Surface combat bias ?

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

I have been watching the AI V AI, and the surface combat more than anything is heavily biased in the USA's favour,the final straw for me was watching 1 CL, beat the crap out of a 1 BB, 1 CA and 2 DD's,they competed in 3 battles between them 2 at night, and 1 during the day at 20,000 yd's + the USA Light Cruiser Boise must have laser guided weapons, because she hit with nearly every broadside, while the Japanese ships crews must all be blind folded.I'm now going into the editor to see if I can track the cause of this. Because if I was the Japanese emperor,I would have every sailor in this Task force shot for incompetance.[:(]

[Yamato hugger]

That was one of the issues I raised time and again. Never once even came close to breaking even with the Japs with even forces in surface combats in 1941. Hell I caught the Houston, 2 CLs and a bunch of DDs with the Kongo and company and hardly scratched them. But they did actually turn around (one of the few times an allied SCG was turned back).

[TheOx]

Weird, I'm seeing this as well. The IJN forces have been getting the short end of the stick with me as well. Not sure why, I had chalked it up to dumb luck, but if others are seeing it perhaps it needs to be addressed.

[John Lansford]

I've only had one surface battle between true SWTF's, early on when ABDA was at full strength and they ran into a BB TF with Mutsu and Ise in it.  I figured I'd lose half the force, instead the two BB's took multiple hits and lost an escorting DD, while I had Houston take serious damage and about half a dozen other ships take moderate damage.  All managed to get out of combat and retired safely; had my ships still had torpedoes instead of firing them all off at merchant ships that same turn, the carnage for the IJN would have probably been worse.  None of my ships were hit by LL torpedoes either even though there were at least two CA's that had them.

[Erik Rutins]

First, surface combat is being watched and evaluated as part of our post-release look at the game as a whole for the first and second updates. Second, we did do extensive testing on this pre-release and the overall result was that the Japanese did not have as much of an advantage as in WITP, but they were certainly not ineffective. The variable nature of combat means that just about anything can happen and you need to run a LOT of tests (i.e. 50-100) to really see what the pattern is.

[Speedy Gonzales]

I had Houston, Boise and a few destroyers run into a japanese TF consisting of 2 BB's. some CL's and some destroyers. Houston and all but one destroyers are gone. I landed a few hits on the BB's but nothing serious. Boise got moderately damaged and ran, unfortunately north towards the Phillippines which means I have to sail here right through the japanes fleet to get her back to safety.

So if there is a bias, I did not profit from it [:D]

[TheOx]

Ok, good enough for me. Must just be my roll of the dice then.

[dclaw]

ORIGINAL: Speedy Gonzales

So if there is a bias, I did not profit from it [:D]

Me neither. Playing as the allies against the AI a couple days ago, I sent a taskforce composed of the Houston along with 2 CLs and 6 DDs at a suspected Japenese landing force in the eastern PI. Ran into a Japenese SCTF composed of 2 CLs and about 4 DDs (memory is a little hazy on that detail). I was pretty excited, thinking that I'd have a good shot given my superiority in tonnage and weight of shell. I ended up losing the Houston and 3 or 4 DDs and taking serious damage to one of the CLs. Japenese toll? 2 DDs sunk and some miscellaneous hits on the CLs.

For whatever it's worth, it wasn't the Japenese gunnery that caused the most havoc, but their darned LL torps. I think I'd almost rather face battleship guns than those things.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

That was one of the issues I raised time and again. Never once even came close to breaking even with the Japs with even forces in surface combats in 1941. Hell I caught the Houston, 2 CLs and a bunch of DDs with the Kongo and company and hardly scratched them. But they did actually turn around (one of the few times an allied SCG was turned back).

Before GOLD I went back and did some regression testing - and compared stock WITP results to AE results - I was surprised in that the results were more similar than I expected - this was one reason we released with what we had. In other words there is a bit of a "bias" in WITP also.

In digging around as to why - one reason that is standing out is the US 5"/38 which has an accuracy of 200 versus a similar Japanese weapon the 5"/50 3YT with accuracy 80. These WITP stock numbers are replicated in AE. Evening out these accuracies seems to go a long way towards redressing the "bias" for both WITP and AE. Can't this this is the only issue but in testing it seems to be the first one that makes a significant difference.

One thing that does NOT seem to impact surface combat much in either stock WITP or AE is the crew experience - I've tried adjusting that up and down - and within any rational range of experience difference there is little to no impact. Experience would NOT be a "high leverage" factor for Naval Combat (unlike Air Combat - where experience is a key factor).

[Miller]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

That was one of the issues I raised time and again. Never once even came close to breaking even with the Japs with even forces in surface combats in 1941. Hell I caught the Houston, 2 CLs and a bunch of DDs with the Kongo and company and hardly scratched them. But they did actually turn around (one of the few times an allied SCG was turned back).

Your issue was very valid. Should have been looked at more pre-release[:-]

[John Lansford]

I've sunk three CA's for the loss of 1 CA and two CL's so far in the first month of battle.  However, all three of my cruisers were lost due to air attack, not surface battles.  I've had two DD's sunk by torpedo hits and three others from gunfire, and numerous ships damaged, but IMO the IJN had a great advantage over the Allies in 1942 surface battles, especially at night.  They trained for it, their ships were optimized for it, and so were their weapons.  The Allies were disorganized and while individual ships fought heroically, they were in general outclassed by the Japanese until better training and weapons arrived later in 1942.

[GB68]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

but IMO the IJN had a great advantage over the Allies in 1942 surface battles, especially at night.  They trained for it, their ships were optimized for it, and so were their weapons.  The Allies were disorganized and while individual ships fought heroically, they were in general outclassed by the Japanese until better training and weapons arrived later in 1942.

This is my understanding of the historical outcomes early in the war also. But it does not seem to be reflected in AE. Especially in night time Surface Combat.

In digging around as to why - one reason that is standing out is the US 5"/38 which has an accuracy of 200 versus a similar Japanese weapon the 5"/50 3YT with accuracy 80. These WITP stock numbers are replicated in AE. Evening out these accuracies seems to go a long way towards redressing the "bias" for both WITP and AE. Can't this this is the only issue but in testing it seems to be the first one that makes a significant difference.

I've come across this anomaly in perusing the editor also. I do believe the allied weapon control systems , historically, were superior. But the huge difference in accuracies of the weapons is unrealistic and does seem to affect combat results significantly. Perhaps one of the AE team could explain how these numbers were concluded.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Miller
Your issue was very valid. Should have been looked at more pre-release[:-]

Did you read what Joe and I wrote as well?

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: GB68


...

I've come across this anomaly in perusing the editor also. I do believe the allied weapon control systems , historically, were superior. But the huge difference in accuracies of the weapons is unrealistic and does seem to affect combat results significantly. Perhaps one of the AE team could explain how these numbers were concluded.

The significant advantage was the IJN spotting was much better at night. This isn't genetic or anything, simply training. As oft stated, IJN were trained for night combat in realistic conditions. Through Oct 42, the IJN should enjoy really good 1st/2nd round salvos before a coordinated response from the Allies. Read up on even the USN accounts of the actions off Guadacanal in Aug-Oct 42, tells the same tale. The IJN had LL torps in the water and within hitting range B4 the USN was aware they were under fire. Training.

Since this is experience, it would suggest that since the current experience effect is negligible that the model might need a tweak to get this a bit more realistic.

Then, when the USN gets radar, this really negates this surprise and the gun accuracy take over. Surface Actions in early '43 had dramatically different results. USN was trained up AND radar really removed the surprise.

Just my thoughts ...

[Mynok]

Yeah, it seems a bit unfortunate that the Japanese training advantage is nullified for the most part.

Did some interesting playing with the Guadalcanal scenario. Put together the CAs and set them up for a fast night run-in to contest the invasion, with retirement set, expecting them to zoom in, do some combat and zoom back out to avoid air attacks. What actually happened is they got surprised by two different cruiser TFs, then retreated SOUTH?!?! [X(] [X(]

Needless to say, they were destroyed by the carrier planes. Time to rethink surface combat tactics as Japanese for sure.

[DivePac88]

In 3 naval engagements in the Sulu Sea and Celebes Sea areas, against the AI playing as the Allies in December 1941 (grand campaign). I have lost 1x CA, 1x CL, 3x DD, and have had 1xCL (Boise), and 2x DD badly damaged. For these losses I have sunk 1x CVL, 1xCA, 2x DD, 1x PB, 7x xAKs, and also damaged 1x CL, 1x CS, 2x DD, 5+ xAKs.

These 3 actions all had a realistic feel about them, and being at night all seemed to give the advantage to the side that had the first sighting. But one really realistic factor that I’ve noticed is that the major damage inflected on Allied ships was by torpedoes, where as the major damage to Japanese ships was from Gunfire (apart from the CVL).

[tigercub]

I will keep waiting before i starting my Grand Campaign.

Tiger!

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

Did some interesting playing with the Guadalcanal scenario. Put together the CAs and set them up for a fast night run-in to contest the invasion, with retirement set, expecting them to zoom in, do some combat and zoom back out to avoid air attacks. What actually happened is they got surprised by two different cruiser TFs, then retreated SOUTH?!?! [X(] [X(]

Needless to say, they were destroyed by the carrier planes. Time to rethink surface combat tactics as Japanese for sure.

I've run that about ten times now, and results are like you said. Usually japanese cruisers are surprised, and are hammered by the allies. It seems that japanese ships don't know how to use those guns or torpedoes. And that retreating does not work. Sometimes japanese ships just don't retreat at all, or they retreat a few hexes south and US CV planes destroy them. Yesterday I tried to run fast transport TF of 2 CLs to Tassafaronga. There was allied TF (2 AKs and 2 DD) unloading troops, so my TF retreated to Tulagi(??), which is US base now...

So please, can somebody tell me how the retreating works, or does it work at all?

[Sardaukar]

I think early war Allied radar is too overpowered, in sense that Allied TFs get way too many surprise attacks during the night, especially US ships.

[BeastieDog]

I could rarely replicate the early historical Japanese success in surface combat in WitP. I learned to use the Betty-Nell standoff weapons and the KB for my offensive punch and the surface fleet for bombardment. I haven't got that far in AE ( still studying turn 1).