Reports from Area 51

[Drongo]

Posted by cap_and_gown

Cancer man appears out of the shadows. "You don't know what you are dealing with. Back off be for it is too late." Slinks back into the shadows.

Posted by Mdiehl

Interesting stats. Given these results I'd say that there's no need for the "Tassfaronga" generator mentioned in another thread. When the US is moving, the IJN gets two susbtantive victories out of 5 battles, and two draws. That sounds about right for 1942, with most US ships possessing SC and most IJN ships lacking radar. In short, the surface action generator seems adequate.

1) A "Tassafaronga" result would be expected to bring a favourable result of greater than 2 for 1 in damage (try 10 to 1).

2) Re : "When the US is moving..." Do not assume that a side that moves is penalised in battle as a lot more testing is needed to minimise random results. It was never mentioned in the manual and I've never heard Matrix mention it. Even if it was the case, your interpretation would imply that the IJN would have to be the defender to have a good chance of victory. That was not the case historically as the IJN was always the moving force (as in UV) during the Aug-Nov period of '42 (including Tassafaronga - where the USN was waiting).

3) Re : "the IJN gets two substative victories out of 5 battles, and two draws." How about looking at the 5 battles correctly. It was 2 IJN victories, 1 USN victory and 2 draws. The IJN victories were not "substantive" in any sense other than resulting in more damage to the USN. Think of it this way, for every 2 USN ships sunk or crippled, the IJN was losing more than 1 in return. It's a favourable exchange rate and if it was the standard result for battles in UV at the time, the Japanese player would be obviously pleased. The real standard result of the 5 battles is a draw (IJN total damage 340, USN total damage 350). Given the historical situation, the Allied player should be the one who is pleased.

4) I'll restate what I said earlier, the IJN torpedo hit rates are allowing the IJN to stay competitive with the USN in terms of total damage. The standard hit rate in these battles is higher than normal because of the test conditions. 4 CA's are concentrating their fire only on 4 enemy CA's. As gun hits occur, ships are slowing down and catching fire, making them perfect torp targets. A TF in UV will normally have some type of mix of CA's, CL's and DD's. The fact is that a lower percentage of total ships will be firing (compared to 100% in these battles) at a wider number of targets (including the harder to hit DD's). In a regular UV battle, it will lessen the impact of the torpedo on average results. If the hit rate of the torpedo for standard battles was used under the test battle conditions, you would start to see a clearer USN advantage in the results.

5) The set of battles I'm curently running are purely designed to show the impact of differences in night experience and SC radar between 2 similar ship classes. Torpedoes are there because the IJN have them in UV but they should always be considered to be slightly more effective than in the average "UV" battle due to test circumstances.

These results are posted in this thread to keep any interested parties up to date. Feel free to comment but please avoid interpreting the results out of perspective. Hopefully, over time, we will have sufficient data to draw a conclusion. If it is that the IJN does have an early advantage at night, so be it. Until then, be patient. The Truth is out there.

[DoomedMantis]

Keep up the good work, I'm definately interested in these results as it seems to be adding justification to the feeling (untested) that Japans night experience is not rewarded properly. Even when the Japs have a victory, they always seem to win by a far smaller margin than when the US have a victory. I have no worries about sending a US TF into battle, but am nervous doing the same for the Japs.

[mogami]

Greetings. I am following this topic with much interest. Without meaning to add confusion and not knowing the program code I would only wish to add a few of my own thoughts.

Night combat experience versus radar: The night rating would be most important in the opening rounds. Radar would gain in value the longer the battle lasts. (an inexperienced radar gang might not be important in deciding when or what to shoot at but once it was confirmed there was a battle that uncertainly would vanish and target data would improve. While an experienced night crew might engage an enemy force without knowing exactly what they were fighting but they would be efficient against that part of the enemy they discovered. (leaving a lot of the battle to chance and beyond scientific means of understanding)

While this would make it very difficult to produce a formula to duplicate events what would be desired was a system that produced results with in the realm of acceptable probability. No one would play the USN if all battles at night were IJN victories. No one would play the IJN if all battles were USN victories. Relative size should and must be a factor but not the deciding factor. Small forces must be allowed a chance at deceive victory (admittedly not too often) over larger. There are too many factors that the player is not made aware of before battles (random numbers) ( Moon light, false alarms within a TF before a battle, Rain squalls and so on)

In the end the question remains does the game produce acceptable results? So far (and I have lost many a battle where I scratched my head-I have won a few remarkable ones)
This is an Operational game. In a tactical game we could expect every event to be the result of our input. At this level I believe we should have questions (boards of inquiry) as to why certain events do not unfold as planned

[Drongo]

G'day Mogami,

It's accepted that this is an operational level game and therefore the combat system is going to be a somewhat simplistic abstract. I wouldn't expect it to model everything that influences combat, just the basics as discussed in the manual. All we are testing here is whether and to what extent any one side has an advantage (early) and what could be contributing to that advantage (in game terms). All we're doing here is examining what Matrix supplied (all honor to the great ones).

Night combat experience versus radar: The night rating would be most important in the opening rounds. Radar would gain in value the longer the battle lasts. (an inexperienced radar gang might not be important in deciding when or what to shoot at but once it was confirmed there was a battle that uncertainly would vanish and target data would improve. While an experienced night crew might engage an enemy force without knowing exactly what they were fighting but they would be efficient against that part of the enemy they discovered. (leaving a lot of the battle to chance and beyond scientific means of understanding)

At the moment these tests (as suggested by Matrix) are only going to involve SC radar equipped USN ships (which was the most common ship radar set in May-Nov '42). What you describe above as the battle flow of non radar equipped (but with high night exp) vs radar equipped ships may not apply to SC radar. I'm happy to have anyone enlighten me but my understanding was that the metric SC radar contributed little or nothing to the tracking and range determination for gunnery (it best benefit was for early warning). The Mk 37 5" fire direction sets also had radar but it was not much better than SC for gunnery except at near visual ranges (for night). The combination of SG radar and a PPI screen was quite devastating in comparison for surface gunnery but that will not be included in the current set of tests.

Anyway, I am not suggesting any changes (yet ). I'm just trying to generate some base figures within a known set of circumstances. I assume, once we have enough data to estimate an average result, players can then decide whether it is an acceptable result (influenced by their POV).

Thanks for the comment and keep them coming.
Cheers

[Drongo]

This is the next set of combat results using my previous test battle conditions.

Just to repeat myself.

Forces involved :
4 IJN CA Takao Class (exp 75) vs
4 USN New Orleans Class (exp 40), all with SC radar
Both TF leaders identical (no advantage)
All USN ships have a generic "average" USN captain.
All IJN ships have a generic "average" IJN captain (5% better than US in its ratings).
Any battle where one side gets the tactical advantage are not used.

In this set of 20 battles, the USN Surface TF moves 1 hex to engage the IJN Surface TF.
The first, sixth, eleventh and sixteenth result will be preceeded by its AAR to help people understand the summaries I'm using.

********************************************
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/24/42

BATTLE 1
Night Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese Ships
CA Takao, Shell hits 7, on fire, heavy damage (60)
CA Atago, Shell hits 6, on fire (50)
CA Maya, Shell hits 3, on fire (30)
CA Chokai, Shell hits 3 (20)

Allied Ships
CA New Orleans, Shell hits 4
CA Astoria, Shell hits 6, on fire, heavy damage (100)
CA Minneapolis
CA San Francisco, Shell hits 1
******************************************
1) USN victory
IJN/USN dam received 160/100
IJN/USN hits received 19/11

2) USN victory
IJN/USN dam received 60/20
IJN/USN hits received 9/4

3) Draw
IJN/USN dam received 20/30
IJN/USN hits received 6/4

4) Draw
IJN/USN dam received 50/70
IJN/USN hits received 6/6

5) Draw
IJN/USN dam received 20/30
IJN/USN hits received 1/2 + 1 Torp
**********************************************
Total IJN/USN dam received 310/250
Total IJN/USN hits received 41/27 + 1 Torp
**********************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/30/42

BATTLE 6
Night Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese Ships
CA Takao
CA Atago
CA Maya, Shell hits 1
CA Chokai

Allied Ships
CA New Orleans
CA Astoria
CA Minneapolis, Shell hits 1
CA San Francisco, Shell hits 5, on fire, heavy damage (60)
**********************************************
6) IJN victory
IJN/USN dam received 0/60
IJN/USN hits received 1/6

7) Draw
IJN/USN dam received 30/60
IJN/USN hits received 8/4 + 1 Torp

8) IJN victory
IJN/USN dam received 80/170
IJN/USN hits received 9/10 + 1 Torp

9) IJN victory
IJN/USN dam received 40/120
IJN/USN hits received 14/12

10) IJN victory
IJN/USN dam received 140/200
IJN/USN hits received 12/23 + 2 Torp

*************************************************
Total IJN/USN dam received 290/610
Total IJN/USN hits received 44/55 + 4 Torp
*************************************************
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 09/04/42

BATTLE 11
Night Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese Ships
CA Takao, Shell hits 6, on fire (50)
CA Atago, Shell hits 5, on fire (40)
CA Maya, Shell hits 11, on fire, heavy damage (SUNK) 100
CA Chokai, Shell hits 2 (20)

Allied Ships
CA New Orleans, Shell hits 1
CA Astoria, Shell hits 1
CA Minneapolis
CA San Francisco, Shell hits 1
***********************************************
11) USN victory
IJN/USN dam received 210/0
IJN/USN hits recieved 24/3

12) Draw
IJN/USN dam received 0/0
IJN/USN hits received 1/3

13) IJN victory
IJN/USN dam received 0/70
IJN/USN hits received 2/12

14) Draw
IJN/USN dam received 30/0
IJN/USN hits received 2/2

15) Draw
IJN/USN dam received 70/70
IJN/USN dam received 16/8
***********************************************
Total IJN/USN dam received 310/140
Total IJN/USN hits received 45/28
*********************************************
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 09/10/42

BATTLE 16
Night Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese Ships
CA Takao, Shell hits 4, on fire, heavy damage (60)
CA Atago, Shell hits 6, on fire, heavy damage (SUNK)
CA Maya, Shell hits 7, on fire (50)
CA Chokai, Shell hits 2 (20)

Allied Ships
CA New Orleans, Shell hits 1, on fire (20)
CA Astoria, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, on fire (40)
CA Minneapolis
CA San Francisco, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, on fire (40)
**********************************************
16) USN victory
IJN/USN dam received 230/100
IJN/USN hits received 19/9 + 2 Torp

17) Draw
IJN/USN dam received 160/170
IJN/USN hits received 19/17

18) Draw
IJN/USN dam received 100/100
IJN/USN hits received 9/10 + 1 Torp

19) IJN victory
IJN/USN dam received 140/80
IJN/USN hits received 19/8 + 1 Torp

20) Draw
IJN/USN dam received 100/70
IJN/USN hits received 14/4 + 1 Torp
***********************************************
Total IJN/USN dam received 730/520
Total IJN/USN hits received 80/48 + 5 Torp
***********************************************
Grand Total IJN/USN dam received 1640/1520
Grand Total IJN/USN hits received 210/158 + 10 Torp
***********************************************
Notes :

a) The higher number of hits received by the IJN is partially a result of the higher rate of fire of the USN 5" secondary batteries (they fire at twice the rate of the IJN 5" batteries). In virtually every battle, the 5" batteries failed to penetrate armour when they hit. They did manage to knock out enemy secondary and AA batteries. Their most useful attribute was managing to sometimes start a fire which made the enemy ship a better target.

b) The IJN Takao class has a durability of 55 vs the USN New Orleans class durability of 40. If UV uses the formulae of (warhead damage divided by durability = ship damage %), then the total IJN damage received figure in the tests should be increased by 37.5% for comparison purposes. This would make things look even more in favor of the USN. If Matrix could explain the role of durability, it would help in calculating the test data.

c) One side or the other managed to "cross the 'T' " of the enemy 4 times during the testing (2 IJN and 2 USN). These battles were not included but, once again, brought in strange results. When the IJN did it, they got a resounding victory both times. When the USN did it, they managed a draw and a loss. Although not part of the current testing, I would very much like to know what Matrix would expect an "average" result to be (using the 4 CA v's 4 CA model).

d) I will try to find the time (and the motivation) to do another 20 battles (this time with the IJN moving to battle - although I doubt it has any impact). After that I may try something like 6DD's vs 6DD's and then finally a test of mixed TF battles. If anyone wants to join us down here in Area 51, we would welcome it (any Lone Gunmen out there)?

[CapAndGown]

Here is another test set. I am not going to go into the same type of analysis as in the previous two. Scully (aka Drongo) can examine that if she (he) wishes.

Although the number of data points is still small, I believe that at least 2 tentative conclusions can be made so far:
1) The scenario editor sucks. It is even harder to use that the TOAW editor, which was none too good. Would be nice if 2x3 would give us an editor similar to the PzC series which is a snap to use when placing units on the map.

2) USN SG radar completely negates even the most pronounced experience advantage by the IJN. Until I can run a regression analysis (which will require many more test runs) I cannot say what the magnitude of this effect is. But it already appears that SG radar alone is worth much more than double experience levels. This strikes me as a very American way of looking at technology. I am sure that the Germans would have been surprised to learn that their technically inferior panzers should have been beaten by T-34's and and KV-1s on a consistent basis. Still, it is too early to say just what the magnitude of this effect is with out having test sets that replace SG radar with SC radar and with no radar.

=================================================================
Third test set: test high USN experience rating
=================================================================

IJN night experience: 30
USN night experience: 90
US CA's: SC radar
US DD's: SG radar

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)

IJN ships hit: 8
IJN ships damaged: 8
IJN total damage: 379

USN ships hit: 4
USN ships damaged: 4
USN total damage: 126

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Both Surprised

IJN ships hit: 5
IJN ships damaged: 2
IJN total damage: 53

USN ships hit: 2
USN ships damaged: 2
USN total damage: 52

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) USN crosses T

IJN ships hit: 7
IJN ships damaged: 4
IJN total damage: 153

USN ships hit: 1
USN ships damaged: 1
USN total damage: 23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Both sides surprised

IJN ships hit: 7
IJN ships damaged: 4
IJN total damage: 115

USN ships hit: 2
USN ships damaged: 0
USN total damage: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5)

IJN ships hit: 2
IJN ships damaged: 0
IJN total damage: 0

USN ships hit: 0
USN ships damaged: 0
USN total damage: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6)

IJN ships hit: 8
IJN ships damaged: 7
IJN total damage: 288

USN ships hit: 7
USN ships damaged: 4
USN total damage: 216
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7)

IJN ships hit: 8
IJN ships damaged: 6
IJN total damage: 398

USN ships hit: 3
USN ships damaged: 3
USN total damage: 145
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(8)

IJN ships hit: 5
IJN ships damaged: 2
IJN total damage: 80

USN ships hit: 3
USN ships damaged: 2
USN total damage: 83
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(9) USN crosses T

IJN ships hit: 8
IJN ships damaged: 7
IJN total damage: 237

USN ships hit: 3
USN ships damaged: 0
USN total damage: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(10)

IJN ships hit: 4
IJN ships damaged: 3
IJN total damage: 85

USN ships hit: 1
USN ships damaged: 0
USN total damage: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(11) Both surprised

IJN ships hit: 5
IJN ships damaged: 5
IJN total damage: 175

USN ships hit: 4
USN ships damaged: 4
USN total damage: 149
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(12) USN crosses T

IJN ships hit: 8
IJN ships damaged: 5
IJN total damage: 328

USN ships hit: 6
USN ships damaged: 4
USN total damage: 250
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(13)

IJN ships hit: 8
IJN ships damaged: 4
IJN total damage: 156

USN ships hit: 2
USN ships damaged: 1
USN total damage: 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(14)

IJN ships hit: 6
IJN ships damaged: 6
IJN total damage: 134

USN ships hit: 0
USN ships damaged: 0
USN total damage: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(15) Both surprised

IJN ships hit: 6
IJN ships damaged: 4
IJN total damage: 123

USN ships hit: 1
USN ships damaged: 1
USN total damage: 22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(16)

IJN ships hit: 8
IJN ships damaged: 5
IJN total damage: 231

USN ships hit: 3
USN ships damaged: 2
USN total damage: 31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(17)

IJN ships hit: 8
IJN ships damaged: 8
IJN total damage: 439

USN ships hit: 4
USN ships damaged: 3
USN total damage: 120
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(18) USN crosses T

IJN ships hit: 8
IJN ships damaged: 7
IJN total damage: 478

USN ships hit: 3
USN ships damaged: 2
USN total damage: 68
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(19) USN crosses T

IJN ships hit: 8
IJN ships damaged: 8
IJN total damage: 387

USN ships hit: 6
USN ships damaged: 5
USN total damage: 223
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(20) Both surprised

IJN ships hit: 7
IJN ships damaged: 3
IJN total damage: 59

USN ships hit: 0
USN ships damaged: 0
USN total damage: 0

[DoomedMantis]

Thats a lot of damage to the IJN.

By the way what use is it having greater tech ability without the experience to use it. And yes if tech abaility counts for more then I agree this is a very US way of looking at tech, there are countless examples of poorly trained troops with greater tech being beaten by better trained lower tech troops throughout history, much more than the other way around in general.

[Drongo]

For a change of pace (and to compare Night Exp IJN DD's with SC Radar DD's), a new set of battles.

Situation :

6 IJN Fubuki class DD's vs 6 USN Sims class DD's. IJN have the average night experience for their fleet class DD's in UV (76). USN have average night experience for their DD's (based on sample of 40 early scenario DD's - night exp = 41). All USN DD's have SC Radar. IJN and USN have same TF leader ratings. USN has an "average" ship captain based on the 40 early scenario DD's. IJN has an "average" DD ship captain (which turned out to be almost 10% better then USN.

Ship types -
Sims class have 4 x 5" and 8 TT and durability 9.
Fubuki class have 6 x 5" and 9 TT and durability 9.
The USN 5" has 150% better rate of fire. The IJN has the Type 93 torp.

The 15 battles listed here have the USN Surface Combat TF moving 1 hex to engage the IJN Surface Combat TF. When I get time, I will post the second set of 15 battles where the IJN is the moving force (although it is not expected to make a difference). I have attached the first, sixth and eleventh AAR to give people a look at the battle in detail and help understand the summary. Where one side has crossed the 'T', the battle was excluded so that only battles where neither has a tactical advantage are used.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/04/42

BATTLE 1
Night Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese Ships
DD Fubuki, Shell hits 2, on fire (20)
DD Isonami, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage (40)
DD Shirayuki, Shell hits 1
DD Hatsuyuki, Shell hits 1, on fire (20)
DD Murakumo, Shell hits 2
DD Uranami, Shell hits 1, on fire

Allied Ships
DD Sims, Shell hits 1
DD Hughes, Shell hits 1
DD Anderson
DD Hammann, Shell hits 1
DD Mustin, Shell hits 2 (50)
DD Russell, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage (50)
**************************************************
1) Draw
IJN/USN dam received 80/100
IJN/USN hits received 10/7 + 1 Torp

2) Draw
IJN/USN dam received 60/30
IJN/USN hits received 6/4

3) USN victory
IJN/USN dam received 150/100
IJN/USN hits received 13/11 + 1 Torp

4) IJN victory
IJN/USN dam received 130/190
IJN/USN hits received 7/5 + 2 Torp

5) USN victory
IJN/USN dam received 260/90
IJN/USN hits received 17/9

****************************************
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/09/42

BATTLE 6
Night Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese Ships
DD Fubuki, Shell hits 1
DD Isonami
DD Shirayuki, Shell hits 2, on fire (30)
DD Hatsuyuki, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Murakumo, Shell hits 2, on fire (20)
DD Uranami, Shell hits 1

Allied Ships
DD Sims
DD Hughes
DD Anderson
DD Hammann, Shell hits 1
DD Mustin
DD Russell
********************************************
6) USN victory
IJN/USN dam received 50/0
IJN/USN hits received 7/1

7) Draw
IJN/USN dam received 120/110
IJN/USN hits received 11/4 + 2 Torp

8) Draw
IJN/USN dam received 20/50
IJN/USN hits received 9/5

9) Draw
IJN/USN dam received 160/150
IJN/USN hits received 13/10 + 1 Torp

10) IJN victory
IJN/USN dam received 160/280
IJN/USN hits received 22/16 + 3 Torp

************************************************
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/14/42

BATTLE 11
Night Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese Ships
DD Fubuki, Shell hits 2, on fire, heavy damage (50)
DD Isonami
DD Shirayuki, Shell hits 3, on fire (30)
DD Hatsuyuki, Shell hits 2
DD Murakumo, Shell hits 3, on fire (40)
DD Uranami, Shell hits 2 (20)

Allied Ships
DD Sims
DD Hughes, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage (80)
DD Anderson, Shell hits 3 (30)
DD Hammann
DD Mustin
DD Russell, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage (60)
*************************************************
11) Draw
IJN/USN dam received 140/170
IJN/USN hits received 12/8 + 2 Torp

12) USN victory
IJN/USN dam received 170/50
IJN/USN hits received 17/4

13) IJN victory
IJN/USN dam received 170/250
IJN/USN hits received 14/13 + 4 Torp

14) USN victory
IJN/USN dam received 100/30
IJN/USN hits received 9 + 1 Torp/3

15) Draw
IJN/USN dam received 0/30
IJN/USN hits received 1/1

Total IJN/USN dam received 1770/1630
Total IJN/USN hits received 168 + 1 Torp/99 + 16 Torp

Notes :

a) Torpedoes - most of the IJN hits (13) came from striking ships that had already been heavily damaged from gunfire (probably slown) and were on fire (good target). The double fire (with reloads) abiltity of IJN DD's allowed them to get a large number of torpedo hits. Their initial salvos would mainly miss but by the time they fired their reloads, many ships had been damaged by gunfire. Torpedo "doctrine" (:p ) for the IJN in these battles could be described as that of finishing off crippled or damaged enemy ships.

b) The high rate of fire of the USN 5" guns is evidenced in their more numerous hit rates on the IJN DD's.

c) By the time this series of battles concluded, the USN DD's had a night experience of 50+. This was not from combat (as after each battle, the turn was restarted prior to combat and advanced one day to prepare for the next battle). The gain was from sitting around in port over a period of 4 weeks. Realistically, the scenario starting night experience levels for the USN will be gone within a month and should probably be considered to average at the low 50's. This means the night experience difference between the two sides is never as wide as it first looks (even without combat).

d) Once more, the total results at this point show a very slight superiority (in damage) in favour of the USN. Combined with what was seen in the CA vs CA test, in an equal battle between the IJN and USN at night (early war), there is no IJN advantage seen. Further testing will be made (15 more DD vs DD battles then 30 battles where the cruisers and destroyers will be combined together). After that, conclusions can be drawn.

[CapAndGown]

Here are some initial correlations from my intial test sets:

USN_Damage
IJN_experience
Pearson Correlation 1 .274
Sig. (2-tailed) .034


IJN_Damage
USN_experience
Pearson Correlation 1 .270
Sig. (2-tailed) .037


USN_Damage
USN_experience
Pearson Correlation 1 -.274
Sig. (2-taile) .034


IJN_Damage
IJN_experience
Pearson Correlation 1 -.270
Sig. (2-tailed) .037


IJN_damage - USN_damage
IJN_exp - USN_exp
Pearson Correlation 1 -.481
Sig. (2-tailed) .000



IJN_damage - USN_damage
IJN_experience
Pearson Correlation 1 -.481
Sig. (2-tailed) .000



IJN_damage - USN_damage
USN_experience
Pearson Correlation 1 .481
Sig. (2-tailed) .000


USN_ships_hit
IJN_experience
Pearson Correlation 1 .357
Sig. (2-tailed) .005



IJN_ships_hit
USN_experience
Pearson Correlation 1 .347
Sig. (2-tailed) .007


IJN_damage - USN_damage
USN_crosses_T
Pearson Correlation 1 .303
Sig. (2-tailed) .019

IJN_damage - USN_damage
IJN_crosses_T
Pearson Correlation 1 -.306
Sig. (2-tailed) .017

IJN_damage - USN_damage
Both_surprised
Pearson Correlation 1 .056
Sig. (2-tailed) .673
[note: this was included as a sanity check to make sure there was not a corelation between being surprised and damage suffered.]

USN_crosses_T
USN_experience
Pearson Correlation 1 .254
Sig. (2-tailed) .050


USN_crosses_T
IJN_experience
Pearson Correlation 1 -.254
Sig. (2-tailed) .050


USN_crosses_T
IJN_exp - USN_exp
Pearson Correlation 1 -.254
Sig. (2-tailed) .050
[note: for some reason I left off IJN_crosses_T]



So far there are many significant corelations. Not only does experience corelate to damage inflicted, it also corelates to damage suffered. (These corelations, however, are rather weak even if they are significant.) This may be because a side with higher experience "gets the drop" on its opponent and therefore recieves less damage from return volleys.

Still too early to make many conclusions. Yet it is comforting to know that experience levels do have some impact on battles.

[Nikademus]

Excellent analysis so far guys. Very interesting thread. Only wish i had some pertient (game) data to contribute but alas, my schedule this month has been horendous and I havn't been able to get a turn in all month much less set up some test scenerios


though more testing is in the wind, it would appear to me from the data already posted that SC radar is having more of an effect then it should. It certainly should not be giving a signifigant to-hit bonus as it was primarily early warning and was plauged by interference and training issues at least in the initial period covered by UV.

Experience should be the dominant factor for these battles. Hard to tell at times as the results are skewed somewhat by the damage model (which tends to cause sig damage with each penetrating hit, with increasing preportion to shell size) and skewed greatly by IJN torp strikes, but strikes which often happen, as Drongo pointed out, after a period of exchanged gunfire.

It would seem to be that at the very least the radar sub-routine needs to have an exp-check to determine it's overall effectiveness. Dont know how hard this would be for the coders to work in assuming its not there now (it doesn't appear to be if the test results are anything to go on) Such a check, and perhaps more importantly, a leadership check might also address concerns over the "lack of Savos" given that USN TF's are rarely if ever taken by suprise.

SC should be providing little to no gunfire acc bonus at all.


Ironically, my current campaign has seen me get some *** whuppins courtasy of the IJN AI and of the less tilted battles, i've seen a good # of hits being scored by the AI.

However the previous campaign was less distinquishable. (difficulty set to historical in both cases for these go-arounds)

I'm also concerned about damage %'s being modified by exp. Dont believe this should happen. Night battles in particular are too chaotic and frenzied at times to allow any sort of selective targeting as far as ship systems and weapons go. EXP in my opinion should only affect to-Hit formulas. Works both ways too...a low exp ship that scores a hit may end up causing great damage, it all comes down to where exactly the shell lands on the target ship, and that is mostly a case of luck and probability.

Keep up the testing!

[Drongo]

Posted by Mulder

Still too early to make many conclusions. Yet it is comforting to know that experience levels do have some impact on battles.

I would be interested in your probability analysis if you are able to reverse your current test conditions to give the IJN the higher night experience. I'm finding that the higher IJN night experience (realistically 50% greater than USN) and the type 93 torp is being more than offset by what I assume is the USN's SC radar and better damage control.

Once I complete my next 15 DD battles, I may try to do a set up a series of battles where experience differences only are measured (ie using only IJN DD's for both sides with no radar but using the average experience levels (and maybe the ship captains) of each nationality. Hopefully this will confirm that night experience does have an influence. My guess at the moment is that it does but not as much as SC radar.

Love Scully

P.S. If I find out my "alien" baby is actually yours, you're in big trouble mister.

[Drongo]

Same conditions as previous set except IJN now the moving force.

***********************************
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/22/42

BATTLE 1
Night Time Surface Combat, near Tulagi at 38,39

Japanese Ships
DD Fubuki, Shell hits 2, on fire (50)
DD Isonami, Shell hits 4, on fire (50)
DD Shirayuki, Shell hits 3, on fire (30)
DD Hatsuyuki, Shell hits 2, on fire (30)
DD Murakumo, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage (100)
DD Uranami, Shell hits 4, on fire (40)

Allied Ships
DD Sims, Shell hits 1
DD Hughes, Shell hits 2, on fire (30)
DD Anderson, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage (100)
DD Hammann, Shell hits 2 (20)
DD Mustin, Shell hits 3, on fire (40)
DD Russell, Shell hits 2, on fire (20)

**********************************
1) USN victory
IJN/USN dam received 300/210
IJN/USN hits received 23/12 + 2 T

2) Draw
IJN/USN dam received 30/20
IJN/USN hits received 3/1

3) USN victory
IJN/USN dam received 270/60
IJN/USN hits received 23/5

4) Draw
IJN/USN dam received 30/0
IJN/USN hits received 3/0

5) IJN victory
IJN/USN dam received 0/60
IJN/USN hits received 3/3 + 1 T
***************************************
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/28/42 (PC)

BATTLE 6
Night Time Surface Combat, near Tulagi at 38,39

Japanese Ships
DD Fubuki
DD Isonami
DD Shirayuki, Shell hits 1 (20)
DD Hatsuyuki, Shell hits 1
DD Murakumo, Shell hits 1
DD Uranami, Shell hits 2, on fire (20)

Allied Ships
DD Sims, Shell hits 2, on fire (20)
DD Hughes, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Anderson
DD Hammann, Shell hits 2
DD Mustin, Shell hits 2
DD Russell, Shell hits 2
**********************************
6) Draw
IJN/USN dam received 40/20
IJN/USN hits received 5/9

7) USN victory
IJN/USN dam received 410/160
IJN/USN hits received 34 + 1 T/7 + 2 T

8) IJN victory
IJN/USN dam received 240/320
IJN/USN hits received 17/14 + 4 T

9) Draw
IJN/USN dam received 0/0
IJN/USN hits received 1/0

10) IJN victory
IJN/USN dam received 70/150
IJN/USN hits received 5/2 + 2 T

**************************************
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 09/04/42 (TS)

BATTLE 11
Night Time Surface Combat, near Tulagi at 38,39

Japanese Ships
DD Fubuki, Shell hits 3 (30)
DD Isonami
DD Shirayuki
DD Hatsuyuki
DD Murakumo
DD Uranami, Shell hits 1 (30)

Allied Ships
DD Sims
DD Hughes
DD Anderson
DD Hammann
DD Mustin, Shell hits 1
DD Russell
******************************
11) USN victory
IJN/USN dam received 60/0
IJN/USN hits received 4/1

12) IJN victory
IJN/USN dam received 100/140
IJN/USN hits received 11/7 + 1 T

13) IJN victory
IJN/USN dam received 150/210
IJN/USN hits received 13/14 + 4 T

14) USN victory
IJN/USN dam received 70/0
IJN/USN hits received 3/1

15) Draw
IJN/USN dam received 20/30
IJN/USN hits received 4/1

Total IJN/USN dam received 1790/1380
Total IJN/USN hits received 152 + 1 T/77 + 16 T
Grand Total IJN/USN dam received (30 battles) 3560/3010
Grand Total IJN/USN hits received (30 battles) 320 + 2 Torp/176 + 32 Torp

Notes :
a) Hits - 320/176 = USN +82% more hits. USN DD's have 4 x 5" guns with ROF of 20 (80 total ROF). IJN 5" gun has ROF of 8. IJN DD's carry 6 guns (48 total ROF). Therefore, all else being equal, the USN should gain 67% more hits. It actually got 82% more hits on average (only one battle got close enough for secondaries (AA) to be used and that was left out.

IJN night experience was 50% better than the USN. The IJN ship captains were 10% better than their USN counterparts. If these 2 factors influenced the number of hits (or chance to fire) in favour of the IJN, it could indicate that SC radar must give an enormous boost in that area (as it would appear to have not only nullified the IJN advantages but increased the USN hits beyond that expected). It should also be noted that if longer weapon range implies better accuracy than a shorter range weapon (IJN 20,000 - USN 18,000), the IJN 5" gun would also be expected to hit over 10% more often. If experience, leadership and gun range do influence the number of hits, then something substantial must be favouring the USN (maybe God is an American).

Since I have no idea how factors are weighted and calculated in combat in UV to determine number of hits, I cant pinpoint exactly where the USN is coming out on top (Matrix will need to enlighten me on this). All I can state is that 6 SC equipped DD's with 4 x 5" guns will hit 80% more often than 6 IJN DD's with 6 x 5" (with 50% better crews and 10% better captains).

b) Damage - Once more, I dont know exactly how damage is calculated but the following was noted in testing. Torpedoes are not playing a decisive role in terms of damage. (ie the bulk of the damage inflicted). The 32 torpedoes which struck home resulted in a total of about 1200 damage (out of around 3000 overall). Any concept of the Long Lance being a ship killer (if it hits) was not borne out (which is surprising given the victims were DD's). It normally took 2 torp hits to sink a USN DD or 3 gun hits plus 1 torp hit. DD's that took just 1 torp hit would suffer about 50% damage, leaving them full of fight but vulnerable to further hits (from gun or torp). The real killer in the DD battles was the USN 5" gun.

c) Fires - without doubt, a burning ship is not the place to be (as it states in the manual). Once a ship lights up (smoking is bad for your health), it becomes a real magnet. After the first round of battle, the side with the least number of ships on fire will normally win (sounds obvious doesn't it but we're talking even small fires). As the USN DD's get more hits, there is more chance of causing fires.

d) Speed - if your ship has both slown down and is on fire, apply the shark repellant now.

e) The IJN DD's were set up to be typical of what the Japanese player would be using. The USN DD's were chosen to be representative of the DD's available in the first 6 months of the conflict. A conclusion at this point would be that you would expect a clash between the DD's of the 2 sides (pre SG radar and pre increased USN experience) to result in equal losses on average. No evidence was seen of an overall IJN advantage at night where individual ship and ship captain stats are modeled.

f) Any comments from anyone will be welcome at this point.

g) Off topic but the highlight of the testing was seeing a USN DD put a torp into an untouched IJN DD at 10000 yards, which then promptly sank. War's a funny thing.

h) More testing will follow (of a different test case - at some point testing what happens when "crossing the 'T' " occurs will be done).

[Drongo]

The following is 6 battles left out of the 30 previous ones due to one side having the tactical advantage. I am not going to analyse it in detail but it indicates that getting an advantage at the beginning of a battle has only a small influence on who wins it.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/21/42 (USN CROSSES 'T')

Night Time Surface Combat, near Tulagi at 38,39

Japanese Ships
DD Fubuki, Shell hits 1
DD Isonami, Shell hits 1, on fire (20)
DD Shirayuki
DD Hatsuyuki, Shell hits 1 (20)
DD Murakumo
DD Uranami, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage (60)

Allied Ships
DD Sims, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Hughes, Shell hits 1
DD Anderson, Shell hits 1
DD Hammann, Shell hits 2, on fire (40)
DD Mustin
DD Russell
********************************************
A) USN victory
IJN/USN dam received 100/40
IJN/USN hits received 6/5
****************************************************AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/23/42 (IJN CROSSES 'T')

Night Time Surface Combat, near Tulagi at 38,39

Japanese Ships
DD Fubuki, Shell hits 6, on fire, heavy damage (100)
DD Isonami, Shell hits 4, on fire, heavy damage (70)
DD Shirayuki, Shell hits 2, on fire (40)
DD Hatsuyuki, Shell hits 4, on fire (40)
DD Murakumo, Shell hits 1
DD Uranami, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage (100)

Allied Ships
DD Sims
DD Hughes, Shell hits 2, on fire (30)
DD Anderson, Shell hits 4, on fire (50)
DD Hammann, Shell hits 3, on fire (40)
DD Mustin, Shell hits 2, on fire (20)
DD Russell, Shell hits 3 (20)
************************************************
B) USN victory
IJN/USN dam received 350/160
IJN/USN hits received 22 + 1 T/14
****************************************************
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 09/02/42 (IJN CROSSES 'T')

Night Time Surface Combat, near Tulagi at 38,39

Japanese Ships
DD Fubuki, Shell hits 4, on fire (60)
DD Isonami, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage (70)
DD Shirayuki, Shell hits 5, on fire, heavy damage (70)
DD Hatsuyuki, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage (80)
DD Murakumo, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage (100)
DD Uranami, Shell hits 17, and is sunk (100)

Allied Ships
DD Sims, Shell hits 2, on fire (30)
DD Hughes, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk (100)
DD Anderson, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Hammann, Shell hits 8, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage (100)
DD Mustin
DD Russell
*************************************************
C) USN victory
IJN/USN dam received 480/230
IJN/USN hits received 46 + 1 T/14 + 6 T
****************************************************
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 09/03/42 (USN CROSSES 'T')

Night Time Surface Combat, near Tulagi at 38,39

Japanese Ships
DD Fubuki
DD Isonami, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage (90)
DD Shirayuki
DD Hatsuyuki
DD Murakumo
DD Uranami, Shell hits 2, on fire, heavy damage (60)

Allied Ships
DD Sims
DD Hughes
DD Anderson, Shell hits 1
DD Hammann, Shell hits 2 (20)
DD Mustin, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage (100)
DD Russell, Shell hits 1 (20)
***************************************************
D) Draw
IJN/USN dam received 150/140
IJN/USN hits received 6 + 1 T/7 + 3 T
****************************************************
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 09/06/42 (USN CROSSES 'T')

Night Time Surface Combat, near Tulagi at 38,39

Japanese Ships
DD Fubuki, Shell hits 2
DD Isonami, Shell hits 2
DD Shirayuki, Shell hits 1
DD Hatsuyuki
DD Murakumo, Shell hits 1
DD Uranami, Shell hits 2

Allied Ships
DD Sims
DD Hughes, Shell hits 1
DD Anderson
DD Hammann, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire (30)
DD Mustin, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage (100)
DD Russell, Shell hits 2, on fire (20)
************************************************
E) IJN victory
IJN/USN dam received 0/150
IJN/USN hits received 8/9 + 5 T
****************************************************
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 09/09/42 (IJN CROSSES 'T')

Night Time Surface Combat, near Tulagi at 38,39

Japanese Ships
DD Fubuki
DD Isonami, Shell hits 1
DD Shirayuki, Shell hits 2 (20)
DD Hatsuyuki, Shell hits 1
DD Murakumo
DD Uranami, Shell hits 1, on fire

Allied Ships
DD Sims
DD Hughes
DD Anderson
DD Hammann, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage (60)
DD Mustin
DD Russell
*************************************************
F) IJN victory
IJN/USN dam received 20/60
IJN/USN hits received 5/3
****************************************************

[Erik Rutins]

Interesting analysis, good to see that it confirmed the model as I understand it. I'll add a little anecdotal battle report that may have some suggestions for folks who are having trouble as the IJN in surface combats. I wasn't feeling all that well yesterday, so I spent a little time playing Scenario 16 (Yamamoto's Prophecy) as the IJN against the Allied AI.

As anyone who's played this will realize, if you want to keep Guadalcanal you are eventually going to have to win some surface combats. As the IJN, your strength is your torps and your night experience. My goal was to get my night experience and overall crew experience as high as possible while minimizing casualties. This would help me in future battles.

The USN ships become much more experienced in night combat after they've survived their first one, so it's crucial to do as many casualties as possible when you have the biggest possible advantage. The early IJN cruisers, however, are the weaker Furutaka class, which are difficult to keep safe in a battle thanks to their thinner armor and lower durability.

Early on, I began by concentrating on Port Moresby. To make a long story short, Lae became my major base rather than Rabaul and supported all my Zeros, Bettys and Nells in low fatigue missions to pound PM into rubble. My surface forces started earning experience by doing bombardment runs into PM, which I tried to time to coincide with Allied resupply TFs. Meanwhile, I reinforced Lunga quickly and gave it enough supplies to hold out for a while.

When the AI began bombarding Lunga, I had already made significant progress in destroying PM, received some additional cruisers and battleships as reinforcements from Japan and had some very high experience cruisers and destroyers. After seeing that the first US bombardment force had about four CAs, one CL and five DDs, I put together a force of entirely CAs and CLs to intercept them.

While the destroyers had gained experience, I wanted to minimize casualties as much as possible and their lack of armor would be a hindrance there. The CLs would not survive shots from CAs, but are well enough armored to resist the 5" guns of US DDs and bring more torpedos to the battle. Tanaka was placed in command and parked at Lunga with search planes at Tulagi looking for the next incoming TF.

The first battle was a significant victory for the IJN, with relatively light casualties suffered. My TF's home base had been set to Tulagi, where a size 3 Port had just been finished. As a result, losses due to progressive flooding or out of control fires were kept to an absolute minimum. Once ships had those problems under control, they shuttled up to Shortlands, then the badly damaged were sent back to Truk and Japan to begin the cycle of replacements. I never sent even a lightly damaged ship back into combat until it had below 10 system damage.

When BBs arrived, I started including them along with my heavier duty CAs like the Nachi, Takao, Tone and Mogami classes and the better CLs like the Sendai. The vast majority of engagements continued to go my way, with experience building up and torpedo hits being frequent. I also saw relatively frequent instances of my cruisers and light cruisers firing torpedos as part of their initial salvos. By August, with casualties in ports or back in Japan, I still had a viable 85+ night experience interception force and another force for bombarding PM.

Coverage from my carriers allowed me to keep the US CVs off my back, though at a cost. By mid-September, I had lost a CV (Junyo) and a CVL, while the US had lost five CVs. My remaining two CVs and a CVL that were in theater escorted an invasion of PM which succeeded and put it in my hands, defeating the equivalent of 3.5 Allied divisions. Meanwhile, I had sunk at least 10 Allied CAs, some CLs, many DDs and crippled a BB (the vast majority with Long Lances). In doing this, I had lost _no_ CAs, one CL and four DDs. By this time, Lunga had the airpower (Vals and some Kates from the sunk CV) to follow up on my surface combat victories by pounding the retreating damaged USN ships into the sea.

The now 90+ experience CAs, CLs and BBs that I had (Kongo in particularly was extremely experienced and defeated North Carolina with barely a scratch) were a true force to be reckoned with. The string of victories they accumulated against equal forces gave me confidence that while I continued to keep them at very low damage and with good supplies of ammo, they would defeat any equal USN force.

Well, every now and then you feel the need to relate an AAR, right? Seriously though, many folks playing the Allies will bide their time while their air groups switch to F4Fs and Avengers, wait until their flak upgrades come through, etc. because they know it will give them a tactical advantage. Similarly, IJN players should carefully conserve and build their night/torp advantage by engaging in small decisive battles early on as much as possible and fielding only their well-armored, high-torp CAs, CLs and BBs later on when facing a surface combat situation. Resting on your laurels, as it were, will allow the Allied player's advantages to overcome your early game lead. It's essential, in my opinion, to keep building up that advantage - it requires more work than the advantages that the USN gets, but it does pay off.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

Regards,

- Erik

[Drongo]

Erik

Interesting analysis, good to see that it confirmed the model as I understand it.

Any chance of an quick explanation of the combat model as you understand it? I am just making assumptions based on what was in the manual. Any help is welcome to further our understanding. I have a lot of questions, like how in hell (can I say that here?) do you achieve surprise and what benefit do you get. How long does a "cross the 'T' " advantage last (in rounds). How does SC radar affect hit probability. Where do babies come from?

I agree completely with what is in your post. I tend to choose ships for survivability (so they build experience). Everything you mentioned is something I would normally try.

I suppose this whole effort in testing has come about because there was an expectation that the starting night experience levels
(plus leadership) for the IJN would suffice to give them an advantage over early period allied TF's. The UV manual certainly gave me that impression. Should we not assume that concept is correct?

[Drongo]

Erik,

Do you know whether an enemy TF will have a higher DL in combat if it enters your base location and fights a battle there. Assume that the enemy TF starts its move (unspotted) outside the hex and is not spotted on its move to the location. There has been some debate over whether a TF that moves to combat is at a disadvantage. I assumed it wasn't but I have noticed that naval combat results tend to (marginally) favour the non-moving TF in my tests. I was wondering whether being at a friendly location with a base when battle occurs is advantageous to the defender?

[CapAndGown]

The manual is wrong about an early advantage for the japs in night battles? Not using DDs in surface combats? Seems to me that we were right all along: the game system is off in its modeling of night suface engagements. Guess we don't need to run any more tests to prove what has now been confirmed.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Drongo

b) Damage - Once more, I dont know exactly how damage is calculated but the following was noted in testing. Torpedoes are not playing a decisive role in terms of damage. (ie the bulk of the damage inflicted). The 32 torpedoes which struck home resulted in a total of about 1200 damage (out of around 3000 overall). Any concept of the Long Lance being a ship killer (if it hits) was not borne out (which is surprising given the victims were DD's). It normally took 2 torp hits to sink a USN DD or 3 gun hits plus 1 torp hit. DD's that took just 1 torp hit would suffer about 50% damage, leaving them full of fight but vulnerable to further hits (from gun or torp). The real killer in the DD battles was the USN 5" gun.

f) Any comments from anyone will be welcome at this point.

This I can comment on as it touches on previous issues i've raised. The problem is not in the torpedoes, but in the damage calculations for penetrating hits. The DD tests in particular highlight the problem as they have little to no armor and lower durability. On average, each penetrating DD hit is causing between 10-25% damage per hit which is simply phenominal work for small HE based shellfire. Since gunfire, and particularily small gunfire (USN even more particularily given the ROF you've indicated) produces alot of metal in the air, which in turn will produce many more hits vs torps. Its easy to see how this form of incoming will outproduce or at least dilute the effect of torpedoes which historically were the true shock producing weapons which could cripple and sink ships with only one to a few blows depending on the target size.

Penetrating shell hits simply cause too much damage on a per hit basis, which is helping lead to the skewed damage totals. This was why i suggested an additional HL be added to the damage model to in effect, 'soak up' some of these penetrating hits so that we would no longer see ships (and not just DD's) be badly damaged to crippled after only a half dozen or less hits. Ships, even DD's are too big to be so fragile, especially to smaller weapons. I suspect the ratio of FLT causing hits remains high too, also leading to sinking cripples after only a few hits. This again will dilute the weight factor given torpedoes when they do strike.

Bringing these effects down to earth would restore the torps "ship killer" reputation, as it was torps that helped bring the IJN its early victories. straight gunfire vs gunfire will favor the USN player more though i am concerned over the ROF difference. Why again is this ROF so disperate? Is it because of the differences between AA ability? And should this be present during surface combat? I do not recall reading about USN DD's creating overwhelming fire storms in comparison to IJN DD's

[Erik Rutins]

Drongo,

Thanks, I'm sure most experienced players have tried all sorts of tactics. Many will work, but the ones I mentioned worked well for me. I'm not an expert on the combat model by any stretch, but I've picked up comments here and there during testing and discussions with Joel and Mike. Either of them would be a much better source and I'll see if they can drop by.

Cap and Gown,

If you're reading my post, where did I say that the manual is incorrect? Your response seems a rush to judgement in my opinion and it really seems like your mind was made up before these analyses. I could certainly pursue an all-DD strategy instead, which would work for the Japanese victory points-wise since their torpedos are quite effective. However, my decision was to minimize the effect of the US DDs (since their torpedos stink) by fielding ships that were largely immune to their 5" guns.

I have used an all-DD IJN surface combat strategy in the past and sunk CAs and BBs with it handily, but while I was getting an excellent trade off in VPs, I found that the casualties to the DDs were (realistically and historically) rather high and the Japanese navy cannot afford high losses in any category, in my opinion. Therefore, I usually use DDs for escort, light bombardment, fast transport and raiding.

Regards,

- Erik

[mdiehl]

Based on Drongo's tests there seem to be no problems with the model. It produces roughly historical results. When you start ultra hyping IJN night experience you get absurd results, apparently, when you have a Kongo taking on the NC and winning. There's a suggestion that light munitions are doing too much damage to heavily armored vessels, which may warrant inspecting the penetration values of rifles in the 5"-6" range. But a 5" is a "ship killer" when the target is unarmored.