Surface Combat

[The Gnome]

I sent the Prince of Wales and Repulse plus escorts up the coast to hit the invasion north of Singapore. Commanding it was the most aggressive admiral I could find.

They arrived on target and after a very, almost suspiciously brief battle with the surface combat TF guarding the invasion fleet, they made it amongst the transports.

The PoW and Repulse proceeded to completely tear into the PG's and MSW's. The CL's split their fire between transports and the PG's and MSW's (leaning more towards the combatants).

I wish I was at my PC with the results so I could post them, but a BB and a BC should NOT be riddling MSW's and PG's with their 14" and 15" guns when loaded transports are sitting there for the taking.

I ran this scenario over and over, making sure I changed a little something each time so the results were recalculated, and this was more or less the result each time.

To this I give a hearty "What the heck"?

[Tetsuo]

Hi, escort vessels attached to transport TFs will try to screen the transports and draw fire, ie putting themselves between the enemy warships and the soft APs. This usually means most escorts sunk in face of a powerful surface TF as they fight to the last man protecting the cargo.

[ChezDaJez]

Hi, escort vessels attached to transport TFs will try to screen the transports and draw fire, ie putting themselves between the enemy warships and the soft APs. This usually means most escorts sunk in face of a powerful surface TF as they fight to the last man protecting the cargo.

Except capital ships normally should engage the enemy's high value units and leave the enemy escorts to their secondary guns and their own escorts, especially when you consider how much damage a MSW is going to inflict on a BB.

Chez

[MarcA]

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

I sent the Prince of Wales and Repulse plus escorts up the coast to hit the invasion north of Singapore. Commanding it was the most aggressive admiral I could find.

They arrived on target and after a very, almost suspiciously brief battle with the surface combat TF guarding the invasion fleet, they made it amongst the transports.

The PoW and Repulse proceeded to completely tear into the PG's and MSW's. The CL's split their fire between transports and the PG's and MSW's (leaning more towards the combatants).

I wish I was at my PC with the results so I could post them, but a BB and a BC should NOT be riddling MSW's and PG's with their 14" and 15" guns when loaded transports are sitting there for the taking.

I ran this scenario over and over, making sure I changed a little something each time so the results were recalculated, and this was more or less the result each time.

To this I give a hearty "What the heck"?

This is normal behaviour. You will find your planes will also proceed to attack the highest value vessel it can find rather than the transports. It is as though all allied air groups and TF's are imbued with the Japanese ideology that it is better to fight a strong but honourable opponent, even if if the odds are suicidal, than to attack unarmed tranports which is an honourless battle, even though it could win the battle.

However, saying this, I believe there must also be a routine which assumes surface combat TF's in the same hex and transport escorts try to interpose themselves between the enemy and the transports, this is just an assumption though.

It would be nice to have a switch on TF's and air groups where you can indicate primary targets for naval attacks, i.e. military or transport.

[Tetsuo]

Chez >> I agree completely with your point. But the game is what it is. [;)]

mantill >> The allied kamikaze doctrine of hitting the 240 plane CAP KB instead of the 3 divisions in transports annoys me to no end. Chosing a type of target is a great idea, warship or transport. Im guessing the Japanese players would enjoy this even more later in the war.

[Sardaukar]

It can be annoying. And since targetting routine for air attacks usually go for highest-value TFs too, it can be frustrating to see your LBA to attack TFs several hexes away when enemy is amphibiously landing next door ! [X(][:'(]

[Feinder]

What's really funny is when you get message for 18x SBDs from Suva AF that "cannot locate target" when when there is an invasion TF disgorging 60k troops in the harbor.

[:D]

-F-

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

What's really funny is when you get message for 18x SBDs from Suva AF that "cannot locate target" when when there is an invasion TF disgorging 60k troops in the harbor.

[:D]

-F-

There's some pain I'm all too familiar with.

[Sardaukar]

Sometimes I think there are some sort of "Union Rules" to prevent air attacks against TFs in same hex !! [:'(][:D]

"Sorry, Commander, we can anly attack that Kido Butai 6 hex away, not those unarmed transports in our bay....see page 67, section 1a in this Air Crew International Union Handbook !"...[:D][:D]

[Nemo121]

Or even better yet the way in which your strikes from 60 miles away can't find the target while your Bettys flying from 900 miles away pop up, spot the target and plaster it with bombs...
 
OR the way in which your crack KB crew have an American CV TF at their mercy within their torpedo-carrying range and, instead, decide to fly against a few DMS and a CA half way to the CV... *Happened to me in my new PBEM* [8|] Scratch one almost perfect ambush [8|]

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Or even better yet the way in which your strikes from 60 miles away can't find the target while your Bettys flying from 900 miles away pop up, spot the target and plaster it with bombs...

OR the way in which your crack KB crew have an American CV TF at their mercy within their torpedo-carrying range and, instead, decide to fly against a few DMS and a CA half way to the CV... *Happened to me in my new PBEM* [8|] Scratch one almost perfect ambush [8|]

Or how about an AO and a DD? It happened at the Coral Sea. [:D] Instead of finding things wrong with the system, try to explain away the odd occurances. That's what I do. I find the game much more enjoyable that way, and can explain a great deal of the odd occurances.

[saj42]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
Or how about an AO and a DD? It happened at the Coral Sea. [:D] Instead of finding things wrong with the system, try to explain away the odd occurances. That's what I do. I find the game much more enjoyable that way, and can explain a great deal of the odd occurances.

I too do this - faulty intel, bad navigating, ships moving (OK I realise this doesn't pass muster when dealing with an amph TF in the same hex as your airfield[X(]).

If IRL in 42-45 they had the same expectation of accuracy and control, that some expect of this game - then the course of the war would have changed dramatically and we might not be playing a game that was so predictable (and maybe boring). Thats just my opinion.

BUT I would like to see the ability to set target priorities.

[Feinder]

But attacking an AO+DD should be the dramatic exception (as it was historically), not the expected outcome, such as it is in WitP.
 
I shouldn't have to reduce the range of my SBDs to 2, to guarentee that they'll use 1000# bombs vs. transports; because if I leave them at range of 4, they'll launch vs. a bait TF with a bunch of CAs where th 500# bombs won't do anything.
 
-F-

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

But attacking an AO+DD should be the dramatic exception (as it was historically), not the expected outcome, such as it is in WitP.

Yeah, I agree with you.

ORIGINAL: Feinder
I shouldn't have to reduce the range of my SBDs to 2, to guarentee that they'll use 1000# bombs vs. transports; because if I leave them at range of 4, they'll launch vs. a bait TF with a bunch of CAs where th 500# bombs won't do anything.

-F-

It's interesting that you say that. I never even think of sending out "bait" TFs. Every TF I send out is for a specific reason. Fortunately (for my opponent, at any rate) the reason is never as bait.

[The Gnome]

What's the policy on game updates?  Are they changing things still, or just fixing bugs?

Also one other quirk I found between the last release and this one is the surface battles are broken off significantly more quickly.  Under 1.8.0.2 there were a lot more rounds of combat.  This had two effects, one is that the capital ships blew through the screen and then at least had targeted some of the transports.

The second spin off was more chances for the random choice of target to select something you wanted taken down.   Lots more damage spread around.

[Xargun]

ORIGINAL: Feinder
I shouldn't have to reduce the range of my SBDs to 2, to guarentee that they'll use 1000# bombs vs. transports; because if I leave them at range of 4, they'll launch vs. a bait TF with a bunch of CAs where th 500# bombs won't do anything.

-F-

True.. but I never have my TBs (Kates) set at anything greater than 4 range, unless bombing land targets... When my Kates fly into harms way I want to make sure they are using torpedoes...

It would be nice to be able to give specific targets for ships like happened in history - but we have to work with what we got... I would also be happy just for a switch to select primary targetsbetween merchies and warships... I don't mind lossing 40 DBs to enemy CAP or flak when I see 250 kg bombs hammering into cargo laden AKs or APs - not bouncing off BB armor... May not be worth it in VPs, but definately better overall... A BB can bombard my port, but it can't capture it.. the damn marines can...

Xargun

[wdolson]

This thread has split into two issues. The first was about what ships will be engaged in surface combat. The second is about what targets aircraft will attack.

I assume the PoW and Repulse attack was on transports and escorts in the same hex. I believe the attack in the escorts is by design. There are many cases of escorts engaging a surface fleet and the surface fleet never getting to the non-surface ships they were engaging.

In the first night engagement at Guadalcanal, the US threw every escort it could into the fight at Savo Island to protect the transports. The Japanese were forced to break off before they got to the transports. The Battle of Surgio Strait was another situation where the escorts were arrayed to stop a surface fleet from engaging the transports. An example of the lopsided battle you talk about is the Battle Off Samar where a strong Japanese battleship fleet engaged an escort carrier task group. The battleships were able to throw shells at the carriers and hit them, but the escorts kept the cruisers and destroyers engaged. That was probably a more lopsided engagement than what you're describing.

Bill

[ctangus]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

This thread has split into two issues. The first was about what ships will be engaged in surface combat. The second is about what targets aircraft will attack.

I assume the PoW and Repulse attack was on transports and escorts in the same hex. I believe the attack in the escorts is by design. There are many cases of escorts engaging a surface fleet and the surface fleet never getting to the non-surface ships they were engaging.

In the first night engagement at Guadalcanal, the US threw every escort it could into the fight at Savo Island to protect the transports. The Japanese were forced to break off before they got to the transports. The Battle of Surgio Strait was another situation where the escorts were arrayed to stop a surface fleet from engaging the transports. An example of the lopsided battle you talk about is the Battle Off Samar where a strong Japanese battleship fleet engaged an escort carrier task group. The battleships were able to throw shells at the carriers and hit them, but the escorts kept the cruisers and destroyers engaged. That was probably a more lopsided engagement than what you're describing.

Bill

I had a very similar thought. I can think of only one surface battle in the Pacific where surface ships were intercepted by escorts & still managed to hit transports - Sunda Strait. At Balikpapan there were escorts present, but they were off chasing a sub contact when the US destroyers hit the transports. It's possible I'm missing one or two.

In addition to the battles you mention I can quickly think of a couple others where transports got through unscathed: Cape Esperance, 2nd Battle of Guadalcanal.

[String]

As always, lack of success does not mean the game is broken.

[The Gnome]

The other issue is how much is enough?

Those must have been pretty tough minesweepers then because each took at least 4 14" or 15" hits, plus numerous 6" to 8" and my ships kept piling it on. That's just silly, a single 14" shell hitting a ship that size would break its back.

Also this encounter was run multiple times with the attacker having overwhelming odds in its favor. Each time there were negligible results.

BB
BC
CL x2
DD x5-6

versus
PG x2
MSW x3-4
AP/AK x10-15

Each time the result was a PG and 1-2 MSW sunk, and at best a heavily damaged AP/AK or two.

So this is, in historical terms, a reasonable outcome? The distressing part is the result hardly varying much at all.

I really have to email the combat results I ran to my work PC so I can post them, but the damage results were the quirky thing. The damage was always piled up on one target, then one or two targets took a handful of hits, then another couple of targets would take one or two.

There was never on the 5 or 6 runs of this encounter a different variation. One target always seemed to attract 80-90% of the damage.