Needs a Patch

[SuluSea]

I realize this is a effort in futility but FWIW.

ORIGINAL: Ike99




Obviously no one here is a military analyst and some are genuinely struggling to understand the LL performance, or lack there of at Java sea and the Long Lance in general.

Allow me to help you.[8D]

I´ll try to be as simple as possible so everyone on this thread can comprehend.

If you take an empty bottle and put it under the water with cap up and squeeze it you will see bubbles coming out. If you repeat this little experiment in the dark you will not see any bubbles coming out because your in the dark.

Everyone with me so far? If you can´t comprehend this avoid reading the rest. That´s probably like half the people here.[:D]

A little bit on the condescending side for me but I'll give you one more reply before I put you on ignore.

I'm no military analyst but lets face it you're obviously not one either.

quote:

SuluSea- Ike keeps mentioning Tassafronga, Savo and the earlier battles in the Solomons.

Gee, I don´t know Sula. Maybe because that´s the time period Uncommon Valor covers?

The two battles that seem to be your calling card happened in less than 90 days, other naval battles happened in that span were the Japanese had not performed so well. If you read Guadalcanal by Richard Frank you'd know how dysfunctional the Allies were at Savo and wouldn't be giving all the credit to Japanese night fighting or LL superiority.

These battles also happened in " the time period Uncommon Valor covers."

Battle of Empress Augusta Bay the IJN got beat like a drum, after a few days of reading your one sided rhetoric
I'm sure you have a good reason why they are on the bottom.




What's the score at Vella Gulf?
What happened to the vaunted LL or superior night fighting? LMAO, what a joke.[:D]




November of '43 at Cape St. George, what happened to the night fighting and vaunted LL? Shouldn't the Japs be getting better more seasoned or are all the seasoned Sailors in the IJN shark bait?

Another rout by the United States Navy.



And as already mentioned the Battle of Cape Esperance , I wonder why you keep forgetting this battle...Maybe it doesn't help further your agenda?





Enjoy It!!!!!!!!!

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

I´ve been running some test to compare the night fighting abilities of the Allies against the Japanese. What I find pretty much proves the game is in serious need of another patch....

In this first test I set up the 1st battle of Savo Island with the editor using the exact ships and commanders involved and fought the battle over and over....

What you will find by doing this is the Allies will 9/10 times best the Japanese. The Allies will almost every time out shell hit the Japanese by a 2-1 margin and the Japanese will on average score less than, that is LESS THAN 2 torpedo hits per battle and sometimes none. At most an EXTREMELY rare 3.

Most times with just one Long Lance torpedo hitting a ship.

Out of all the times I´ve ran this battle only one ship, the sole Japanese destroyer has been sunk.

Now this is with Japanese ships with night EXP in the 80´s and 90´s and Tanaka with a surface rating of 87 going against Allied ships with surface ratings in the 30´s and 40´s and Allied Commander Crutchley with a surface rating of 45!

No way is this even slightly close to the historical outcome of this engagement, that being a victory for the Japanese. No matter how many times I run this battle I can not even slightly approach the historical outcome of this battle.

The Long Lance torpedo is modeled far, far, FAR, FAR

FAR

...too inaccurate and needs to have its accuracy rating adjusted beyond any doubt. It is simply not accurate enough to be of any decisive use, even when being used by the best Japanese ships with the best commanders going against the worst of the Allies.

There were four major battles around Savo Island and the historical record speaks for itself. In the battle of Tassafaronga between Savo and Guadalcanal, 8 Japanese destroyers took on 5, that´s right, FIVE Allied cruisers and sunk one cruiser and severely damaged 3 others so bad they were out for 9 months. Done with the Long Lance.

I don´t have to set this last battle up and test this one because I know what will happen in the game. The Allied cruisers will turn the Japanese destroyers to flaming scrap metal inside of 3 seconds and even if the Japanese destroyers do get a Long Lance attack off to start the battle everyone will miss or at most they will score one hit and then be turned into flaming scrap metal inside 3 seconds.

The game needs a Long Lance accuracy patch because the in game night fighting capabilities of the Japanese do not even come close to reflecting their historical capabilities with the Long Lance.

This inaccuracy of the Long Lance ruins the whole
interesting situation that existed for quite sometime in this theatre where the sea control changed every 12 hours depending on if it was daylight or dark.

There is no point in having great night fighting EXP ships and surface leaders if they can´t hit anything with the Long Lance.

Needs patched Mr. Mike Wood.

Mr. Ike99

If you spent 1/100th of the time in the editor ... that you spend stiring the pot. You could have your fixation as reality in the game. The editor exists just for these reasons!

I invite you to use it!


Sincerely,

Chandra

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


Mr. Ike99

If you spent 1/100th of the time in the editor ... that you spend stiring the pot. You could have your fixation as reality in the game. The editor exists just for these reasons!

I invite you to use it!


Sincerely,

Chandra

Although I hate the idea of "agreeing" with Ike99 on anything ( considering most of his views on here), I have to agree with him here by disagreeing with you Chandra.

The UV editor allows many things to be adjusted, but you CANNOT change the attack values of any of the weapon types.

Ike99 could make many various adjustments to increase Japan's chances of winning, however, adjustments to the Long Lance Torpedo ( his rant here), are not possible via the UV editor.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

I don´t what your range was, you and Tocaff didn´t say but I´m thinking at least 10,000 yards or less? These people would have been drubbed out of the Japanese Navy Joe and these are typical results.

I just couldn't let things pass with an outrageous statement like this floating out there.

Just because a torpedo is capable of running 10,000 yards or more doesn't mean it will have more than a prayers chance in hell of ever hitting anything at that range.

There is a simple equation at work here that seems to escape you Ike.

The longer the distance = the longer the running time = the greater chance of avoidance = the less of a chance of a hit.

Have you ever played a submarine simulation with the settings on maximum realism and attempted to hit fast moving ships from that kind of range.

You must not have.

If you want even a realitve assurance of a hit you maneuver to within 3000 yards or less and preferably 2000 yards or less!

The LLs fortes were it's fast rate of travel and it's very large warhead....not it's incredible, but mostly useless long range.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Ike99

I don´t what your range was, you and Tocaff didn´t say but I´m thinking at least 10,000 yards or less? These people would have been drubbed out of the Japanese Navy Joe and these are typical results.

... Have you ever played a submarine simulation with the settings on maximum realism and attempted to hit fast moving ships from that kind of range.

Sounds like the Silent Hunter series: in a daylight underwater attack, I would try to close to less than 1,000 yards so that the target couldn't manuever away from the fish.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Ike99

I don´t what your range was, you and Tocaff didn´t say but I´m thinking at least 10,000 yards or less? These people would have been drubbed out of the Japanese Navy Joe and these are typical results.

... Have you ever played a submarine simulation with the settings on maximum realism and attempted to hit fast moving ships from that kind of range.

Sounds like the Silent Hunter series: in a daylight underwater attack, I would try to close to less than 1,000 yards so that the target couldn't manuever away from the fish.

Silent Hunter indeed and it's ancient predesessor Silent Service.

I'm going on memory here from a recent reading that I can check the reference on this weekend but I seem to recall that the Japanese after action analysis of their incredible failure to hit with 92 torpodoes in the action listed somehwere above came to a determination that one of the primary contributing factors was the release from too great a range........somehwere in the neighborhood of 10,000 yards...........[;)]

[tocaff]

Actually torps were easier to spot at night because of the phospherescent (SP?) trail they left in the water.  Many torp attacks were made with the intention of covering a force that was breaking off combat.  You tried to prevent the enemy from chasing you by breaking up his formation as avoidance of fish became the #1 priority.  I don't know if the Japanese used this tactic around the Solomons though.  

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Actually torps were easier to spot at night because of the phospherescent (SP?) trail they left in the water ...

 

That trail would result from the torp stirring up all the phosphorescent algae in the water, but I don't know if the effect was immediate.  
[/quote]

[Big B]

It's not as inaccurate as you guys think...

Battle day/nt %hits # fired # hits # ships hit

BadungSt n 12.500 8 1 1
JavaSea d 1.800 164 3 2
Exeter d .25 4 1 1
SundaSt n 13.500 38 5 2
Savo n 13.100 61 7 3
Blue n 25.000 4 1 1
CapeEsp n 0.000 2 0 0
1stGcnl n 12.500 48 6 5
2ndGcnl n 3.900 53 2 2
Tfrnga n 12.700 47 6 4
Komdrski d 0.000 42 0 0
KulaGlf n 8.300 36 3 1
Kmbngra n 6.300 80 3 3
VellGlf n 0.000 8 0 0
Horaniu n 0.000 26 0 0
VellLav n 4.100 48 2 2
EmprAug n 2.200 44 1 1
CapeStG n 0.000 9 0 0
Biak n 0.000 42 0 0
Surigao n 0.000 20 0 0
Samar d 0.000 7 0 0
OrmocBy n 25.000 4 1 1

About 20 of these are types other than Type 93a long lance. This list includes Sunda Strait despite the fact that the Perth and Houston entered the battle essentially without ammunition, and Exeter, despite the fact that she was a fleeing cripple at the time of the engagement and dead in the water from a shell hit when she was torpedoed.

The modal hit rate is 0%. The median hit rate is 3.9%. The mean hit rate is 6.7% for all engagements.

At night, the modal hit rate is 0%. The median hit rate is 5.2%. The mean hit rate is 7.7%.

ORIGINAL: Ike99

I´ve been running some test to compare the night fighting abilities of the Allies against the Japanese. What I find pretty much proves the game is in serious need of another patch....

In this first test I set up the 1st battle of Savo Island with the editor using the exact ships and commanders involved and fought the battle over and over....

What you will find by doing this is the Allies will 9/10 times best the Japanese. The Allies will almost every time out shell hit the Japanese by a 2-1 margin and the Japanese will on average score less than, that is LESS THAN 2 torpedo hits per battle and sometimes none. At most an EXTREMELY rare 3. ]

ORIGINAL: RGIJN

Agree utmost! The surface battle engine lacks many improvements. There is nothing I need to add to ILCKs statement.

just: PATCH IT!

ORIGINAL: ILCK

Yeah the Allied ships seem to win surface battles way too often and with stunning disparity in hits and losses.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Big B


... The modal hit rate is 0%. The median hit rate is 3.9%. The mean hit rate is 6.7% for all engagements.

At night, the modal hit rate is 0%. The median hit rate is 5.2%. The mean hit rate is 7.7%.

It's been a long time since I had a statistics course and I can't remember what the mean, median and mode all mean, although one of them is the average (mean?).

Can you explain these results?

[Big B]

It's just a mathematical breakdown of % of hits obtained for shots fired.

The average hit rate being about a 7% chance of a hit as actually occured.

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Big B


... The modal hit rate is 0%. The median hit rate is 3.9%. The mean hit rate is 6.7% for all engagements.

At night, the modal hit rate is 0%. The median hit rate is 5.2%. The mean hit rate is 7.7%.

It's been a long time since I had a statistics course and I can't remember what the mean, median and mode all mean, although one of them is the average (mean?).

Can you explain these results?

[decaro]

So a 7.7 % average means 8 out of 100 torpedoes hit their mark, or roughly 1 in 10.

[Big B]

Loosely - yup.

Sometimes none, sometimes one...you get the picture.

In this context, there was a study I read specifically about the Long Lance. When it was being developed, Japanese torpedo doctrine assumed a hit rate of something like 14%-18% to be a battle winner, to be followed up by heavy surface gunnery. With this - the surface fleet could reasonably win a major surface battle (read: repeat Tsushima) against it's potential contemporary enemies.

However, the 7% actual hit rate fell far short of the theory, and therefor, impressive a torpedo though it was, it failed in it's expected design and tactical doctrine.

B

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

So a 7.7 % average means 8 out of 100 torpedoes hit their mark, or roughly 1 in 10.