Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

surface combat - what am I missing?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Carriers At War >> surface combat - what am I missing? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
surface combat - what am I missing? - 6/23/2007 5:30:25 AM   
wobbly

 

Posts: 1095
Joined: 10/16/2002
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Status: offline 		OK, so I am in the Santa Cruz scenario and I manage to meet the Jap bombardment mission after (woops) they have managed to complete their bombardment. I meet them with the Washington group at long range. Despite getting into contact they ALWAYS manage to break contact.

Fine, says I, both sides are about the same speeds, lets hurt them a bit with some airpower, then we'll catch 'em.
Nup, I manage to sink 3 of the ships and damage most of the others in this group but for the life of me, no matter that we meet in 5 more surface engagements, can I close and fire. Why?
Also, Washington has 16" cannons - why do they not have the range?

_____________________________
Post #: 1
RE: surface combat - what am I missing? - 6/23/2007 6:37:44 AM   
Hellcat_Canada


Posts: 39
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Ontario, Canada
Status: offline 		I caught up with the japanese transports in the Midway scenario after slaughtering the jap flattops like a wolf among sheep but found the same thing happening with them continuing to break contact even though their speed was only 10 kt vs my 33 kts....

_____________________________


(in reply to wobbly)
Post #: 2
RE: surface combat - what am I missing? - 6/23/2007 8:30:30 AM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2459
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline 		This really isn't a surface action game. Still, these occasions do arise, so some rules of thumb:

1) Stuff can withdraw, so a successful conclusion is ALWAYS in doubt.

2) The IJN appears to have huge bonuses built in for night combat.

3) Combine items 1 & 2 above, and it should be a central tenet of U.S. strategy to NOT pursue withdrawing IJN task groups with an eye toward surface action. Nothing good will come of it.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Hellcat_Canada)
Post #: 3
RE: surface combat - what am I missing? - 6/24/2007 6:56:10 AM   
Hellcat_Canada


Posts: 39
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Ontario, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

1) Stuff can withdraw, so a successful conclusion is ALWAYS in doubt.

2) The IJN appears to have huge bonuses built in for night combat.

3) Combine items 1 & 2 above, and it should be a central tenet of U.S. strategy to NOT pursue withdrawing IJN task groups with an eye toward surface action. Nothing good will come of it.


I think this is rather poor reasoning, my situation was during both daytime and night. I cannot grasp how a transport task force with a speed of 10kts can outrun my task force of 33kt ships. If I want to mop up with a surface action and have a speed advantage it should be my choice to engage. I continued to pursue them for 2 days with combat initiated over a half a dozen times with them (Japanese) disengaging every time.

_____________________________


(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 4
RE: surface combat - what am I missing? - 6/24/2007 7:04:59 AM   
Gregor_SSG


Posts: 681
Joined: 3/6/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wobbly

OK, so I am in the Santa Cruz scenario and I manage to meet the Jap bombardment mission after (woops) they have managed to complete their bombardment. I meet them with the Washington group at long range. Despite getting into contact they ALWAYS manage to break contact.

Fine, says I, both sides are about the same speeds, lets hurt them a bit with some airpower, then we'll catch 'em.
Nup, I manage to sink 3 of the ships and damage most of the others in this group but for the life of me, no matter that we meet in 5 more surface engagements, can I close and fire. Why?
Also, Washington has 16" cannons - why do they not have the range?


Think of this as both TGs sighting each other at long range, and the AI controlled formation deciding that it is an in inferior position, making a smoke screen and retiring behind it. Its very hard to force an unwilling naval opponent to stand and fight, ask the British who chased the Italians round the Med.

If you can catch your opponent at night, then you have a much better chance of forcing an engagement, but as has been pointed out, if you are playing the early war USN, you may not like the result.

Gregor

_____________________________

Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
See http://www.ssg.com.au and http://www.ssg.com.au/forums/
for info and free scenarios.

(in reply to wobbly)
Post #: 5
RE: surface combat - what am I missing? - 6/24/2007 7:14:18 AM   
Adam Parker


Posts: 1848
Joined: 4/2/2002
From: Melbourne Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

....making a smoke screen and retiring behind it.
Gregor


I was going to ask if this could be factored into the game?

I caught an episode of "Dogfights" on the History Channel last night showing the battle of Taffy 3 with its CVE's vs the Yamato surface group at Leyte and smoke featured prominently in the tactics of surface vs air.

What an amazing series graphically though.

(in reply to Gregor_SSG)
Post #: 6
RE: surface combat - what am I missing? - 6/24/2007 7:49:18 AM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1506
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

Its very hard to force an unwilling naval opponent to stand and fight, ask the British who chased the Italians round the Med.


That's right regarding the willingness (or unwillingness) to stay and fight, but a given force was able to stay shoulder to shoulder with a retreating force, if max speeds did match.
May I ask the British who chased the Germans (Bismarck and other capital ships) round the Atlantic/channel/North Sea, even round the east coast of South America (Graf Spee), too? .


_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to Gregor_SSG)
Post #: 7
RE: surface combat - what am I missing? - 6/24/2007 6:21:23 PM   
NimitsTexan

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 4/30/2004
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

[I was going to ask if this could be factored into the game?

I caught an episode of "Dogfights" on the History Channel last night showing the battle of Taffy 3 with its CVE's vs the Yamato surface group at Leyte and smoke featured prominently in the tactics of surface vs air.


And Samar Island is proof that slower transport/CVE task forces really should not be able to break contact from most high speed surface ships. All the heriocs of the Taffy 3 escorts aside, the Yamato group could have continued to close with the CVEs and engaged them, and there was not a heck of alot the CVEs or surviving escorts could have done, had no the IJN commanders lost control of the battle and convinced themselves they had bitten off more than they could chew.

(in reply to Adam Parker)
Post #: 8
RE: surface combat - what am I missing? - 6/25/2007 2:17:52 AM   
Gregor_SSG


Posts: 681
Joined: 3/6/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NimitsTexan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

[I was going to ask if this could be factored into the game?

I caught an episode of "Dogfights" on the History Channel last night showing the battle of Taffy 3 with its CVE's vs the Yamato surface group at Leyte and smoke featured prominently in the tactics of surface vs air.


And Samar Island is proof that slower transport/CVE task forces really should not be able to break contact from most high speed surface ships. All the heriocs of the Taffy 3 escorts aside, the Yamato group could have continued to close with the CVEs and engaged them, and there was not a heck of alot the CVEs or surviving escorts could have done, had no the IJN commanders lost control of the battle and convinced themselves they had bitten off more than they could chew.



Your chance to flee is based on your speed, so slower or damaged vessels are by no means guaranteed to get away.

Gregor

_____________________________

Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
See http://www.ssg.com.au and http://www.ssg.com.au/forums/
for info and free scenarios.

(in reply to NimitsTexan)
Post #: 9
RE: surface combat - what am I missing? - 6/25/2007 3:51:56 AM   
wobbly

 

Posts: 1095
Joined: 10/16/2002
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

quote:

ORIGINAL: NimitsTexan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

[I was going to ask if this could be factored into the game?

I caught an episode of "Dogfights" on the History Channel last night showing the battle of Taffy 3 with its CVE's vs the Yamato surface group at Leyte and smoke featured prominently in the tactics of surface vs air.


And Samar Island is proof that slower transport/CVE task forces really should not be able to break contact from most high speed surface ships. All the heriocs of the Taffy 3 escorts aside, the Yamato group could have continued to close with the CVEs and engaged them, and there was not a heck of alot the CVEs or surviving escorts could have done, had no the IJN commanders lost control of the battle and convinced themselves they had bitten off more than they could chew.



Your chance to flee is based on your speed, so slower or damaged vessels are by no means guaranteed to get away.

Gregor


Aha - this is what I wanted to hear. It wasn't borne out in this particular scenario as I definately hit the opposition with airpower in an attempt to slow them down. In my instance they always escaped despite their wounds.
Knowing that I can get to pick on some damaged ships (at some time) is at least 'something'.

_____________________________




(in reply to Gregor_SSG)
Post #: 10
RE: surface combat - what am I missing? - 6/25/2007 3:55:20 AM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1506
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline 		How about adding the ability to detach units?

How is a TG's max speed "generated"/computed in the game, if let's say a CA (within a BB group) had been damaged, unable to keep up with the formation?

The standard procedure on (both sides) was that the flagship (along with the other capital ships and the majority of its escorts) would have been withdrawn (to prevent its loss), while the crippled ship would have had to make it out on its own or with a really small escort, most likely. No?

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 6/25/2007 3:58:07 AM >

_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to Gregor_SSG)
Post #: 11
RE: surface combat - what am I missing? - 6/30/2007 5:06:06 PM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1506
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline 		*bump*

Gregor?

_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to GoodGuy)
Post #: 12
RE: surface combat - what am I missing? - 6/30/2007 9:39:59 PM   
Warfare1


Posts: 658
Joined: 10/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

....making a smoke screen and retiring behind it.
Gregor


I was going to ask if this could be factored into the game?

I caught an episode of "Dogfights" on the History Channel last night showing the battle of Taffy 3 with its CVE's vs the Yamato surface group at Leyte and smoke featured prominently in the tactics of surface vs air.

What an amazing series graphically though.


I agree with "Dogfights".

This episode is being repeated next Thursday on History Television.

(in reply to Adam Parker)
Post #: 13
RE: surface combat - what am I missing? - 7/1/2007 7:01:27 AM   
Gregor_SSG


Posts: 681
Joined: 3/6/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

How about adding the ability to detach units?

How is a TG's max speed "generated"/computed in the game, if let's say a CA (within a BB group) had been damaged, unable to keep up with the formation?

The standard procedure on (both sides) was that the flagship (along with the other capital ships and the majority of its escorts) would have been withdrawn (to prevent its loss), while the crippled ship would have had to make it out on its own or with a really small escort, most likely. No?


You can detach units that the scenario designer allows you to, those that aren't so designated have to be scuttled. We're forced into doing this because we can't rely on people to obsereve constraints that their historical counterpart would have to. A player with total control over TG composition could easily render the game unplayable by creating a cloud of 1 DD TGs that would defeat the purpose of the sighting routines. As I said before in answer to another post on this subject, while we could try and create routines to defeat this sort of unfair and cheesy gameplay, it's much better for all concerned if we just cancel the war in the first place.

Gregor

_____________________________

Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
See http://www.ssg.com.au and http://www.ssg.com.au/forums/
for info and free scenarios.

(in reply to GoodGuy)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Carriers At War >> surface combat - what am I missing? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.406