Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Surface combat bias ?

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Surface combat bias ? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Surface combat bias ? - 8/9/2009 8:58:13 AM   
Puhis


Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: jimh009
On the other hand, I try to keep an open mind about this. Is there any surefire guarantee in real life that a surface TF that tries to retreat will always be able to retreat directly toward home? Following a surface fight, the ships could very well be in a completely different orientation than before the fight started...with the "victor" standing between the "vanquished" and the home base of the vanquished.


This more or less happened at Jutland...


Well it certainly did not happen during Salomon campaing... Japanese always retreated north.

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 31
RE: Surface combat bias ? - 8/9/2009 2:23:52 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Well it certainly did not happen during Salomon campaing... Japanese always retreated north.


The point is it can happen, it's not like Scheer wanted to get cut off from his bases after all.

_____________________________


(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 32
RE: Surface combat bias ? - 8/9/2009 3:24:04 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

I have been watching the AI V AI, and the surface combat more than anything is heavily biased in the USA's favour,



Well given what just happened to my US surface group just south of Davao, I'd say Japanese surface combats are performing just fine. First was the night engagement, which saw the CA Huston take 1 torpedo and 1 large caliber shell hit from the Hyuga and instantly sink. The other 5 hits were AAA gun hits from Hyuga's AAA mounts.

The fast sinking of the CA Huston tells me that ships might be a tad too vulnerable in AE. Sure the Huston would be in pretty bad shape, but baring a critical damage outcome (none reported), I'd think she should have stayed afloat after just 2 damage producing hits.

The next part of the fight was Unbelievably long, lasting 16 rounds! I didn't know ships had that much ammo available, but they kept shooting for all 16 rounds. How the fleets closed from 18k to 1k in daylight conditions with visibility maxed at 30k yards, eludes me. This may be a problem with the surface routines, as I can't think of any reason to justify such a close starting range in such good conditions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Dadjangas at 79,93, Range 1,000 Yards

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
BB Hyuga, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1
CA Mogami
DD Yakaze
DD Hokaze

Allied Ships
CA Houston, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
CL Marblehead, Shell hits 1
CL Boise
DD Barker
DD Bulmer
DD Paul Jones
DD Parrott
DD Stewart



Reduced sighting due to 46% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions and 46% moonlight: 2,000 yards
Range closes to 1,000 yards...
Ishizaki, Noburu crosses the 'T'
BB Hyuga engages CA Houston at 1,000 yards
CL Boise engages CA Mogami at 1,000 yards
DD Hokaze engages CA Houston at 1,000 yards
CA Houston engages DD Yakaze at 1,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages DD Parrott at 1,000 yards
DD Barker engages BB Hyuga at 1,000 yards
Range increases to 2,000 yards
CA Houston sunk by BB Hyuga at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages CL Boise at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages CL Marblehead at 2,000 yards
DD Yakaze engages DD Parrott at 2,000 yards
DD Paul Jones engages DD Yakaze at 2,000 yards
DD Bulmer engages DD Yakaze at 2,000 yards
DD Barker engages DD Yakaze at 2,000 yards
Task forces break off...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Davao at 79,91, Range 1,000 Yards

Allied aircraft
no flights

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
BB Hyuga, Shell hits 53, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA Mogami, Shell hits 3
DD Yakaze, Shell hits 1
DD Hokaze, Shell hits 19, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CL Marblehead, Shell hits 8, heavy fires
CL Boise, Shell hits 15, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
DD Barker, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Bulmer, Shell hits 3, and is sunk
DD Paul Jones, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Parrott, Shell hits 1
DD Stewart, Shell hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage



Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions: 30,000 yards
Range closes to 18,000 yards...
Range closes to 12,000 yards...
Range closes to 6,000 yards...
Range closes to 1,000 yards...
Riker, K.I. crosses the 'T'
BB Hyuga engages CL Boise at 1,000 yards
CL Marblehead engages BB Hyuga at 1,000 yards
DD Hokaze sunk by CL Boise at 1,000 yards
Range increases to 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages CL Boise at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages CL Marblehead at 2,000 yards
DD Stewart engages DD Yakaze at 2,000 yards
DD Paul Jones engages DD Yakaze at 2,000 yards
DD Bulmer engages DD Yakaze at 2,000 yards
DD Barker engages DD Yakaze at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 5,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages CL Boise at 5,000 yards
CL Marblehead engages CA Mogami at 5,000 yards
DD Yakaze engages DD Stewart at 5,000 yards
DD Yakaze engages DD Parrott at 5,000 yards
DD Yakaze engages DD Paul Jones at 5,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages DD Bulmer at 5,000 yards
Range increases to 7,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages CL Boise at 7,000 yards
CA Mogami engages CL Boise at 7,000 yards
DD Yakaze engages DD Bulmer at 7,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages DD Parrott at 7,000 yards
DD Yakaze engages DD Bulmer at 7,000 yards
DD Barker engages DD Yakaze at 7,000 yards
Range increases to 11,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages CL Boise at 11,000 yards
CL Boise sunk by CA Mogami at 11,000 yards
DD Yakaze engages DD Stewart at 11,000 yards
DD Yakaze engages DD Parrott at 11,000 yards
DD Yakaze engages DD Paul Jones at 11,000 yards
DD Yakaze engages DD Bulmer at 11,000 yards
DD Yakaze engages DD Barker at 11,000 yards
Ishizaki, Noburu orders Japanese TF to disengage
Range increases to 13,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages DD Parrott at 13,000 yards
CA Mogami engages DD Stewart at 13,000 yards
DD Stewart engages DD Yakaze at 13,000 yards
DD Yakaze engages DD Paul Jones at 13,000 yards
DD Yakaze engages DD Bulmer at 13,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages DD Barker at 13,000 yards
Range closes to 10,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages CL Marblehead at 10,000 yards
CA Mogami engages CL Marblehead at 10,000 yards
DD Yakaze engages DD Barker at 10,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages DD Paul Jones at 10,000 yards
DD Bulmer engages DD Yakaze at 10,000 yards
DD Barker engages DD Yakaze at 10,000 yards
Range closes to 6,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages CL Marblehead at 6,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages DD Stewart at 6,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages DD Parrott at 6,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages DD Paul Jones at 6,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages DD Bulmer at 6,000 yards
DD Barker engages DD Yakaze at 6,000 yards
Range increases to 7,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages CL Marblehead at 7,000 yards
CA Mogami engages DD Stewart at 7,000 yards
DD Parrott engages DD Yakaze at 7,000 yards
DD Paul Jones engages BB Hyuga at 7,000 yards
DD Barker engages DD Yakaze at 7,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages CL Marblehead at 7,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages DD Stewart at 7,000 yards
DD Parrott engages DD Yakaze at 7,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages DD Paul Jones at 7,000 yards
DD Bulmer engages DD Yakaze at 7,000 yards
DD Barker engages BB Hyuga at 7,000 yards
Range increases to 8,000 yards
CL Marblehead engages CA Mogami at 8,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages DD Stewart at 8,000 yards
DD Stewart engages DD Yakaze at 8,000 yards
DD Paul Jones engages DD Yakaze at 8,000 yards
DD Bulmer engages DD Yakaze at 8,000 yards
DD Barker engages DD Yakaze at 8,000 yards
Range increases to 13,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages CL Marblehead at 13,000 yards
CA Mogami engages DD Stewart at 13,000 yards
CA Mogami engages DD Parrott at 13,000 yards
CA Mogami engages DD Paul Jones at 13,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages DD Bulmer at 13,000 yards
Range increases to 17,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages CL Marblehead at 17,000 yards
CA Mogami engages CL Marblehead at 17,000 yards
Range increases to 19,000 yards
CA Mogami engages CL Marblehead at 19,000 yards
CL Marblehead engages DD Yakaze at 19,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages DD Paul Jones at 19,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages DD Bulmer at 19,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages DD Barker at 19,000 yards
Range increases to 21,000 yards
CL Marblehead engages DD Yakaze at 21,000 yards
CA Mogami engages DD Paul Jones at 21,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages DD Barker at 21,000 yards
Riker, K.I. orders Allied TF to disengage
Range increases to 24,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages CL Marblehead at 24,000 yards
CA Mogami engages CL Marblehead at 24,000 yards
CA Mogami engages DD Parrott at 24,000 yards
CA Mogami engages DD Barker at 24,000 yards
Range increases to 27,000 yards
CA Mogami engages DD Barker at 27,000 yards
Task forces break off...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




The net effect is these two fights basically wiped out US naval power in the DEIs (of the 5 survivors, two will sink for sure, and 2 more are at risk). Had the US not scored two torpedo hits on the Hyuga, the cost to Japan would have been minimal. As it is, the Hyuga will live to fight another day however, so ultimately the only price paid by Japan was a Japanese DD.

Jim





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 8/9/2009 3:26:07 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 33
RE: Surface combat bias ? - 8/9/2009 3:29:19 PM   
MorningDew

 

Posts: 1170
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller
Your issue was very valid. Should have been looked at more pre-release


Did you read what Joe and I wrote as well?



Erik,

That's exactly what I was thinking

_____________________________


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 34
RE: Surface combat bias ? - 8/9/2009 7:19:57 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Well it certainly did not happen during Salomon campaing... Japanese always retreated north.


The point is it can happen, it's not like Scheer wanted to get cut off from his bases after all.


I agree, it can happen. Historically it did not happened during Salomon campaing. In this game it's happening all the time when I try to attack Tulagi or Lunga.

One more thing. In this game the naval movement phase is 12 hours. In that time fast moving warships should be able to travel at least 600 kilometers. So there is no point why my cruisers end up one hex south of Lunga after retreating during the day naval movement.

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 35
RE: Surface combat bias ? - 8/10/2009 5:17:11 AM   
Scott_USN

 

Posts: 715
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: Eagle River, Alaska USA
Status: offline 		That depends on so many factors we can only ass u me..

Did the task force take 9 of 12 hours to form for battle and plan? Did they scatter afterwords and have to regroup? Were any ships damaged? Where too many op points used? Did the boiler room take a hit slowing the ship? Who knows. What if he attacked at night which is normal and fought through the enemy lines? Does he retreat south and NE or NW or go back through the enemy lines? I know which way I would go South.

If I wanted to play actual historical by the book games why not just get out Victory at Sea propaganda films and watch those? Because no one would retreat south if that was the only way, no US warship could possibly get lucky and kill the mighty Japanese Fleets...

These early battle were not exactly "even", I mean the Helena and her CLAA take on the prime Surface fleet of the IJN and some lived and won! Holy hell! They should have all been killed according to the extacting standards of game players.

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 36
RE: Surface combat bias ? - 8/10/2009 11:31:04 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
I think a major issue is the accuracy of the US 5" and 6" guns. If the belt can take these hits the accuracy is not relevant but otherwise they will lay waste to the opposition ( The same would be the case if it was US vs the RN) . In WITP  experience figured heavily so early in the war the accuracy was ok ( low exp high accuracy)   and later on it was devastating but no one questions such a later war cases.  With experienced being less of a factor  the accuracy is prob too high - I mean the 5/38 was NOT the most accurate gun in the Pacific war.    To test this we really should be testing Light Cruiser and Destroyers vs each other.


(in reply to Scott_USN)
Post #: 37
RE: Surface combat bias ? - 8/10/2009 12:26:05 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste


I think a major issue is the accuracy of the US 5" and 6" guns. If the belt can take these hits the accuracy is not relevant but otherwise they will lay waste to the opposition



Actually, this is not quite accurate. Virtually nothing fired at Hiei that night off Guadalcanal could penetrate her main belt..., yet she was left helpless to be finished off the next morning. You can't inflict catastrophic damage..., but the "death of 1000 cuts" can be just as fatal (and much more painfull).

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 38
RE: Surface combat bias ? - 8/10/2009 1:51:21 PM   
BShaftoe

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 6/22/2005
From: Oviedo, North of Spain
Status: offline 		It seems there are far more reports of Japanese Navy underperforming than achieving something near to historical performance. If jwilkerson says that it seems that crew experience counts for nothing, I'd say there is a problem, because it's quite clear than crew experience (and CO skills) should be a major factor.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 39
RE: Surface combat bias ? - 8/10/2009 2:54:49 PM   
BShaftoe

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 6/22/2005
From: Oviedo, North of Spain
Status: offline 		One more thing:

I think that the experience levels for ship crews are too "static". There are training missions for air squadrons, but there are no drilling missions for military vessels. I mean: let's suppose I am an allied player, and I order my best cruisers to do night-drilling for two years (in a 4 years war, it would be perfectly possible). The night/day experience for those crews should rise: I mean, I know there would be a point in which the drilling would have minor impact, but come on, a little bit increase wouldn't do harm.

I guess that a crew drilling TF "mission" and a crew/CO experience/skill being a bigger factor in naval combat could be thought about.

(in reply to BShaftoe)
Post #: 40
RE: Surface combat bias ? - 8/10/2009 3:12:35 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

Did some interesting playing with the Guadalcanal scenario. Put together the CAs and set them up for a fast night run-in to contest the invasion, with retirement set, expecting them to zoom in, do some combat and zoom back out to avoid air attacks. What actually happened is they got surprised by two different cruiser TFs, then retreated SOUTH?!?!

Needless to say, they were destroyed by the carrier planes. Time to rethink surface combat tactics as Japanese for sure.




I've run that about ten times now, and results are like you said. Usually japanese cruisers are surprised, and are hammered by the allies. It seems that japanese ships don't know how to use those guns or torpedoes. And that retreating does not work. Sometimes japanese ships just don't retreat at all, or they retreat a few hexes south and US CV planes destroy them. Yesterday I tried to run fast transport TF of 2 CLs to Tassafaronga. There was allied TF (2 AKs and 2 DD) unloading troops, so my TF retreated to Tulagi(??), which is US base now...

So please, can somebody tell me how the retreating works, or does it work at all?



My only experience with this. I sent the historical Mikawa TF on a surface run up the slot and got hammered. The Allies caught the Japanese napping, and shot them to bits. And, as said, the bulk of the IJN survivors did not attempt to retreat but lingered to get obliterated by the Allied carriers. I plan on running the battle ten times tonight to see what the results are.



_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 41
RE: Surface combat bias ? - 8/10/2009 3:20:48 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
. The Allies caught the Japanese napping, and shot them to bits.



There does seem to be a problem with Allied search radars working too well too quickly in the game. It is being looked at and will probably be tweaked some. I'm not the one doing it, so I really can't say more than that...

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 42
RE: Surface combat bias ? - 8/10/2009 3:24:02 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste


I think a major issue is the accuracy of the US 5" and 6" guns. If the belt can take these hits the accuracy is not relevant but otherwise they will lay waste to the opposition



Actually, this is not quite accurate. Virtually nothing fired at Hiei that night off Guadalcanal could penetrate her main belt..., yet she was left helpless to be finished off the next morning. You can't inflict catastrophic damage..., but the "death of 1000 cuts" can be just as fatal (and much more painfull).



The same can be said about the South Dakota at the second naval battle of Guadacanal. She was hit by one 14 inch shell and many smaller shells. Her belt armor deflected the 14 inch shot but the lesser shells did serious damage to her upper works-knocking out the gun directing and radar systems.

I think AE relects this much better as in my only real naval fight to date the Houston surprise a kongo class BB and heavy CA with two distroyers. In the first round of fire when the Japanese could not fire back the Houston's 8 inch guns actually did some severe damage to the BB. (so unlike WITP) In the second round the BB and CAs guns ate the Houston up for lunch. Bout what I would expect.

The Boise, on the other hand, fired her guns like mad and did not take a hit. Did you guys make this ship out of kryptonite?

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 43
RE: Surface combat bias ? - 8/10/2009 3:36:38 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		Boise has adamantium armor and laser guided 6" automatic guns; it's the only way she can get into so many fights and come out the winner every time.  She's my ABDA fleet's flagship and has already been in more surface fights than any other USN ship (Houston got sunk at Balikpapan by airstrikes); her gunfire is like a hose, sweeping IJN DD's off the surface every time one gets in her sights!

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 44
RE: Surface combat bias ? - 8/10/2009 3:58:49 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		Someone's not going to be happy

Checked and she's at 30/48/19.........




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 45
RE: Surface combat bias ? - 8/10/2009 4:02:08 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		One thing I would say which I'm not sure on is the reaction of SC TF's....for example in the same night of combat as the Zuiho encounter above CL Tromp, DD Kortenaer and DD Witte de With were heading back to Tarakan to refuel and re-arm (0 reaction was on) and they reacted (and IJN CA/CL Force) about 3/4 times in the night tto each other. All in all covering about 320 miles of ocean through various 'zipping' movements........

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 46
RE: Surface combat bias ? - 8/10/2009 4:35:28 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		My SF TF's have reacted to spotted targets several times.  They appear to need a high detection value to react, though; my ABDA TF sank Zuiho after chasing her for several days through the Java Sea.  Earlier, though, they reacted to an invasion/covering force landing at Miri on northern Borneo.  I haven't gotten PT boats to react much at all, though; I sent three different groups of PT's out of Balikpapan when the KB came steaming through the strait and not one of them made an intercept.

I have found that ASW TF's will react onto spotted subs. 

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 47
RE: Surface combat bias ? - 8/10/2009 4:57:18 PM   
DrewMatrix


Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline 		I, too have found that once you have a mid sea intercept/combat you often have it happen over and over that same turn (2 to 4 times).

You may want to limit the same TFs to only fighting once per phase but:

Sometimes the battle results in the formation of an escort TF with damaged ships in it, and that is a different task force (triggering another intercept).


_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 48
RE: Surface combat bias ? - 8/10/2009 5:02:27 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

My SF TF's have reacted to spotted targets several times.  They appear to need a high detection value to react, though; my ABDA TF sank Zuiho after chasing her for several days through the Java Sea.  Earlier, though, they reacted to an invasion/covering force landing at Miri on northern Borneo.  I haven't gotten PT boats to react much at all, though; I sent three different groups of PT's out of Balikpapan when the KB came steaming through the strait and not one of them made an intercept.

I have found that ASW TF's will react onto spotted subs. 


Understood but as I'm saying I wonder if there's a little too much reaction.

For example in my Tromp battle. She got reacted to then bolted east 40 miles (out of ammo so escaped out of the fight), but then headed west straight away as was heading to Tarkan, another battle, then retreated NE, then headed west again and IJN SC TF was there too.....etc etc......

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 49
RE: Surface combat bias ? - 8/10/2009 5:08:19 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy
For example in my Tromp battle. She got reacted to then bolted east 40 miles (out of ammo so escaped out of the fight), but then headed west straight away as was heading to Tarkan, another battle, then retreated NE, then headed west again and IJN SC TF was there too.....etc etc......


Its because they just don't ever give up. They have a tendency to react even when out of ammo or ordered to retire.

There is a roll, apparently, but it seems too much in favour of reaction. Either that or my default SCTF commanders are very aggressive.

_____________________________


(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 50
RE: Surface combat bias ? - 8/10/2009 5:52:39 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		I get that constant re-reaction as well; it gets so bad that if I want a TF to go to a certain base, I turn off the reaction range completely.  PT boats are really annoying when doing this.  I had a group at Tawi Tawi move to hit some TF's at Jolo (two hexes away); they performed their mission then withdrew.

They withdrew east.  On their return home, they reentered Jolo's hex, met the remnants of the same TF, fought an inconclusive battle (all torpedoes expended already), withdrew EAST again, tried to return to base, hit Jolo a third time, took some damage, and withdrew EAST one more time.

Now they're out of fuel and 3 hexes away from their base, with an enemy base between them and home.  Just great.

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 51
RE: Surface combat bias ? - 8/10/2009 6:03:23 PM   
DrewMatrix


Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline 		The reacting/engaging over and over when out of ammo is particularly annoying. I have been changing any out of ammo TF to escort/return/direct/React 0 but that is a bother to check each for remaining ammo.



_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 52
RE: Surface combat bias ? - 8/10/2009 6:39:22 PM   
Crimguy


Posts: 1409
Joined: 8/15/2003
From: Cave Creek, AZ
Status: offline 		I'm not sure how reasonable it is - would De Ruyter be able to stay afloat long enough to take 11 hits? I suppose it would depend on how many came from those 14" guns of Yamashiro. Still, Yamashiro didn't prove to be the best led of the BB's in the IJN. It's an interesting battle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

Here is my most recent surface battle (ie not chosen for any reason other than it occured this turn):

Day Time Surface Combat, near Manado at 77,100 (Allied TF was on react. mid ocean, daytime), Range 20,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
     BB Yamashiro, Shell hits 14
     CL Yubari
     DD Mutsuki, Shell hits 4,  heavy fires
     DD Kisaragi, Shell hits 12,  heavy fires,  heavy damage
Results
................Sy-Fl-En-FI
Yamashiro...04-02-02-02 Shell hits 14
Yubari........00-00-00-00
Mutsuki......44-38-18-04 Shell hits 4,  heavy fires
Kisaragi......Sunk  heavy fires,  heavy damage


Allied Ships
     CL De Ruyter, Shell hits 11,  heavy fires,  heavy damage
     CL Tromp, Shell hits 2
     DD Alden, Shell hits 1
     DD Edsall
     DD John D. Edwards
     DD Whipple, Shell hits 2, and is sunk
     DD Banckert
     DD Witte de With, Shell hits 2,  heavy fires
     DD Kortenaer
     DD Piet Hein

Results
.................Sy-Fl-En-FI
De Ruyter....63-73-35-99 Shell hits 11,  heavy fires,  heavy damage
Tromp ........03-03-00-00 Shell hits 2
Alden..........04-00-01-00 Shell hits 1
Edsall..........00-00-00-00
JD. Edwards.00-00-00-00
Whipple.......Sunk Shell hits 2
Banckert......00-00-00-00
Wte de With.23-30-27-00 Shell hits 2,  heavy fires
Kortenaer.....00-00-00-00
Piet Hein......00-00-00-00

Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions: 30,000 yards
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 20,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 20,000 yards
Closed to 8,000 yards, then opened to 13,000 then closed again to 9,000 then opened to 20,000 (no more combat) and disengaged. Torpedoes fired but no torp hits
The damage values are taken by opening the autosave after the battle so they are not affected by Fog of War, and they include any preexisting minor damage and any repairs that occurred that turn. De Ruyter looks sure to sink, making the initial odds

IJ BB, CL 2xDD
Al 2xCL 8xDD
and results

IJ lose 1 DD
Al lose 1 CL, 1 DD

That all looks very reasonable to me



_____________________________

________________________
www.azcrimes.com
<sig removed because I'm a bandwidth hog>

(in reply to DrewMatrix)
Post #: 53
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Surface combat bias ? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

4.875