ASW combat

[Finarfïn]

I have been disturbed by the difference between surface combat and sub combat.
I apologize for my mistake.

In Surface combat the two options are available at the same time, same step.
In a sub combat, as you can see the choose are only available in different "step"
but the final result is, in my point of view, correct with simultaneous (and unmodified by other side combat result) fires.

But i think it's not the better way (just my opinion no offense for anyone), even with Coif future implementation, because
it too close to naval air combat in which we can spend SP in each step (A2A, flak, A2S, etc...)
with a consequence for the next step (less bombers, less air factors to press attack,etc...).

And once again it's in the worst case a minor burden. A good or experienced player won't be disturbed like i was.

Fin

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Finarfïn

I have been disturbed by the difference between surface combat and sub combat.
I apologize for my mistake.

In Surface combat the two options are available at the same time, same step.
In a sub combat, as you can see the choose are only available in different "step"
but the final result is, in my point of view, correct with simultaneous (and unmodified by other side combat result) fires.

But i think it's not the better way (just my opinion no offense for anyone), even with Coif future implementation, because
it too close to naval air combat in which we can spend SP in each step (A2A, flak, A2S, etc...)
with a consequence for the next step (less bombers, less air factors to press attack,etc...).

And once again it's in the worst case a minor burden. A good or experienced player won't be disturbed like i was.

Fin

I agree with you. I'll put this on my list of things to fix the next time I am working on the Naval Combat subphases code.

[Finarfïn]

thks

[Shannon V. OKeets]

After rereading all of this, I now disagree with you (and with myself from what I wrote in March).[:)]


The sequence of play in naval Submarine combat is:
NCspASWD, // RAC 11.5.10, 22.4.19, & 11.5.6.
NCspSubA, // RAC 11.5.10 & 11.5.6.
NCspASWA, // RAC 11.5.10, 22.4.19, & 11.5.6.
NCspSubD, // RAC 11.5.10 & 11.5.6.

The program treats each of these subphases separately as far as letting the player use surprise points. So only one choice is made available in each of these 4 subphases.

I think that is correct. Otherwise, you would have to have 4 choices - and the form doesn't really have room for all of that.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

Alright, you mean what Paul explained? Didn't understand that..

If I ever explained anything on this page, I now deny all knowledge. I have no idea what is being discussed here.

[Courtenay]

When playing convoys in flames, combat charts can be consulted in any one of four steps:

Phasing player conducts ASW pre-attack
Non-phasing player conducts ASW pre-attack
Phasing player attacks
Non-phasing player attacks.

I think this is the correct order, but am not certain. However, you do get to conduct your pre-attack before the other side makes its normal attack.

What I do not understand is why this causes submarine combat and surface naval combat to be treated differently, as these four phases can happen in both surface naval combat and submarine combat, as the example on page 168 of RAC makes clear.

Edited: This is wrong. See corrected post down below.

[Finarfïn]

Hello,

Not sure on that point but as i 'm still a novice this isn't a surprise for me .

Quoting RAC 11.5.10

" ....If each side has both SUBs and other targets, there will be 2 separate combats...."

for me it's look like if both side have SUB and CP (maybe sometimes in med? otherwise it's a rare case i think) you have 2 combats so 1 with
NCspASWD,
NCspSubA,

and another for the other SUB combat.

Also 11.5.10

"..The SUBs also attack in the same way as a surface naval combat except that they use the SUB row of the naval combat chart and only the convoy points count as ships...."

As i have said before i was surprised because Surface and SUB combat are managed two differents ways. But as i 've said results are corrects (simultaneous fire) so it's just a cosmetic matter for me.

As i've said before i'm still (and will ever be ) a noob in this game ( so many rules, particular cases,etc...) so if i'm wrong it will be not a surprise to me .

Furthermore, i have less time to play a newborn boy is a very loud and combesome things and i've to managed several changes in my job (news responsabilities, things to learn, etc... great thing but also less time for my private life).

Fin

[Larry Smith]

If it was the lack of ASW pre-fire combat that was confusing you, Convoys In Flames has not yet been implemented in MWiF. I only skimmed the posts, but I got the gist that that was what was confusing you. There was a bug a while back where some units not presently in use were showing up for the initial set-up - such as an ASW unit for the CW - but that was fixed back in June, I think.

[Courtenay]

No, what was confusing him was my post was wrong.

If both sides have convoys and subs in a sea zone, even without Convoys in Flames, there will be four rolls on the naval combat chart: One side's subs against the other side's convoy points and the other side's escorts versus the first side's subs, and the reverse. If playing with Convoys in flames, one could have to use look up tables six times, as one adds pre-fire.

MWiF's interface is not designed to handle four separate naval table look ups, so it does them one at a time.

My apologies for not understanding what was going on, and giving bad information. See my signature.