RE: Surface Combat Sux

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 Sux

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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Surface Combat Sux

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 12:40:11 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

This look better?

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/18/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 61,74

Japanese Ships
DD Wakazuki
DD Shimotsuki
DD Tamanami
DD Fujinami
DD Kishinami
DD Okinami
DD Asashimo
DD Hayashimo, Shell hits 1
DD Akishimo
DD Yukikaze
DD Isokaze
DD Urakaze
DD Hamakaze
DD Nowaki
DD Michishio
DD Yamagumo
DD Asagumo
DD Shiratsuyu
DD Shigure
DD Samidare
DD Hatsushimo
DD Hibiki
DD Uzuki
DD Yunagi
DD Tsuga

Allied Ships
AP W.A. Holbrook, Shell hits 10, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Frederick Funston
AP Harris
AP Doyen, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AP Sheridan, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
AP Callaway, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Sumter
AP Bolivar, Shell hits 10, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Custer
AP Cambria, Shell hits 7, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
AP Warhawk, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP James O'Hara
AP Leon, Shell hits 8, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Storm King, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Knox, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AP John Land, Shell hits 14, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AP Cavalier
AP Winged Arrow, Shell hits 12, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Herald of Morning, Shell hits 3, on fire
AP Clay, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Baxter, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Comet
AP Hercules, Shell hits 12, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AP Fremont, Shell hits 8, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AK Leonis, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Kenmore, Shell hits 9, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
AP Livingston
AP De Grasse
AK Prince Georges
AK Thuban
AK Jupiter
AK Auriga
AK Columbian
AK Dakotan
AK Montanan
AK Wind Rush, Shell hits 1

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 301

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 12:41:01 AM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I think it was decided that in order to have statisics that could be used to base any conclusion you needed over 1400 samples.

(The transports move 1 hex every half phase. If the battle began in the center of a hex and lasted 8 hours and there were more then 6 transports at start that survived there would be a transport in every adjecent hex before the turn was over. )

Here, in my firm, we take it for granted that once the software reaches production, only then will we begin to see the "scaling" bugs. No amount of testing can ever hope to match the load and conditions encountered in the real world over a time. Sometimes design flaws are not even observable until applications are under long term real world stress.

In the case of WitP, this certainly seems to be one of those cases. Where there is this much smoke, there is ALWAYS fire.

Another problem here is the conceptual one of at what level is the abstraction at in the design. I think, overall, things are MUCH MORE abstracted than what you presenting. It's the same thing as two LCU's 59.5 miles apart in the same hex, still engaging in a shock attack..... At some point the abstraction takes over, and for game purposes the two units are co-located.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 302

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 12:42:14 AM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

This look better?

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/18/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 61,74

Japanese Ships
DD Wakazuki
DD Shimotsuki
DD Tamanami
DD Fujinami
DD Kishinami
DD Okinami
DD Asashimo
DD Hayashimo, Shell hits 1
DD Akishimo
DD Yukikaze
DD Isokaze
DD Urakaze
DD Hamakaze
DD Nowaki
DD Michishio
DD Yamagumo
DD Asagumo
DD Shiratsuyu
DD Shigure
DD Samidare
DD Hatsushimo
DD Hibiki
DD Uzuki
DD Yunagi
DD Tsuga

Allied Ships
AP W.A. Holbrook, Shell hits 10, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Frederick Funston
AP Harris
AP Doyen, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AP Sheridan, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
AP Callaway, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Sumter
AP Bolivar, Shell hits 10, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Custer
AP Cambria, Shell hits 7, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
AP Warhawk, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP James O'Hara
AP Leon, Shell hits 8, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Storm King, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Knox, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AP John Land, Shell hits 14, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AP Cavalier
AP Winged Arrow, Shell hits 12, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Herald of Morning, Shell hits 3, on fire
AP Clay, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Baxter, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Comet
AP Hercules, Shell hits 12, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AP Fremont, Shell hits 8, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AK Leonis, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Kenmore, Shell hits 9, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
AP Livingston
AP De Grasse
AK Prince Georges
AK Thuban
AK Jupiter
AK Auriga
AK Columbian
AK Dakotan
AK Montanan
AK Wind Rush, Shell hits 1

Very nice! That's more along the lines of something I'd expect to see almost every time. Too bad I have yet to see something like this in any game I have played to date!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 303

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 12:44:22 AM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

I agree with what you're saying but I think the combat routine just makes it look a little bit worse than it is in terms of one ship getting a huge percentage of hits inflicted. When ship A hits ship B the computer adjusts the sys/flt/fire damage of B and, assuming sys damage affects speed and speed affects hit probability, B is now more likely to be hit by the next shot that A fires. If A is a ship w/ high ROF weapons and hits B early in A's firing sequence, B will quickly get to 100/100 sys/float damage, virtually guaranteeing A hitting B when it fires. Unfortunately, A and B aren't aware that B is sunk until the entire combat round (all the ships on both sides have fired) is over so the hits rapidly accumulate. The ship may have actually sunk on the 5th or 6th shot, it just won't know it. It also prevents A from engaging any other ship for the round.

If that, indeed is the kind of algorithm employed, I'd say it has serious flaws. Something is serious wrong with the abstraction level in this one.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 304

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 12:44:24 AM

RAM

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/1/2000
From: Bilbao,Vizcaya,Spain
Status: offline

that's an exceptional combat report result, Mr.Frag...achieving only 50% of those losses I would've never said a bit about the issue, but the combat report fits OK in what I think would be such an one-sided engagement.

how did you get that???? many ships are reported as sunk!...how many rounds were played?...

As it is now I can't believe that with the current version of WitP you can achieve such results...are you a tester, and is this a bone tossed at us?

< Message edited by RAM -- 9/9/2004 10:45:48 PM >

_____________________________

RAM

"Look at me! look at me!!!

Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 305

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 12:44:47 AM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

This look better?

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/18/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 61,74

Japanese Ships
DD Wakazuki
DD Shimotsuki
DD Tamanami
DD Fujinami
DD Kishinami
DD Okinami
DD Asashimo
DD Hayashimo, Shell hits 1
DD Akishimo
DD Yukikaze
DD Isokaze
DD Urakaze
DD Hamakaze
DD Nowaki
DD Michishio
DD Yamagumo
DD Asagumo
DD Shiratsuyu
DD Shigure
DD Samidare
DD Hatsushimo
DD Hibiki
DD Uzuki
DD Yunagi
DD Tsuga

Allied Ships
AP W.A. Holbrook, Shell hits 10, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Frederick Funston
AP Harris
AP Doyen, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AP Sheridan, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
AP Callaway, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Sumter
AP Bolivar, Shell hits 10, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Custer
AP Cambria, Shell hits 7, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
AP Warhawk, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP James O'Hara
AP Leon, Shell hits 8, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Storm King, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Knox, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AP John Land, Shell hits 14, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AP Cavalier
AP Winged Arrow, Shell hits 12, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Herald of Morning, Shell hits 3, on fire
AP Clay, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Baxter, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Comet
AP Hercules, Shell hits 12, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AP Fremont, Shell hits 8, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AK Leonis, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Kenmore, Shell hits 9, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
AP Livingston
AP De Grasse
AK Prince Georges
AK Thuban
AK Jupiter
AK Auriga
AK Columbian
AK Dakotan
AK Montanan
AK Wind Rush, Shell hits 1

Don't know the conditions under which it occurred, but assuming those are optimal . . . yup.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 306

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 12:45:38 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

Very nice! That's more along the lines of something I'd expect to see almost every time. Too bad I have yet to see something like this in any game I have played to date!

I understand ... the problem is it just *did* come from the very game you are running.

Thats a bunch of DD's eating their way through unprotected transports ... Note the DD's are not leashed to capital ships, but free to pursue ... If you include cap ships, the dd's don't go and play.

Not taking a stance on right or wrong, simply stating what I see.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 307

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 12:49:12 AM

RAM

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/1/2000
From: Bilbao,Vizcaya,Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I understand ... the problem is it just *did* come from the very game you are running.

Thats a bunch of DD's eating their way through unprotected transports ... Note the DD's are not leashed to capital ships, but free to pursue ... If you include cap ships, the dd's don't go and play.

OHHHH! nice!!!!

Suddenly all in a moment, all the arguments about the "commander and ships not seeing the enemy", "60 miles of hex","ships firing at the same target" etc, are sent straight to the bottom

Ok, on the issue and combat report itself: this kind of damage should be the result with or without capitol ships involved of a naval combat with a surface combat fleet vs any unescorted, or almost unescorted, convoy.

Or is someone to tell me now that in a surface action cruisers and battleships are a negative asset?

< Message edited by RAM -- 9/9/2004 10:52:01 PM >

_____________________________

RAM

"Look at me! look at me!!!

Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 308

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 12:49:14 AM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

Hi Mr. Frag,

Sorry, but your example is a night engagement. I think the issue is Day engagments. I don't think anyone has problems with night engagments (although with this forum, I'm probably wrong

)

bc

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 309

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 12:50:58 AM

RAM

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/1/2000
From: Bilbao,Vizcaya,Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Hi Mr. Frag,

Sorry, but your example is a night engagement. I think the issue is Day engagments. I don't think anyone has problems with night engagments (although with this forum, I'm probably wrong )

bc

My (the 2BB, 6 cruiser, 6 DD) engagement vs the 55+ transports plus 2 MSWs is a night engagement.

I do have a problem with it...dunno if anybody else, but I do, fer sure

_____________________________

RAM

"Look at me! look at me!!!

Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 310

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 12:52:06 AM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

Well, as someone who is guilty of his own high-temperature rules arguments <waves hello to Mr.Frag from his bomber

>, I'd have to say I think this thread has reached the "both sides dug in and not moving" stage. Someone let me know when things cool down, please.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 311

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 12:52:37 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, And again we return to the beginning. When a surface combat TF engages unescorted transports the transports scatter. But then the player sees his ships in a nice neat line firing at transports in a nice neat line and this is his picture of the battle.
The animation does not show the transports scattering.
The animation says "range 3k" and the player thinks every enemy ship is 3k from all of his ships. No the ships that are firing are firing at a ship 3k away. If a ship does not fire or is not fired at it could be that they are out of range during this segment of firing but in no case are the 2 opposed neat lines a picture of what is going on.

Now I am aware of the "But the TF leader would breakup his formation" Really? and to what end? By the time the firing begins those ships there are taking fire and those ships that are doing the firing are the ones that are in contact. Break formation and go where? More likely the TF commander would have his ships fire at the targets in range.
The transports do not remain a bunched up herd or easy to kill ships. They scatter. Even at 10ks they cover ground.

(OK take your buddy out on the road. Give him a 10 mile headstart. You chase him doing 30 mph while he evades at 10mph. See how long it takes to catch him. Now take two buddies out. Have one go north at 10mph and the other south at 10mph and see if you can catch them both. Now take 3 but before you chase the first 2 the third starts only 5 miles away and you must catch him before you can chase the other 2.

Now do all this and be back at your starting place or 30 miles towards home (retire orders)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 312

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 12:55:44 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Methinks I see the issue, and its one I have held for a while.

The problem is, your capital ships aren't going to go on a wild goose chase. They are too valuable to loose. YOur screening vessels (DDs/CA/CLs) will only go so far, their main duty being to protect the battleship.

However, as in my AAR of just cruisers and destroyers, and Mr. Frag's sole destroyer TF, they are allowed to "roam free and play". Basically, using a battleship for this kind of commerce raiding hurts more than it helps. But if you use smaller ships, then you can net some good stuff.

Is that basically how the game is programmed? Which makes sense, considering the entire cruiser role (as set by WWI and continued to an extent in WW2) is as a commerce raider. The BB is there to knock off supporting vessels.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 313

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 12:57:34 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I understand ... the problem is it just *did* come from the very game you are running.

Thats a bunch of DD's eating their way through unprotected transports ... Note the DD's are not leashed to capital ships, but free to pursue ... If you include cap ships, the dd's don't go and play.

OHHHH! nice!!!!

Suddenly all in a moment, all the arguments about the "commander and ships not seeing the enemy", "60 miles of hex","ships firing at the same target" etc, are sent straight to the bottom

Ok, on the issue and combat report itself: this kind of damage should be the result with or without capitol ships involved of a naval combat with a surface combat fleet vs any unescorted, or almost unescorted, convoy.

Or is someone to tell me now that in a surface action cruisers and battleships are a negative asset?

Hi, You know know there is a range difference between Japanese torpedos and Allied torpedos and that Japanese ships carry reloads. Also was that a retire or do not retire mission. And I count at least 17 transports that escaped unharmed.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/9/2004 5:58:36 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to RAM)

Post #: 314

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 12:57:58 AM

RAM

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/1/2000
From: Bilbao,Vizcaya,Spain
Status: offline

quote:

(OK take your buddy out on the road. Give him a 10 mile headstart. You chase him doing 30 mph while he evades at 10mph. See how long it takes to catch him. Now take two buddies out. Have one go north at 10mph and the other south at 10mph and see if you can catch them both. Now take 3 but before you chase the first 2 the third starts only 5 miles away and you must catch him before you can chase the other 2.

this isn't appliable. You don't need to *catch* a ship to sunk it. That's why you've got guns for...since the Medieval eras ships can shoot cannons, you know...

A more decent example would be the following:

take your buddy out on the street. Give him a 10 yard headstart. You chase him doing 30 feet por second while he evades at 10fps. See how long it takes to catch him. Now take two buddies out. Have one go north at 10fps and the other south at 10fps and see if you can catch them both. Now take 3 but before you chase the first 2 the third starts only 5 yards away and you must catch him before you can chase the other 2.

my answer in naval gunfire engagements:

with my 15 inch shotgun they won't run too many yards...and I won't need to run them either

of course when one of my buddies receives a shotgun hit and is clearly dead or dying I don't keep on beating the crap out of his body while the other two are getting away. I make sure he's dying ,then I shoot another one.

BTW: piece of advice after reading this...never try to be a buddy of mine, at least if I have a shotgun near me

_____________________________

RAM

"Look at me! look at me!!!

Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 315

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 12:58:32 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

As to splitting up the TF, a Battleship commander isn't going to send his destroyers off to hunt the transports, because he needs them to protect his BB from enemy subs. And he can't send off his cruisers, because 1) he doesn't want to loose them by air attack come morning, and 2) being a small TF, he can't send any DDs to protect them along. If he does, problem 1 crops up. So, in a small TF, he keeps it all together.

_____________________________

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 316

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 1:00:22 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Yes, that is what guns are for. But remember its night, and you don't want to waste preciously few 15" rounds on a target you can't see, or can't see clearly. You save it for when/if a better, clearer target comes up.

_____________________________

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 317

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 1:00:34 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RAM

quote:

(OK take your buddy out on the road. Give him a 10 mile headstart. You chase him doing 30 mph while he evades at 10mph. See how long it takes to catch him. Now take two buddies out. Have one go north at 10mph and the other south at 10mph and see if you can catch them both. Now take 3 but before you chase the first 2 the third starts only 5 miles away and you must catch him before you can chase the other 2.

this isn't appliable. You don't need to *catch* a ship to sunk it. That's why you've got guns for...since the Medieval eras ships can shoot cannons, you know...

A more decent example would be the following:

take your buddy out on the street. Give him a 10 yard headstart. You chase him doing 30 feet por second while he evades at 10fps. See how long it takes to catch him. Now take two buddies out. Have one go north at 10fps and the other south at 10fps and see if you can catch them both. Now take 3 but before you chase the first 2 the third starts only 5 yards away and you must catch him before you can chase the other 2.

my answer in naval gunfire engagements:

with my 15 inch shotgun they won't run too many yards...and I won't need to run them either

of course when one of my buddies receives a shotgun hit and is clearly dead or dying I don't keep on beating the crap out of his body while the other two are getting away. I make sure he's dying ,then I shoot another one.

BTW: piece of advice after reading this...never try to be a buddy of mine, at least if I have a shotgun near me

Hi, You have to be in range. You catch a ship when it is in range. You can't quote 15in range and wonder why your DD did not engage. Thye have to catch the enemy. In my example after you catch the first guy at 5 miles you'll never find the other 2 even being 3 times faster.

Frags example shows the difference between Allied torpedos and the Long Lance.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/9/2004 6:03:58 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to RAM)

Post #: 318

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 1:04:08 AM

RAM

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/1/2000
From: Bilbao,Vizcaya,Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, You know know there is a range difference between Japanese torpedos and Allied torpedos and that Japanese ships carry reloads.

all I see is a wonderfully equal gunfire dispersion pattern between the ships hit. Which is exactly one of my principal and main concerns regarding surface engagements in WitP, that they keep beating out the hell out of the dead horse until the poor horse is dead at least ten times (or more).

quote:

And I count at least 17 transports that escaped unharmed.

Again, I insist, I don't ask for convoys to be anihilated by surface TFs. Quite a number of them SHOULD escape unharmed...but the ammount of ships ACTUALLY HEAVILY DAMAGED (and with the number of hits given, torpedo or no, many of them would sunk sooner or latter), is what catches my eye and makes me give my approval.

I don't know where do you take the idea that I'm asking big convoys to be totally destroyed, for I never have asked for it. However, a 6% loss when attacked by 14 ships, two of them battleships, forces me to say that the combat rules as they are now simply don't work most of the time, giving out absurd results.

_____________________________

RAM

"Look at me! look at me!!!

Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 319

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 1:10:39 AM

RAM

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/1/2000
From: Bilbao,Vizcaya,Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

In my example after you catch the first guy at 5 miles you'll never find the other 2 even being 3 times faster.

if I'm fast enough appying enough damage to the first ship to ensure her sinking (and with such ammount of firepower and the merchant nature of the enemy hull, she won't take long), the 2nd one won't be far, and I will kill it no matter what. �Maybe the third runs away, but 2 out of 3 I can live with...

What I can't live with is with 6% of the ships, that's fer sure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Yes, that is what guns are for. But remember its night, and you don't want to waste preciously few 15" rounds on a target you can't see, or can't see clearly. You save it for when/if a better, clearer target comes up.

and remember, PoW carries state-of-the-art radar, can track unseen enemies, and fire blind at night with high degree of accuracy (as was shown at Matapan) and's got a quite nice DP secondary battery if the commander is hesitant to fire his 14' guns.

PoW was present on the combat report I posted and was part of the massacre of TWO ships out of 55 while the rest went out almost unharmed by gunfire...'nuff said.

< Message edited by RAM -- 9/9/2004 11:11:36 PM >

_____________________________

RAM

"Look at me! look at me!!!

Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 320

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 1:31:30 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, In that report I count at least 8 Japanese ships hit by a TF containing 14 ships. (14.5 percent of enemy TF hit) Is this a poor result? Yes is it the normal result I don't know but I posted a daylight engagement above it where the Allied TF does better (it is larger)
Only 3 ships in your TF have guns larger then those carrired by the AP. Also it is clear your smaller ships closed the range because there were torpedo hits. To hit these ships your smaller ships had to ignore all but the target ship. I am assuming that not every one of your ships that fired torpedos scored a hit.

How did you do the following turn?

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to RAM)

Post #: 321

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 1:49:39 AM

RAM

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/1/2000
From: Bilbao,Vizcaya,Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, In that report I count at least 8 Japanese ships hit by a TF containing 14 ships. (14.5 percent of enemy TF hit) Is this a poor result?

Which report are you talking about??....mine had something like 58 transports and two MSW ;)

had the other ships been hit 5-6 times, yes ,it would've been a good result even not seeing direct sinkings. But the following distribution of impacts in my engagement was:

Hits------------ships
25---------------1
14---------------1
3----------------2
2----------------1
1----------------3

I find higly unsatisfactory and hardly believable, mostly because for the time they had been impacted 10 times, both of the most impacted ships were already dead, and fire should've shifted to another target in range.

As I said, it's the problem of shifting fire from already DEAD ships what I've got the biggest quarrel against. If you solve this thing, the results will be much more realistic, leading to more widespread damage without reaching in any case a truly anihilation of an unescorted convoy (wich-I agree- is unrealistic)

quote:

To hit these ships your smaller ships had to ignore all but the target ship. I am assuming that not every one of your ships that fired torpedos scored a hit.

IIRC there was something like 5-6 "torpedoes in the water" messages. Can't recall exactly, but weren't many of them

quote:

How did you do the following turn?

Still have to play it, even while I've almost everything set to press the "next turn" button...now that I've lost Revenge and Prince of Wales, I just got one british "R" BB on the zone some 25 hexes NW from Batavia....After the suprise of finding the Kido Butai nearby I'll withdraw all my surface assets out of the zone for the time being. I've still got a quite powerful cruiser force in my hands, even while I have to send Houston back to Colombo or to Sydney (has 11 sis damage from previous engagement)...

all in all I can't keep on trying to interfere in the japanese landings with my surface fleets anymore, and the loss of PoW has been a real kick between my legs...it is by far the most powerful allied surface combat ship until the North Carolinas show up...

< Message edited by RAM -- 9/9/2004 11:50:24 PM >

_____________________________

RAM

"Look at me! look at me!!!

Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 322

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 1:56:30 AM

doomonyou

Posts: 144
Joined: 6/26/2002
Status: offline

I must say I agree with the overarching point of this threat. The Surface combat is fine vs. combatants, but for "raider" type battles it is insane.

To start I have no trouble with "nitpicking" things like this in this game. this is after all a game for nitpickers.

Several points, mogami (whose opinion I've respected since UV) please comment. All of these items address daylight combat. I have NO problem with night combat being confusing.

1) I have repeatedly seen this scatter theory (everyone runs in all directions). This is laughable. One half of the compass is unusable since that half of the compass is bring you CLOSER to the attack warships. While certainly in a large convoy (10 ships plus) some would be able to get away but unless that convoy is traveling line astern with four miles between each ship and the attacking ships hit from one end, what convoy geometry would allow more than 30% of the ships to evade clear sighting?

2) What kind of crews are on these ships? An allied AK taking lets say six hits from the main guns of your name sake would be a flaming, ruptured, smoldering death trap. No crew would remain on board. Why are these ships not abandoned?

3) The ships that take "some" damage, how is that possible? Lets say a single undergunned destroyers has set its sights on a single AK and htis its twice. These two hits alone with hurt the ship badly, but how do these ships always get away? Unless the assumption that all naval combat occurs ten minutes prior to nightfall, a DD going 30 could catch a 12 knot AK from a 20K yard lead in less than ONE HOUR. Even a DD with just two 40mm AA guns and a single 5"er would pulverize a cargo ship in a few minutes.

4) Air spotting. If attacking ships are told that there are fifteen cargo ships and no visible escorts according to air spotters (either this ships own complements on CA's or LBA) why the hell would any captain accept the finding and sinking of two ships as a good days work? He knows they are around there somewhere and if they are cargo ships they couldn't have gone very far?

I have no overall problem with some combat results being dissapointing (representing random stupidity or genius or bravery on one side). But I almost NEVER see a brutal assbeating like I should when the tranports on the East cost of the PI run for it and some big ass Japanese CA/DD execution squads hits those eight cargo ships and in broad daylight manages to kill two wound one and let five get by.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 323

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 1:57:26 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, You mean POW was sunk in the hex the combat occrued in the same turn? I missed something here.
Can you send the file before the combat to Mogami69bsa@aol.com?

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to RAM)

Post #: 324

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 2:26:53 AM

Belphegor

Posts: 2209
Joined: 5/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RAM
A more decent example would be the following:

take your buddy out on the street. Give him a 10 yard headstart. You chase him doing 30 feet por second while he evades at 10fps. See how long it takes to catch him. Now take two buddies out. Have one go north at 10fps and the other south at 10fps and see if you can catch them both. Now take 3 but before you chase the first 2 the third starts only 5 yards away and you must catch him before you can chase the other 2.

BTW: piece of advice after reading this...never try to be a buddy of mine, at least if I have a shotgun near me

I certainly wouldn't want to be your friend if that's what you do..., but what do you do to your enemies.

But I want to take the analogy a bit further. You can't use a shotgun, you have to use a ballistic weapon at least at farther ranges... So, while you are running you must bend at the waist forward, and then lean back and repeat..., the faster you go, the more severe the bends. Now, while doing this, try to lob rocks at your friend. Occasionally one will hit and do damage, but it will take a few to hurt him this way enough to make him stop. While doing this, try to keep your eye on the other people running away while concentrating on hitting number 1 with your rocks. You may use the shotgun/torpedo when you get close enough... Due to the spectator nature of humans, most people will be watching the action but you don't have a crew so you need to do it all yourself.

Hope you at least enjoy the mental image that brings.

< Message edited by Belphegor -- 9/10/2004 12:36:10 AM >

(in reply to RAM)

Post #: 325

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 2:42:42 AM

Belphegor

Posts: 2209
Joined: 5/10/2004
Status: offline

and in one more piece of shameless mirth... a quote

"Although the forts' reply was ineffective, and conditions were ideal with bright sun and the gentlest of offshore breeze, the organisation for controlling the aim of the great guns proved deficient; there were no range-finders or fire control telegraphs, and messages passed by voice pipe were frequently inaudible in the din. Meanwhile, the flat calm created problems for the gunlayers trained to take aim as the ship rolled the sights on target; in at least one vessel the whole ship's company not employed at the guns was marshalled to move back and forth across the battery deck to create a roll..."

Rule Britannia

(in reply to Belphegor)

Post #: 326

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 2:43:51 AM

RAM

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/1/2000
From: Bilbao,Vizcaya,Spain
Status: offline

LOL@Belphegor!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, You mean POW was sunk in the hex the combat occrued in the same turn? I missed something here.
Can you send the file before the combat to Mogami69bsa@aol.com?

I've just run the next turn, so no combat file anymore :(.

No, let's see, I explained it already in a previous post. In the night impulse I got into the surface combat vs that massive transport TF. That way, by daylight the ships would already be some 4 hexes away, and make detection & air attack by Betties based on the continent much harder for the japanese.

It turned out to be that I had the KB,which was on the area undetected (I'm going to kill those dutch recce aircraft for letting them slip so near their bases, damnit! :D) . On the day 12 hour impulse the japanese carriers detected the surface combat group and sent three attacks on the ships. A DD and a CL received medium damage, but both Revenge and PoW took 7 torpedos each...needless to say , they were under the waves before the end of the turn came.

Then came a 3-plane strike of Bettys with bombs; they didn't hit a barn as I expected them to.

The surface attack was a calculated risk in face of long range air attack, and it seemed not as big a risk at first. Most Betties are putting bombs in Rangoon, Manila and Clark each turn so I guessed (mostly right seeing only 3 betties hitting the TF) that most of the japanese bomber squadrons are on land attack missions. The idea was : Slam into the invasion fleet, kick their a$$es off, and then run like screaming babies back to Soerabaja...

the,previously undetected, KB altered the expected outcome quite a bit

...now I'm left with the Royal Sovereign and my cruisers, and subs have detected a couple of Kongo BBs E of Phillipinies aiming for south Borneo...methinks that Balikpapan is the next objective, I am not going to risk the last british BB (the repulse is repairing 23 damage from a sub torpedo at Colombo so cant be used for now) so she's already withdrawing back to Sri Lanka... and if there are BBs around the beaches I can't do anything with only cruisers...not to mention the mere presence of the japanese carriers...

Last turn was mostly fine...Clark still is holding OK, and the rest of my surface fleet minus the damaged CL and DD is back at port (I set the rest of the fleet on full speed to run back as fast as they could)...I'm now trying to figure what would a real life allied commander do to keep on fighting the japanese tide, for what I'm not going to do is leaving it as an easy picking for them to take

< Message edited by RAM -- 9/10/2004 12:52:10 AM >

_____________________________

RAM

"Look at me! look at me!!!

Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 327

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 3:00:11 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomonyou

I must say I agree with the overarching point of this threat. The Surface combat is fine vs. combatants, but for "raider" type battles it is insane.

To start I have no trouble with "nitpicking" things like this in this game. this is after all a game for nitpickers.

Several points, mogami (whose opinion I've respected since UV) please comment. All of these items address daylight combat. I have NO problem with night combat being confusing.

1) I have repeatedly seen this scatter theory (everyone runs in all directions). This is laughable. One half of the compass is unusable since that half of the compass is bring you CLOSER to the attack warships. While certainly in a large convoy (10 ships plus) some would be able to get away but unless that convoy is traveling line astern with four miles between each ship and the attacking ships hit from one end, what convoy geometry would allow more than 30% of the ships to evade clear sighting?

2) What kind of crews are on these ships? An allied AK taking lets say six hits from the main guns of your name sake would be a flaming, ruptured, smoldering death trap. No crew would remain on board. Why are these ships not abandoned?

3) The ships that take "some" damage, how is that possible? Lets say a single undergunned destroyers has set its sights on a single AK and htis its twice. These two hits alone with hurt the ship badly, but how do these ships always get away? Unless the assumption that all naval combat occurs ten minutes prior to nightfall, a DD going 30 could catch a 12 knot AK from a 20K yard lead in less than ONE HOUR. Even a DD with just two 40mm AA guns and a single 5"er would pulverize a cargo ship in a few minutes.

4) Air spotting. If attacking ships are told that there are fifteen cargo ships and no visible escorts according to air spotters (either this ships own complements on CA's or LBA) why the hell would any captain accept the finding and sinking of two ships as a good days work? He knows they are around there somewhere and if they are cargo ships they couldn't have gone very far?

I have no overall problem with some combat results being dissapointing (representing random stupidity or genius or bravery on one side). But I almost NEVER see a brutal assbeating like I should when the tranports on the East cost of the PI run for it and some big ass Japanese CA/DD execution squads hits those eight cargo ships and in broad daylight manages to kill two wound one and let five get by.

Hi, Before I begin I must say that I don't post to prevent any change to the game. I'm playing the same game everyone else is and I'd like to sink every enemy ship I catch.
However even small ships can require multiple hits. it is not the number of hits but how large and where. That matter. There are examples provided by history of a large warship sinking to a few hits and a samll warship taking many and surviving.
Since before anyone on the test team can take any point raised on the boards for review he must understand exactly what the problem is and how often it is being seen. (It helps it it also occurs while he is play testing but to set up a test he has to know all the details)

Reading over this thread many times I feel there are in fact several complaints.

There is a night result complaint and a day result complaint. IN both cases in normal PBEM play I have had results that indicte to me that these results are not the normal result. (Understand they may be the normal result for the people posting the complaint. I have to discover why they get this normal result and other people do not get this normal result)

As for scatter. Draw a circle. Now place a dot for the surface TF anywhere on the circle.
Now on the opposite side place another dot for the transports.

Now draw another circle around the transports. (Ideally the first circle would have the 2 TF at the spotting range and the circle around the transports would be how far they can move.) Using only course that do not directly go toward enemy you will see there is still many directions for each ship. The surface TF has to commit to a target Almost any target they head for will open the range on the others. (doubling back is a common tactic in evasion because when a ship reverse course it can now point in many new directions. The temporary condition of shortening the range can produce more rapid opening if the other ship goes after another ship)Also ships that are scattering are also trying to increase the range between one another as well as the ships they are trying to evade.

A ship doing 30kt will cover 20k yards in 20 minutes. The target doing 10kt would move 6751 yards so after a 20 minute pursuit a ship that began 20k yard behind a transport would now be 6751 a stern. However every transport not being chased that was on another course will be 6751 further out. There is a period where this is not turn and some ships might actually be closer. It now just becomes a mathamatical excersie of moving those transports and pursing ships. and checking what a ship can still see after it finishes the ship it is chasing.

I do not feel any WW2 officer would ever hoist some kind of "engage in general melee" flag to his TF. He would go after the largest collection of ships or the ships in sight with the highest value.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/9/2004 8:13:06 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to doomonyou)

Post #: 328

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 3:11:18 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, RAM so your TF was set to retire and had moved 4 hexes by the next movement phase?
This movement required part of the time that would be used chasing enemy ships if set to do not retire. Also a TF set to retire is not going to break formation. Using only half the normal combat time they scored hits on 8 enemy ships trying to evade. It really does not matter so much how many enemy ships there were. If there were fewer you should score around the same number of hits. I mean it is not the number of targets that matter as long as there are enough to fill up the available time. In this case it appears around 8 enemy ships. If your TF had been larger you would have hit more ships. If your TF had been smaller it would have hit fewer.
Do we have many examples of "Do not retire" TF not doing increased damage.

How far did you move to reach the hex? (did you start the night pahse there?)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 329

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 4:25:20 AM

RAM

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/1/2000
From: Bilbao,Vizcaya,Spain
Status: offline

Heya again, Mogami...

It's not with the disengagement rules what I have a problem with. The disengagement after a couple of rounds of combats fits fine with my idea of how the battle should develop. As I said, the idea of the whole operation was "Slam in, burn'em, run fast", so I am fine with the early disengagement.

I find 7 transport ships hit a fine number, too, for the time the battle took, and the early disengagement. I don't have a problem with that either.

However, what I have a problem with, is the fact that my ships were firing upon only two transport ships when there were at the very least 5 more visible (something proved by the fact that they were actually fired upon, but just a couple or three times each), and many more in sight of the TF (because the battle screen showed several more names). The problem I have is that those two ships were far long dead much before they received the latest hits...

in short, I think the disengagement rules are about right for the battle I fought, I think 7 merchants hit are almost right, too, for that battle.

What I don't find right is that of those 7 merchants only two received enough gun damage to go down at least five times while the others went out more or less safe (I'm talking about ONLY gunfire here, the fact that there was another torpedo hit in another transport is a side thing as I don't have problems with torpedo attack routines, either.). Had the ships shifted fire when those targets were undeniably sunk, many if not all of the 7 transports would've received very heavy damage, enough to sink them in the spot or in the following days.

If that was the case there would be no issue. As I said, I have no problem with a 15% loss to that TF given the battle I fought. As I also said I would not be satisfied, but wouldn't put in doubt the combat routines, if only a 10% would've received that treatment (meaning 5-6 transports lost for the japanese). I don't want mauled nor anihilated convoys. I want realistic results and those numbers would've fine for me in this battle.

But the fact is that I sank 2 out of 55 transports using gunfire, a 6%, because my ships insisted in firing nonstop at two already sunk ships. 82.9% of my TF's firepower was directed to two ships that after receiving much less than that were already sinking wrecks. And that simply ain't right, Mogami. The ships should shift targets after the current one is already doomed, and this is exactly what's failing here.

Remember the combat report about the japanese DDs engaging allied ships?...what I loved about that report wasn't so many ships sunk by torpedo effects, what I loved about it was the almost even fire distribution between the transports. Some were more heavily hit up to 10 times, but there were many other hit 4-8 times, enough to put a transport down after some days if not interned in a large port ASAP. But there was no "magneto" ship which attracted 25 hits, for instance, leaving the other ships without their fair ammount of hits...

as for the distance for the hex before the turn started, the TF was only 1 hex away from the battle scene.

< Message edited by RAM -- 9/10/2004 2:35:10 AM >

_____________________________

RAM

"Look at me! look at me!!!

Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 330