Dissapointed in IJN Night Combat

[David Heath]

We are working on something nice for naval combat in v2.1. I won't say what but I think you will all be happy..... and if not just lie

[CapAndGown]

Originally posted by David Heath
We are working on something nice for naval combat in v2.1. I won't say what but I think you will all be happy..... and if not just lie

I think Joel Billings already indicated what was being planned. Maybe there are other changes in store as well? (Like making crossing the T mean something? )

Anyway, I love it already. And even if I don't, I think this horse is more than dead, its starting to rot.

[SamRo]

IJN 2 BC's 6 CA's + escorts vs USN 8 CA + escorts....

USN kicked butt.... IJN lost BC & bad damge too 2 CA's......

date was aug 1942.... USN only lost some DD's & 1 CA..... light damge to other ships...

[Chiteng]

It is interesting that Mdiehl likes to characterize the infered
changes in the combat routine as 'fantasy' and yet he doesnt
view the existing routine as 'allied fantasy'

If indeed it is the work of an 'axis fanboy' then I suggest to you
Mdiehl that you start recruiting more 'allied fanboys' to assist you.

I ask again, what is being simulated here? Reality or Fantasy?
Savo Island and Tass. are the reality. Java Sea is also reality.

It doesnt matter to me at all that you dont like this. What matters to me is the quality of the simulation. If you dont enjoy it, it wont bother me at all.

If we are NOT simulating reality, then what ARE we simulating?

I dont see myself as an Axis fanboy. I see myself as a defender
of the truth.



****************************************************
Any of you guys recall the floor game 'Sink the Bismark' by AV?
Not the first ed, the revision. It had the most accurate naval combat routine I have ever seen. Was immpossible to play of course =) But it was really kool =)

Kinda like a naval version of Campaign for North Afrika.

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

In past versions, crossing the T means the player that crossed the T gains more shots on the first turn, because he can bring more guns to bear.

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood
__________________________________________________

Originally posted by cap_and_gown
...Maybe there are other changes in store as well? (Like making crossing the T mean something? )

[mogami]

Originally posted by SamRo
IJN 2 BC's 6 CA's + escorts vs USN 8 CA + escorts....

USN kicked butt.... IJN lost BC & bad damge too 2 CA's......

date was aug 1942.... USN only lost some DD's & 1 CA..... light damge to other ships...

Hi, I have posted my results as IJN in many encounters. If we begin to state openly that all night surface engagements must be total IJN victories and will protest any other result then the game is FUBAR. There were spectactular IJN victories in the UV period.
However the USN won more battles then it lost. I am niether an axis nor allied "fanboy" I am a UV "fanboy" I play both sides and have no major issues with the game. I think the next patch will make the IJN players very happy.

OK the game is a "recreation" In my games I have seen nearly everything (6 IJN DD sink North Carolina and after battle total TF damage to IJN was under 30)

I have lost battles with IJN CA and DD versus equal number of USN CA and DD...so what?

If the results of night surface engagements are set in stone then what is the point of the game? Are these results so unbeliveable?
Concerning only scenario 17...the daes, places ships and leaders involved in night surface battles will never match the actual. And the tests that are run while interesting are not all incompassing.
(Since I have had results opposite of those posted)
UV is not a TACTICAL LEVEL GAME. Prehaps the real design flaw is in having a ship display and messages during combat.

[Chiteng]

Concerning only scenario 17...the daes, places ships and leaders involved in night surface battles will never match the actual. And the tests that are run while interesting are not all incompassing.
****************************************************

But after all the test you have run, you have never seen the IJN
come off with 3 minor hits on Aoba after sinking 4 allied CA
with torps and blowing the bow off Chicago.

I might agree with you n the abstract. maybe things would even
out eventually. But my agreement means nothing.

You will never see historical results with the current game engine.
Ok if that doesnt bother you, by all means. It DOES bother me.

[mogami]

Hi, I am baffled.....I post 6 IJN DD kill North Carolina with under 30 combined damage in return and you want the same 4 allied CA sunk one damaged for Aoba light hurt.

There is no point.

Agreed what you state is a fact of history.

Now we must reproduce that fact of history or the simulation is a bust.

It is the same if in several battles USN loses 4 CA and damage to 1 while IJN suffers minor damage.

The simulation is CORRECT if results are
1st Possible
2nd Arrived at by system using data from actual event
3 results produced compare to (on average) historical results.

Wanting HISTORICAL results will produce UNHISTORICAL results.

First the USN will never be waiting in condidtion they were in war.
Not ships, not leaders, not date. Therefore the Historical result cannot ever be reproduced. The actual event was full of accicdents. I get crazy over this kind of argument and I can't believe I keep responding to them.

"If this don't happen, your wrong" (stick out tongue)

Well I think the game engine works. It might not produce actual battles verbatim. SO what?

(censored censored censored)

[Chiteng]

Then I would say Mogami, that your a gamer. Not a purist.

You are told, and admit you yourself, have NEVER seen a historical
result after many many runs, and it means nothing to you.

Doubtless you love chess. I dont have your ability to ignore reality.

All the factors you have stated, that lead up to Savo, could be argued as singular, but they could also be simulated.
An easy way is to say on August 14th four crusiers are sunk and
one damaged, and subtract that from the USN OOB.
That(in brute form) is one way to simulate reality.
To me that is LESS offensive, than no chance of ever seeing it
in game combat.

[Drongo]

Posted by Mogami

I get crazy over this kind of argument and I can't believe I keep responding to them.

"If this don't happen, your wrong" (stick out tongue)

Well I think the game engine works. It might not produce actual battles verbatim. SO what?

(censored censored censored)

Is the Free Roaming Vapour turning into an Angry Little Fireball?:p

I take your point that if UV was designed to produce only historical results, it would be ahistorical.

I can't speak for Chiteng but I wouldn't expect the UV engine to regularly throw out exact copies of Savo et al. However, I think UV would also be ahistorical if it can't produce similar (not exact) early IJN decisive victories (heavy allied losses vs little or no IJN loss) like Savo and Tass to at least the point where they are more than just a rare little random result (which I haven't even seen yet).

P.S. I still have enough faith in Matrix and 2x3 to look forward to their (secret) changes in 2.1 with anticipation.

[Chiteng]

Hehehe no Drongo I am not a pro-IJN fanboy. Multiple Savo
would be just as offensive.

I see the possible results as an emmense bell-curve.
What this argument is all about is where is the midpoint(average)

Mogami feels that the midpoint is in the right place NOW.
However that is a statistical argument.

But like I said:

If the IJN has 4BB 4CA and 8DD vs 1CA 3CL 4DD

It is NOT totally unreasonable to assume the IJN will win.
Yet with THIS game engine, I have seen them LOSE, and very badly indeed.

I have seen MANY lopsided results from the game engine.
My point is that they ALL favor the USN. THAT does offend me.

[mogami]

Hi, And we continue to ignore the lopsided IJN victories I have posted from AAR's (not tests-PBEM games)

Several battles IJN sinks USN BB for free (not one IJN ship sank-or hurt)

IJN CA's defeat USN CA's
IJN DD's defeat USN CA's

What I do keep hearing is

"It has not happened for me yet, So the game is wrong"

I keep saying what you want is possible, but not likely since players are not going to send those TF's against each other, but
if they do then at some point, in one of the games the IJN will crush the USN. It can not and should not be programed to happen JUST BECAUSE IT DID. If we do that then every thing that did not happen MUST NOT HAPPEN BECAUSE IT NEVER DID.

I think UV strike a nice balance. I accept it, you don't. Fine. I have no problem with your not accepting it. I have a problem with your expecting everyone else to reject it.

[Chiteng]

I have seen MANY lopsided results from the game engine.
My point is that they ALL favor the USN. THAT does offend me.
****************************************************

Did you read that Mogami? Are you saying that you WILL accept
the argument if I post the many lopsided results that favor the
USN? Because you see Mogami, that is something I CAN do, quite easily. No one but you and Eric dispute it however. I am sure EVERYONE has seen battles where the USN simply CRUSHES
the IJN in a gunnery duel.

They just have not seen a battle totaly decided by torpedoes
before the first gun is fired. That they have not seen. And THAT
Mogami is why your argument is specious.

The word 'possible' isnt an excuse for 'never'

[denisonh]

I am playing 5 PBEM games as the USN and have not seen a "crushing" USN victory when I was outnumbered or outgunned (except when Sonny sent an IJN DD with 23 sys damage against 7 PT boats and it got sunk).

I have seen the combat results for the USN show no ships hit, yet I end up with all my cruisers 25+ sys damage when I check during my planning turn.

I know I have never crushed an IJN TF with a BB when I didn't have one.

So I not sure about this overwhelming US adavantage that seems to be the major topic. I know I don't see the lethal results that Chiteng refers to, but do not believe that it is that bad of an advantage for the USN. My opinion is that the surface combat piece may not be lethal enough to replicate surface engagments properly.

[Pawlock]

Originally posted by Chiteng
I have seen MANY lopsided results from the game engine.
My point is that they ALL favor the USN. THAT does offend me.
****************************************************

Did you read that Mogami? Are you saying that you WILL accept
the argument if I post the many lopsided results that favor the
USN? Because you see Mogami, that is something I CAN do, quite easily. No one but you and Eric dispute it however. I am sure EVERYONE has seen battles where the USN simply CRUSHES
the IJN in a gunnery duel.

They just have not seen a battle totaly decided by torpedoes
before the first gun is fired. That they have not seen. And THAT
Mogami is why your argument is specious.

The word 'possible' isnt an excuse for 'never'

I was gonna try stay outta this one, because its been done to death and most people have accepted that Matrix are looking into some sort of fix that nmay perhaps favour the IJN. While I dont agree with this I prepared to accept it and give it a go.

Also it is not just Mogami and Eric that dispute it, I also do, in fact I can say exactly the reverse to what your saying. I have yet to play the USN and win a decisive victory. I have had a few draws, but mainly I have had my *** handed to me.

To be honest Chiteng, I really dont ever think you are gonna get the game you expect and demand!!

[Chiteng]

Heh the tyranny of Democracy. I agree it IS unlikely that any
simulations will ever be 'perfect' as far as my opinion of it.

All I can do is state my objections and reasoning. It is very hard
to make a purist happy.

[mogami]

Hi, This cracks me up. I have been posting AAR's form the day this game was released. (and from both sides) If I post nothing but IJN victory and you post nothing but USN victory between the two of us will make a good case for UV being OK. No one said the IJN victories would be Chiteng (or Sadly Mogami) Only that they will occur in a campaign about as often as they did in the war.

I am currently playing 5 scenario 19's as allies. All the games began within 24 hours of each other. All have made approx the same number of turns (early June now) But the five games are as differant as can be

In 1 game IJN has caputured PM Cooktown and Cairns
In another game IJN has landed on L'ville (ignoring PM)
In yet another I have repulsed 3 differant attempts on PM
In another I lost a CV (Lex) to 2 bomb hits
In the last it is as quiet as can be (IJN player is happy to just keep sending TF's to Lunga)

Not one recreates history so I guess in your book they are all wrong.
You are not a purist. The game is not material for purists.
There is too much that is allowed to wander from history.
Scen 15 17 19 would never be played

I don't know what the proper word would be. But purist I am sure is not correct. Where is your purity?

"I never get the result the IJN got on such and such a date" "the game is flawed"

I think you want to play "Warship" UV has surface battles but it is not about surface battles. UV has carrier battles but it is not about carrier battles. It is about resource managment.

[Chiteng]

Well Mogami there are several fallisies(sp?) that you promote.

****************************************************
Only they they will occur in a campaign about as often as they did in the war.
****************************************************
OK if that is true, then where is my at least ONE totally lopsided
victory where I escape after crushing the enemy?

I understand your objections Mogami, I wish you would try to understand mine.

If you evaluate the game engine AS A GAME, then we see some serious flaws.

First and foremost: The USN player CAN shut out Jap airstrikes
PERIOD. If you mass 6 CV in one hex with maximum cap
there is NO airstrike (except possibly a totally coordinated
land based airstrike that used EVERY asset in ONE strike)
That will penetrate the CAP + Flak. That means the USN player
does NOT have to take any risk. PERIOD. If he bases Land based
fighter units on his CV he does even better.

The Jap subs have been nerfed, the Jap ASW has been nerfed.
The game is oriented to the player that is able to minimize
organizational confusion. That means - no malaria - lots of support
- big bases - and LOTS of supply.
Hmm, guess what that means? What side does that favor?

The latest patch shows me that Bombing PM with 36 bombers and 115 fighters on escort with ZERO fatigue and CLEAR weather
opposed by 21 enemy fighters of various types will at BEST
give me 1:1 losses.

Erik says to use Lae. To USE lae would mean bringing my ships
into LBA range w/o adequete Air cover(ie cant be hurt by enemy)
That means I will lose ships JUST to supply the base. let alone
USE it.

So right now the GAME is, the Japs have no edge in any way.
The only way they can hurt the enemy is IF he moves some asset
accidently into air range w/o his own air support.

[mogami]

Well Jeez I supply Lae all the time (with PM allied) and don't lose a ship, in fact I don't even get attacked. (LBA flying outside escort range will seldom fly if target covered by CAP)
the exception being the heavy bombers that to start with seldom send more then 3 planes in any attack

LBA bombers prior to making strike compare number of bombers to number of escorts to number of enemy CAP and make check.
If failed they abort mission. It is more common for abort then fly. This check is along with check for HQ (missing for a long time except Japanese ) Leader, Morale, Fatigue. Each of these checks reduce number of aircraft by 25% so fail all 4 no planes fly. The escort check simply aborts mission no matter how many bombers would have flown (but few bombers means fewer escorts required to fly mission if other checks passed)
Also Fast transport can safely supply Lae


If and when the USN can mass 6 CV into one hex the IJN is screwed (and i don't have a problem with this, the poor allied player has to face these monster TF's sooner and longer. If Allied player has achived this ability he has already won some where without it.

I don't think UV gives the Allies an auto victory. I will conceed that other then granting unlimited supply and fuel to the Japanese the game does not grant the super quality to the Japanese many players take for granted. Myself I feel no extra burden playing the Japanese. I'm usally too busy feeling sorry for the poor allied player.

[Chiteng]

If and when the USN can mass 6 CV into one hex the IJN is screwed (and i don't have a problem with this, the poor allied player has to face these monster TF's sooner and longer. If Allied player has achived this ability he has already won some where without it.
****************************************************
I would argue that he simply has not lost. You have time
to take it all back. You dont need PM to win. Its just easier if
you have it.

In fact I dont see a reason to 'need' anything except SWpac
to win. Just find some islands build lots of big useless bases
and you win.

My point was Mogami, the Jap player CANT shut out the Allied
players Airstrikes, and the Allied player CAN.