Surface Combat Test

Surface Combat Test (Full Version)

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

Message

Moquia -> Surface Combat Test (9/8/2004 11:29:51 PM)
A little surface combat test for you all. Scenario 10, head to head, fow off, all airplanes on stand down. Allied TF commanded by Ching Lee, Japanese TF by generic captain. 10 rounds. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Day Time Surface Combat, near Rennell Island at 66,99 21000 yards: 5 ships detected (name shown) 17000: 7 ships detected; TFs break off 3/7 detected ships hit. Japanese Ships AK Akiura Maru * = not detected AK Argun Maru AP Atuta Maru, Shell hits 1 AK Brisbane Maru AP Buyo Maru, Shell hits 1 AK Delagoa Maru AP Eihuku Maru, Shell hits 31, on fire, heavy damage AK Hague Maru * AK Hakonesan Maru * AP Hikade Maru Allied Ships CA Portland CA Chester CA New Orleans CA Astoria DD Meredith DD Sims DD Anderson DD Hammann -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Day Time Surface Combat, near Rennell Island at 66,99 23000: 2 ships detected 17000: 9 13000: 9 9000: torpedoes fired, japanese fire back, TFs break off 5/9 ships hit. Japanese Ships AK Akiura Maru, Shell hits 6, on fire, heavy damage AK Argun Maru AP Atuta Maru, Shell hits 2 AK Brisbane Maru, Shell hits 7, on fire, heavy damage AP Buyo Maru AK Delagoa Maru, Shell hits 5, on fire AP Eihuku Maru, Shell hits 24, and is sunk AK Hague Maru AK Hakonesan Maru AP Hikade Maru * Allied Ships CA Portland CA Chester CA New Orleans CA Astoria DD Meredith DD Sims DD Anderson DD Hammann -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Day Time Surface Combat, near Rennell Island at 66,99 25000: 2 ships detected 19000: 6; TFs break off 2/6 ships hit. Japanese Ships AK Akiura Maru * AK Argun Maru * AP Atuta Maru AK Brisbane Maru, Shell hits 1 AP Buyo Maru AK Delagoa Maru * AP Eihuku Maru AK Hague Maru * AK Hakonesan Maru AP Hikade Maru, Shell hits 10, on fire, heavy damage Allied Ships CA Portland CA Chester CA New Orleans CA Astoria DD Meredith DD Sims DD Anderson DD Hammann -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Day Time Surface Combat, near Rennell Island at 66,99 18000: 8 ships detected, japanese are surprised 13000: 8 8000: 8, torpedoes fired, japanese fire back, TFs break off 5/8 ships hit. Japanese Ships AK Akiura Maru * AK Argun Maru, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage AP Atuta Maru * AK Brisbane Maru, Shell hits 6, on fire AP Buyo Maru, Shell hits 5, on fire AK Delagoa Maru AP Eihuku Maru, Shell hits 14, on fire, heavy damage AK Hague Maru AK Hakonesan Maru AP Hikade Maru, Shell hits 11, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage Allied Ships CA Portland CA Chester CA New Orleans CA Astoria DD Meredith DD Sims, Shell hits 1 DD Anderson DD Hammann -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Day Time Surface Combat, near Rennell Island at 66,99 24000: 2 ships detected 19000: 7 14000: 7 10000: torpedoes fired, TFs break off 6/7 ships hit Japanese Ships AK Akiura Maru, Shell hits 1 AK Argun Maru, Shell hits 11, on fire, heavy damage AP Atuta Maru, Shell hits 9, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage AK Brisbane Maru * AP Buyo Maru * AK Delagoa Maru, Shell hits 2 AP Eihuku Maru, Shell hits 5, on fire AK Hague Maru * AK Hakonesan Maru AP Hikade Maru, Shell hits 11, on fire, heavy damage Allied Ships CA Portland CA Chester CA New Orleans CA Astoria DD Meredith DD Sims DD Anderson DD Hammann -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Day Time Surface Combat, near Rennell Island at 66,99 21000: 5 ships detected, japanese are surprised 18000: 5 12000: 5, japanese fire back, TFs break off 3/5 ships hit. Japanese Ships AK Akiura Maru * AK Argun Maru, Shell hits 14, on fire, heavy damage AP Atuta Maru, Shell hits 25, and is sunk AK Brisbane Maru * AP Buyo Maru * AK Delagoa Maru AP Eihuku Maru, Shell hits 4, on fire AK Hague Maru AK Hakonesan Maru * AP Hikade Maru * Allied Ships CA Portland, Shell hits 1 CA Chester CA New Orleans CA Astoria DD Meredith, Shell hits 1 DD Sims DD Anderson DD Hammann -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Day Time Surface Combat, near Rennell Island at 66,99 25000: 6 ships detected 22000: 7 17000: 7 13000: 7, TFs break off 4/7 ships hit. Japanese Ships AK Akiura Maru * AK Argun Maru AP Atuta Maru * AK Brisbane Maru, Shell hits 1 AP Buyo Maru AK Delagoa Maru, Shell hits 2 AP Eihuku Maru * AK Hague Maru AK Hakonesan Maru, Shell hits 20, on fire, heavy damage AP Hikade Maru, Shell hits 7, on fire, heavy damage Allied Ships CA Portland CA Chester CA New Orleans CA Astoria DD Meredith DD Sims DD Anderson DD Hammann -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Day Time Surface Combat, near Rennell Island at 66,99 20000: 5 ships detected 16000: 7 12000: 7, japanese fire back 8000: 7, torpedoes fired, TFs break off 5/7 ships hit. Japanese Ships AK Akiura Maru, Shell hits 5, on fire AK Argun Maru AP Atuta Maru AK Brisbane Maru, Shell hits 1 AP Buyo Maru * AK Delagoa Maru * AP Eihuku Maru, Shell hits 22, on fire, heavy damage AK Hague Maru * AK Hakonesan Maru, Shell hits 4, on fire, heavy damage AP Hikade Maru, Shell hits 55, and is sunk Allied Ships CA Portland CA Chester CA New Orleans CA Astoria DD Meredith DD Sims DD Anderson, Shell hits 1 DD Hammann -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. Day Time Surface Combat, near Rennell Island at 66,99 22000: 2 ships detected 17000: 6 12000: 6 8000: 6, torpedoes fired, TFs break off 4/6 ships hit. Japanese Ships AK Akiura Maru * AK Argun Maru, Shell hits 17, on fire, heavy damage AP Atuta Maru, Shell hits 11, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AK Brisbane Maru AP Buyo Maru AK Delagoa Maru, Shell hits 6, on fire AP Eihuku Maru * AK Hague Maru * AK Hakonesan Maru * AP Hikade Maru, Shell hits 9, on fire Allied Ships CA Portland CA Chester CA New Orleans CA Astoria DD Meredith DD Sims DD Anderson DD Hammann -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. Day Time Surface Combat, near Rennell Island at 66,99 17000: 9 ships detected, japanese are surprised 13000: 9 9000: 9, torpedoes fired, TFs break off 5/9 ships hit Japanese Ships AK Akiura Maru AK Argun Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire AP Atuta Maru, Shell hits 29, and is sunk AK Brisbane Maru AP Buyo Maru AK Delagoa Maru, Shell hits 8, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AP Eihuku Maru, Shell hits 9, on fire, heavy damage AK Hague Maru * AK Hakonesan Maru AP Hikade Maru, Shell hits 7, on fire, heavy damage Allied Ships CA Portland CA Chester CA New Orleans CA Astoria DD Meredith DD Sims DD Anderson DD Hammann I don't think the surface combat routine is borked, although sometimes one ship gets a lot of attention. Here is a pic of the encounter: [image]local://upfiles/12935/Yw666981489.jpg[/image]

neuromancer -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/9/2004 12:41:55 AM)
Interesting, personally I think this test confirms the flaws in the system (same results, different conclussion, interesting). And that is because of this ratio. Extensive fire concentrated on 1 or 2 ships: 7 of 10. - this is often a problem because these ships usually should have sunk, or at least been deemed dead so move onto a new target, before this many hits had landed - Here you will find that often 1 ship took more than 3 times as many hits as the 2nd ship, or possibly each of the two ships took 3 tmes as many as the third ship - 1 ship took 3 times as many hits as any other ship in group (some times more than all other ships combined) in tests 1, 2, 3, and 10 - 2 ships each took more than 3 times as many hits as any other ship in group (and more than everyone else combined) in tests 6, 7, and 8. And in test 7, it was barely 2 ships, the first ship taking 20 hits, the second taking 7, and the third only 2. Yes, in 8 of 10 of the scenarios more than just 1 or 2 ships were hit, but the hits on those others were complete after thoughts. Usually only a small handful of hits that barely damaged them. This to me reinforces that the systems targetting rules are screwy. Most of the ships pick the same boat, and pound the hell out of it. Sometimes they will spread fire out a little, but still most concentrating on one ship. And the ships that are shooting at a target don't switch to a new target until the darn thing has burned to a hulk, sunk, the families have been informed of the deaths of their loved ones, and coral has started growing on the hulks! So, with this evidence in hand, I would say two things should be done: 1. Check for sinking more often, maybe a couple times in the middle of a volley. Possibly even add a new check that basically says "its dead, I think we can stop wasting ammunition on it, and find something else to shoot at". 2. Have the ships break up into sub groups (randomly assigned will do), and have a check 'has a previous group already targetted this ship, if yes, select the next target'. Destroyers and smaller ships could go into groups of 3 to pound a target to pieces. Cruisers could go into pairs, and BBs could target ships alone. There could be some weighting here, You start determining targets with your biggest ships selecting their biggest ships, and work down from there. BBs and cruisers could probably get 2 or even 3 groups targetted on them because they are so deadly and tough. Basically number one is silly because when you are a long way from port, you aren't going to continue to throw steel at a burning hulk. "He's dead Jim, let it go." And number two is silly because while concentration of fire does have its benefits, particularly against large tough targets like BBs and cruisers, having half your group chasing a couple transports is redundant. Particularly as those transports would be hauling men, fuel, or supplies, and you want to stop as much of that as you can.

Moquia -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/9/2004 2:40:19 AM)
While I agree there is a tendency to concentrate on one or two ships, I don’t think the combat routine is seriously flawed. Let’s look at some statistics: On average 1/3 of the detected ships either gets heavy damage or sink outright, 20% more gets damaged. I think that is a pretty good score with no damage to your own ships. If a commander were to press on he might get into trouble, with undetected escorts etc, he doesn’t have the big picture we have. I think many historical encounters show this.

pasternakski -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/9/2004 2:45:25 AM)
One thing that's got to stop if these discussions are to be fruitful is characterizing the surface TF commander as "you." Furthermore, people seem to think that a handful of cruisers and destroyers (maybe accompanied by an old, slow BB) is a "shock and awe" amount of firepower. I'm waiting for more.

doomonyou -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/9/2004 4:59:47 AM)
I would like to know what kind of cargo ship can take more than ten hits from a Cruiser and not be a flaming pile of twisted wreckage. In addition to agreeing with the targeting changes, my take is that the damage model is what allows this bizzareness against lightly or unescorted merchies. Cargo ships simply don't hold up like warships and for ten eight inch shells or twenty five inch shells or any even mix thereof not to leave even the most red eyed dripping fang blood thirsty alien devourer of worlds convinced that the target is a burning tomb is silly, Look at the numbers of hits, they are FREQUENTLY over twenty. I would be stunned if even a very well built cargo ship could take five or six direct hits from a cruisers 8" gun or ten hits from a destroyers 5" and make it more than a few miles prior to sinking. Most of the numbers in this demonstration are well beyond that. Wanna have fun, try this demonstration with the Repulse. You still see the over shooting with 12" guns....

velkro -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/9/2004 5:07:50 AM)
Pasternaski, An old BB with 15" guns IS SHOCK AND AWE when compared to a cargo ship! Where's your perspective here?

velkro -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/9/2004 5:10:05 AM)
How about "you" on a cargo ship vs. the HMS Revenge? In real life, you'd get slaughtered. But in this game, you'd be OK as long as you had other 12 knot AKs "screening" you.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/9/2004 6:15:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pasternakski Furthermore, people seem to think that a handful of cruisers and destroyers (maybe accompanied by an old, slow BB) is a "shock and awe" amount of firepower. If you are aboard a slow, unarmored, and virtually defenseless merchantman, any opponant who pulls over the horizon at twice your speed and 10 times your armament IS a "shock and awe" amount of firepower. Worst part of the whole description above is the continual "breaking off". At NO point in the proceedings is ther ANY RATIONAL REASON given for the attacking TF to "break off" the action---and especially for it to open the range. If the system "requires" phases, OK---but each should have started with the attackers 5-6,000 yds closer than the previous one. By #4 or #5 they should have begun every round at 5,000 yds with virtually NO chance of an enemy being "un- detected". A few popguns on the merchantmen mighg keep the warships from closing to boarding range, but they can't mount anything that wouldn't be supressed quickly under the weight of fire available to the attackers. The example above proves beyond a doubt that the system as it is now implemented DOESN'T WORK worth a Damn. Fix it, PLEASE.

RAM -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/9/2004 6:33:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl If you are aboard a slow, unarmored, and virtually defenseless merchantman, any opponant who pulls over the horizon at twice your speed and 10 times your armament IS a "shock and awe" amount of firepower. Worst part of the whole description above is the continual "breaking off". At NO point in the proceedings is ther ANY RATIONAL REASON given for the attacking TF to "break off" the action---and especially for it to open the range. If the system "requires" phases, OK---but each should have started with the attackers 5-6,000 yds closer than the previous one. By #4 or #5 they should have begun every round at 5,000 yds with virtually NO chance of an enemy being "un- detected". A few popguns on the merchantmen mighg keep the warships from closing to boarding range, but they can't mount anything that wouldn't be supressed quickly under the weight of fire available to the attackers. up to this point I agree with all and everything said by Mike. Last phrase is a bit too emotive and if you ask me, quite unpolite and out of place, because it has been already said the thing is being looked upon by testers and programmers (Nikademus said so in the other thread). I fail to see how anyone can find those results rational, frankly; the "lead-magneto" effect a couple of ships always take is pretty evident (and unrealistic), and yes, I also think that the disengagement rules should be looked upon to avoid unexplainable early withdrawals.

Belphegor -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/9/2004 7:32:37 AM)
As a surface tf, I would find it hard to beleive a cruiser would waste a lot of ammo on merchantmen in a war zone, if any. Ships, even in peacetime don't run below carrying a 70% load for the 'unexpected' and in no way would merchantmen be considered prime meat for more than a few shots. Rounds from surface guns don't do as much damage as everyone thinks. Not every shot rips the hull through and through under the water line or starts a fire. Not every shot hits. It also take a lot of time for damage to become apparent; honestly. Just because they are all in the hex doesn't mean they are lined up as prettily as on your computer screen, a surface task force will not scatter to chase scattering merchantmen .... as an isolated example one of the only ships to escape the battle of coronel was a merchantman (while the rest of the british ships took a pounding) the more merchantmen in a convoy, the more that will get away and in response to Velcro, yes actually, if I were in the 2nd AK I might just get away fairly undamaged while Revenge hit the first AK. Let's see. Hmm, I have been shooting up this first merchantman for about 15 minutes, bet he has radioed for help. Will it be an airstrike on my uncovered a**? or a bigger TF coming to do to me what I did to him, guess I better get out of here... since I have no clue what is over the horizon and I have had a good day, my gunners got some practice and I got away freely. is it broken? I don't know. But my vote is not really.

frank1970 -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/9/2004 10:36:14 AM)
Additionally combat would not be in turns. All ships would fire at once, so a better spreading of hits is possibly artificial wanting created by the turns. There is a simple solution: Turn combat off and enjoy only the results.

Sneer -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/9/2004 10:43:55 AM)
In my opinion after 1st round when attacking commander recognizes that he has (example 10:1) in firepower ratio then next round begins much closer to the target(3-7ky) Should be an effective and fast to implement way to repair what is now definetly wrong going warships firing on nearly point blanc range should be extremally effective against merchants

Xargun -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/9/2004 10:56:40 AM)
The only problem I see is that ships tend to pick the same target at different ranges.. Each time the ships fire they all pick a random target (some weighed more than others) and opens fire... By the time they realize other ships are firing at the same target and tell the gunners to stop, 100 shells have been fired at the target between all the ships... This will happen and probably happened during the war many times especially when the TF commander simply says "Fire at Will".. everyone wants the glory of sinking a nice fat juicy target so a lot of ships will fire at the same target... Now my problem lies where as you close distance (obviously taking time and starting another combat round) the same ships keep firing at the same target even though it has taken enough shells to sink twice... Without knowing how the system works its hard to say if its broken or simply misaligned a bit... I'm sure the designers are looking into it and will come to some sort of fix down the road, but right now I doubt its a high priority as the bugs come first - as they should.. Then OOB and other tweaks (like this and ASW)... I would give the designers some time before you chew them up (and I know you're not attacking them - but this has been discussed many times already) as the game has only been out 2.5 months and they have already put out a good patch (1.20; 1.21 was to fix a slight OOB error with 1.20) and are working hard on another patch due soon... Give them a couple months and see what happens... Xargun

matchwood -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/9/2004 12:07:04 PM)
Hi Sneer, This should be relative to the agression level of the surface combat commander. If there is a large speed difference between TF's then an agressive commander should have a chance to have combat at close range. This should increase casualties in a situation like this through the use of torps and gunfire accuracy. You still shouldn't be able to sink all ships though because of scattering. Perhaps more sinking checks would reduce the sink one and move on to the next one factor.

Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/9/2004 12:56:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moquia -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Day Time Surface Combat, near Rennell Island at 66,99 21000 yards: 5 ships detected (name shown) 17000: 7 ships detected; TFs break off -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Day Time Surface Combat, near Rennell Island at 66,99 23000: 2 ships detected 17000: 9 13000: 9 9000: torpedoes fired, japanese fire back, TFs break off -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Day Time Surface Combat, near Rennell Island at 66,99 25000: 2 ships detected 19000: 6; TFs break off -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Day Time Surface Combat, near Rennell Island at 66,99 18000: 8 ships detected, japanese are surprised 13000: 8 8000: 8, torpedoes fired, japanese fire back, TFs break off -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Day Time Surface Combat, near Rennell Island at 66,99 24000: 2 ships detected 19000: 7 14000: 7 10000: torpedoes fired, TFs break off -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Day Time Surface Combat, near Rennell Island at 66,99 21000: 5 ships detected, japanese are surprised 18000: 5 12000: 5, japanese fire back, TFs break off -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Day Time Surface Combat, near Rennell Island at 66,99 25000: 6 ships detected 22000: 7 17000: 7 13000: 7, TFs break off -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Day Time Surface Combat, near Rennell Island at 66,99 20000: 5 ships detected 16000: 7 12000: 7, japanese fire back 8000: 7, torpedoes fired, TFs break off -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. Day Time Surface Combat, near Rennell Island at 66,99 22000: 2 ships detected 17000: 6 12000: 6 8000: 6, torpedoes fired, TFs break off -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. Day Time Surface Combat, near Rennell Island at 66,99 17000: 9 ships detected, japanese are surprised 13000: 9 9000: 9, torpedoes fired, TFs break off I don't think the surface combat routine is borked, although sometimes one ship gets a lot of attention. In each of the ten test the Allied commander facing no escort and virtually no resistance breaks off and flees… obviously the slower merchants don’t have that option against the faster allied combat group. I would think against and unescorted task force a commander more often than not would press home the attack… maybe not every time but at least once in a while.

Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/9/2004 1:42:05 PM)
Nah... i think you misunderstood something... a taskforce is a group of ships, not shattered all over 3500 sqmiles but around 1 or 2 sqm... so, no, they are all on one location. We have the special situation that the game engine produce strange results with undefended ap-convoys that will be countered by a overwhelming enemy military force... it is not warzone problem... if you try to invade an important area of my defence zone and i want to stop you, do you think my comanders should say "well, these are ONLY troopships", i will only fire one or two salvos and then ignore them" ? surely not. Same problem happen for example if you have a slow allied bb tf that is duelled by the faster and far superior japanese bb-force (or viceversa)... say all japanese bb´s under a great comander at day against SD and Wash with 4 heavy cruisers, both sides have 6 dd´s. the wash was damaged early on but is still in the TF (! Attention, not in a other TF, then it would be different), the japanese force is fuel with ammo and fuel, motivated (no losses or damages) and defend lunga against the attacking american tf that suffered by betty/nellies and some divebomber attacks (so the speed is around 20 knots) the japanese know what is comming, their is no heavy storm or similar things that could make the result to something i can explain. Result is, after some salvos and the loss of one DD (it got kicked by the whole japanese battlefleet, poor guys) and some lucky torpedo hits from the japanese dd´s it is over... but i forgot to mention, the allied tf fired exactly at one bb of the japanese... okay we could explain it with radar, etc... but it is daylight and say 15000 yards... but even if this is a bonus for the allied side, what happen if i defend Lunga with 4 american bb´s with 4 cruisers and 4 dd´s against japanese bb´s and cruisers, again at day, cause my DB´s took a toll from them ? Same, a few salvos and then they retreat... my american comander is also a better one and i can´t belive that if the japanese jumb in inferior i let em go... my ships are faster, i outclass his Kongo´s, his ships are burning/damaged and i could em wipe out.. but sadly i do nothing... that is not my idea of a surface battle... this happend in UV and it happen now in witp. We had this problem in PAC War, that a superior tf with good comander did not come near to finish off the weak enemy but withdraw... kill a convoy with only 8 knots ? with your 30 knots bb ? no... they disengage after 2 rounds... and no, they would not have do so in real life... with air danger, or carriers out, no problem... but in the discussed cases the japanese try to invade allied territorry... so i think they should fight a little bit better. Also, if someone say no convoy was killed full by surface ships.... this is true cause the convoys allways had heavy defence and so the attacker had to be cautious... but the game allows to send out fully undefended AP, full with troops... not realistic. And if someone risk it, why not - he should get kicked if he is catched. i do not say it should be forbidden, but the punishment is too often too weak.

DJAndrews -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/9/2004 2:00:50 PM)
Could the originator please post a screenshot of the post-battle ammo consumption? I've seen some situations where, when opposed by merchantmen only, CAs (or BBs) do not fire their main armament at all. At most I would expect only a couple of 8" shells to be fired per CA. If that is what occurred, then you have only 4 ships with light armament (aside from their torpedoes) attacking cargo ships, which while slow, are scattering in all directions and disappearing/reappearing over the horizon. The DD's basically have to hunt down the ships a few at a time (which explains the concentration of hits) and are constantly being recalled by the TF commander so as to perform their primary role (which is to screen the heavy cruisers). You'll notice that for the most part the ships remain at a range of 13-17,000 yards, with the DD's racing in to 8000 yards to fire off a spread of torpedoes and then breaking off (to return to the CAs). Ships (even merchantmen) move a long ways in the time it takes a torpedo to travel 8-9000 yards and so it is not surprising that the DDs are scoring only a few torp hits per run. The kind battle group shown was primarily designed for bombardment or interception of enemy combat vessels. The kind of raiding group that most seem to be thinking of this as was typically composed of a light cruiser (no need to screen) and a whack of DDs. Such a group, being faster and more maneuverable (and more expendable) would close to a much closer range (say 2000 yards) with the cargo ships before opening fire. That means you get a longer, close-in engagement resulting in much more damage and many more sinkings before the ships can withdraw. As a final note, keep in mind that any shell, including those from a .50 cal AA gun count as a hit and that as long as the cargo ships stay within 60 miles of each other they can still be designated as a task force, even though each ship may occupy an average area of 6 square miles.

Moquia -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/9/2004 2:16:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sneer In my opinion after 1st round when attacking commander recognizes that he has (example 10:1) in firepower ratio then next round begins much closer to the target(3-7ky) Should be an effective and fast to implement way to repair what is now definetly wrong going warships firing on nearly point blanc range should be extremally effective against merchants I think you misunderstand the test. It is 10 different outcome of the same encounter, not 10 succesive encounters. About the TF break off: I agree round 1 and 3 makes Ching Lee look like a sissy, but I guess they could occur. The other rounds he does close the range and fire on many of the detected ships. Its not the total annihilation some people wants, but it will surely ruin the day for the AKs/APs. When checking the ships after the battle, I noticed that the cruisers many times had ran out of ammo for their main batteries, this is probably the reason for the break off in the end. Also like I said before, the TF commander doesn’t have the birds-eye view we do, so it’s easy to complain about poor results. EDIT DJAndrews: I posted this before I read your post, I think you are right about the ammo thing.

WhoCares -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/9/2004 2:40:58 PM)
What's the AirBal value for Renell in this test? I don't know whether it has any effect in naval engagement, but in case it has, it might be that Japan has air superiority over the battlefield. Maybe somebody else (Beta?!) knows whether it is part of the equation. It would make sense to keep the engagement short if the enemy controls the air, thus an early break off. But the other way around, free hunt for the raiders...

pertsajakilu -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/9/2004 3:16:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Belphegor Just because they are all in the hex doesn't mean they are lined up as prettily as on your computer screen, a surface task force will not scatter to chase scattering merchantmen .... as an isolated example one of the only ships to escape the battle of coronel was a merchantman (while the rest of the british ships took a pounding) the more merchantmen in a convoy, the more that will get away and in response to Velcro, yes actually, if I were in the 2nd AK I might just get away fairly undamaged while Revenge hit the first AK. is it broken? I don't know. But my vote is not really. Hi! Convoy ons 154 ( from UK to US 1942 ) was spread over an area five miles wide and 1.5 miles deep. It consisted 45 ships so ships were deployed in wide area ( see picture). Just an quick look what I found about formation of an convoy. I would assume that if hostile surface group is detected then convoy starts to scatter. Attacking group do not scatter??. DDs and CDs need to cut distance ( depending visibility ) before opening fire. It all takes time and it is quite possible that many ship can slip away. I think that before claiming system flawed we should have knowledge of convoy dispersion and grouping etc. Do we know what kind of convoy grouping is used in WITP? Or historical results such midocean intercepts? Germans had few convoy intercepts, but now I do not remember results. Only that they varied. Pertsajakilu [image]local://upfiles/7852/Tr502639753.jpg[/image]

Caranorn -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/9/2004 3:23:29 PM)
I don't think we actually know how long a round is supposed to be in real time. We could of course try to calculate it with the range decreases and such (but then we'd have to guess at the angle etc.). I'm not sure whether many surface engagements lasted all that long during WWII. And many things could break of combat (I expect even minor combat units like PG or PC could fire smoke and temporarily screen a force to break away), a short rain squall, a false report of enemy ships clsoing, air alert etc. Particularly, I have had very good results in cruiser/destroyer (allied) engagements against unescorted or weakly escorted transports (japanese). Yes, much fire seems to be concentrated against single transports, but I have also noted that in many cases those transports are very combative (firing back and taking another round of suppressive fire by cruisers and destroyers). Most ships won't take only a few minutes to sink, even a cargo will unless it's cut in half (even half a hull can and will float if the condtions are right, and visibility might not make the damage apparent right away to the enemy) stay afloat a while, well beyond the duration of a surface engagement. My last extensive game, before quiting I decided to check the ai's situation (reload the game from the japanese point of view) and found their casualties were much higher then I had expected from the combat reports. While the ai seems to scuttle ships unreasonably early at times (in a later game I found the allies had apparently scuttled Prince of Wales after a single bomb hit during a port raid against Singapore), this correctly reflects how a cargo might limp (drift) out of a battle area for a day or two before it finally sinks (or is sunk by a PT boat or patrol plane). All in all, naval combat works for me. Obviously I'd prefer to tear those convoys to pieces faster. But there are good reasons why the on the scene commander (who is responsible for ship and crew, if he loses a cruiser because he failed to spot an approaching enemy while hapilly pounding away at a tanker he will face court martial and a life in misery (particularly RN captains historically iirc)) might have broken off a fight or why several ships might have concentrated fire on a ship of little strategic value and let others get away. What I find more shocking is how convoys will push on to their old target day after day when controlled by the ai (but then that's a purely ai issue). I expect against a human player (my first PBEM game is being setup and should stat tonight) things will be quite different and a task force will not fall to the same trap twice (or my own cruiser squadrons lay the same trap twice in a row without risk of being caught in turn by an enemy squadron). Marc aka Caran...

RAM -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/9/2004 4:21:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pertsajakilu [image]local://upfiles/7852/Tr502639753.jpg[/image] If that formation was attacked IRL in real life by 2 BBs, several cruisers and destroyers, I'd be surprised if half of it survived the slaughter. That means 20 ships heavily hit or sinking. In WitP, you would got all her escorts sunk and (if lucky) 3 transports with others with light damage before the system disengages the battle. I've said several times that I can live with it as it is now, but that the system as is portrayed in WitP doesn't work. Please, don't keep on defending what has no defense. I admit there are a lot of opinions but your's simply isn't backed up by the facts...at least that is how I see it.

Chris21wen -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/9/2004 6:28:13 PM)
I've not read all these posts but I do think the surface combat is flawed. But does anybody know of any reasonably sized merchant convoy that was total destroyed? There might be, but I doubt if it was solely destroyed by surface action. Convoys scattered when confronted by overwhelming fire power. This scattering could be respresented in the game by the attacking TF breaking off the attack in which case the message needs changing.

pertsajakilu -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/10/2004 9:42:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RAM If that formation was attacked IRL in real life by 2 BBs, several cruisers and destroyers, I'd be surprised if half of it survived the slaughter. That means 20 ships heavily hit or sinking. HI! Give an real life examples. I found one example when Hipper found slow unescorted convoy. I don't know about weather conditions. Result seems to be like wolf and herd of sheeps. 01.02 - 14.02.1941: Second Atlantic Mission: On Feb. 11, Admiral Hipper attacks the unprotected convoy SLS64 at 37°12'N, 21°20'W, sinking 7 of the 19 merchants and damaging several others. Due to fuel shortage, Admiral Hipper has to return to Brest, France. This might be the only ocassion ( andybody any reference ) when unescorted convoy was attacked by surface forces. When there are escorts along ( even weak ) merchant losses should be much less. Pertsajakilu

Sneer -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/10/2004 10:42:00 AM)
[I think you misunderstand the test. It is 10 different outcome of the same encounter, not 10 succesive encounters. About the TF break off: I agree round 1 and 3 makes Ching Lee look like a sissy, but I guess they could occur. The other rounds he does close the range and fire on many of the detected ships. Its not the total annihilation some people wants, but it will surely ruin the day for the AKs/APs. When checking the ships after the battle, I noticed that the cruisers many times had ran out of ammo for their main batteries, this is probably the reason for the break off in the end. Also like I said before, the TF commander doesn’t have the birds-eye view we do, so it’s easy to complain about poor results. EDIT DJAndrews: I posted this before I read your post, I think you are right about the ammo thing. [/quote] And you are wrong [8D] I understand combat mechanics and test conditions enough ( after playing UV so long [:D]) - think what is written I wrote what I think is maybe not the best but the easiest (from resonable ones)to implement for developers. BTW have sb ever seen 10 round combat with single TF??? About ammo consumption - very rarely I saw Surface TF running out of ammo after fighting with one TF only. In most cases I noticed sth like 15-20% of ammo expanded from attack on transport TF

Moquia -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/10/2004 4:05:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sneer And you are wrong [8D] I understand combat mechanics and test conditions enough ( after playing UV so long [:D]) - think what is written I wrote what I think is maybe not the best but the easiest (from resonable ones)to implement for developers. BTW have sb ever seen 10 round combat with single TF??? About ammo consumption - very rarely I saw Surface TF running out of ammo after fighting with one TF only. In most cases I noticed sth like 15-20% of ammo expanded from attack on transport TF Ok, sorry for taking you as a noob [;)] In 4 of the 10 encounters 1 or more of the cruiser had run out of main ammo. Other times they had only expended 1 or 2 ammo counts. I guess it vary alot.

Nikademus -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/10/2004 4:41:09 PM)
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau caught a lightly protected tanker convoy that scattered on them in 3/41. Between them they bagged 13 ships + damage to others. Now if a full fledged TF, complete with DD support, makes such an interception......the carngage factor would unless circumstances were unusual, would be many times greater

Apollo11 -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/10/2004 5:24:36 PM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus Scharnhorst and Gneisenau caught a lightly protected tanker convoy that scattered on them in 3/41. Between them they bagged 13 ships + damage to others. Now if a full fledged TF, complete with DD support, makes such an interception......the carngage factor would unless circumstances were unusual, would be many times greater Yes... exactly... this is one of the best examples what damage to unprotected merchant ships (AK/AP/AO/TK) can be in such situations... Leo "Apollo11"

Moquia -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/10/2004 6:13:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus Scharnhorst and Gneisenau caught a lightly protected tanker convoy that scattered on them in 3/41. Between them they bagged 13 ships + damage to others. Now if a full fledged TF, complete with DD support, makes such an interception......the carngage factor would unless circumstances were unusual, would be many times greater Just to be fair, that happend over 2 days (15/16 march). 16 merchants sunk or captured according to my sources.

Nikademus -> RE: Surface Combat Test (9/10/2004 6:34:42 PM)
true....but the fact remains they were only 2 ships. [;)]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.609863