RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

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: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

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: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 4:00:44 PM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Rumour has it that Hood had Ammo still stored on deck,no one can be certain what happened it was over in a blink of an eye,one moment she was there and the next just a sinking wreck blown in half

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 31

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 4:02:45 PM

Mark Weston

Posts: 188
Joined: 2/5/2005
Status: offline

Sir.

I am Rear Admiral Victor Crutchely VC, and I would like to complain about the absurd results of last night's naval action. How is it possible that an enemy force of seven cruisers and one destroyer could defeat my eight cruisers and fifteen destroyers without suffering any serious losses themselves? Didn't you beta test this damn war before you released it to the public?

Fix this immediately or you'll be hearing from my solicitors!

Yours etc.

Crutchely

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 32

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 4:03:21 PM

EUBanana

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

This is quite funny. When WitP came out, people were appalled that most of the ships in for example Transport TF could escape, since attackers usually concentrated on couple of ships. People demanded change.

OK, now it is different in AE and whole TFs can be easily wiped out by Surface Combat TF. And people demand change.

Well, you can't please all the people all of the time.

I love the new surface combat model.

_____________________________

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 33

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 4:07:00 PM

EUBanana

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

Sir.

I am Rear Admiral Victor Crutchely VC, and I would like to complain about the absurd results of last night's naval action. How is it possible that an enemy force of seven cruisers and one destroyer could defeat my eight cruisers and fifteen destroyers without suffering any serious losses themselves? Didn't you beta test this damn war before you released it to the public?

Fix this immediately or you'll be hearing from my solicitors!

Yours etc.

Crutchely

quote:

Rear Admiral Victor Crutchely VC

That wouldn't happen in AE anyway, those Jap heavy cruisers would be hit by Dauntlesses long before they got near Crutchly.

(I know it just happened to Admiral Gonichi Banana's forces the other day

)

_____________________________

(in reply to Mark Weston)

Post #: 34

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 4:07:34 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

This is quite funny. When WitP came out, people were appalled that most of the ships in for example Transport TF could escape, since attackers usually concentrated on couple of ships. People demanded change.

OK, now it is different in AE and whole TFs can be easily wiped out by Surface Combat TF. And people demand change.

Well, you can't please all the people all of the time.

I love the new surface combat model.

Me too. Even though I think that early war Allied radar gives too big effect in surface combat. But generally I am quite pleased.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 35

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 4:08:24 PM

SteveD64

Posts: 570
Joined: 10/26/2006
From: Shaker Hts, Ohio, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

This is quite funny. When WitP came out, people were appalled that most of the ships in for example Transport TF could escape, since attackers usually concentrated on couple of ships. People demanded change.

OK, now it is different in AE and whole TFs can be easily wiped out by Surface Combat TF. And people demand change.

I never played the original game but it sounds pretty great!

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 36

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 4:10:04 PM

SteveD64

Posts: 570
Joined: 10/26/2006
From: Shaker Hts, Ohio, USA
Status: offline

I'm having a ball regardless of whatever minor complaints I can come up with.

(in reply to SteveD64)

Post #: 37

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 4:15:17 PM

SteveD64

Posts: 570
Joined: 10/26/2006
From: Shaker Hts, Ohio, USA
Status: offline

It's funny that this thread was just started though.� Last night one lone American destroyer ran into CVL Ryujo, BB Mutsu, 2CL's and 2DD's at night.� The BB was hit 5 times and the carrier once and the American destroyer never touched.�� Coming up with a narrative for this- "a destroyer blunders into a returning task force and gets off a couple of salvos and gets the hell out of town" - is half the fun.

(in reply to SteveD64)

Post #: 38

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 4:30:38 PM

bstarr

Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

This is quite funny. When WitP came out, people were appalled that most of the ships in for example Transport TF could escape, since attackers usually concentrated on couple of ships. People demanded change.

OK, now it is different in AE and whole TFs can be easily wiped out by Surface Combat TF. And people demand change.

It reminds me of American politics. One extreme or the other. No happy middle ground.

_____________________________

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 39

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 4:53:13 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

Rumour has it that Hood had Ammo still stored on deck,no one can be certain what happened it was over in a blink of an eye,one moment she was there and the next just a sinking wreck blown in half

Probably not. I don't think the RN would store ammo on deck. This is related to poor flash doors in the turret and old ammo. Same thing that blew up a couple at Jutland. One turret hit and POW!. I read once that even when they fixed the flash doors/curtains the crews would routinely force them to stay open so they could keep their rates of fire high. They even practiced this.

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to bstarr)

Post #: 40

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 4:54:11 PM

Dixie

Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

Someone is not going to like this one then

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 41

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 5:00:21 PM

jazman

Posts: 369
Joined: 1/20/2007
From: Crush Depth
Status: offline

AE Player: This PT-Boat TF is now the ultimate power in the universe.

Erik Rutins: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a Japanese surface force at night is insignificant next to the power of developer patching.

(in reply to Dixie)

Post #: 42

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 5:01:52 PM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zebedee

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Any one seen a surface combat where the Japanese defeats a equal or superior force? So far I haven't!

Check the AAR forum. The two examples in this thread are outliers with very reasonable ingame explanations (actually given in the combat reports). Remember too that FoW applies to combat reports. I've given up counting how many ships I've sunk which aren't when I've checked once the turn has processed! In AI games, what difficulty level is being used - Very Hard gives combat bonuses to the AI (although whether this touches naval combat, who knows?).

I don't think the AAR's are a good example, most of the results(complaints) are games vs. AI.

(in reply to Zebedee)

Post #: 43

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 5:02:19 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jazman
AE Player: This PT-Boat TF is now the ultimate power in the universe.

Erik Rutins: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a Japanese surface force at night is insignificant next to the power of developer patching.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to jazman)

Post #: 44

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 5:02:39 PM

Nikademus

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

not for long. The Force is with us.

_____________________________

(in reply to jazman)

Post #: 45

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 5:05:04 PM

Dixie

Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jazman

AE Player: This PT-Boat TF is now the ultimate power in the universe.

Erik Rutins: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a Japanese surface force at night is insignificant next to the power of developer patching.

This is one time the AI got unlucky I think. Not spotting the PT boats until 1000 yards away meant that they got slapped by torpedoes from short range. It's not that unlikely (IMO) that a PT boat would escape detection by hiding close inshore before dashing out for a quick attack, plus with so many of the little things the Japs would've been swamped with fast moving targets.
I re-ran the turn as a test, and the IJN waltzed past the PT boats with no worries before kicking the **** out of other forces near Midway.

EDIT: Obviously I was happy with the first run 'cause it wasn't my BB that got sunk

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to jazman)

Post #: 46

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 5:05:44 PM

dpazuk

Posts: 119
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jjax

But I think a lot of people are just looking at the number of ships and ship types and thinking that they should have won the battle.

Obviously, AE takes a lot of other factors into consideration. At the very least, now the combat reports are actually useful . In many ways, I think that how surface combat should be.

These factors, along with FOW, are, from my reading of the those who feel that either their Zero's have been nerfed or the Japanese surface forces have been nerfed, are not being taken into consideration by those concerned.

No doubt some tweaking will be necessary, but I wish folks who have shown concern over battle results with AE (A2A, ship combat, etc), would take into consideration all of these overriding factors first, rather then getting their knickers into a knot over a single engagement and then making the leap that AE is either broken or biased in someway or another.

AE is a different animal then vanilla WITP, and for the better.

Having said this, the uber PT boat situation is indeed an issue, as far as I can tell, and will be addressed by the next patch.

< Message edited by dpazuk -- 8/14/2009 5:11:23 PM >

_____________________________

Blah Blah Blah

(in reply to jjax)

Post #: 47

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 5:22:38 PM

EwingNJ

Posts: 62
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline

I wonder how much weather is impacting the results.

In my current GC against the AI as of 22 December I do not think I have seen a single nighttime surface engagement where visibility was much over 5000 yards. Rarely, if ever do any of my float plane equipped cruisers launch aircraft because of local weather. On the 21st RN cruisers 160 miles east of Trincomolee, Dutch cruisers 120 miles southwest of Kuching, USN cruisers 400 miles northeast of Fiji and 400 miles east of Pearl, in fact every cruiser at sea was unable to launch floatplanes.

Also, posting combat reports is not really very useful considering the enhanced FOW in the game. What looks like a slaughter may well be a paint scratching for all we know. If you are going to complain at least post reality, not FOW.

This forum has a rather odd auto editing feature.

< Message edited by EwingNJ -- 8/14/2009 5:36:16 PM >

(in reply to dpazuk)

Post #: 48

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 5:28:37 PM

Graymane

Posts: 520
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Bellevue, NE
Status: offline

I have no idea if the surface combat model is working as intended or not. I do know it is 100% better than witp. I do wonder how much the following factors are influencing the results and simply being ignored by those saying it is out of whack.

1. Fog of War. When we see some of these results, are they accurate or FoW?
2. Weather and time of day. Just about every result that has been an issue is at night in bad weather against topedo armed ships.
3. Location. How many of the bad results have been in coastal waters against DD and PTs?
4. Tactics/spotting/surprise. If you just read the combat report, it says who did what where and this seems to be ignored a lot of times.
5. If there is a problem, how to ID the cause? Is it really the combat model or parameters out of whack? (spotting, accuracy, damage model)

(in reply to EwingNJ)

Post #: 49

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 6:28:10 PM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

I've had three Allied PT vs. Japanese Carrier group engagements, and the results have been the same, no hits by either side. Clear weather, daylight, the battle closes to 9,000 yds. The Allied PT's didn't turn and run away at 30,000yrds, they should have be wiped out. If Japanese BB's CA's and DD's can't hit PT's in daylight, clear weather at 9,000 yrds, I would now say there is something wrong with the Japanese Navy (AI).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Kangean at 62,104, Range 24,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
     CV Shokaku
     CV Zuikaku
     CV Akagi
     BB Hiei
     CA Chikuma
     CA Takao
     CA Atago
     CA Suzuya
     DD Mutsuki
     DD Nagatsuki
     DD Minekaze
     DD Okikaze
     DD Akikaze
     DD Tachikaze

Allied Ships
     PT TM-4
     PT TM-5
     PT TM-6
     PT TM-7
     PT TM-8
     PT TM-9

Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions: 30,000 yards
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 24,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 24,000 yards
CV Akagi screened from combat
Range closes to 20,000 yards
BB Hiei engages PT TM-9 at 20,000 yards
Range closes to 16,000 yards
CV Akagi , CV Zuikaku , CV Shokaku screened from combat
- escorted by DD Akikaze , DD Nagatsuki
CA Suzuya engages PT TM-7 at 16,000 yards
CA Takao engages PT TM-7 at 16,000 yards
DD Tachikaze engages PT TM-7 at 16,000 yards
DD Okikaze engages PT TM-5 at 16,000 yards
DD Minekaze engages PT TM-7 at 16,000 yards
Range closes to 14,000 yards
CV Akagi , CV Zuikaku , CV Shokaku screened from combat
- escorted by DD Akikaze , DD Okikaze
BB Hiei engages PT TM-8 at 14,000 yards
DD Tachikaze engages PT TM-4 at 14,000 yards
DD Minekaze engages PT TM-7 at 14,000 yards
DD Nagatsuki engages PT TM-4 at 14,000 yards
DD Mutsuki engages PT TM-9 at 14,000 yards
Range closes to 13,000 yards
CV Akagi , CV Zuikaku , CV Shokaku screened from combat
- escorted by DD Tachikaze , DD Okikaze , DD Minekaze
CA Chikuma engages PT TM-9 at 13,000 yards
CA Chikuma engages PT TM-8 at 13,000 yards
DD Nagatsuki engages PT TM-9 at 13,000 yards
DD Mutsuki engages PT TM-7 at 13,000 yards
Range closes to 9,000 yards
CV Akagi screened from combat
BB Hiei engages PT TM-9 at 9,000 yards
CA Chikuma engages PT TM-9 at 9,000 yards
DD Akikaze engages PT TM-4 at 9,000 yards
DD Okikaze engages PT TM-9 at 9,000 yards
DD Minekaze engages PT TM-4 at 9,000 yards
DD Nagatsuki engages PT TM-8 at 9,000 yards
Range increases to 12,000 yards
CV Akagi , CV Zuikaku , CV Shokaku screened from combat
- escorted by DD Tachikaze
PT TM-8 engages CV Akagi at 12,000 yards
DD Akikaze engages PT TM-4 at 12,000 yards
DD Okikaze engages PT TM-9 at 12,000 yards
DD Minekaze engages PT TM-9 at 12,000 yards
DD Nagatsuki engages PT TM-9 at 12,000 yards
DD Mutsuki engages PT TM-9 at 12,000 yards
Range increases to 15,000 yards
PT TM-9 engages CV Akagi at 15,000 yards
BB Hiei engages PT TM-9 at 15,000 yards
CA Atago engages PT TM-4 at 15,000 yards
DD Tachikaze engages PT TM-8 at 15,000 yards
DD Akikaze engages PT TM-8 at 15,000 yards
DD Nagatsuki engages PT TM-8 at 15,000 yards
Range increases to 17,000 yards
CV Akagi , CV Zuikaku , CV Shokaku screened from combat
- escorted by DD Okikaze , DD Minekaze , DD Nagatsuki
DD Akikaze engages PT TM-7 at 17,000 yards
DD Mutsuki engages PT TM-7 at 17,000 yards
Range increases to 22,000 yards
CV Akagi , CV Zuikaku screened from combat
- escorted by DD Akikaze
CA Takao engages PT TM-9 at 22,000 yards
Range increases to 25,000 yards
CV Akagi , CV Zuikaku , CV Shokaku screened from combat
- escorted by DD Tachikaze , DD Akikaze , DD Okikaze
CA Atago engages PT TM-8 at 25,000 yards
CA Chikuma engages PT TM-7 at 25,000 yards
Range increases to 28,000 yards
CV Akagi , CV Zuikaku , CV Shokaku screened from combat
- escorted by DD Akikaze , DD Okikaze , DD Nagatsuki
Task forces break off...

(in reply to Graymane)

Post #: 50

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 7:13:15 PM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

whatever.

_____________________________

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 51

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 8:28:38 PM

Rob Brennan UK

Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline

Just had a random thought, Given that PT's seem to score well in bad weather.

Could Pt's even be at sea in a thunderstorm ? such tiny top heavy (with torps) boats
would be horrible (at best) to steer in heavy seas, let alone launch an accurate
torpedo salvo.

I'm no expert and happy to be proven wrong .. humm E-boats vs the allied training landings
in devon in 44 .. think that might have been in v bad weather ..but bad weather in the
channel compared to bad weather in the pacific, i imagine are two differant puppies.

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to Nomad)

Post #: 52

They gave the helmsman a medal - 8/14/2009 9:01:05 PM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

But fired all the look outs

Night Time Surface Combat, near Oosthaven at 48,96, Range 1,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
DD Usugumo

Allied Ships
BB Revenge
BB Royal Sovereign
BB Ramilles
CL Ceres
DD Barker
DD Whipple
DD Thanet
DD Thracian

Low visibility due to Rain with 17% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Rain and 17% moonlight: 1,000 yards
Range closes to 29,000 yards...
Range closes to 27,000 yards...
Range closes to 25,000 yards...
Range closes to 23,000 yards...
Range closes to 21,000 yards...
Range closes to 19,000 yards...
Range closes to 17,000 yards...
Range closes to 15,000 yards...
Range closes to 13,000 yards...
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
Range closes to 9,000 yards...
Range closes to 7,000 yards...
Range closes to 5,000 yards...
Range closes to 3,000 yards...
Range closes to 1,000 yards...
DD Barker engages DD Usugumo at 1,000 yards
Range increases to 2,000 yards
BB Ramilles engages DD Usugumo at 2,000 yards
Task forces break off...

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)

Post #: 53

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 9:01:18 PM

medicff

Posts: 710
Joined: 9/11/2004
From: WPB, Florida
Status: offline

LOL. I think the team is well aware of the pt issues; slight surface contact issues and are correcting them as we speak. After seeing AE vs WITP I have no fears and quite certain that the team will get these last couple of tweaks right on and make this game a great accomplishment. Have some faith.

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 54

RE: They gave the helmsman a medal - 8/14/2009 9:02:30 PM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

Not only did the helmsman get a medal for this, the bridge crew had to clean their shorts

Day Time Surface Combat, near Oosthaven at 48,96, Range 29,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
DD Usugumo

Allied Ships
BB Revenge
BB Royal Sovereign
BB Ramilles
CL Ceres
DD Barker
DD Whipple
DD Thanet
DD Thracian

Low visibility due to Rain
Maximum visibility in Rain: 6,000 yards
Range closes to 29,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 29,000 yards
Allies open fire on surprised Japanese ships at 29,000 yards
BB Revenge fires at DD Usugumo at 29,000 yards
Range closes to 28,000 yards
BB Ramilles engages DD Usugumo at 28,000 yards
Range closes to 27,000 yards
BB Revenge engages DD Usugumo at 27,000 yards
Range closes to 25,000 yards
BB Royal Sovereign engages DD Usugumo at 25,000 yards
Range closes to 24,000 yards
BB Revenge engages DD Usugumo at 24,000 yards
Range closes to 21,000 yards
DD Usugumo engages BB Revenge at 21,000 yards
Range closes to 20,000 yards
BB Ramilles engages DD Usugumo at 20,000 yards
DD Usugumo engages BB Royal Sovereign at 20,000 yards
BB Revenge engages DD Usugumo at 20,000 yards
DD Usugumo engages DD Barker at 20,000 yards
Range closes to 18,000 yards
BB Ramilles engages DD Usugumo at 18,000 yards
BB Royal Sovereign engages DD Usugumo at 18,000 yards
Range closes to 15,000 yards
Range closes to 13,000 yards
BB Ramilles engages DD Usugumo at 13,000 yards
BB Royal Sovereign engages DD Usugumo at 13,000 yards
Range increases to 19,000 yards
BB Royal Sovereign engages DD Usugumo at 19,000 yards
Range increases to 26,000 yards
BB Royal Sovereign engages DD Usugumo at 26,000 yards
Task forces break off...

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 55

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 9:15:12 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

it�s one of those annihilation naval engagements again and I wonder that there seem to be people still thinking that nothing is wrong... too many of those examples...

_____________________________

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 56

RE: They gave the helmsman a medal - 8/14/2009 9:24:46 PM

aztez

Posts: 4031
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

Personally I like the new surface combat model at least 100 times more than the old Witp.

I have seen various results. Sometimes the IJN gets upper hand, sometimes Allies... sometimes draw is an result.

So to say that game is bias to any side is wrong. It most certainly is not.

In the old Witp surface combat model was somewhat useless. Ships didn't intercept anything and most use for them was naval bombardments. Now that they actually need to taken into considration the game opens another level never experienced with witp.

You just cannot go sailing around knowing you get the better of it.. not with surface fleets and not with carriers. By doing so it will end up in disasters.

Also FOW is so completely diffrent so really if you are believing what you read from combat.txt than good luck. It seems that there are many nasty suprises ahead of you. The sunken ship list is far from accurate and the hit totals even more inaccurate. I doubt it will be any diffrent whether playing vs AI or PBEM. Same rules apply.

Just my 2cents though but hopefully only very minor fine tuning is going to happen. Ie. PT boats (eventhough they should not be made useless by any means) ..and to say these squadrons are immune is an overstatement to say at least. These ships will sunk just as any other naval asset.

Good job with the CAP and Surface models. The game is far more enjoyable, open many new options, etc etc.

The problem is that when you try to play with your "witp style and thinking" you are just waiting disaster to happen. (I do this too but seriously trying improve).

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 57

RE: They gave the helmsman a medal - 8/14/2009 9:27:33 PM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

Can you imagine the feeling of steaming along in your tin can when you hear that dreaded train sound as the shells start falling around ya

(in reply to aztez)

Post #: 58

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/14/2009 9:31:44 PM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

Rumour has it that Hood had Ammo still stored on deck,no one can be certain what happened it was over in a blink of an eye,one moment she was there and the next just a sinking wreck blown in half

Probably not. I don't think the RN would store ammo on deck. This is related to poor flash doors in the turret and old ammo. Same thing that blew up a couple at Jutland. One turret hit and POW!. I read once that even when they fixed the flash doors/curtains the crews would routinely force them to stay open so they could keep their rates of fire high. They even practiced this.