something that must be fixed in CF:

[borner]

from another game.... DD's were in the same hex as the KB.  I am stunned.
 
 
 
 
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/27/42
Weather: Clear
Air attack on TF at 46,57
 
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 55
A6M3 Zero x 11
 
Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 15
F4F-4 Wildcat x 25
SBD Dauntless x 108
 
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 2 damaged
A6M3 Zero x 1 destroyed
 
Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat x 2 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 9 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 3 damaged
SBD Dauntless x 32 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 20 damaged
 
PO1 C.Nakasawa of DI-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 4
 
Japanese Ships
DD Isonami, Bomb hits 10,  on fire,  heavy damage
DD Matsukaze, Bomb hits 7,  on fire,  heavy damage
DD Yukaze, Bomb hits 1,  on fire,  heavy damage
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 46,57
 
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 37
A6M3 Zero x 7
 
Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 7
SBD Dauntless x 36
 
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 2 damaged
A6M3 Zero x 1 damaged
 
Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 3 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 damaged
SBD Dauntless x 9 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 6 damaged
 
LTJG G.Kurakane of AI-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 3
 
Japanese Ships
DD Yukaze, Bomb hits 3,  on fire,  heavy damage
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 52,58
 
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21
A6M3 Zero x 5
D3A Val x 58
B5N Kate x 45
 
Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 21
F4F-4 Wildcat x 58
 
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 7 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 2 damaged
A6M3 Zero x 2 destroyed
D3A Val x 19 destroyed
D3A Val x 25 damaged
B5N Kate x 23 destroyed
B5N Kate x 27 damaged
 
Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 6 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 5 damaged
 
LTJG W. Woollen of VF-42 is credited with kill number 3
 
Allied Ships
CV Yorktown, Bomb hits 7, Torpedo hits 1,  on fire
CA New Orleans, Bomb hits 3
DD Walke, Bomb hits 5,  on fire,  heavy damage
CV Lexington, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 1,  on fire
CA Chester, Bomb hits 2,  on fire
CA Chicago, Torpedo hits 1
CA Australia, Torpedo hits 1,  on fire
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 52,58
 
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6
D3A Val x 19
B5N Kate x 17
 
Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 10
F4F-4 Wildcat x 25
 
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed
D3A Val x 5 destroyed
D3A Val x 10 damaged
B5N Kate x 1 destroyed
B5N Kate x 13 damaged
 
Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 damaged
 
LTJG R. Stambook of VF-6 is credited with kill number 2
 
Allied Ships
CV Lexington, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 2,  on fire,  heavy damage
DD Walke, Torpedo hits 1,  on fire,  heavy damage
CV Yorktown, Bomb hits 3,  on fire
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 52,58
 
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6
D3A Val x 3
B5N Kate x 25
 
Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 10
F4F-4 Wildcat x 24
 
Japanese aircraft losses
D3A Val x 1 destroyed
D3A Val x 1 damaged
B5N Kate x 4 destroyed
B5N Kate x 17 damaged
 
Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat x 1 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 damaged
 
LTJG W. Holt of VF-6 is credited with kill number 2
 
Allied Ships
CV Yorktown, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1,  on fire
DD Farragut, Torpedo hits 1,  on fire,  heavy damage
CA New Orleans, Torpedo hits 2,  on fire,  heavy damage
CA Chester,  on fire
CV Lexington,  on fire,  heavy damage
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 52,58
 
Japanese aircraft
B5N Kate x 13
 
Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 20
F4F-4 Wildcat x 50
 
Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate x 17 destroyed
 
 
ENS R. Dibb of VF-3 is credited with kill number 8
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 46,57
 
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 68
A6M3 Zero x 8
 
Allied aircraft
SBD Dauntless x 11
 
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 2 damaged
 
Allied aircraft losses
SBD Dauntless x 9 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 1 damaged
 
ENS R.Nagashima of DI-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 4
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 46,57
 
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 68
A6M3 Zero x 8
 
Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 18
SBD Dauntless x 45
 
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 3 destroyed
A6M3 Zero x 1 destroyed
 
Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 11 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 damaged
SBD Dauntless x 9 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 9 damaged
 
LT P. Van der Linden of VF-8 is credited with kill number 5
 
LT P. Van der Linden of VF-8 is KILLED
 
Japanese Ships
DD Yukaze, Bomb hits 2,  on fire,  heavy damage
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 46,57
 
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 65
A6M3 Zero x 7
 
Allied aircraft
SBD Dauntless x 11
 
no losses
 
Allied aircraft losses
SBD Dauntless x 10 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 3 damaged
 
PO1 V.Fujiwara of AI-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 5
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 52,58
 
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 11
A6M3 Zero x 4
D3A Val x 35
B5N Kate x 24
 
Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 26
 
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero x 1 destroyed
D3A Val x 14 destroyed
D3A Val x 18 damaged
B5N Kate x 5 destroyed
 
Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 damaged
 
LT L. Heinzen of VF-8 is credited with kill number 5
 
Allied Ships
CL Phoenix, Bomb hits 1
CV Hornet, Bomb hits 4,  on fire
CV Enterprise
CA Canberra
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 52,58
 
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 9
B5N Kate x 3
 
Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 19
 
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed
B5N Kate x 3 destroyed
 
 
LTJG W. Collins of VF-8 is credited with kill number 5
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 52,58
 
Japanese aircraft
B5N Kate x 5
 
Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 26
 
Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate x 3 destroyed
 
 

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: borner

from another game.... DD's were in the same hex as the KB.  I am stunned.

Why? A hex is ( still ) 675 square miles in size. Given the ranges of most of these planes, search time is limited to minutes. Do you ignore what you HAVE found and search for something else, risking ditching the planes in the sea; OR , go with what you find first. Hobson's choice.

[tocaff]

I think people tend to think in terms of the USN SBD strike (Midway) that headed on the course of a lone IJN DD to see what was up ahead as they knew IJN CVs were somewhere out there.  This wasn't the norm as targets of opportunity got hit because what they were supposed to find wasn't there.  A TF is constantly on the move and as DEB said 675 sq mi can hide ships easily from an air search.  How far to either side of the aircraft do you think they could see with those binoculars? That's right only to the horizon so a small part of a hex is covered by the ac searching in it as it flies through it.

[HansBolter]

I have to go with Borner on this one. With 108 dive bombers pursuing a known carrier group it might be reasonable to expect a squadron, at most, to peel off and go for a lessor target of oppurtunity. It is patently unreasonable to expect the entire group of 108 planes to do so.

This result probably derives from the gamey, albiet necessary to correct a game design shortcoming, tactic of assigning carrier groups to tag along behind a small surface task force to prevent the inherent and otherwise unstoppable one hex reaction that occurs regardless of reaction settings. The bonus for the defender is that a strike may target that surface group instead of the carriers.

Now, it might be more reasonable to expect the planes to be misguided onto the SAG TF if it contained a primary target like a BB, but in the case sited it didn't even contain a cruiser. Nothing but lousy tin cans. Absolutely ridiculous!

[borner]

OK Tocaff, I'll bite.
 
You are trying to say that you are an air-group commander, you have multiple confirmed reports of 6 carriers in the area, you have plenty of fuel, and you hit 3 DD's? Also remember that there is a good chance a scout plane, or several, will be following the TF. It also does not have to do with the "hex", those are mainly just a map reference for the game itself, but the accuracy of the direction and speed of the spotted TF. in most cases these TF's would be close enough for the carriers to provide effective cover, especally seeing as the CAP is able to fly over them.
 
As for how far you can see? from 18k ft, clear or partly cloudy, and binoculars (or 108 pairs of them) ou can probably see more of the hex than you can't
 
 

[tocaff]

What are the weather conditions?  Is it clear?  Even if it's clear there can be some broken clouds. 

Did your intended target change it's course heading? 

Is it sunny?  If it is then there could be a glare off of the ocean's surface.

How far from your CV have you flown?  If your range is 4 hexes with a normal load and you are 4 hexes out then it's possible that you hit bingo fuel before spotting your intended target.

The only thing that I'm trying to point out is that the real world isn't a perfect place and things will & can go wrong (Murphy's Law).  Military ops in a fluid situation can drive a commander crazy.  I'm not saying that it doesn't drive me crazy too, just that it can happen.  Maybe the problem is that it happens to often.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

  Maybe the problem is that it happens to often.

Bingo! We have a winner.

It happens so often it drives this group of regular players to distraction!

[anarchyintheuk]

Agreed. I think they failed to make a robust enough targetting system because they didn't anticipate the effects of ubercap where everyone stuffs a hex full of tfs and (if evil) decoy tfs and didn't weight cvtfs for targetting accordingly.

Not knowing the formula/program for targetting, its more likely I don't know what I'm talking about.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

It happens so often it drives this group of regular players to distraction!

It may APPEAR to happen often, but it may not be as often as some of you think. I believe some people here have difficulty telling the difference between a reasonable occurance & an unreasonable occurance
( considering the information posted to date ). IF this is so, an objective judgement re the "RE: something that must be fixed in CF:" cannot be made by those people.

On a seperate note, one of the main problems with any game ( simulation or otherwise ) is the random chance factor ( Die Roll as was in the old FTF games ). However much the designer attempt's to "modify" the end result to reflect various circumstances & possible outcomes, it is always possible to "roll" a number so consistantly that the total outcome looked stupid.
In a board game I used to play, the best score was sometimes a "1" & sometimes a "10" ( such crafty design thought there ). I, however, usually manged to roll a high number when a low one was required and a low one when a high one was required. This always scuppered any tactical or strategic gain I had engineered for myself. That was unlucky.
I Can't blame an AI ( thus programmer ) for that. [:(]
What I am trying to say here, is that some people are just unlucky. This needs to be considered too.

As usual, the only way to sort this all out is to have some designer input.
( I know, little chance of THAT occuring ! )

[borner]

yes, it does happen too often. Most everyone knows that if you put a group of BB's out there close to a CV group, there is a good chance they will draw some of the strikes intended for the CV group. Things like this are not luck, weather, or aliens coming down to redirect the strikes. It is a shortcoming in the system, and something that needs to NOT be repeated in CF IMO.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: borner

yes, it does happen too often.

It's a view and you are entitled to it , but personally I think the evidence provided to date is not good enough to come to that conclusion.

Most everyone knows that if you put a group of BB's out there close to a CV group, there is a good chance they will draw some of the strikes intended for the CV group.

And this was a tactic used during the war ( more usually with CVE's ) because observers & pilots can make errors. [8D]

Things like this are not luck, weather, or aliens coming down to redirect the strikes.

As stated above, your example is an historical occurance, not a game error. If you think weather does not have a bearing on these things you are indeed deluded. As for the latter - keep it real ! If you don't agree with the alternate views expressed here use some facts & logic & prove us wrong. [:-]

It is a shortcoming in the system, and something that needs to NOT be repeated in CF IMO.

As stated above, it's a view and you are entitled to it I guess, but personally I think the evidence provided to date is not good enough to come to that conclusion.

[borner]

DEB - read the post before making a boarderline insult. I said that the weather was within the outline ToCaff laid out. Clearly, bad weather makes an impact on target sighting. Also, we are talking about the workings of a game system, not historical practice. If you like to spend months playing a game to have such a one-sided outcome happen, I personally am happy for you.
 
To your other point, I do not think on any posts in this forum I have smashed people with alternate views. If you wish to take my comment as somewhat sarcastic, that is ok, as that was the intent.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: borner

DEB - read the post before making a boarderline insult.

I did. And you insult me by saying I did not. If you meant something other than how I understood it then I have to tell you that I am not psychic! Your statement was ambiguously worded to say the least.

I said that the weather was within the outline ToCaff laid out.

Your statement lacked the appropriate words to give this concise immpression. You need to take more care with your statements otherwise you will always be misunderstood.

Clearly, bad weather makes an impact on target sighting.

Good. I am glad we agree on something.

Also, we are talking about the workings of a game system, not historical practice.

The game system is SUPPOSED to be be based on historical practise/ realities, therefore this point is completley invalid.

If you like to spend months playing a game to have such a one-sided outcome happen, I personally am happy for you.

If you don't like the "one-sided" results that get thrown at you by the game system, then you should not play the game. Each point posted to date as an example of poor rules was a possible result of the circumstances of the situation and most certainly does NOT prove the rules are wrong. If any better evidence is posted then I may reconsider.

To your other point, I do not think on any posts in this forum I have smashed people with alternate views.

Where did I say that or anything that could be construed as that? I think you read too much " between the lines" here. Paranoia?

If you wish to take my comment as somewhat sarcastic, that is ok, as that was the intent.

Sarcasm is the lowest ( pits ) form of humour. It is also the first level of insult. If you use it you should not be suprised by the result it evokes.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: DEB

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

It happens so often it drives this group of regular players to distraction!

It may APPEAR to happen often, but it may not be as often as some of you think. I believe some people here have difficulty telling the difference between a reasonable occurance & an unreasonable occurance
( considering the information posted to date ). IF this is so, an objective judgement re the "RE: something that must be fixed in CF:" cannot be made by those people.

Has it truly NOT occurred to you that "what is being posted here" is a very small smattering of the overall experiences of the players in question?
We are NOT obliged in any way, shape or form to present the totality of all available evidence to "prove" our point to you!

Discounting, and belittling the opinions of some very experienced players merely because they haven't provided YOU with sufficient evidence to sway your opinion seems to make the argument all about you, which I am sorry to have to inform you is not.

We need only to present our opinions based on our experiences. It is the developers we are "reaching out to" here, NOT you.

p.s. Do you have to work at being obnoxious, or does it just come naturally?

[fuelli]

Just to confuse things a littlebit more I have a completely different approach to the subject: I think it is absolutely correct that carrier strikes (or even all strike that may occur) can be mislead by wrong intel. The problem with UV is that there is too much too precise intel given to the player (but maybe not considdered by the code) that gives the player the impression that the strike should have hit the right target and that something is wrong with game. Having just finished "shattered sword" I think that correct intel is more the exception than the usual rule.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: fuelli

Just to confuse things a littlebit more I have a completely different approach to the subject: I think it is absolutely correct that carrier strikes (or even all strike that may occur) can be mislead by wrong intel. The problem with UV is that there is too much too precise intel given to the player (but maybe not considdered by the code) that gives the player the impression that the strike should have hit the right target and that something is wrong with game. Having just finished "shattered sword" I think that correct intel is more the exception than the usual rule.

A very very good point. I am glad to see that some people here are capable of applying a little thought & logic even though others are not.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: fuelli

Just to confuse things a littlebit more I have a completely different approach to the subject: I think it is absolutely correct that carrier strikes (or even all strike that may occur) can be mislead by wrong intel.

I agree, although historically not too many CV strikes didn't attack a CV if one was targetted.

The problem with UV is that there is too much too precise intel given to the player (but maybe not considdered by the code) that gives the player the impression that the strike should have hit the right target and that something is wrong with game.

Not knowing the code that's speculation at best. Even if correct, I don't count reports of "CVCVCACACA" or "CACACACACA", etc. given to the players as being particularly precise. Both sides were good at identifying carriers when and where they existed.

Having just finished "shattered sword" I think that correct intel is more the exception than the usual rule.

If correct intel means exact of numbers of ships, speed, direction and distance, I'd agree. But the intel during the battle, inaccurate as it was, was still sufficent to allow all of the CV attacks by planes launched from Midway, Yorktown, Enterprise, Hiryu and part of Hornet's to get to their CV target.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Has it truly NOT occurred to you that "what is being posted here" is a very small smattering of the overall experiences of the players in question?

It's not relevant. Some will post, some will not. The balance of the view's expressed to date is approx. 50/50. By and large those who feel change IS req'd are more likely to post. Therefore of those who do not, the majority are LIKELY to be against the motion.

We are NOT obliged in any way, shape or form to present the totality of all available evidence to "prove" our point to you!

Have I said that? I said the point had not been proven to me. By that I mean that the several people who have given reasonable reasons why the "unusual results" may not be unreasonable ( of which I am one ), still need to be convinced.

Discounting, and belittling the opinions of some very experienced players merely because they haven't provided YOU with sufficient evidence to sway your opinion seems to make the argument all about you, which I am sorry to have to inform you is not.

This statement is a gross hypocracy. Belittling the views of your fellow posters is a common feature of your posts ( as herein ). We all of us here spend time discounting other peoples views. As stated previously I never said I ( as in Royal I ) was the one who needed be convinced, only that I was not and that better evidence was required before I would be. To suggust so is a gross misinterpretation of what I said and it reflects your low opinion of me and my points of view as well as compounding the hypocracy.

We need only to present our opinions based on our experiences. It is the developers we are "reaching out to" here, NOT you.

You can't seriously believe that the developers take that much notice do you? Even if they did the balance of opinion re the point in discussion is split fairly evenly, therefore they are not likely to change anything.

p.s. Do you have to work at being obnoxious, or does it just come naturally?

Again, such a hypocrite. Discuss the point in question, read the points more carefully and more open mindedly and keep your "obnoxious" views to yourself. [:-]

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Not knowing the code that's speculation at best. Even if correct, I don't count reports of "CVCVCACACA" or "CACACACACA", etc. given to the players as being particularly precise. Both sides were good at identifying carriers when and where they existed.

I agree it's speculation, but that's all everyone is doing here. Some spectulation is however more informed than other speculation.

If correct intel means exact of numbers of ships, speed, direction and distance, I'd agree. But the intel during the battle, inaccurate as it was, was still sufficent to allow all of the CV attacks by planes launched from Midway, Yorktown, Enterprise, Hiryu and part of Hornet's to get to their CV target.

But that's only one battle, and it happens to be the one that the US Navy had a very high amount of intel on due to the code being broken. That makes it dicey example.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: DEB

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Not knowing the code that's speculation at best. Even if correct, I don't count reports of "CVCVCACACA" or "CACACACACA", etc. given to the players as being particularly precise. Both sides were good at identifying carriers when and where they existed.

I agree it's speculation, but that's all everyone is doing here. Some spectulation is however more informed than other speculation.

If correct intel means exact of numbers of ships, speed, direction and distance, I'd agree. But the intel during the battle, inaccurate as it was, was still sufficent to allow all of the CV attacks by planes launched from Midway, Yorktown, Enterprise, Hiryu and part of Hornet's to get to their CV target.

But that's only one battle, and it happens to be the one that the US Navy had a very high amount of intel on due to the code being broken. That makes it dicey example.

I was only replying to Fuelli's statement about Shattered Sword (Midway) not any of the other carrier battles. Code intelligence did not predict where KB was, it only narrowed the area. Tactical recon still had to find it, identify it and broadcast it. Failure to amplify those intial reports was a serious failure, but one that was rectified.

Take Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz, Phillipine Seas then. Besides CarDiv 5 incorrectly identifying and whacking the Neosho, I can't think of another example where a sctf or other non-cvtf was incorrectly identified as a cvtf and attacked or, if a cvtf was correctly identified, the strike force failed to reach it.


Edited because it just reads better this way. Trust me.