakubasan Maru AO Medan Maru, Shell hits 12, on fire, heavy damage (83/72/49) TK Kyokuho, Shell hits 4, on fire (42/26/36) Allied Ships CA Minneapolis CL Cleveland CL Montpelier DD Anthony DD Aulick DD Charles Ausburne DD Charles Badger DD Beale DD Bell More ships ... only some ships spotted (weather Rain) Here's my question ... do you expect more of those ships to be sunk? Like all of them? I need to know what you expect to happen. What exactly does radar do again? I'm beginning to wonder if it does anything at all besides detect aircraft and maybe increase accuracy of gunfire. All these ships are SG equipped (exception maybe Minneapolis) yet the APs remain undetected. Which Americanships were "undetected" during the battle? Does anyone not find this strange that ships in a TF, especially the aggressor force, would be somehow unable to participate because they are undetected?

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 7:27:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl Given poor visability (rain) and an excess in defender numbers, the only real problem I have with the result's you show is that the ships that were sighted and hit should have taken a worse beating. With Nine attackers concentraiting on those 7 defenders, the rest excaping makes some sense..., but those that were being "Run Down" and shot up should probably have suffered more sinkings. You forget that the Americans have SG radar.

Mr.Frag -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/9/2004 7:30:54 PM)
quote: I hadn't read anything simlar from you, Frag, and so didn't realize this was your position. However, I would argue something of this magnitude ought not to have gotten out of beta, but have been put on the old "wish list" a year or so ago. Then you completely fail to understand our role. We simply test what we are given to see if it is broken. If broken, we report what is broken. Don't assume I have any position on things. I look for problems and note them then pass them on. It seems a lot of folks are under the impression that we control the game developers [:D] As to the magnitude ... thats subjective. If there is a problem, the problem needs to be localized better because not all agreeing that there is actually a problem. Very few naval battles that I am aware of were fought to the death. Ships are far too precious for that. From what I have been able to gather from these types of posts ... there are two separate complaints. a) completely unescorted ships should be getting murdered. They are not currently. b) large formations of ships don't parse out well with damage done.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.4375