RJ War - Naval

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RJ War - Naval

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] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> The War Room >> RJ War - Naval

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RJ War - Naval - 11/18/2007 4:30:09 AM

DeadInThrench

Posts: 318
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: NE Pennsylvania, USA
Status: offline

I have been playing the Russo-Japanese war scenario (Double Eagle-Rising Sun) and you must get a hang of naval tactics to get off the ground with this one and...

Historically (as I understand it), the Japanese wiped out the Russian Pacific fleet at the start of the war. So the Russians sent their Baltic fleet to the Pacific to deal with the situation and, the Japanese wiped that one out also in the naval battle of Tsushima.

But, in this scenario, repeating history along these lines, is at best not obvious.

First, it appears, at least in this scenario, defenders in naval combat seem to have a big advantage. If you go toe-to-toe (e.g. range of 1) with a defender, even if you have significantly greater (e.g. maybe 5-1) force, you are still lucky to come out of it taking less damage than you inflict.

You can instead bombard at a range of 2, and here from my experience things seem to be a bit better, but still seems like the defender has a significant advantage.

I have tried all sorts of different strategies.... doing the first turn or 2 many times, tried attacking the fleet in Port Arthur, etc, and the strategy that seems to work best, is taking care of the situation near Soul and then moving your fleet away before turn 1 is over. With that.... Elmer... sends his Port Arthur fleet (most of it) to bombard... and every limit losses bombard means a supply decrease of 20%. So, you let him do this for a turn or two (multiple bombards in each turn) and his fleet is just about dead meat. You can then attack and wipe that fleet out with minimum losses. Then, you should still have enough ships left to deal with the remaining Russian naval, whereas if you go toe-to-toe you will lose too many ships to the extent that you won't be able to deal effectively with things otherwise.

Yeah, the trouble with this strategy, if you ever played this PBEM, the human opponent would probably not make the same mistake.

Hmmmm... yeah... Elmer was bombarding Pusan also but, after I wiped out his Port Arthur fleet, he stopped <g>. Maybe some learning ability in Elmer I dunno.

Comments??

DiT

Post #: 1

RE: RJ War - Naval - 11/18/2007 4:59:31 AM

desert

Posts: 827
Joined: 9/14/2006
Status: offline

Hmm. There are several scenarios I've played with attackers getting the advantage. In the Roman Restoration Scenario, the Roman ships seem to tear through the Goth navy pretty well.

Edit: I remember doing pretty well in the Double-Eagle Rising Sun scenario when I surrounded or blockaded the enemy ships.

< Message edited by desert -- 11/18/2007 5:01:21 AM >

_____________________________

"I would rather he had given me one more division"
- Rommel, when Hitler made him a Field Marshall

(in reply to DeadInThrench)

Post #: 2

RE: RJ War - Naval - 11/18/2007 5:54:14 AM

DeadInThrench

Posts: 318
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: NE Pennsylvania, USA
Status: offline

When you start the RJ War scenario, the Russians have two cruisers outside Chemulpo, the port leading to Soul, and you need to take these two cruisers out. One has combat values of 2-2 while the other has 1-1, for a total of 3-3.

If I get all the best ships in the Japanese navy, and stack them next to these two cruisers, I get 18 ships total with total combat factors of 33-63. So, more than 10-1 in AP and more than 20-1 in defense. On top of this, a fair amount of other ships at range of two that support the attack.

And I just tried this again and the two Russian ships were sunk, at a cost of 4 Japanese battleships (!!), with total combat factors of 8-16. The situation report showed a 1 point loss to the Russians and a 2 point loss to the Japanese.

I checked and the two Russian ships are not getting any support, and the advanced rules advantage is at NONE.

For the attack, I am separately targeting each stack for a limited losses attack. The ships attack together, and any support is allocated.

My guess is the defenders fire first... that is the advantage of the defense, and do the damage they do before the Japanese ships fire. Still, a LOT of damage for just two cruisers.

DiT

P.S. I tried this a second time.... this time putting the computer on head-to-head, and just lost 2 battleships. The 4 I lost previously was higher than average but even losing 2 in a case like this, is a LOT.

P.S.2. When instead of attacking at range 1, I bombard at range 2, then my ships attack first, but losses occur much slower, and some times (maybe half the time) the Russian ships are not sunk on the two rounds of limited attack.

P.S.3. In trying different things, Elmer got to attack my fleet at times, and almost always bombarded rather than going toe-to-toe. Once he went toe-to-toe, and got annilated.

(in reply to desert)

Post #: 3

RE: RJ War - Naval - 11/18/2007 5:58:34 AM

DeadInThrench

Posts: 318
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: NE Pennsylvania, USA
Status: offline

Oh, BTW, we just had a discussion on the Punic Wars scenarios in another thread, and the Roman Restoration scenario, won't work as is on TOAW3, unless you first load and save them with a specific version of COW.

So, if you have been playing the Roman Restoration scenario, guess you got that specific version of COW, no?

DiT

(in reply to desert)

Post #: 4

RE: RJ War - Naval - 11/18/2007 6:28:30 AM

desert

Posts: 827
Joined: 9/14/2006
Status: offline

It worked fine right after I DLed it. Maybe my TOAW 3 is superpowerful LOL. I just made an attack on a naval stack near Vladivostok and I lost all my ships: 2 OBB, 2 OCR, and a CS. The Russians lost 2 CR, out of 3 Cr, 1 OCr, and 1 PG. What do these designations mean?

_____________________________

"I would rather he had given me one more division"
- Rommel, when Hitler made him a Field Marshall

(in reply to DeadInThrench)

Post #: 5

RE: RJ War - Naval - 11/18/2007 4:20:54 PM

DeadInThrench

Posts: 318
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: NE Pennsylvania, USA
Status: offline

Hehe, I was thinking my TOAW3 was broke. Looked multiple times to see if the computer was getting an advantage, and also tried it head-to-head because I still wasn't convinced that it wasn't, being that I was taking such severe losses.

But, IMO, it is just a matter of the defensive naval getting to shoot first, and losses at point blank range being pretty extreme, at least in this scenario. In the detailed report for point blank attacks, it first shows the defending naval as 'defends', while in the bombardment detailed report it shows the bombards, then the defends, then the second bombards. So, looks like to me that is actually when the units are firing. So, in point blank range battles, the defenders are always gonna inflict the losses they inflict, regardless of how many ships you send at them.

Hmmm, could try some 'minimal attack' and see how that goes.

DiT

< Message edited by DeadInThrench -- 11/18/2007 4:24:35 PM >

(in reply to desert)

Post #: 6

RE: RJ War - Naval - 11/18/2007 5:20:50 PM

desert

Posts: 827
Joined: 9/14/2006
Status: offline

Are you sure? I have definitely seen naval battles where the attacker takes less losses. Sometimes, you can take no losses by shelling them from range and attacking point-blank simultaneously.

_____________________________

"I would rather he had given me one more division"
- Rommel, when Hitler made him a Field Marshall

(in reply to DeadInThrench)

Post #: 7

RE: RJ War - Naval - 11/18/2007 6:21:27 PM

DeadInThrench

Posts: 318
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: NE Pennsylvania, USA
Status: offline

See my post earlier in this thread on the detailed combat results... killed the 2 Russian cruisers but lost 4 battleships (this was kinda high but typically I would lose more than I kill, despite overwhelming force).

On the other hand, I tried the minimum losses attack and, that seems to work. Attacking with all the range 1 destroyers with support from most of the rest of the fleet, at range 2, seems to do the trick. Usually at worse my losses would be about the same as the Russians, and in some cases didn't take any losses, and the Russian ships get taken out.

IMO the key thing here is that in toe-to-toe naval attacks, the defender gets to shoot first and that means overwhelming force is not gonna buy you any advantage, so in this case it is wise to do a minimal losses attack so you will cut your losses, and with the overwhelming force you will still take out the defender.

DiT

< Message edited by DeadInThrench -- 11/18/2007 6:23:14 PM >

(in reply to desert)

Post #: 8

RE: RJ War - Naval - 11/18/2007 8:04:22 PM

desert

Posts: 827
Joined: 9/14/2006
Status: offline

It sort of varies from scenario to scenario, though you're probly right on the Russo-Japan scenario. I never actually played past turn 7, on the pre-patch (?) version.

If the scenario allows, I always attack from more than 1 range, and if that cant happen, I attack from as many directions as possible.

_____________________________

"I would rather he had given me one more division"
- Rommel, when Hitler made him a Field Marshall

(in reply to DeadInThrench)

Post #: 9

RE: RJ War - Naval - 11/19/2007 12:24:40 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench

First, it appears, at least in this scenario, defenders in naval combat seem to have a big advantage. If you go toe-to-toe (e.g. range of 1) with a defender, even if you have significantly greater (e.g. maybe 5-1) force, you are still lucky to come out of it taking less damage than you inflict.

The secret is passive support. Attack with only one unit at 1 hex range and have the other units support passively. This reverses the situation, giving the attacker the advantage. You might try playing around with co-operation and proficiency to see if you can balance this.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to DeadInThrench)

Post #: 10

RE: RJ War - Naval - 11/20/2007 2:40:13 AM

DeadInThrench

Posts: 318
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: NE Pennsylvania, USA
Status: offline

OK GD, tried what you suggested and, it works!

Eek.... but is this taking advantage of the system?

I had *almost* reached that point anyways as a matter of fact <g>. I have 32 range 2 ships and 10 range 1 ships (neglecting the 7 from east of Korea because if you use them the attack will eat up 60% or your turn and, you may get turn burnout). What I had come to was attacking with minimal losses with the range 1 ships and letting all the range 2 ships, support. This got the job done and I usually only lost a couple of minor ships, but on one occasion I did lose 6 ships, 60% of my range 1 force.

But, based on your suggestion, went and found the dinkiest range 1 ship I could find, and just attacked with that (minimal losses), letting ALL the other ships support, and that got the job done and many times even the dinky ship survived, and thus no losses at all.

Also, most of the ships are left with 95 or 100% supply, and this is important because you still have a amphibious invasion to support, and ideally you would like all your ships to be at 90% or higher supply, so at the start of the next turn (they gain 10% supply) they will be at 100% readiness and supply, and be in good position to waste Elmer's ships after they spend their half of the 1st turn, bombarding, probably ending up way low on readiness and supply.

But, is this realistic? IMO it is realistic in this case, just two Russian cruisers against over 40 Japanese ships. However, if I was playing a game with evenly matched naval forces, and my opponent attacked this way (sending one ship to the wolves while the others cannot be attacked) dunno if I would feel this was right or not.

Comments?

DiT

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 11

RE: RJ War - Naval - 11/20/2007 8:00:28 AM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench

But, is this realistic? IMO it is realistic in this case, just two Russian cruisers against over 40 Japanese ships. However, if I was playing a game with evenly matched naval forces, and my opponent attacked this way (sending one ship to the wolves while the others cannot be attacked) dunno if I would feel this was right or not.

Comments?

DiT

What's realistic? The results you were originally getting?

You gotta do what you gotta do. The naval model in TOAW doesn't work very well -- so you can either exploit it or let yourself get screwed by it.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to DeadInThrench)

Post #: 12

RE: RJ War - Naval - 11/21/2007 5:03:00 AM

DeadInThrench

Posts: 318
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: NE Pennsylvania, USA
Status: offline

What realistic is, with over 40 Japanese battleships, cruisers and destroyers, sinking those two Russian cruisers with little or no loss.

I do not disagree with ya gotta do what ya gotta do, but a more realistic game is a game that has more value. Also, many scenario designers add this house rule or that to further increase realism.

IMO, if this were real, what would be wise for the Japanese to do, is to bombard and destroy those Russian cruisers from range, rather than go charging in. But, with the combat system as it is now, all attackers and defenders get to fire and, that doesn't take into account getting sunk before you get much of your effective fire off.

Whatever, just some comments that the designers can take into consideration. I am aware that the whole deal re TOAW3 naval combat has come up before, and there is opportunity for significant improvement.

DiT

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 13