Surface battles comments

Post bug reports here.

Moderator: Tankerace

Post Reply
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

Surface battles comments

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

Complaint:
Surface battles occur too rarely in UV.

Side notes:
This is especially bad for the Jap player, as it's one of the areas where they (Japs) have the advantage (at least early in the game).

Also, when battles do occur, rarely I have seen the Japs open up with deadly "torpedo barrage" - tactics they were well known for.

Assumptions and possible solutions:

First - differences between sub attacks and surface fights (the way I understand they happen in 1.20)

If I understand it right (and I may be wrong since no definitive explanation from Matrix stuff was given, IIRC) - SEVERAL sub attack checks are made each turn (both day and night), so if your surface or transport force is passing thru hexes A, B, C, D, E, F and G in the given turn, and enemy subs are waiting in, say, hexes C and F, sub attacks MAY (or may not) happen in both of those hexes. Subs do NOT need to be in the hex where your TF is ending the turn to attack you. Which, if true, is a good thing.

Now, surface battles are entirely different matter - for surface duel to occur, basically BOTH surface TFs have to END their movement phase in the same hex, which is extremely rare. Only exemption from this rule is when enemy force bombards your base, and there is surface TF nearby with React to enemy orders - they'll try to close in to bombardment force but this is also very rare occurence.
Two surface forces, if I am right, may pass thru same hex in the same turn, and battle will not happen. It's OK if battle does not happen EVERY time (30 miles is a lot of distance and they may pass unnoticed), but at least sometime it should happen.

So, my point is (assuming my above assumptions are right, which maybe they are not) - why would not surface battles be resolved in the same manner as sub attacks, ie. with SEVERAL checks during the turn?

I believe this would give us more realistic results.

On a sidenote - I believe Jap destroyers and their torpedo attacks should be deadlier, and (at least) disrupt the enemy before the gun duel begins (it's not easy to cross the enemy T when you're avoiding like 30-some torps in the water).

Oleg
John Lansford
Posts: 2664
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am

Post by John Lansford »

Historically, though, most naval battles in the South Pacific took place around bases (or potential bases). Very few battles occurred when one side intercepted the other one in the open ocean; the Java Sea battle was one, but not many others.

As for the idea that the IJN torpedoes are not dangerous enough, I disagree. No treaty class cruiser was sunk by one Long Lance torpedo; it always took at least two LL torpedoes to sink one. Cruisers could be crippled by one torpedo hit, and my experience with them in UV tells me that their damage potential is about right. Destroyers, now, were at risk if hit by one of these big weapons, but so were IJN DD's when the USN torpedoes actually managed to hit one. The IJN appears to be quite accurate and willing to fire Long Lance torpedoes at my ships as well, although I'm not exactly sure what constitutes a "salvo" of torpedoes for the IJN. Some of those big IJN CA's have eight torpedo tubes on each side of the ship, plus reloading capabilities. The CL's Oi and Kitakami have 40 (!!) Long Lance torpedo tubes in amidship mounts!
wpurdom
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Decatur, GA, USA

Long Lance

Post by wpurdom »

I'm not sure whether the Long Lance in general is correctly modeled or not, in general, but what doesn't seem modeled is their opportunity to get in a salvo of Long Lances from a distance before, or even without detection. Without pouring through Morrison, two examples of what's missing comes to mind - the successive waves of torpedo attacks at Savo Island that took the Americans by surprise and doomed them before shooting started, and the encounter that took place the night before or the night after the Battle of Empress Augusta Bay where two Japanese DD's launched torpedoes and scored hits and then retired without being shot at without the Americans even realizing they had been attacked by naval torpedoes.
Without this effect being modeled, it may be that the 1.2 revision has made it too hard for a small Japanese DD force to inflict the sort of damage they did on several occasions in late '42 and early '43. The criticism that little forces got too many gunfire shots in surface battles was probably correct, but they weren't (at least if they were the IJN in '42 or early '43) getting too many opportunities at launching torpedoes. It seems to me that if the Japs get the first shot, they should usually be able to salvo most of their (unreloaded) torpedoes.
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

.........

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

John, wpurdom basically said what I wanted to say so I wont repeat it...

I'm not saying that Long Lance as a weapon is modelled inaccuratelly, I am saying Japanese DDs are tactically not using it nearly enough as often as they should, they don't seem to make massive launches as they did historically, and when they do use it, they don't hit their targets as often as they should. When they do hit, though, I don't complain to the amount of damage LL produces to target.

Still, this is just a side note to my original post, I'd really like someone from Matrix to think about my main point in the original post (as well as Long Lance sidenote).

Oleg
User avatar
Erik Rutins
Posts: 39650
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Contact:

Response...

Post by Erik Rutins »

Oleg,

Our internal discussions since v1.00 have also hit upon this point and we have had a few debates on it. I think a majority of us would like to see same hex interceptions as a possibility for Surface TFs. At the same time, as far as historical modeling the coastal / base - oriented model is pretty much right on. I think adding this in would be great, but it is most likely to be in WitP rather than UV.

My personal wish list includes a chance (even if relatively remote) of same hex and adjacent hex interceptions as well as a "follow enemy TF" command that would be subject to various commander / weather / radar checks as to its possibility of success. Anyway, thanks for the input, the suggestion is well taken.

Regarding the long lance, my own analysis during testing indicated that the results obtained with the balance as is were basically historical. Based on the data I've seen, the current model allows for both unusually successful engagements as well as those where the long lance had virtually no effect. As it stands right now, the Japanese commander on the spot has to decide whether the conditions are good for the early torpedo barrage. If so, he should let loose. If not, he'll most likely fire them at some later point. Either way, my opinion is that the current modeling reflects their historical performance (although perhaps not their reputation). :)

Regards,

- Erik
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC


Image

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

Thanks for your fine reply Erik, and I'm ready to accept most of your arguments...

Still, I think Surface battles could, and should be tweaked in some manner.

Let me give you an example from one of my current games. I am playing as Japs and I have laid siege to PM - from land, sea and air. After much begging, refuelling and shuffling of commanders, I finally managed to "convince" some of my surface TFs into bombarding PM (I have two such forces operating from Gili, one is 2xBB, 2xCA, some DDs, other is 4xCA, 4xDD, both with most aggressive commanders IJN naval academies and Bushido code ever managed to produce).

After 2-3 successful missions they bombed PM airfiled into submission, so no planes can operate from there (or that's at least my impression, since they don't fly at all, as they did before, and my recon flights say damage to airfield is over 50).

So, we have PM airfield that is useless to allies so I wanted to put both my Surface TFs into PM hex, to bombard the PM continuously, day and night, while at the same time providing cover (from enemy surface forces) for invasion taking place in PM hex.

No matter what mission I put them on (Surface, Bombard... Retire, Do not retire... always on React to enemy) they refuse to stay in PM hex, and retire to spend the day in the safety of Gili! They should know better, since it's those forces themselves that destroyed PM airfield, so they have nothing to fear. They should read reports those recon planes are giving... Also, in PM they have large CAP protecting them from anything allies may send from Australia, while at the open sea near Gili they are unprotected. (I don't expect them to "know" this, I just want them to be agressive per se, so to say.)

To put an insult to the injury, brave allied player managed to sneak surface force that attacked my transports while unloading one night, and 1-2 days later sneaked transports to unload ground unit reinforcements to PM in broad daylight! Both times his surface forces were much weaker than my Surface/Bombard TFs, but my TFs never engaged the Allies! My airforce was also around and took care to punish the allies, but that's not the point - I wanted my big guns to lay waste to enemy vessels, which they did not.

To sum all this boring story up: Bombardment forces act in pretty much the same way, regardless of what setting they are on (Retire or Do not retire), and Surface Action TFs are not nearly aggressive enough, and they don't tend to React to enemy as they should - at least in my experience as outlined above.

Thanks,

Oleg
Mark W Carver
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2002 12:13 am
Location: South-central PA

Post by Mark W Carver »

Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko
No matter what mission I put them on (Surface, Bombard... Retire, Do not retire... always on React to enemy) they refuse to stay in PM hex, and retire to spend the day in the safety of Gili!
After a Bombardment TF bombards... it's ships ammo levels are pretty much down to nothing, thus the TF commander will decide to head home.

Try an experiment with a bombardment TF that will take more than a day to reach its target, after it bombards, the next turn check the ships ammo levels.
User avatar
Apollo11
Posts: 25181
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Post by Apollo11 »

Hi all,
Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko


<snip>

After 2-3 successful missions they bombed PM airfiled into submission, so no planes can operate from there (or that's at least my impression, since they don't fly at all, as they did before, and my recon flights say damage to airfield is over 50).

So, we have PM airfield that is useless to allies so I wanted to put both my Surface TFs into PM hex, to bombard the PM continuously, day and night, while at the same time providing cover (from enemy surface forces) for invasion taking place in PM hex.

No matter what mission I put them on (Surface, Bombard... Retire, Do not retire... always on React to enemy) they refuse to stay in PM hex, and retire to spend the day in the safety of Gili! They should know better, since it's those forces themselves that destroyed PM airfield, so they have nothing to fear. They should read reports those recon planes are giving... Also, in PM they have large CAP protecting them from anything allies may send from Australia, while at the open sea near Gili they are unprotected. (I don't expect them to "know" this, I just want them to be agressive per se, so to say.)

<snip>

To sum all this boring story up: Bombardment forces act in pretty much the same way, regardless of what setting they are on (Retire or Do not retire), and Surface Action TFs are not nearly aggressive enough, and they don't tend to React to enemy as they should - at least in my experience as outlined above.

Thanks,

Oleg

According to UV manual (page 44) the bombardement force should not retire to home base after bombardement if "Patrol/Do Not retire" order is set.

But they would expand their ammo in bombardement of such huge target and therefore be obliged to return home.

True "Catch22" situation...

BTW, have you tried the ordinary "Surface Combat" TF and park it at PM hex?


Leo "Apollo11"
Image

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
John Lansford
Posts: 2664
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am

Post by John Lansford »

I've had bombardment task forces bombard a target in multiple turns without having to go home first. I just told them to Patrol instead of withdraw, and they sat there and bombarded the next turn. This was with older versions, though; did this change in version 1.20?
Post Reply

Return to “Tech Support”