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  13 14 15 [16] 17   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 3:51:31 AM   
Mr.Frag


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

Before the thread wanders off into oblivion: Could the foregoing be an issue? Personally, I'm doubting that leashing is designed in, but no one has really commented definitively. If there is any leashing, it may be part of the problem.


It's not a designed in trait ... it's just the way the model works.

In the real world, the Admiral running the TF would detach some ships to go run down the transports. In our game, we don't have sub-TF's that were quite normal in the real world.

It's part of being at the operational level. You can't command individual ships so the code must do it for you.

Lets say I'm steaming around with a 15 ship surface fleet ... One of my dd's spots a ship, I'd detach a CL & a couple of DD's to investigate. The whole TF is not going to go charging off without better information. One does not commit to battle lightly. It could very well be a trap. The CL's there because the DD commanders are a little to green to make fleet impacting calls

(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 451
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 4:13:28 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
But does the model really work this way? I agree all of your real-world examples made sense, but I'm not convinced that there is some algorithm in the code that really makes the game work this way. The one example where the DDs went wild could have been an anomolous.

But if the game really does have some kind of logic statement of "if capital ships are part of the TF, then TF stays together and concentrates on few ships; otherwise TF scatters and has a turkey shoot," this would probably be the function that is irking the irked. (I know you say it's not a designed in trait, but if the model works this way, there is some designed in formula that makes it work this way) I'm not saying this is how it works, but the suggestion has been made that there is some evidence of this type of thing happening in the game.

In a daylight situation with good visibility, the heavy TF commander would have fewer qualms about releasing his ships for melee because, with good visibility, (i) he could see he has found an unescorted convoy and (ii) he would have sufficient notice of an approaching combat TF to recall his ships into formation.

I obviously don't have the answer since I know nothing about how the game is coded or how deep the layering. But it was an interesting query (as was the point that there should be no breaking off) that I wanted to make sure wasn't lost whilst you all investigating the issue.

< Message edited by byron13 -- 9/11/2004 2:17:28 AM >

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 452
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 4:20:15 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, Unless I missed something (would not be the first time) I think it is daylight scatter providing nighttime scatter protection to ships that are actually spotted. (They are spotted but immune from being fired on)

_____________________________






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

(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 453
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 4:24:27 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
You seemed pretty sure of that earlier on, and I accept that. You know more about the game mechanics than I do, and I've learned a lot just by reading this thread. While that may be the most likely "problem," I don't think anyone knows for sure. Again, I thought this was a good query that I didn't want to have lost until its validity was determined.

With that, I'm going home to play more WitP.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 454
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 4:35:40 AM   
Mr.Frag


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

But does the model really work this way?


It's pretty safe it doesn't work that way and *thats* part of the problem. Surface combat is geared towards combat ships fighting each other. When the TF size limits were increased from UV to WitP, no one expected mass convoys of unescorted ships running around the map. Yet that seems to be the very situation that is driving most of the complaints.

It wasn't a problem at UV scale because the number of ships was not that high.

Thats pretty much the logic as I see it. I could be completely off base, but when you think it through, it makes sense.

(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 455
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 5:01:04 AM   
velkro


Posts: 118
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline
OK, it's about two game weeks later and every surface battle remains the same...

1) Lots of unescorted, damaged, and SLOW AKs, APs, TKs intercepted by much faster DDs, CLs, CAs, BBs.
2) In daylight, at night, in clear weather, in cloudy weather.
3) Way outside of LBA range for the cargo guy.
4) Way inside of LBA range for the interceptor guy.
5) Numerous sightings and intel reports about the cargo TFs.
6) Only two to four cargo ships being targeted each time.
7) Only two to four cargo ships being damaged each time.
8) Only zero to two cargo ships sinking during the battle, even after being hit by torps AND 40+ 5" and above shells.
9) Numerous leaders, from Spruance to lieutenants...
The Song Remains the Same...this needs attention...it don't take a rocket scientist to understand there is at least a slight problem that needs quick attention...

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 456
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 5:17:42 AM   
Montrose


Posts: 72
Joined: 8/30/2003
From: Gloucstershire UK
Status: offline
Sigh

Core issue: Ships are programmed to fire on targets with the highest Detection Level.

This can be read in the manual page 170. "The higher a ship's DL during surface combat, the more likely it is to become the target of an enemy ships weapons". It can again be confirmed by simply watching surface combat replays. The only time a ship will not fire at the highest DL target is when it returns one burst of defensive fire at any ship which fires at it.

It leads to: Massive over-concentration on the most visible target.

Any ship which is ablaze has a higher DL during day or night, and therefore attracts more and more shell fire until the AI declares it as sunk. When combat ends, very few of the enemy ships have been seriously damaged, and the unlucky few have often been overkilled many times over.

It is wrong because: 1) Detection Levels are not the right criteria for target selection. 2) The results make no sense.

Detection levels should do just that, enable ships to be detected. Deciding which ship to fire at would never be done on the basis of which was the most visible. Ship commanders were not ordered to empty their magazines into the most visible wreck afloat and ignore everything else. Target threat, mission, firer capability etc. were what mattered in RL. For some other madness, I put forward an example of the Iowa v's Yamato and burning minesweeper. If the Iowa was faced with both in WitP, it would ignore the Yamato and fire everything it had against the burning minesweeper.

For those that try to argue that surface ships were rubbish even against slow harmless transports, and that somehow this bizarre targetting is an abstract way of representing that, IMHO you are dead wrong. If warships really were this useless against all other ships, why would all major powers persist in building them at great expense. I would also say that I have a hard time believing anyone who says they do not see these kinds of results, because they are the norm in the umpteen dozen surface actions I have seen. This isn't suprising because it is programmed to be like this.

It could be solved by: 1) Dropping DLs as a targetting determinant. Or 2) Checking for sunk ships more often.

Ideally other criteria could be programmed in to give a realistic targetting routine. Target threat, mission, firer capabilities, and probably much more could be included. However, that would be a major (impossible?) effort, so in the end just anything other than Detection Levels will be a massive improvement. Random targetting from amongst visible ships would be fine.

An alternative is for the AI to check for sunk ships more often in surface combat, which will force the targetting routine to move on to another target rather than continually atomising the debris of whichever unfortunate has been picked upon.

As other have said, we all like this game, don't want to kick up a fuss, but as we'll be stuck for anything like WitP for the forseeable future, let's get this flawed aspect working properly. Also please note that this is not specifically a transport problem, not specifically a TF or a convoy problem, it is specifically a targetting problem. From that error of judgement does all the other silliness flow. It is the targetting routine specifically which needs to be fixed, and tinkering with transports or anything else is completely the wrong direction to take.

< Message edited by Montrose -- 9/11/2004 3:18:55 AM >


_____________________________

I spend my time building castles in the air, but in the end all of them, and I, blow away in the wind.

- Don Juan

(in reply to velkro)
Post #: 457
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 5:34:40 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Have i mentioned lately that this item is not only a wish list item....but one that is now being seriously looked at.... Could have sworn i mentioned it two....three....four times now....

_____________________________


(in reply to velkro)
Post #: 458
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 5:39:29 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
What? I can't hear you. Speak louder, say in 72pt Bold font.

_____________________________

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 Nikademus)
Post #: 459
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 6:43:30 AM   
Williamb

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Dayton Ohio
Status: offline
Im sort of glad I dropped out of this thread on page three.

_____________________________


(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 460
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 11:26:17 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: William Amos

Im sort of glad I dropped out of this thread on page three.


Hey, is that a transport burning after being singled out and pummeled in your pick? Check firing....check firing!

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 9/11/2004 4:27:01 AM >


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Williamb)
Post #: 461
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/12/2004 9:12:16 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Lets face it. There were a few people who were telling us the game design was wrong before they even had it on their machines. It is the "Boy who cried Wolf" syndrome.
Go back to when you first arrived at Matrix and read your own posts.
I am used to hearing it from you. When someone else has a problem and you arrive to take over the complaint I then have to spend a great deal of time and effort to let other people know that what "YOU" are posting is not the problem.


"It may take four or five years, but I'll prove Mr Frag and Mogami dead wrong by the time I'm done. " Zoomie1980 4-23-04


LOL! I usually don't get involved until you or some other WitP "legend" begins to dig their heels in and stick their head in the sand. It is CLEAR that there was a valid problem with the AutoVictory stuff. Clear people had a problem with upgrade paths. Clear people had a problem with research as it connected to upgrades. Clear the Allied ASW was a problem. Clear there is a problem with daytime surface combat as it pertains to unescorted transports.

And it is clear you or some other tester has denied, at some point, that none of those were problems and nothing more than the "game functioning as designed". And then, when the posters finally convince the developers that it is indeed a problem, you guys throw your hands up and either threated to "take your ball and go home", or simply claim "I don't really care one way or the other and never did..." Rich!


And I've been at Matrix as long as anyone. I've been here under at least a dozen different Monikers over the years. This is just my latest one.


Boy, you sound a little bit like me.

Basically what you say is truth, except you didn't bother to list a dozen or so problems with UV which I'm not sure yet are still with WitP or not. But you sure have the basic drift of it.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 462
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/12/2004 9:29:02 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oliver Heindorf

hey Zoomie, as I am on this forum from time to time, I am more than amused about your posts. not only in this thread but the entire 3 months would have been sooooooooooo boring here without your posts.

not only you have achived to insult the entire beta testers for nothing that you could have done better, you managed even that the whole readers here are mainly against your kind how you critzie the whole game.

if the game would be as bad as you describe, why dont you just leave and let us alone.

in another thread, you posted that rarly any games will last longer than 3 months on your HDD. WHEN IS THIS FREAKING DATE PLEASE.

go over and play arcade games.




I doubt if "the whole readers here" (whatever or whomever that wants to refer to) is/are against anyone necessarily. The majority of the readers in this forum (whoever they might be) hardly post at all but just . . . read.

If you don't like what Zoomie or someone else posts, that's fine, but leave it be unless you have something intelligent to add. At least Zoomie tries to get something which is wrong right, or at least made better. What I read from you is 1) purely negative for its own sake, 2) engages in exaggeration and 3) heads toward the assinine. In fact, what I read from you labors under other bad traiits as well, but I don't wish to beat a dead horse.

(in reply to Oliver Heindorf)
Post #: 463
RE: History of Beta Opposition - 9/12/2004 9:34:31 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, For anyone without time to read this entire monster. Here is the complete history of Beta opposition to finding cure for this problem.
Page 2 Nik "It's on list"
Frag proposed fix
Page 3 Mogami begins to investage problem (it's on list) In very first post top of page three says there might be problem
Page 7 Bottom Frag explain problem
Page 8 Mogami explains scatter. (since we think this is culprit)
Mogami says "scatter is too effective"
Mogami says "every spotted ship should be sunk" (providing of couse ammo and other thing allow)
Page 9 Mogami says "Don't care what changes made will test to see they work
page 10 Zoomie1980 appears for first time

quote:

Why do you folks always take such a black and white stance on EVERYTHING? 1 in 20 ships taking 95% of the hits is completely assinine no matter how you look at it, leadership, experience, anything. History does not in any way validate that. But that does not mean all 20 take 5%. That's just as assinine as the former! It is perfectly logical, say for the lead/first-encountered ship to take 50-60% maybe 65-70% at night, with #2 taking another 25% or so, with the rest scattered about, maybe half the other taking at least one or two hits with maybe 8-10 escaping completely unhit.

It is a matter of DEGREE. There are some aspects of this game that are in the EXTREME and that's what most people get worked up about.



I've been gone for a couple days and I've misssed much of this thread. Has thought been given yet (by the developers) to not displaying ships on screen which haven't been actually spotted? As you agreed yourself that would have to help the situation at least perceptually.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 464
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/12/2004 10:23:02 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami




No, Joel..., it isn't . Geometric impossibility. One side is closing at 30KTs, the other is
scattering at 10 kts. No matter what directional vector the "scattering forces" chose,
the relative distance BETWEEN the two continues to close. The best "escape vector"
would be directly away from the attacking force..., and it's still going to decrease by
20 knots every hour. Any other vector and the decrease becomes even greater. Now
if you carry it out to multiple hours eventually the fleeing units that chose vectors
that lead away from the attackers base course WILL start opening the range---but dur-
ing the actual period when most combat will take place (30-90 minutes) none of the
potential "escapees" is gaining an inch. The range keeps closing rapidly.


quote:

Hi, Your keeping the transports together they are not scattering in the same direction.
A 30kt TF that begins 20k from a 10kt ship will close to 6200 yards but all the other ships will have went 6200 yards in other directions. If there are 2 ships at start and they turn 90 degrees from each other. You will be 6200 yards from the one you chase and 6200 yards plus the angle between where you began and where the 2nd ship is when you reach 6200 yards from the target. If there are 20+ targets many of them will be out of sight before you finish with many. Once you deal with the first you choose a new target and pursue. This of course will result in opening of range with majorty of other targets. If you go left 30k chasing ships that turn left you now have to come back 30k before you even start chasing a ship that went right at start. While you traveled 60k (30k out and 30k back) they have traveled 15k on their own. (so when you turn around before starting back that 30k they are long out of sight. ) Now you have to search in ever expanding box and hope you spot a ship to chase.


Let me explain it this way. When spotted the center of the transport formation is 20k away.
By the time you get to 6200 yards of this location every transport is 6200 yards from the old center. Ships that were 100 yards apart when you spoted them are now 12k apart.

All this assumes the surface force commander reacts perfectly.


quote:

WRONG, MOGAMI. Sorry, but look at the facts. IF the attacker spotted the target at
30,000 yards, and can cover that distance in X minutes; while the defender can only
cover 10,000 yards in the same amount of time; then no matter what direction the
defender flees, he can only be 10,000 yards from where he started when the attacker
arrives at that point. That's a minimum closure of 20,000 yards in x minutes before
(even in theory) the range can BEGIN to expand.

Given realities, when the attacker sees that the defender is "defenseless", the attacking
TF will spread out to "cut the corners" on the defenders "scattering vectors" decreasing
the range even more.. Your theory holds true over an extended period of time, but not
during the critical period of the actual engagement.


Of course you're absolutely right, Mike. The best (first) simulation to demonstrate this sort of interrelational motion RT was GNBNA--Action Stations! earlier also gave a good (though not RT) course in the subject. I'm surprised there's any resistance to this. And by Joel, no less. Afterall, SSI published the former title.

< Message edited by Tristanjohn -- 9/12/2004 12:24:01 AM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 465
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/12/2004 10:26:02 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
Hey, I loved teh GNB series. I still have my copies of 2-4. 5 sucked though, they didn't even try on the graphics.

_____________________________

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 Tristanjohn)
Post #: 466
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/12/2004 10:31:10 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
I never got beyond the first title. It was good for its time. Too bad the way its "sequel" was handled a few years ago. That one could have been a big winner.

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 467
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/12/2004 11:18:20 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

I never got beyond the first title. It was good for its time. Too bad the way its "sequel" was handled a few years ago. That one could have been a big winner.


Fighting Steel?

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 468
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/12/2004 11:26:50 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
Wait, are we talking GNB2: Guadalcanal, or the sequal to the series, Fighting Steel?

I thought GNB2 was great, GNB3 Fury in the Pacific ok, and GNB4 Burning Steel(since I never had GNBNA) pretty cool.

I loved Fighting Steel. Hell, I still play it. The AI kinda sucked, and ships are too easy to sink, but it is still one of those game close to my heart.

< Message edited by Tankerace -- 9/12/2004 3:27:03 AM >


_____________________________

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 Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 469
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/12/2004 5:53:20 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Of course you're absolutely right, Mike. The best (first) simulation to demonstrate this sort of interrelational motion RT was GNBNA--Action Stations! earlier also gave a good (though not RT) course in the subject. I'm surprised there's any resistance to this. And by Joel, no less. Afterall, SSI published the former title.


I'm right quite often, John..., but being right doesn't always carry the weight one would
hope for or expect in this forum. Still, it's nice to see someone notices once in a while.

_____________________________


(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 470
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/12/2004 7:01:18 PM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

I never got beyond the first title. It was good for its time. Too bad the way its "sequel" was handled a few years ago. That one could have been a big winner.


Fighting Steel?


Yeah. Nothing but problems, that one, and then of course it got the big ax. Now, even after years of third-party support it still isn't much and never will be. Huge disappointment. But that's what happens when a wargame is designed to also appeal to the Atari set. Whatever were they thinking?

Hey Joooooel! Are yoiu listening?

(muttermutter)

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 471
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/12/2004 7:09:29 PM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Of course you're absolutely right, Mike. The best (first) simulation to demonstrate this sort of interrelational motion RT was GNBNA--Action Stations! earlier also gave a good (though not RT) course in the subject. I'm surprised there's any resistance to this. And by Joel, no less. Afterall, SSI published the former title.


I'm right quite often, John..., but being right doesn't always carry the weight one would
hope for or expect in this forum. Still, it's nice to see someone notices once in a while.


Well, it isn't so much a mater of how often one person or the other is right but rather how often those with blinders on cannot or will not (or for all I know according to the edicts of management shall not) admit error. With the case in point it's an easy error to make up front, anyone could. But. After someone (you in this case) corrects the forum with a couple of excellent illustrative examples one might suppose those in error would then bow to reality and just get on with it. But noooooooooooooooo, that isn't what we get, is it?

I find that a telling dynamic.

Oh well, onward and upward!

< Message edited by Tristanjohn -- 9/12/2004 9:10:39 AM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 472
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/12/2004 7:14:08 PM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Wait, are we talking GNB2: Guadalcanal, or the sequal to the series, Fighting Steel?

I thought GNB2 was great, GNB3 Fury in the Pacific ok, and GNB4 Burning Steel(since I never had GNBNA) pretty cool.

I loved Fighting Steel. Hell, I still play it. The AI kinda sucked, and ships are too easy to sink, but it is still one of those game close to my heart.



I'm more or less in your camp, except for me the AI is utterly hopeless. I sill wonder if Zimm might not one day get back into it, but I sort of doubt that now. A shame.

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 473
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/12/2004 8:10:05 PM   
steveh11Matrix


Posts: 944
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Wait, are we talking GNB2: Guadalcanal, or the sequal to the series, Fighting Steel?

I thought GNB2 was great, GNB3 Fury in the Pacific ok, and GNB4 Burning Steel(since I never had GNBNA) pretty cool.

I loved Fighting Steel. Hell, I still play it. The AI kinda sucked, and ships are too easy to sink, but it is still one of those game close to my heart.



I'm more or less in your camp, except for me the AI is utterly hopeless. I sill wonder if Zimm might not one day get back into it, but I sort of doubt that now. A shame.

You guys should be looking at http://www.navalwarfare.org/~content/fs.html, the updates to Fighting Steel. Currently at v9.5, updated 22-May-2004. They've also got a campaign/operation game going.

I played an earlier version of this, and can confirm that it's much improved. Can't say the ai will be any better, but hey, if you already own Fighting Steel, this is a free upgrade! (The best price! )

Steve.

_____________________________

"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 474
Great Expectations - 9/12/2004 10:13:07 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, I had a thought today. I would look forward with great interest to AAR written by Zoomie1980 and TJ from PBEM game played between them.

Would one post a good result and claim it his planning or proof the game was broken
would the other then say it was his planning or agree it was proof the game was broken.

In any case if they played more then 6 months the AAR would likely find a place in the Hall of Fame.

_____________________________






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

(in reply to steveh11Matrix)
Post #: 475
RE: Great Expectations - 9/12/2004 10:17:20 PM   
Mr.Frag


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

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I had a thought today. I would look forward with great interest to AAR written by Zoomie1980 and TJ from PBEM game played between them.

Would one post a good result and claim it his planning or proof the game was broken
would the other then say it was his planning or agree it was proof the game was broken.

In any case if they played more then 6 months the AAR would likely find a place in the Hall of Fame.



(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 476
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/13/2004 8:18:24 PM   
strawbuk


Posts: 289
Joined: 4/30/2004
From: London via Glos
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Wow, a contentious thread without one single ZOOMIE post!

Regardless of what Mogami has seen in his AAR's, it seems his results are almost always different than what almost every casual player is getting. I don't know why, but it certainly seems that way. It is CLEAR that we have a large number of players who seeing the same general result from major surface engagements, i.e. one or two ships sucking up almost ALL the fire, even in daylight engagements.


Wondered where you had gone - was missing the programming speak....
Have we seen this? Only AARs seen posted argue that surface combat is 'ok'. Not saying anyone pushing it but rest is assertion, without saves, reruns and direct copy AAR. Me? I see a mix of results (playing vs AI) some make me cheer some make me cringe.

(just catching up after two weeks out..)

_____________________________



Twinkle twinkle PBY
Seeking Kido Bu-tai
Flying o' the sea so high
An ill-omen in the sky
Twinkle twinkle PBY
Pointing out who's next to fry

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 477
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/13/2004 11:18:27 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
I just raided Rabaul with 3 BB's and 4 CA's and several DD's as screen...Going in,I encountered 3 seperate groups od AK's,AG's,a couple DD's,etc..At no time did my ships fire at all targets,and generally they only sunk 1 ship per encounter..To make matters worse,the slower moving enemy *somehow* was able to slip away,even when damaged.(?)..
My ships were not low on ammo,nor fuel,and never even took a hit,but have retired(against my wishes)..NEEDS TO BE FIXED,PLEASE.....

_____________________________




(in reply to velkro)
Post #: 478
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/13/2004 11:42:11 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, Did you bombard? Day? Night? TF do not retire against your wishes without a reason. They have to be forced into changing "do not retire" to retire.

Send The the file before the turn if you have it to mogami69bsa@aol.com (Or the turn after so I can at least look at the TF status.)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/13/2004 4:46:51 PM >


_____________________________






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

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 479
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/14/2004 2:08:21 AM   
Rob322

 

Posts: 578
Joined: 8/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I just raided Rabaul with 3 BB's and 4 CA's and several DD's as screen...Going in,I encountered 3 seperate groups od AK's,AG's,a couple DD's,etc..At no time did my ships fire at all targets,and generally they only sunk 1 ship per encounter..To make matters worse,the slower moving enemy *somehow* was able to slip away,even when damaged.(?)..
My ships were not low on ammo,nor fuel,and never even took a hit,but have retired(against my wishes)..NEEDS TO BE FIXED,PLEASE.....


Were they set up as a Bombardment TF? My understanding is that ships on such a mission will not spend much ammo on enemy ships they encounter as they're saving it for the bombardment mission you assigned them to. Thus, they won't shoot very much or usually at very many ships.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 480
Page:   <<   < prev  13 14 15 [16] 17   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Surface Combat Sux Page: <<   < prev  13 14 15 [16] 17   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.926