Well this isn't going to end well ***spoiler alert***

[herwin]

The results appear reasonable except that carriers and transports would be behind the scouting line (and probably invisible in poor visibility).

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: Barb

Heh, recently I got this combat result. One have to think about HOW THE HELL THEY COULD GET THEMSELVES SO CLOSE considering battleships on both sides are 220m/728 ft in leght. (1 yard = 3 feet or 0,91m) [X(] The lookouts/radar operators on both sides must have been totally drunk [:D]


Day Time Surface Combat, near Tulagi at 116,137, Range 1,000 Yards

Allied aircraft
     no flights

Allied aircraft losses
No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
     BB Hiei, Shell hits 1
     BB Kirishima, Shell hits 7,  on fire
     CL Nagara
     DD Akizuki
     DD Mutsuki
     DD Yayoi
     DD Uzuki, Shell hits 1,  on fire
     DD Yuzuki

Allied Ships
     BB North Carolina, Shell hits 28, and is sunk
     CA Portland, Shell hits 2
     DD Maury
     DD Benham, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
     DD Balch



Reduced visibility due to Thunderstorms
Maximum visibility in Thunderstorms: 3,000 yards
Range closes to 29,000 yards...
Range closes to 23,000 yards...
Range closes to 17,000 yards...
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
Range closes to 5,000 yards...
Range closes to 1,000 yards...
Onoshi, S. crosses the 'T'
BB North Carolina engages BB Kirishima at 1,000 yards
BB North Carolina sunk by BB Hiei at 1,000 yards
BB Kirishima engages DD Benham at 1,000 yards
DD Benham sunk by DD Uzuki at 1,000 yards
orders Allied TF to disengage
Range increases to 2,000 yards
BB Kirishima engages CA Portland at 2,000 yards
DD Balch engages BB Kirishima at 2,000 yards
DD Uzuki engages DD Maury at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 7,000 yards
BB Kirishima engages CA Portland at 7,000 yards
BB Kirishima engages DD Balch at 7,000 yards
CL Nagara engages CA Portland at 7,000 yards
DD Yayoi engages DD Balch at 7,000 yards
Range increases to 9,000 yards
BB Hiei engages CA Portland at 9,000 yards
DD Uzuki engages DD Maury at 9,000 yards
DD Akizuki engages DD Balch at 9,000 yards
Task forces break off...

Ok I have really had enough of this close 1000 yds combat, I take it the 2 FORCES JAPANESE V ALLIES WERE EXCHANGING XMAS PRESENTS EARLY, EITHER THAT OR THE ALLIES WERE GIVING THE JAPANESE DIRECTION ON WHERE TO GO![:-][:-][:-]

[Tazo]

The point that bothers me in all these stories is still not the combats/shooting themselves but the probabilities
of close encounter. It makes no sense to "send a TF attack the location of a spotted TF" in open sea. How can they meet at short range since both are moving quite unpredictably ! So if the TFs are not moved constantly at sea by AI or players there will be too much surface combat since the encounter probability seems too high. And what about people/AI letting their TF stationnary in hexes entire days ? Just to be well spotted ? Moving around and coming back should be sufficient to use air power and avoid surface encounter.
 
And if the spotting range due to broken radars and bad weather comes down to less than 5000' then the probability that 2 enemy TF trajectories do actually cross is very very very low. They are moving in straight lines, at least piecewise for hours ! Impossible that the unique crossing point corresponds to the same "time" on each line. So when an unspotted BB cross the T to an enemy unspotted BB or a CV just by exiting - by chance on the right time - heavy cloud/rain... yes, this is a kind of horror movie event, not a real possibility. Not that frequently at least - see reported AAR.
 
So for me, no visibility = no combat in open sea. I mean extremely low probability.
 
Still in coastal hex a hunting TF may expect to find a convoy or a bombing TF and the trajectories are so limited that encounters are frequent if a TF is just stationary here. But no CV's, they are in good speed far away in open sea. And sometimes CVs will have to close islands and canals but in such situations they should know that it is dangerous due to subs/surface TF.
 
In the very exceptionnal encounters that still may occur in the unspotted/low visibility case then immediate break off should be allowed, due to mutual unacceptable risk and fear of torpedoes. In all the surface combat what scared me is the closing, like a rush, and low ranges. The first line of DD and cruisers may shorten the range to each others, but by no way a first line may rich the enemy second line ! Not so commonly. And in day time, the big guns usually keep their mutual distance between the closest enemy quite comfortable, rushing DDs may simply provoke the end of the engagement if they pass through the enemy too thin first line unhurted.
 
So my point is that the probabilities of engagement seems too high in open sea (especially in low visibility) and the dynamic of combats looks nice and exiting except with respect to "closing" and "screening first lines". Also I agree about the biais in favour on small allied TF's and serial killers allied DD/PT. A small data base adjustment should be sufficient for this issue, but not for the previous ones. However I observe satisfying surface combats in Guadalcanal and moreover quite constant results (when fighting the same TF's many times some are almost always deafeated, others almost always winning, for instance when making each of the 3 allied cruiser TFs and the 8 jap cruisers from Savo battle encounter).

[JohnDillworth]

Good point,  In my case (off Colombo)  the Carrier Task Force was just going back and forth in a strait line day after day.  It was almost like they were saying "come and get me".  So I wnet and got em!  I think it has been determine that this was a flawed script for the AI and they should not have been repeating that pattern for so many days.

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

ORIGINAL: Barb

Heh, recently I got this combat result. One have to think about HOW THE HELL THEY COULD GET THEMSELVES SO CLOSE considering battleships on both sides are 220m/728 ft in leght. (1 yard = 3 feet or 0,91m) [X(] The lookouts/radar operators on both sides must have been totally drunk [:D]


Day Time Surface Combat, near Tulagi at 116,137, Range 1,000 Yards

Allied aircraft
     no flights

Allied aircraft losses
No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
     BB Hiei, Shell hits 1
     BB Kirishima, Shell hits 7,  on fire
     CL Nagara
     DD Akizuki
     DD Mutsuki
     DD Yayoi
     DD Uzuki, Shell hits 1,  on fire
     DD Yuzuki

Allied Ships
     BB North Carolina, Shell hits 28, and is sunk
     CA Portland, Shell hits 2
     DD Maury
     DD Benham, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
     DD Balch



Reduced visibility due to Thunderstorms
Maximum visibility in Thunderstorms: 3,000 yards
Range closes to 29,000 yards...
Range closes to 23,000 yards...
Range closes to 17,000 yards...
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
Range closes to 5,000 yards...
Range closes to 1,000 yards...
Onoshi, S. crosses the 'T'
BB North Carolina engages BB Kirishima at 1,000 yards
BB North Carolina sunk by BB Hiei at 1,000 yards
BB Kirishima engages DD Benham at 1,000 yards
DD Benham sunk by DD Uzuki at 1,000 yards
orders Allied TF to disengage
Range increases to 2,000 yards
BB Kirishima engages CA Portland at 2,000 yards
DD Balch engages BB Kirishima at 2,000 yards
DD Uzuki engages DD Maury at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 7,000 yards
BB Kirishima engages CA Portland at 7,000 yards
BB Kirishima engages DD Balch at 7,000 yards
CL Nagara engages CA Portland at 7,000 yards
DD Yayoi engages DD Balch at 7,000 yards
Range increases to 9,000 yards
BB Hiei engages CA Portland at 9,000 yards
DD Uzuki engages DD Maury at 9,000 yards
DD Akizuki engages DD Balch at 9,000 yards
Task forces break off...

Ok I have really had enough of this close 1000 yds combat, I take it the 2 FORCES JAPANESE V ALLIES WERE EXCHANGING XMAS PRESENTS EARLY, EITHER THAT OR THE ALLIES WERE GIVING THE JAPANESE DIRECTION ON WHERE TO GO![:-][:-][:-]

I think you all are missing an exciting point here. BS firing at ranges of 1,000 yards ? Hey, maybe we are next going to get to see grappling hooks and boarding parties !

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: stuman

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

ORIGINAL: Barb

Heh, recently I got this combat result. One have to think about HOW THE HELL THEY COULD GET THEMSELVES SO CLOSE considering battleships on both sides are 220m/728 ft in leght. (1 yard = 3 feet or 0,91m) [X(] The lookouts/radar operators on both sides must have been totally drunk [:D]


Day Time Surface Combat, near Tulagi at 116,137, Range 1,000 Yards

Allied aircraft
     no flights

Allied aircraft losses
No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
     BB Hiei, Shell hits 1
     BB Kirishima, Shell hits 7,  on fire
     CL Nagara
     DD Akizuki
     DD Mutsuki
     DD Yayoi
     DD Uzuki, Shell hits 1,  on fire
     DD Yuzuki

Allied Ships
     BB North Carolina, Shell hits 28, and is sunk
     CA Portland, Shell hits 2
     DD Maury
     DD Benham, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
     DD Balch



Reduced visibility due to Thunderstorms
Maximum visibility in Thunderstorms: 3,000 yards
Range closes to 29,000 yards...
Range closes to 23,000 yards...
Range closes to 17,000 yards...
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
Range closes to 5,000 yards...
Range closes to 1,000 yards...
Onoshi, S. crosses the 'T'
BB North Carolina engages BB Kirishima at 1,000 yards
BB North Carolina sunk by BB Hiei at 1,000 yards
BB Kirishima engages DD Benham at 1,000 yards
DD Benham sunk by DD Uzuki at 1,000 yards
orders Allied TF to disengage
Range increases to 2,000 yards
BB Kirishima engages CA Portland at 2,000 yards
DD Balch engages BB Kirishima at 2,000 yards
DD Uzuki engages DD Maury at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 7,000 yards
BB Kirishima engages CA Portland at 7,000 yards
BB Kirishima engages DD Balch at 7,000 yards
CL Nagara engages CA Portland at 7,000 yards
DD Yayoi engages DD Balch at 7,000 yards
Range increases to 9,000 yards
BB Hiei engages CA Portland at 9,000 yards
DD Uzuki engages DD Maury at 9,000 yards
DD Akizuki engages DD Balch at 9,000 yards
Task forces break off...

Ok I have really had enough of this close 1000 yds combat, I take it the 2 FORCES JAPANESE V ALLIES WERE EXCHANGING XMAS PRESENTS EARLY, EITHER THAT OR THE ALLIES WERE GIVING THE JAPANESE DIRECTION ON WHERE TO GO![:-][:-][:-]

I think you all are missing an exciting point here. BS firing at ranges of 1,000 yards ? Hey, maybe we are next going to get to see grappling hooks and bording parties !

Once again , we see the devastating advantage in "crossing the T". You guys will no doubt flail me alive, but in both cases when one force has crossed the others "T" , I think the results mirror "real world". In other words, I think the game is accurrate.

[Tazo]

Agree that crossing the 'T' is a big advantage. And here maybe the first shells damaged the engine and reduced the speed of the US BB so that she was traped and well, this is a great Jap victory in a coastal hex.
 
My above questionning mainly concerns the commander decisions (cross the T too frequently ? Accept combat too easilly ? Late breaking off ?...) and the probability of engagement far from the coasts in the middle of nowhere between unspotted TF's facing suddenly each other, one or the other having very good reasons to refuse such an event... besides this my outcomes in Guadal are convincing once I admit the possibility of the engagement, except with the small allied DD TF/escorts doing too good job.
 
TZ

[tigercub]

There should be a default  auto spotting range for different types of ships so battleships don`t get to 1,000 yards (the escorts will be out farther than that from the battle ship in a large TF) I have never read any navy actions were the enemy was not spotted under 5,000 yards by any major navy units in WW2.
if any one can find something it would make a good read.

Tiger!

[Fishbed]

Hum well apparently Guadalcanal I occured that way (although radar detection happened much earlier). But I agree, the visibility in those battles is really an issue I guess, contact should be made earlier, it just can't happen all the time between 1000 et 3000 yds - I guess this is what turns those combats into unpredictable melees (which did exist, but not on such an extend), while the naval combat code works well...

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: crsutton


One thing I noticed. I backed up and read the operations report and a catalina had spotted them the turn before. However, in AE now you do not necessarily get an icon on the map for a spotted TF. You have to read the operations report. I would like to see this changed. All real and imagined sub contact and TFs should be marked on the map where spotted-even if it is a generic marker to note a supicious report. This is really for ease of play more than anything else. It is too easy and too critical to miss an item like this in the operations report.

This has already caught me a couple of times too. I agree, a generic "possible" marker would help a ton.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: herwin

I suspect the main problem is that the Japanese superiority in visual search at night is missing. We need to keep the gunship advantage in night or bad weather to discourage the CVTFs from getting in too close.

^^^^^^^ Agreed.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Hum well apparently Guadalcanal I occured that way (although radar detection happened much earlier). But I agree, the visibility in those battles is really an issue I guess, contact should be made earlier, it just can't happen all the time between 1000 et 3000 yds - I guess this is what turns those combats into unpredictable melees (which did exist, but not on such an extend), while the naval combat code works well...

I'm on this page with you ... the series of battles off GUA in the SLOT from Aug - Nov '42 were punishing examples of how good the IJN was and the state of USN Radar. However, to my recollection, none of these happened at ranges approaching 5000 yds. Gunnery was far too good, and the Long Lances too powerful. One was enough for a DD, 2 or 3 would finish a CA. The ranges that I recall were closer to 10,000 yds.


As to the radar itself ... it wasn't fully deployed in all "major" ships in the USN until '43. It broke down a lot, spare parts were few, vacuum tubes did not like the tropics (and worse they had a short shelf life); and the best of everything was going to the Atlantic: parts, radar sets, and most importantly Radar Operators. So, really until about Sept '43, USN radar should not be counted upon. Something Radar effectiveness: Dec '41 5%, Dec 42 35%, Dec 43 90%.

Dec 1941: You went out on patrol with the Radar working fine ... 3 days later, it's on the Fritz, the Operator fixes it, but goes through 5 spare parts to that (50% of your spare parts inventory). So now you either run it until it fails again permanently as your spares are about gone, or you run it intermittently. Either way, look outs are gonna be real important.

Dec 1942: you get maybe 1/3 of your patrol with Radar most of the time.

Dec 1943: Most ships have radar most of the time.

[tigercub]

I pity the Japanese player who have started a Grand campaign and have been killed by navel gun fire early on....i have been waiting to start and will wait for the patch.

Tiger!

[Fishbed]

Well erh... It's not because we acknowledge a certain superiority of Japanese look-outs and doctrina at night early on that this must be made into a 100% rule. The Indonesian campaign has several examples of Japanese sentries sleeping or drinking (or let's say, just not seeing what they should have seen), and the Battle of Cap Esperance is a proof that sometimes people make bad assumptions based on bad intel. Yes, even in the IJN, sh*t happens  [;)]

If you were seeing a message in AE like "RADM Goto fails to identify enemy force, flashes ID lights like a n00b and get PWND", man, people would scream out loud. But still, well, it actually happened [:D]