Surface Combat

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

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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Surface Combat

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Surface Combat - 6/3/2002 11:22:09 PM

Pkunzipper

Posts: 237
Joined: 5/21/2002
Status: offline

Am I wrong or naval combat can only happens in two cases:
1-during a bombardment mission against the attacking TF and any docked TF
2-If [I]and only if[/I] the destintation hex of a surface combat TF is the same of any other enemy TF.

Otherwise (even with Patrol/don't retire and React orders) in all my tests was impossible to have a naval battle....

_____________________________

Post #: 1

- 6/4/2002 12:54:18 AM

Yamamoto

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline

That is correct, based on what the designers posted, unfortunately. I would hope that in the patch it will be changed so that surface combat task forces with �react to� orders would react to any non-carrier sighting as long as it didn�t put them within land based air range. I would even like to have a chance to run down a carrier with my battleline at night. I remember doing this a few times in Carriers At War.

Yamamoto

_____________________________

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 2

- 6/4/2002 2:50:38 PM

Pkunzipper

Posts: 237
Joined: 5/21/2002
Status: offline

So it near impossible to have a daylight surface combat in open waters... even if a faster TF with search planes want to engage a slower one. :(

_____________________________

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 3

- 6/4/2002 4:12:18 PM

Marc von Martial

Posts: 10875
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Bonn, Germany
Status: offline

Why should it be impossible? I had plenty of surface combats yet.

_____________________________

Marc von Martial
instagram stream

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 4

- 6/4/2002 4:35:54 PM

Pkunzipper

Posts: 237
Joined: 5/21/2002
Status: offline

Yes, I often have a battle between a bombardment TF and the docked ships, but after 2 years of play (in the game time) I had no surface combat in any non base hex (except for SS attacks)...
maybe I'm doing something wrong, but in h2h against me combat occurred only when I stabilished a common dest hex for both TF...
No combat occurred even if 2 TF pass through the same hex (the first for both)...

I set my TF with Patrol/don't retire and React to enemy.

How do you get them to engage?

_____________________________

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 5

- 6/4/2002 9:06:48 PM

Wilhammer

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline

Without getting into details, surface engagements on the open sea are VERY rare throughout history.

That said, just how do you get one in UV?

I have had about half a dozen surface engagements on the "high" seas.

Since UV does not have mid-course interception, you have to make a guess as to where the target will be, and plot a surface force to go to that hex.

[This is an important concept to grasp. NO MID COURSE INTERCEPTIONS TAKE PLACE. BATTLES ONLY OCCUR AT END POINTS. Even though scores of ships might "pass" through the same hex, you CANNOT stop them. This means that you cannot BLOCK passages or the "Slot". Thus, the screening forces you read about are NOT possible in the scale of this game. But should it be? For example, First Savo was about a Jap force probing towards the invasion force, and the Allied surface force was blocking them. IS this not simulated in UV? I think it is. I have noticed that if you attack a multiple task force hex, the combat vessels will face you before you can get to the transports.]

You know that a Task Force can move XX hexes in a day. If you know to what location they are heading, you could, in theory, make clock work of intercepting them.

As the speed of a TF goes up, this method becomes almost worthless, but as the speed goes down, it becomes invaluable.

Most of my use has been to mop up after air attacks.

I have used this same tactic to create DD sub hunter packs that go out and sink subs. Sure helps get rid of those pesky ones hanging around Gili Gili.

====================================

Interface Request.

When a my mouse hovers over a hex during selection of TF destination, it would be nice if the hex coordinate would "balloon".

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 6

- 6/4/2002 9:59:02 PM

Pkunzipper

Posts: 237
Joined: 5/21/2002
Status: offline

So, if I have to estimate the dest hex, it should be nice, a little easier and more historical that recon planes (at a high Detection Level) report the speed and the heading of the spotted TF

_____________________________

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 7

- 6/4/2002 10:13:30 PM

Wilhammer

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline

Agreed.

It is missing from the game that we don't get headings and speed from spotted task forces, but then again, what good would it do in this scale?

I devine the speeds and direction by noteing the following:

1. NO Ships start at sea at the beginning of the game.

2. Liberal use of PGs, PCs, SCa as recon forces.

3. You KNOW the main supply hub locations. A cruiser-centric raiding force between Rabaul and Truk should finf plenty of opportunity.

4. After a battle, crippled ships run away. You can chase them, as you generally know in in which direction they head; towards the hubs.

5. Lots of planes on spotting missions.

6. Taking hand written notes. Yes, I identify task forces on the game map, pencil track their progression, predict paths, and launch intercepts.

Using these methods (which I just started using this past weekend), I have fallen into a routine of intercepting/shadowing task forces from Australia to PM. My subs and cruiser/dd task forces are hunting them down and killing them. I had 1 surface engagement prior to Sunday, last night I had about a half-dozen.

=========================================

After thought....

The truth is, we have something one should rarely get; the EXACT locations of enemy TFs at the end of each day.

Every spotted enemy TF is PRECISELY fixed and located at the end of each day, thus making it easier to track them down and hunt them down.

I am still working this technique out to its finest details. Hopefully I will be able to gun down a CV force with a BB force on the high seas. After all, as long as I spotted them, I KNOW EXACTLY where they are prior to plotting night time surface engagements.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 8

- 6/4/2002 11:14:00 PM

Pkunzipper

Posts: 237
Joined: 5/21/2002
Status: offline

I agree with you when you say that heading and speed of a TF it's not needed at this scale, but so the command "react to enemy" should work also for surface combat TFs (as it works for CV TFs), since this represent the orders of the TF commander,that once received the contact report (including heading and speed, not needed by us (the theatre commander)), tries to intercept the enemy.

I hope to have explained my thought, since my english isn't very good

_____________________________

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 9

- 6/4/2002 11:22:33 PM

Wilhammer

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline

Your points came through loud and clear, by the way.

Perhaps mine did not, as it was just one phrase long.

"Surface combat is RARE on the high seas".

It rarely even happenmed in WW2, the Battle of North Cape and Kommisart Island (sp?) being the only two to come to mind.

I question the need for React to enemy surface forces, unless it is at VERY short range, like one hex.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 10

- 6/5/2002 1:03:20 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

'Random' surface engagements were rare i would agree

TF's with a specific mission however have a much greater chance, dependant on the level of commitment of the naval staff involved, the agressiveness of the attacker/intruder, and the willingness to engage by the defender. (examples would be the Barrants Sea engagement, North Cape, Java sea, Battle of Sirte etc etc)

carrier TF's on the other hand would have virtually a nil chance for engagement as any carrier commander worth his salt will usually attempt to avoid making themselves an easy target while nighttime grounds their primary weapon for the most part. (dependant again on stance and course settings. (and the speed of the group) So while the surface commander has the desire, and the agressiveness, the carrier commander most definately does not wish to initiate reducing the chances for a meeting of the minds.....that is, unless the operational commander (i.e. YOU :) ), overrides him and orders the TF to remain in the area (no retirement allowed) or same hex or advances them farther into enemy territory. If a fast enemy surface TF is nearby.....it might/should increase the chance for an intercept.

I would agree that a surface TF, with a specific mission for combat/interception should be able to "react to enemy" in the same vein as a carrier TF. However it is a given that it is far more difficult to arrange a rondevous between surface ships, which must obtain visual or near visual contact with their target, and aircraft which are far far faster and can be launched from even hundreds of miles away. The difference therin is the more subtle but key advantage of airpower as represented in the game

IIRC, with previous wargames, the chance for an link up between surface forces at the operational level was largely a factor of mission, rating of the commander (if factored at all) and most importantly, speed and the ratio of speed difference between opposing TF's.

For example, if a fast cruiser force with a 'surface combat' mission detects or is pointed in the direction of a slow transport force then the chance for a successful interception ('react to enemy' interaction) should be much greater than an opposing TF of similar speed.

Add to that variables to determine move-countermove etc etc and you get the eventual modified percentage, all of which would be invisible to the player who is cast in the role of operational commander.

In game terms these variables could be influenced by the orders given at the onset by the player, such as the "do not retire/retirement allowed" toggle

A transport TF with the former setting would be a simulation of a must-get through convoy regardless of risk and any current threat acessments, such as the early British Malta convoys.

A transport/supply TF with a retirement allowed option would be the opposite.....important (as all supply TF's are) but not so important as to ignore developments in the threat situation. Such a convoy/TF should be by default much harder to intercept assuming the defending side becomes aware of the presence of enemy forces (which usually happens in the game due to the proliferation of seaplanes and other search aircraft)

Leadership and inspiration ratings should also play a direct part in these interactions.

From what i've read on this thread, it sounds like UV is pretty much doing this though admitedly, i have yet to see a sucessful 'intercept' due to 'react to enemy'

In my test scenerios to check on the other aspects of the surface combat routine however, i can confirm that two surface TF's that share the same destination hex, even if its an open sea hex, do indeed initiate combat, (day and night)

base interactions work well too. Bombardment TF's are usually intercepted first by defending surface combat TF's before they can bombard. Same situation when transport TF's are present, the intruding TF must first fight it's way through the defending surface combat TF.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 11

- 6/5/2002 1:08:49 AM

Dunedain

Posts: 224
Joined: 4/4/2000
Status: offline

This is one area that needs to be corrected. Surface combat
TF's should be able to intercept each other in mid course,
wherever they might happen to be. If you set a surface combat TF
to "react to enemy", they should do just that. If an enemy TF
comes within sighting range, they should try to go after/intercept
them and engage.

Now, since the hexes are 30 miles across, this would mean
that spotting would most commonly occur only when TF's are
in the same hex. But a TF might not be in the middle of a hex at
any given time, it might be near one of the edges of a hex, and
thus able to see well into the next hex. So perhaps a routine
could be set up to determine near what edge of the hex
a TF is at during each impulse. And then if an enemy TF is
in the same hex or in the hex that the other TF is near to the
edge of, it may spot them.

Now if for some reason figuring out if the TF is near the edge
of a certain hex can't be determined by the game engine, then
at least allow spotting and interception if the enemy TF's are in
the same hex with one another, whether they are just
traveling through the hex or not. That would be a huge
improvement over what we have now.

Obviously one TF would have to spot the other in order for
there to be an interception, which would be greatly affected
by weather, if it's day or night, crew experience (how good the
lookouts are), etc. So often times TF's could slip past one
another in a 30 mile hex and not be noticed, especially if the
TF's are small. But there would also be a very realistic chance
that they would be spotted and could be engaged.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 12

- 6/5/2002 1:33:11 AM

Wilhammer

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline

On this I agree.

If two opposing TFs cross paths, a routine should check if they spot each other and engage.

In essence, time influenced ZOCs.

For example, if you wanted to block a narrow passage, like that between the "Archipelago" and Gili-Gil, you would consider putting a surface TF on near permanent patrol to guard it.

As it stands now, it is nothing to the enemy to sail right on through.

This is why I mentioned one might want to consider a ONE HEX or SAME HEX "en passant" routine.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 13

- 6/5/2002 1:45:14 AM

Pkunzipper

Posts: 237
Joined: 5/21/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]
For example, if a fast cruiser force with a 'surface combat' mission detects or is pointed in the direction of a slow transport force then the chance for a successful interception ('react to enemy' interaction) should be much greater than an opposing TF of similar speed.
[/B][/QUOTE]

This is the point!!
for example:
I'm the commander of a CA TF, my orders are to patrol the area of the sea where I am now and react to the enemy.
A just landed Kingfisher pilot reported a small enemy tanker TF just 60 km (2 hex) north of here going at 9 knots.....
Why shall I not try to intercept it????

_____________________________

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 14

- 6/5/2002 2:46:46 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

A couple possible options are being looked at, but as the game currently works, surface combats tend to revolve around supporting landings or bombardments. (hence the "react to enemy in bases" rule) - a very historical limitation.

Out in "open ocean" unless you are going after a retiring cripple, the ability of a taskforce to bring another taskforce to battle was problematic. Even an auxillery that you have a 10 knot speed advantage on could take you 10 hours to overtake at 3 hex range. It could be lost in a squall, screen a turn with smoke putting you out of position, etc. For combatants of like speed, even if it detects you entering the hex at 15nm, it could take you 5 or 6 hours of stern chase if it refuses battle.

Haze, heavy sea state, etc can cause ships pasisng nearby to misseach other, so given the in frequence of two task forces occupying the same hex at the same time, the processing load and delay in game play does not seem worth the couple encouters such a rule would generate.

THe issue seems to be in close waters and choke points were the probability of interception is high and the ability to prevent the passage of supply ships is desired. Since these sorts of situations can be handled at the base terminus, this leaves only the attempt at ambushing replenishment ships the case that is lacking. This proved historically difficult.

This is one of those "design decision bugs" where "brute force" calculation may seem to be "more realistic" when it may in reality slow the game execution down for little return. This could cause there to be a great deal more surface actions than historically occured because the players ability to "game the sytem" and use knowledge no real commander would have to force surface engagements. In the absence of realtively simple solution, its not an area that is likely to be "overhauled" extensively. The gme is working as intended.

You can disagree with the design decision, but compromises have to made to balance realism and playability.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 15

- 6/5/2002 3:08:02 AM

Wilhammer

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline

I think it is a good call Paul.

The truth is, like any other naval war, it is all about the bases.

....and a 30 mile wide "hex" of open ocean is a huge place.

As you put it with many examples, finding an enemy TF at other than bases is extremely rare, and not really worth it.

As for running down nearby TFs just 6o miles away (or 30 miles or less), it happened all to rarely in the real war.

..and when this system is laid down in WitP at a 60 mile hex scale, it is even more unneeded overhead.

It is with great foresight that you layered TFs in port. The combat TFs you go through first BEFORE you get to the supply ships (or the bombard mission).

===========================

Question; does this apply to mixed Surface/Air TFs?

The Americans adopted a method of putting AA laden warships in the path of expected Japanese air, and when they struck, they first got shot up by this screening TF. I have noticed the early war Japanes to be VERY good at going straight for the CVs.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 16

Check out this compilation of battles - 6/5/2002 3:18:54 AM

Wilhammer

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline

http://www.combinedfleet.com/map.htm

Notice how almost NOTHING happened in the open ocean.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 17

- 6/5/2002 3:21:37 AM

Pkunzipper

Posts: 237
Joined: 5/21/2002
Status: offline

Thx for reply.

Now I know it's a design solution and the reasons surface TF are handled in this manner, and I can say I agree with that.

Only thing I can still ask for a future patch is the heading and the speed of the spotted TF.

_____________________________

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 18

- 6/5/2002 4:13:04 AM

Dunedain

Posts: 224
Joined: 4/4/2000
Status: offline

Paul:

I agree that interceptions shouldn't be taking place constantly
and that's certainly not what I would want to see happen.
But if I send a CA TF out with orders to seek out and engage (react)
to enemy TF's and they run into, say, another enemy CA TF that
also has orders to engage enemy ships, shouldn't they be able
to battle it out, even if they don't happen to be in some base or destination hex?

Now, if the other CA TF has orders to retire and he runs for it
as soon as he spots my TF, then obviously he would
have good chance of getting away and not much would likely
come from the encounter. And, of course, we still have the
weather factor, etc. to make spotting tricky. This would keep
open ocean surface engagements pretty uncommon, as they
should be. But it would still allow surface combat TF's to
mix it up if they want to. Also, if you have an aggressive commander
he would be more likely to decide to take on the enemy TF, etc.
This makes for the possibility of some very interesting battles
when TF's meet up in non-base hexes, while still keeping the
engagements believable.

And I think I can safely say that the kind of people that like
to play complex wargames like UV and the upcoming WitP aren't
going to mind a little extra time for the computer to calculate
these important details. ;) And considering the processing
power of CPU's these days, it isn't a problem. Plus UV is going
to be being played for years, it has to last us a long time, since in all
likelihood no one else will make such a computer wargame
covering this topic any time soon. And two years from now
the CPU's will be so fast that all these calcs will be even less
significant in terms of processing time than they are now. :)

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 19

- 6/5/2002 4:35:42 AM

strollen

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline

A related question, if 2 TF end up in the same hex will there always be combat. I was so excited when my first use of the PT boats endup om tje same ocean hex as the crippled Soryu and crippled destroyer. However, since neither side had radar I am not sure how likely it was they would find each other.

Of course the battle was anti-clamatic. All 6 PT boats missed with all torps.. They did managed some belt hits and even critical hits!! with 50 cals on the destroyers.. I know 50 cals are pretty powerful but can the really get penetration hits on destroyers!

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 20

Re: Check out this compilation of battles - 6/5/2002 4:44:33 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilhammer
[B]http://www.combinedfleet.com/map.htm

Notice how almost NOTHING happened in the open ocean. [/B][/QUOTE]

Heh, our interpretations of "open ocean" must be different. :)

Paul;

I figured that was the line of reasoning in the game and understand. Even though the one day turns are far less clunky than the old PacWar system, some compromises and design challenges remain since an easy way must be found to resolve 24 hours of movement, counter-movement etc etc, and tie it all in too air and undersea ops as well. All of which falls below the spectrum of what an operational commander has to deal with.

I would still profer one suggestion though in regards to Transport and supply TF's (non-fast ones) such as the one at the beginning of the grand campaign/MO operation.

In such circumstances, the only reason to create surface TF's would be to (hopefully) intercept such a ripe target. The game should allow some form of limited 'reaction' allowing a surface combat TF "in close proximity" (say 2-4 hexes) to be given a chance to make a run at it. Similar to the "follow TF" routine. (and perhaps thats where it could be worked in?)

Otherwise the player's only option is to guess/track the destination hex for a spotted TF on a per turn basis, or station surface TF's right at the base most likely threatened which presents two problems to the defender.

1) it gives the attacker more time to adjust his gameplan

2) provides a convenient opportunity to pound it with LBA and/or carrier aircraft.

Before i get jumped on by opposing viewers i will admit that in the scope covered by UV, this is a minor issue, if it can even be called an issue as the majority of the fighting will revolve around the solomons chain where the "Tokyo Express"/short-distanced objective nature of that conflict will make bases the obvious magnets which will produce all the surface combat a grognard can desire.

As always though, i am also thinking of the "Big Picture" in my own way too :)

What that means is that i'm thinking of the upcoming WitP which will share essentially the same engine as UV. In that grand scale game, limiting surface warships to base support vessels would become more of an issue and i hope that will be considered as that much anticipated game is developed further.

Limiting surface combat to bases only after all, was a necessary limitation of PacWar. Here (and in WitP) the player for the first time is allowed to plot detailed paths for their TF's. As such, just as with the subs (and the carriers) there should be a range of action for all types of TF's involved. Obviously that for a surface TF would be much more limited in scale but the ability to react should be there.

Especially if WitP allows the type of hypothetical campaign envisioned in the defunct "Pacific Tide" where carrier development and involvement was speculated as "arrested" in favor of battleship development (i.e. no "washington Treaty")

Same destination hex open ocean (i.e. non "base" hexes) combat remains possible in UV, but this is a hard thing to arrange, even when tracking a slow transport group as even an error of one 30 mile hex can allow that slow fat target to escape your grasp.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 21

- 6/5/2002 1:44:01 PM

Ross Moorhouse

Posts: 2354
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pkunzipper
[B]So it near impossible to have a daylight surface combat in open waters... even if a faster TF with search planes want to engage a slower one. :( [/B][/QUOTE]

Oh no its not. Here is the proof.. Hot out of the game..

[IMG]http://www.militarygameronline.com/CloseCombatFuture/daytimeSC.gif[/IMG]

_____________________________

Ross Moorhouse

Project Manager
www.csosimtek.com
Email: rossm@csogroup.org

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 22

- 6/5/2002 3:12:45 PM

Sultanofsham

Posts: 728
Joined: 4/20/2002
Status: offline

Its not that hard. At the start of campaign 17 as the Japanese I ran down the remains of the american carrier group with a surface force.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 23

- 6/5/2002 3:29:43 PM

von Murrin

Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline

Check out the little teaser from the forthcoming patch. :p

In case you can't find it, it's in the bottom center of Ross' screenie. ;)

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 24

- 6/5/2002 3:35:32 PM

deilthedog

Posts: 97
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline

in the case off no mid trnasit interceptions fair enough.
my biggest wish is for surface TF's to intercept enemy ones just like CV TF's in open water
example
patrol /react -TF react to all TF'S
retirement allowed /react - all tf'a except CV's
how about it?

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 25

- 6/5/2002 4:02:53 PM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dunedain
[B]This is one area that needs to be corrected. Surface combat
TF's should be able to intercept each other in mid course,
wherever they might happen to be. If you set a surface combat TF to "react to enemy", they should do just that. If an enemy TF
comes within sighting range, they should try to go after/intercept
them and engage.[/B][/QUOTE]

I would second the above but also add the condition that reaction should take place whenever two forces come within sighting range of each other not just at the end of their daily track.

I have seen my CV task force sail right through the middle of an IJN battlegroup without triggering a single contact. Given the length of the daily movement in UV its too easy for TF's to pass through each other even in broad daylight.

I think we either have to shorten the move duration or introduce some form of dynamic intercept routine so that if two forces meet they have a chance to engage.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 26

A Bit of Trivia - 6/5/2002 4:15:43 PM

Paul Dyer

Posts: 60
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

A bit of trivia, it is a historical fact that most sea battles have been fought reasonably close to land. To this day the battle held farest out to sea remains that between British and French sailing ships on 1 June 1794 ("the Glorious First of June"), around 400 miles from the nearest land.

Agree that TFs that meet mid-transit should be able to engage, but not a biggie IMHO.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 27

- 6/5/2002 4:38:56 PM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilhammer
[B]

"Surface combat is RARE on the high seas".

It rarely even happenmed in WW2, the Battle of North Cape and Kommisart Island (sp?) being the only two to come to mind.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Ouch! Don't tell me, let me guess. Oh! yes your american.

Lets see.

Battle of the River Plate - 13 December 1939
Battle of Punta Stillo -9 July 1940
Battle of Cape Spartivento - 27 November 1940
Battle of Cape Matapan - 28 March 1941
Battle of Denmark Strait - 24 May 1941
Sinking the Bismark - 27 May 1941
Battles of the Java Sea - 27 Feb 1942 to 1 March 1942
Battle off South Borneo - 28 Feb 1942 - 1 March 1942
Battle of the Barentz Sea - 31 December 1942
Cape North - 25 December 1943

Just a few.

I've ignored battles that did not involve at least one capital ship.

As for finding each other in a big ocean.

The Royal Navy used to use the spotter planes that you might have noticed on some of the ships. Once the enemy were spotted they radio'd the location and everybody turned in that direction. Quite simple really. There was also an old technique called screening that involved sending destroyers out in a wide sweep and of course there were reports from Land Based Aircraft and other ships that enabled RN officers to work out the likely location of the enemy and plot an intercept course.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 28

- 6/5/2002 4:41:44 PM

Pkunzipper

Posts: 237
Joined: 5/21/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by von Murrin
[B]Check out the little teaser from the forthcoming patch. :p

In case you can't find it, it's in the bottom center of Ross' screenie. ;) [/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah!!
I noticed it too!!!!
It is a really great addition!!!! ;) :) ;)

------------------------------------------------------
However I think one of the 2 following things should be added:
1- Surface combat TFs react to enemy TF
2- Recon reports include heading and speed of the spotted TF (in order to guess his destination hex of the next phase)

Since this is an operational level game, I think the best choice is the former

_____________________________

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 29

- 6/5/2002 6:25:43 PM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
[B]
Out in "open ocean" unless you are going after a retiring cripple, the ability of a taskforce to bring another taskforce to battle was problematic. Even an auxillery that you have a 10 knot speed advantage on could take you 10 hours to overtake at 3 hex range. It could be lost in a squall, screen a turn with smoke putting you out of position, etc. For combatants of like speed, even if it detects you entering the hex at 15nm, it could take you 5 or 6 hours of stern chase if it refuses battle.
[/quote]

I can vouch for that having spent many a happy hour trying to sink hapless merchant ships with my long guns in GBNA. I even tried ramming the buggers in the end. And the rate at which it soaks up ammunition is alarming.

[QUOTE][B]
THe issue seems to be in close waters and choke points were the probability of interception is high and the ability to prevent the passage of supply ships is desired. Since these sorts of situations can be handled at the base terminus, this leaves only the attempt at ambushing replenishment ships the case that is lacking. This proved historically difficult.

This is one of those "design decision bugs" where "brute force" calculation may seem to be "more realistic" when it may in reality slow the game execution down for little return. This could cause there to be a great deal more surface actions than historically occured because the players ability to "game the sytem" and use knowledge no real commander would have to force surface engagements. In the absence of realtively simple solution, its not an area that is likely to be "overhauled" extensively. The gme is working as intended.

You can disagree with the design decision, but compromises have to made to balance realism and playability. [/B][/QUOTE]

I understand the problem for the design team but the issue for me is that this "design decision bug" denies me the option to use certain tactic's and strategies that ought to be possible.

The argument that it does not detract from historical events doesn't cut much ice with me. I wargame to explore what might have happened not to recreate what did happen. So its important that a game gives me a comprehensive set of options rather than forces me to stick to the designers script.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to Pkunzipper)

Post #: 30