yet more BB on carrier action!

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

yet more BB on carrier action!

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 >> yet more BB on carrier action!

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 2:16:25 PM

JohnDillworth

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

This is the 3rd time my surface forces have caught jap carriers in a surface action vs. the AI. Once off Colombo, once in the Coral Sea and now at Midway. Battleship in the hex? No problem, I am moving in anyway! I have sunk 2 CV's by surface action, 1 CVL, and whatever happens here. This game is trashed. Wait for the patch and fir up again. In the mean time I will have some funn mopping up this game.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

Post #: 1

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 2:23:25 PM

Mistmatz

Posts: 1399
Joined: 10/16/2005
Status: offline

Was the japanese TF surprised or did it try to evade combat? Maybe you could send the whole message regarding this battle?

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 2

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 2:27:05 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

IRL, at Midway, Yamamoto considered trying to close with the remaining USN forces in a nighttime surface battle. The IJN forces would have had the advantage in that situation. Thankfully, the USN also realized the danger of this and withdrew, making the decision for both combatants.

Looks like your SCTF caught the IJN vacillating near midway. Good one. Did you mean that you have trashed your opponent (IJN AI) or that the game is trashed and one should wait for the patch because such SCTF exploits are making the game trashy and unplayable? I would agree with your former, disagree with your latter.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 3

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 2:34:22 PM

JohnDillworth

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

Suprised yes! Full report below, plus the other CV task force that did the same thing but got away. PErhaps, since they have planes, the carrier forces should stand off instead of closing on the beaches?

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jul 10, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Midway Island at 158,91, Range 29,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CVL Ryujo, Shell hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage
CVE Taiyo, Shell hits 1
CVE Unyo, Shell hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
CS Nisshin, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage
CS Chitose, Shell hits 2
CS Chiyoda
DD Hibiki, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Sagiri
DD Karukaya, Shell hits 1

Allied Ships
BB Idaho, Shell hits 1
DD Stack
DD Phelps
DD Farragut, Shell hits 1
DD Dent

Reduced sighting due to 7% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions and 7% moonlight: 1,000 yards
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 35,000 yards
Range closes to 33,000 yards...
Range closes to 31,000 yards...
Range closes to 29,000 yards...
Allies open fire on surprised Japanese ships at 29,000 yards
BB Idaho fires at CVE Unyo at 29,000 yards
BB Idaho fires at CS Chitose at 29,000 yards
BB Idaho fires at CS Nisshin at 29,000 yards
Range closes to 27,000 yards
BB Idaho engages CVL Ryujo at 27,000 yards
BB Idaho engages DD Karukaya at 27,000 yards
BB Idaho engages DD Sagiri at 27,000 yards
Range closes to 26,000 yards
BB Idaho engages CVE Unyo at 26,000 yards
BB Idaho engages CS Nisshin at 26,000 yards
BB Idaho engages DD Sagiri at 26,000 yards
Range closes to 25,000 yards
BB Idaho engages CVL Ryujo at 25,000 yards
BB Idaho engages CS Chitose at 25,000 yards
BB Idaho engages CS Nisshin at 25,000 yards
BB Idaho engages DD Karukaya at 25,000 yards
Range closes to 22,000 yards
BB Idaho engages CVL Ryujo at 22,000 yards
BB Idaho engages CS Nisshin at 22,000 yards
Range closes to 19,000 yards
BB Idaho engages CVL Ryujo at 19,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD Stack at 19,000 yards
Range closes to 18,000 yards
CVL Ryujo , CVE Unyo , CVE Taiyo ,
CS Chiyoda screened from combat
- escorted by DD Karukaya
DD Sagiri engages DD Farragut at 18,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD Stack at 18,000 yards
DD Sagiri engages DD Stack at 18,000 yards
Range closes to 17,000 yards
BB Idaho engages DD Sagiri at 17,000 yards
DD Farragut engages CVE Unyo at 17,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD Farragut at 17,000 yards
DD Stack engages CS Chitose at 17,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD Stack at 17,000 yards
Range closes to 15,000 yards
BB Idaho engages CVL Ryujo at 15,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD Farragut at 15,000 yards
DD Farragut engages CS Chiyoda at 15,000 yards
DD Karukaya engages DD Stack at 15,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD Stack at 15,000 yards
Range closes to 14,000 yards
CS Chitose collides with CS Chiyoda at 158 , 91
DD Dent engages CVL Ryujo at 14,000 yards
DD Farragut engages DD Sagiri at 14,000 yards
DD Farragut engages CS Chiyoda at 14,000 yards
DD Farragut engages CS Chitose at 14,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Karukaya at 14,000 yards
DD Farragut engages DD Sagiri at 14,000 yards
Range closes to 11,000 yards
CVL Ryujo , CVE Unyo , CVE Taiyo ,
CS Chiyoda screened from combat
BB Idaho engages CS Chitose at 11,000 yards
DD Dent engages CS Nisshin at 11,000 yards
DD Karukaya engages DD Farragut at 11,000 yards
Range closes to 8,000 yards
BB Idaho engages CVL Ryujo at 8,000 yards
DD Dent engages DD Sagiri at 8,000 yards
DD Karukaya engages DD Farragut at 8,000 yards
DD Phelps engages CVL Ryujo at 8,000 yards
DD Stack engages CS Chitose at 8,000 yards
DD Stack engages CS Nisshin at 8,000 yards
DD Sagiri engages DD Dent at 8,000 yards
DD Farragut engages DD Hibiki at 8,000 yards
CVL Ryujo , CVE Unyo , CVE Taiyo ,
CS Chiyoda screened from combat
- escorted by DD Karukaya
BB Idaho engages CS Nisshin at 8,000 yards
DD Dent engages CS Nisshin at 8,000 yards
DD Sagiri engages DD Phelps at 8,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD Farragut at 8,000 yards
DD Sagiri engages DD Stack at 8,000 yards
Range increases to 9,000 yards
BB Idaho engages CVL Ryujo at 9,000 yards
DD Farragut engages DD Hibiki at 9,000 yards
DD Phelps engages DD Sagiri at 9,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Karukaya at 9,000 yards
DD Stack engages CS Nisshin at 9,000 yards
DD Phelps engages DD Karukaya at 9,000 yards
DD Sagiri engages DD Dent at 9,000 yards
DD Dent engages CVL Ryujo at 9,000 yards
DD Farragut engages CVE Taiyo at 9,000 yards
DD Phelps engages CS Nisshin at 9,000 yards
DD Farragut engages DD Karukaya at 9,000 yards
DD Dent engages CVL Ryujo at 9,000 yards
DD Dent engages CVE Unyo at 9,000 yards
DD Farragut engages CVE Taiyo at 9,000 yards
DD Phelps engages CS Chiyoda at 9,000 yards
DD Sagiri engages DD Stack at 9,000 yards
DD Dent engages DD Sagiri at 9,000 yards
Task forces break off...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Midway Island at 158,91, Range 35,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CV Zuikaku
DD Hagikaze
DD Yamagumo
DD Tsuga

Allied Ships
BB Idaho
DD Stack
DD Phelps
DD Farragut
DD Dent

Reduced sighting due to 7% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions and 7% moonlight: 1,000 yards
Range closes to 33,000 yards...
Range closes to 31,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 31,000 yards
Range increases to 35,000 yards...
Japanese Air Combat TF evades combat

_____________________________

(in reply to Mistmatz)

Post #: 4

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 2:39:03 PM

Zebedee

Posts: 535
Joined: 8/30/2005
Status: offline

Does the AI consider CS to be equal to CA when forming TFs? Would be interesting to see the rest of the report to see if the Japanese TF commander tried to withdraw and just what happened. edit: ah, thanks John :) Another night time radar ambush.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 5

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 2:55:12 PM

Mike Scholl

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

This is the 3rd time my surface forces have caught jap carriers in a surface action vs. the AI. Once off Colombo, once in the Coral Sea and now at Midway. Battleship in the hex? No problem, I am moving in anyway! I have sunk 2 CV's by surface action, 1 CVL, and whatever happens here. This game is trashed. Wait for the patch and fire up again.

As has been pointed out many times, while the AI is cleverer, trickier, and more flexible in it's choices in AE..., it's still STUPID! Barring a re-programming of WITP from the ground up (some years away at best) it will remain stupid. And when one of it's "scripts" directs it to a new target, it will do it's stupid best to go there. This is not Andy's fault..., he could write new "scripts" from now until doomsday and unusual situations will still occur.

If you want a good long-term game from the AI you will have to help it by trying to stay away from it's weaknesses. Or you can "bite the bullet" and try dealing with a live opponant.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 6

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 2:55:22 PM

JohnDillworth

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

quote:

IRL, at Midway, Yamamoto considered trying to close with the remaining USN forces in a nighttime surface battle. The IJN forces would have had the advantage in that situation. Thankfully, the USN also realized the danger of this and withdrew, making the decision for both combatants.

Looks like your SCTF caught the IJN vacillating near midway. Good one. Did you mean that you have trashed your opponent (IJN AI) or that the game is trashed and one should wait for the patch because such SCTF exploits are making the game trashy and unplayable? I would agree with your former, disagree with your latter.

Trashed the AI. Did some stupid things at the beginning, but luck was with me at sea. Made a hash of China and Burma. Perhaps I will just use this game to see if I can recover there or at least figure out what to do better.

_____________________________

(in reply to Zebedee)

Post #: 7

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 3:30:05 PM

JohnDillworth

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

I suspect the AI was programmed to go there with more carriers. Carriers I had sunk. So it sent the best of the rest. Yes, the AI does stupid things. It was smart enough to draw most of my carriers into the SW and caught me with little to defend Midway. Just don't understand why it had to go in the the objective hex instead of standing off. Don't really have time in my life for a PBEM, but perhaps soon.

_____________________________

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 8

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 4:06:23 PM

Mistmatz

Posts: 1399
Joined: 10/16/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
...

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jul 10, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Midway Island at 158,91, Range 29,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CVL Ryujo, Shell hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage
CVE Taiyo, Shell hits 1
CVE Unyo, Shell hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
CS Nisshin, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage
CS Chitose, Shell hits 2
CS Chiyoda
DD Hibiki, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Sagiri
DD Karukaya, Shell hits 1

Allied Ships
BB Idaho, Shell hits 1
DD Stack
DD Phelps
DD Farragut, Shell hits 1
DD Dent

Reduced sighting due to 7% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions and 7% moonlight: 1,000 yards
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 35,000 yards
Range closes to 33,000 yards...
Range closes to 31,000 yards...
Range closes to 29,000 yards...
Allies open fire on surprised Japanese ships at 29,000 yards
...

I wonder if any of the japanese TF vessels has radar. That might (should) have helped them avoiding a surface engagement in the first place. Unless the allied TF is much faster to force an engagement, which I doubt. If no radar helps avoiding the battle or the TF is simply to slow the result would be accebtable to me and come down to a TF composition issue.

Nevertheless it seems to me that with a visibility of only 1000 yards the allied fire was maybe a bit too precise?

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 9

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 4:08:10 PM

patrickl

Posts: 1530
Joined: 6/20/2002
From: Singapore
Status: offline

Time to play PBEM.

_____________________________

Banner designed by rogueusmc

(in reply to Mistmatz)

Post #: 10

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 4:32:42 PM

SteveD64

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

Wouldn't the Jap destroyers attack the task force and allow the carriers to beat a hasty retreat? The destroyers were hardly touched.

(in reply to patrickl)

Post #: 11

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 4:38:36 PM

kokubokan25

Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/19/2004
From: Iliaca, Spain
Status: offline

Stupidity of the AI not saves the game in some situations.

�How can explain a surface engagement between a TF with BB, CA, CL and DDs against a single (or double AK) in a TF and BOTH FORCES EVADE!!!!
This happen again and again in my play against the AI. This is a nonsense situation very common.

�How can explain that a TF cover fce of a amphibious fce return to home WITHOUT ORDERS after a contact with a single AM in surface combat?
Another nonsese.

I'm a uncontidional supporter of WITP-AE waiting and praying for the patch!! Please, give solution to this affair.

< Message edited by fremen -- 8/26/2009 4:39:50 PM >

(in reply to patrickl)

Post #: 12

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 7:45:19 PM

Zebedee

Posts: 535
Joined: 8/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fremen

Stupidity of the AI not saves the game in some situations.

�How can explain a surface engagement between a TF with BB, CA, CL and DDs against a single (or double AK) in a TF and BOTH FORCES EVADE!!!!
This happen again and again in m

Hi Fremen,

I think there is a fog of war which may affect TF commanders' decisions. Consider that your pilots will often tell you eg that they're currently bombing an Essex class CV when in fact you know that it's the Prince of Wales. Combine the ratings of commanders (which has never really been explained in great detail) and that fog of war, and it could be your commanders were too timid to risk going to find out just what that big ship on the horizon might be.

While there is doubt over just how far fog of war and just what role commander ratings play, it's perhaps unfair to claim something like you describe is a 'bug'. I think there's sufficient evidence in AARs and on the forums to show that this isn't a problem with surface TFs all the time, which may indicate it's a game specific problem for you. In my few test turns vs the Allied AI under the hotfix patch, changing the TF commander for someone more aggressive has paid dividends in chasing down merchant shipping with the penalty of the TF sometimes getting involved in fights it should be avoiding.

All the best,

Zeb

(in reply to kokubokan25)

Post #: 13

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 7:59:36 PM

JohnDillworth

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

I think the patch has addressed some of the:

41. Gameplay Change: The way that surface radar is used in naval combat has been modified as follows: Visual confirmation is now required before ships will open fire, meaning that ships must close to visual range first. Also, in situations where range is increasing, if it goes beyond visual range (factoring in Detection Level) fire ceases.
42. Gameplay Change: Early war surface radars now must pass an �effectiveness� check to ensure that the radar worked correctly and that the information from the radar was assimilated through the TF chain of command and ultimately resulted in useful changes of orders being issued to the TF in a timely manner.

Oddly, the ship database only lists the air radar, and not the gunnery radar. But the Idaho had just been refit, radar had a range of 35,000 and was a type SGSS. Looks like firing by radar will not take place. Must close to visual range. Perhpas that would have changed the result

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Zebedee)

Post #: 14

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 8:10:21 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

Early in the war USN ships firing by radar tended to hit each other as often as they shot the enemy. The Cape Esperance battle comes to mind off of Guadalcanal; one USN DD and Boise were both badly shot up by radar directed gunfire.

By 1944, though, radar directed gunfire was accurate and used at Surigao Strait to obliterate the advancing Japanese ships. Hopefully the patch relaxes the sighting restrictions as time goes on.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 15

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 8:18:22 PM

Tazo

Posts: 85
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Toulouse, France
Status: offline

Zebedee is right, the choice of leaders is very sensitive. Agressiveness and skills are the key parameters explaining many lost opportunities or too risky battles.

The second point of Fremen is a more important one : what to do with a TF in a specific mission like amphibious or bombardement that has been repulsed from the target hex - or on the way - due to some enemy ships and a battle avoided ? It is annoying to see them retiring at mission speed and forgeting the mission, especially whith a "remain on station" attitude...

Maybe a "PERFORM THE MISSION AT ALL COST" is lacking to provoke sweeping the target hex and combating any defender here. This button SHOULD BE ACTIVE in any mission having NO REACTION RADIUS. The latter being used for reacting air and surface and escort battle TF supposed to be "intercepting", whereas the invasion forces are actually supposed to perform a mission and nothing else, even if some ships are around.

Notice also that if only an AM is spotted it can be FOWed (so indeed a DD or more) and the leader may be more pessimistic than the player would like (again the agressivness question). It may happen that the player orders to insist by resetting the mission and the supposed small ship stands to be in an hex shared by a bigger enemy TF, a bad idea to insist in this case so if no battle TF was send here before to clean the target then "performing a mission at all cost" could be deadly.

TZ

_____________________________

There is only two kinds of operational plans, good ones and bad ones.
The good ones almost always fail under unexpected circumstances that often make the bad ones succeed.
-- Napol�on.

With AE immortality is no more a curse.
-- A lucky man.

(in reply to Zebedee)

Post #: 16

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 8:28:00 PM

Swenslim

Posts: 437
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Odessa, Ukraine
Status: offline

we need scripts for CV TF to stay always 4-6 hexes from enemy task forces and to try navigate to stay on this range ?

(in reply to Tazo)

Post #: 17

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 8:37:13 PM

dasboot1960

Posts: 389
Joined: 8/2/2009
From: St Augustine, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

By 1944, though, radar directed gunfire was accurate and used at Surigao Strait to obliterate the advancing Japanese ships. Hopefully the patch relaxes the sighting restrictions as time goes on.

Hello Mr. Lansford - I believe at the battle of Empress Augusta bay off Bouganville, USN forces engaged without visual verification (it was dark) initiating fire soley by radar.
Not to rain on the patch - I'd view the restriction to visual confirmation as minor. I've just come to feel my most useful contribution on the forums is to highlight minor things that really did happen, but are perhaps best left unmodelled in the service of a playable game (or sim, I think AE is close enough to fit that description) I go crazy reading posts that appear to be generated by a clear desire for game advantage and trashing the work as a whole, without regard to greater bodies of evidence. (NOT YOU, you're clearly not pushing an agenda here)

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 18

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 8:41:40 PM

Tazo

Posts: 85
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Toulouse, France
Status: offline

Oops I realize that bombardement missions have a radius so the "PERFORM THE MISSION AT ALL COST" should simply replace the "REMAIN ON STATION" for any TF having a mission to perform in the destination hex (unload, bombard) BEFORE the performing then should be transformed automatically into a "REMAIN ON STATION" waiting for orders AFTER the mission at destination. In that case the player can turn buton into "RETIREMENT ALLOWED" during the unloading or later if he really wanted the TF to stay there. For a bombardement mission the "RA" leads to the usual action (fuel speed night approach, night retirement then day come back) whereas a "PMAC" transforms into "RS" after bombing and the TF stays in the hex, with the reacting+radius process active at that moment so for the day turn.

Summary.
Only 2 states as now : RS or RA but the RS is a PMAC for missions before the destination hex is reached then immediatly becomes RS at destination. In case of occupied destination hex then, provided a "leader test to respect orders" is passed the combat is accepted - with malus if the enemy TF is too impressive, not an AM only.

This is a suggestion I've not seen yet. It allows a better player control (orders !) and don't let the leaders decide of everything, like coming back with an armada full of BB/CA/DD/AK/AM because of a single ship. In that spirit, a RA gives the appreciation of any situation to the TF leader whereas RS/PMAC insists - by more categorical imperative order - on the priority to the mission even in case of light opposition.

TZ

_____________________________

(in reply to Tazo)

Post #: 19

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 8:49:12 PM

sfbaytf

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline

War in general and battles in particular can be very tricky and unpredictable. I'm reading "Tin Cans" by Theodore Roscoe and just got done with the chapter that describes a night attack by 4 US destroyers at Balikpapan. They attacked an invasion force screened by 12 Japanese DD's 1 CL the Naka, plus armed transports.

The American attacking force originally had the 4 WW1 era DDs plus the cruisers Boise and Marblehead, but both cruisers turned back-the Boise struck a rock and suffered a gash, while the Marblehead had machinery problems and couldn't keep speed.

The 4 US DD's maintained the attack and made a night attack at Balikpapan Bay-they were heavily outnumbered and outclassed. They were spotted and challenged by a Japanese destroyer and changed course-no response from the challenger. They then launched torpedo attacks on the transports. Most missed or were duds, but a few did explode. The Japanese thought it was a sub attack and proceeded to launch a counterattack, but they were looking for subs-not attacking ships.

The 4 DD's continued to make torpedo attacks and followed up with gun attacks when all torpedoes were expended.

When all was said and done the 4 DD's got away untouched and managed to sink 4 transports and a patrol boat.

I agree with the poster about leaders. I'll spend the political points and put the most aggressive and leader with the highest skill levels appropriate for the type of fleet. It does seem to make a difference.

As for surface ships consistently sinking carriers in a carrier group, perhaps having a screening task force set for surface combat lead by an appropriate leader may solve the problems. I would imagine that in real life carrier battlegroups tended to be screened by task forces lead by leaders who were explicitly ordered and expected to engage any surface attacker regardless of the odds-that was their job to delay the enemy long enough for the carriers to escape.

< Message edited by sfbaytf -- 8/26/2009 8:59:05 PM >

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 20

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 9:05:11 PM

dasboot1960

Posts: 389
Joined: 8/2/2009
From: St Augustine, Florida
Status: offline

Hello Tazo - great discourse here - I think perhaps the situation you're describing may be a function of commander ratings+multiple day turns. IRL the commander has his orders, and performs them as he sees fit (hence all the scrambled eggs on his hat) In game terms a three day turn gives him that much more time left to his 'initiative'. While a one day turn give higher higher more influence (at a less a disastrous distance) - Just a thought - I accept your point that maybe the guy should be able to be forced to stay regardless, but I wonder about effects on the other end of the spectrum

(in reply to Tazo)

Post #: 21

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 9:06:42 PM

Tazo

Posts: 85
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Toulouse, France
Status: offline

I just see the patch changes (didn't spot the thread after my connection tonight !) and the Tolerance new notion is GREAT !

Exactly what was lacking to give more precise orders about what to do when facing opposition. I gonna test this immediatly because the alchimy between tolerance, FOW and leader agressiveness/skills will take a few experiment to learn ! But this is so great ! Many thanks to the dev !

TZ

_____________________________

(in reply to sfbaytf)

Post #: 22

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 9:30:24 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

I'm concerned about the visual sighting range rule. I agree with the idea of witholding fire until you have ascertained the target, but once combat has commenced I see no reason not to use radar controlled gunnery once the range has increased beyond visual range. If the target was worthwhile when you were firing a few minutes ago, why should it not be a valid target now?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Tazo)

Post #: 23

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 9:36:54 PM

Zebedee

Posts: 535
Joined: 8/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

41. Gameplay Change: The way that surface radar is used in naval combat has been modified as follows: Visual confirmation is now required before ships will open fire, meaning that ships must close to visual range first. Also, in situations where range is increasing, if it goes beyond visual range (factoring in Detection Level) fire ceases

The factoring in of the Detection Level would seem to be the key for when range starts increasing again, perhaps making it less clearcut than you suggest bradfordkay?

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 24

RE: yet more BB on carrier action! - 8/26/2009 10:17:47 PM

Mike Scholl

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I'm concerned about the visual sighting range rule. I agree with the idea of witholding fire until you have ascertained the target, but once combat has commenced I see no reason not to use radar controlled gunnery once the range has increased beyond visual range. If the target was worthwhile when you were firing a few minutes ago, why should it not be a valid target now?

I think you will find "when" to be the key factor. The US wasn't really able to start taking advantage of radar for fire direction in action until 1943..., and at that time Japan started losing most surface actions at night.

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 25