Kamikazes and Radar pickets
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
Kamikazes and Radar pickets
Hi all. I love UV, and can't wait for WiTP. I have 2 questions. 1) Will Kamikazes be handled? And if so how? And 2) If there are Kamikazes, will there be an option to convert Destroyers and destroyer escorts, If I remember a few of the old Porter class DDs (USS Winslow most notably), a few of the Fletchers, a lot of Gearnings and some Sumners, and a host of Buckley and JC Butler DEs, were all converted to radar pickets. It would be a great asset, but understandabley hard to implement. Also, how would AA refits be handled? I in UV ships exchange .50 cals and 1.1" AA for 20 and 40mm, but what about surrendering 5" turrets and TTs, will it work the same? Like the Porters had 4 twin 5"38 SP mounts, and by the end of the war some had 3 twin DP mounts or 2 twin and 1 single DP mount. Just some questions. I suppose this question also relates to the modernizing of the old Pearl Harbor BBs to "modern" AA configs, losing single 5"/51s and 5"/25s for twin (or in the case of Idaho single) 5"/38s. Just some questions. Thanks!
Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med
Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med
Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.
1. Yes, kamikazes will be included in WitP. How they are handled falls under the NDA, and hasnt been implemented yet so I couldnt tell you anyway. They are still on the Alpha revision builds so there are still features to be added.
2. I imagine conversion to destroyer radar pickets would operate the same way other refits are handled. The ship disappears for a while and then reappears with the different equipment.
2. I imagine conversion to destroyer radar pickets would operate the same way other refits are handled. The ship disappears for a while and then reappears with the different equipment.
"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
Tankerace,
I'm not in the Beta (or Alpha, whatever). However the way I'm guessing that Kamikazes would be handled is that they would be squadrons that are recieved as a reinforcement like anything else. If you're familiar with UV (the engine that WitP is based on), I'm going to share how I'm GUESSING that Kamikazes would be handled, using the conventions of the UV engine.
A kamikaze squadron would NOT be necessarily be a "Val" squadron, or a "Zero" squadron like we normally see. But simply a "Kamikaze" squadron. Or at most detail, a "Kamikaze 1e" and/or "Kamikaze 2e" squadron. A 1-engined squadron might have a higher accuracy, but a 2-engine squadron would have greater penetration and damage. Again, maybe there would be no distinction, and the squadron would just be "Kamikaze".
The squadron would be limited to transfer missions, and Naval Attack. With Transfer missions, the squadron could be moved around as normally (and maybe even based on a Carrier). Perhaps due to low exp ratings, the squadron might suffer higher operational losses, so you wouldn't want to just move them around just for fun.
If the squadron is set to Naval attack it could be interecepted by CAP, and flak would get defensive fire. All surviving planes would each get an "attack", and would uniformly be rated for accuracy and penetration. An A6M2 with a fuel tank attached is pretty much the same level of catastrophy as a Tony with attached fuel tank. They're both gonna make a mess. Again, it might have some variety, if it's a 1e or 2e unit, if there is a distinction in the unit type.
From there, it's a question of game mechanics. Matrix could option to simply eliminate the squadron all together (because all the planes are now dead, it's a one way trip after all), and force new squadrons to be recieved as reinforcements. Or (and what I would do)...
The squadron remains active, with 0 planes, and 0 pilots. The squadron could potentially recieve planes and pilots as "dedicated" kamikaze replacements (ie. you'd have a pool for 1e Kamikazes and/or 2e Kamikazes, just like you have a pool for A6M2s and Nells). The squadron with 0 planes could draw replacements from the pool. As replacement were recieved, the squadron becomes active again. You could also DISBAND active squadons of A6M2s or whatever, INTO the Kamikaze squadron. There, the number of planes in the squadron increases, and also the pilots. Again, the plane type doesn't matter, so you could disband Tonys into the Kam squadron, or A6M2s into the Kam squadron also. The number of planes and pilots in the Kam squadron increases no matter which type of planes you add to it. Again, there might be some contraint if there is a difference between a 1e and 2e Kam squadron, so you might only be able to disband and active Nell squadron into a 2e Kam squadron if there's a distinction. However, disbanding INTO a Kamikaze squadron would be a one-way trip. Once the plane is added to the Kam squadron, the type of the original aircraft would be potentially lost, so you couldn't go into the Kamikaze squadron, and back out to an active A6M2 squadron.
Just my 2 pfennigs.
-F-
I'm not in the Beta (or Alpha, whatever). However the way I'm guessing that Kamikazes would be handled is that they would be squadrons that are recieved as a reinforcement like anything else. If you're familiar with UV (the engine that WitP is based on), I'm going to share how I'm GUESSING that Kamikazes would be handled, using the conventions of the UV engine.
A kamikaze squadron would NOT be necessarily be a "Val" squadron, or a "Zero" squadron like we normally see. But simply a "Kamikaze" squadron. Or at most detail, a "Kamikaze 1e" and/or "Kamikaze 2e" squadron. A 1-engined squadron might have a higher accuracy, but a 2-engine squadron would have greater penetration and damage. Again, maybe there would be no distinction, and the squadron would just be "Kamikaze".
The squadron would be limited to transfer missions, and Naval Attack. With Transfer missions, the squadron could be moved around as normally (and maybe even based on a Carrier). Perhaps due to low exp ratings, the squadron might suffer higher operational losses, so you wouldn't want to just move them around just for fun.
If the squadron is set to Naval attack it could be interecepted by CAP, and flak would get defensive fire. All surviving planes would each get an "attack", and would uniformly be rated for accuracy and penetration. An A6M2 with a fuel tank attached is pretty much the same level of catastrophy as a Tony with attached fuel tank. They're both gonna make a mess. Again, it might have some variety, if it's a 1e or 2e unit, if there is a distinction in the unit type.
From there, it's a question of game mechanics. Matrix could option to simply eliminate the squadron all together (because all the planes are now dead, it's a one way trip after all), and force new squadrons to be recieved as reinforcements. Or (and what I would do)...
The squadron remains active, with 0 planes, and 0 pilots. The squadron could potentially recieve planes and pilots as "dedicated" kamikaze replacements (ie. you'd have a pool for 1e Kamikazes and/or 2e Kamikazes, just like you have a pool for A6M2s and Nells). The squadron with 0 planes could draw replacements from the pool. As replacement were recieved, the squadron becomes active again. You could also DISBAND active squadons of A6M2s or whatever, INTO the Kamikaze squadron. There, the number of planes in the squadron increases, and also the pilots. Again, the plane type doesn't matter, so you could disband Tonys into the Kam squadron, or A6M2s into the Kam squadron also. The number of planes and pilots in the Kam squadron increases no matter which type of planes you add to it. Again, there might be some contraint if there is a difference between a 1e and 2e Kam squadron, so you might only be able to disband and active Nell squadron into a 2e Kam squadron if there's a distinction. However, disbanding INTO a Kamikaze squadron would be a one-way trip. Once the plane is added to the Kam squadron, the type of the original aircraft would be potentially lost, so you couldn't go into the Kamikaze squadron, and back out to an active A6M2 squadron.
Just my 2 pfennigs.
-F-
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me
I am also curious whether Ohkas and the Kamaikaze subs will be included.
"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
Kid posted this in another thread.
- Attachments
-
- kamikaze.jpg (81.22 KiB) Viewed 546 times
"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
I guess that sums it up for the kamikazes, but what about the radar pickets? My reasons for asking is 1 I understand I would need them (and want them too), but if WiTP is anything like UV(dumb allusion I know) Im always going to be short of destroyers. I guess we'll see, right?
Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med
Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med
Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.
I dont think you will find yourself short of destroyers and escorts in WitP, the US really started cranking them out in the time frame WitP covers compared to UV. Also, many destroyers in UV have radar on them so I'm not sure how a radar picket destroyer would be different from these destroyers...Did they have improved radar? I imagine having a picket would allow multiple destroyers to triangulate the distance of the incoming air strike better than a tf would be able to.
Didnt one radar picket get attacked by something like 17 kamikazes in one day, lose half their crew, and paint on the deck a large arrow and 'Carriers that way' to get the kamikazes to stop?
Didnt one radar picket get attacked by something like 17 kamikazes in one day, lose half their crew, and paint on the deck a large arrow and 'Carriers that way' to get the kamikazes to stop?
"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
Well, lol, I dunno about the "Carriers that way", but you never know.... lol
Well, if destroyer escorts are implemented (and I mean actually used, unlike UV), I might not be shorthanded, or at least as bad
Radar Pickets were late war Gearing and Sumner class destroyers and a few Buckley class DEs, that were fitted with a Tripod mainmast. This was done to allow them to carry an extended radar suite, giving them a longer radar range than convential ships. In addition, they had larger command and control facilities enabling them to direct CAPs. What would happen is They would spot the inbound kamikazes a long way from the TF (they would be about 30-50 miles ahead), and the carrier would launch their CAP. However, instead of the Carrier's command and control directing the fighters, this job would be relayed instead to the radar pickets. This way, teh kamikazes could hopefully be stopped before they reached the carrier or landing fleet. Unfortunately, when the Japanese realized this is what was happening, they began to send mass attacks directed not on the carriers, but the pickets themselves. A picket force was often either a lone picket or a picket with one or two supporting unmodified ships. Not a lot of AA fire potentially. According to Conways All the Worlds Fighting Ships 1922-1946, these ships were converted to pickets:
Gearing class
Frank Knox DD742
Southerland DD743
Chevalier DD805
Higbee DD806
Benner DD807
Dennis J. Buckley DD808
Myles C. Fox DD829
Everett F. Larson DD830
Goodrich DD831
Hanson DD832
Herbert J. Thomas DD833
Turner DD834
Charles P. Cecil DD835
Hawkins DD873
Duncan DD874
Henry W. Tucker DD875
Rogers DD876
Perkins DD877
Vesole DD878
Leary DD879
Dyess DD880
Bordelon DD881
Furse DD882
Newman K. Perry DD883
Porter class
McDougal DD358 (renumbered AG126 upon conversion)
Winslow DD359 (renumbered AG127 upon conversion)
Buckley class
Buckley DE51
Fogg DE57
Reuben James DE153
William T. Powell DE213
Spangenberg DE223
Alexander J. Luke DE577
Robert I. Paine DE578
12 Sumner class destroyers were converted to destroyer-minelayers, and subsequently converted to radar pickets. Oddly enough, Conway's has no names, but their original destroyer hull numbers were: DDs 735-740, 749-751, and 771-773.
I hope this long list and information will help all who are curious, or if they don't have it all ready help the WiTP team. It should be noticed that of this list, the 12 Sumners and 24 Gearings were not completed as destroyers, but destroyer minelayers and converted (Sumners) or as Radar pickets outright. The 2 Porter class, and the Buckleys were, hover built to original designs and subsequently converted in 1945. The two Porter class ships were comverted to be used with the Operational Development Force, and as such is why they were renumbered, and thus may not have actually been used in combat. The other 36 destroyers and 7 Destroyer escorts (13 Buckley class DEs, numbers unkown, were still under conversion when the war ended) were, however, converted soley for combat use and hence retained their original hull numbers and classifications. I hope this helps you guys in the WiTP team if you do want to implement radar pickets, or at least offer some info to those who are interested. I personally think if nothing else but the sake of completeness would make it worthwhile.
Well, if destroyer escorts are implemented (and I mean actually used, unlike UV), I might not be shorthanded, or at least as bad
Radar Pickets were late war Gearing and Sumner class destroyers and a few Buckley class DEs, that were fitted with a Tripod mainmast. This was done to allow them to carry an extended radar suite, giving them a longer radar range than convential ships. In addition, they had larger command and control facilities enabling them to direct CAPs. What would happen is They would spot the inbound kamikazes a long way from the TF (they would be about 30-50 miles ahead), and the carrier would launch their CAP. However, instead of the Carrier's command and control directing the fighters, this job would be relayed instead to the radar pickets. This way, teh kamikazes could hopefully be stopped before they reached the carrier or landing fleet. Unfortunately, when the Japanese realized this is what was happening, they began to send mass attacks directed not on the carriers, but the pickets themselves. A picket force was often either a lone picket or a picket with one or two supporting unmodified ships. Not a lot of AA fire potentially. According to Conways All the Worlds Fighting Ships 1922-1946, these ships were converted to pickets:
Gearing class
Frank Knox DD742
Southerland DD743
Chevalier DD805
Higbee DD806
Benner DD807
Dennis J. Buckley DD808
Myles C. Fox DD829
Everett F. Larson DD830
Goodrich DD831
Hanson DD832
Herbert J. Thomas DD833
Turner DD834
Charles P. Cecil DD835
Hawkins DD873
Duncan DD874
Henry W. Tucker DD875
Rogers DD876
Perkins DD877
Vesole DD878
Leary DD879
Dyess DD880
Bordelon DD881
Furse DD882
Newman K. Perry DD883
Porter class
McDougal DD358 (renumbered AG126 upon conversion)
Winslow DD359 (renumbered AG127 upon conversion)
Buckley class
Buckley DE51
Fogg DE57
Reuben James DE153
William T. Powell DE213
Spangenberg DE223
Alexander J. Luke DE577
Robert I. Paine DE578
12 Sumner class destroyers were converted to destroyer-minelayers, and subsequently converted to radar pickets. Oddly enough, Conway's has no names, but their original destroyer hull numbers were: DDs 735-740, 749-751, and 771-773.
I hope this long list and information will help all who are curious, or if they don't have it all ready help the WiTP team. It should be noticed that of this list, the 12 Sumners and 24 Gearings were not completed as destroyers, but destroyer minelayers and converted (Sumners) or as Radar pickets outright. The 2 Porter class, and the Buckleys were, hover built to original designs and subsequently converted in 1945. The two Porter class ships were comverted to be used with the Operational Development Force, and as such is why they were renumbered, and thus may not have actually been used in combat. The other 36 destroyers and 7 Destroyer escorts (13 Buckley class DEs, numbers unkown, were still under conversion when the war ended) were, however, converted soley for combat use and hence retained their original hull numbers and classifications. I hope this helps you guys in the WiTP team if you do want to implement radar pickets, or at least offer some info to those who are interested. I personally think if nothing else but the sake of completeness would make it worthwhile.
Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med
Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med
Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.
Hello,
My first post so bear with me. I'm a pilot in VFA-131 The Wildcats. Been Playing UCV since it came out. Actually bought it online on cruise off the coast of Afghanistan. I surf these forums regularly but only now decided to post.
I'd like to echo the idea that picket ships be implemented, but with a caveat. Tanker is absolutely correct in his description of early warning tactics and intercept control, in fact we still operate the same way today. Though our Modern AEGIS systems are far more capable and our tactics are proven. I have some practical experience in this area, and hope this aspect of the war, which is near and dear to my heart, is not overlooked.
While it is true that early detection of kamikaze attacks is important to gameplay for both sides, implementing it in the game too early is a dangerous prospect for the Japanese if done without considering the fact that the US didn't really field it to good effect until later in the war when it became VERY necessary. Prior to Kamikaze attacks the impetus to develop early warning Air Radar aboard the Essex class Carriers was there no doubt, though I'll submit the first Kamikaze attacks accelerated any previous progress and tightened up any loose tactics. This was also likely the point at which Destroyers as early warning Air Radar pickets became SOP.
My long-winded point is... I hope that if a "Special Rule" re: picket ships is added that it be introduced as an upgrade to ships in theater and on new ships commisioned as dedicated Pickets later in the war. Additionally, the Special mission of "Early Warning/Intercept Control" should only be an option when it is deemed historically appropriate by all the 40 lb heads out there who do this kind of research (No offense to any 40 lb heads out there, I have a 35 lb head myself). The balance in gameplay would certainly be skewed in favor of the US if picket ships are introduced too early.
All that being said, if an attempt is made to make Naval R&D a reality, may I suggest the afore-mentioned capabilites be some of those R&D items to be optionally accelerated by the US player. Of course at the cost of something else, whether it be a limited # of R&D Spending points, or other R&D Projects etc....
....Ok I AM a 40 lb head. I did some research and this is what i found:
1. The Mark 4 Radar IOC 09/01/41. used in coord with Mk 37 & Mk33 directors for Surface and AA Fire Control. Presumably for air search as well, but only to a Range of 19nm. Also unable to cover from the horizon to 10 deg elevation. Limited air search in general not to mention extremely limited vs low Flyers.
2. Mk 12 Radar IOC 01/01/44 due to production delays. Suposed to have been standard on all new Essex class carriers. Haven't found any doc of mounting on Destroyers yet. Max range 22 nm. Said to fill the one gap in the radars performance. I take that to mean improved detection of low flyers
3. 1st intance, in about 2hrs worth of looking, of dedicated picket/fighter director duty 5 APR 44. USS Taylor DD468 DESRON 21 Humboldt Bay Occupation.
4. Fletcher Class Destroyer IOC JUN 42. Later served as picket at Okinawa
5. The Destroyer Escort Sailors Association www.desausa.com states the 4th general duty of the DE was Picket Duty in "The later stages of the war..." a role "developed in the Pacific". Implies a development over time.
I'll keep looking into this. If I find any defining info I'll be sure to post it.
V/R
Elf
My first post so bear with me. I'm a pilot in VFA-131 The Wildcats. Been Playing UCV since it came out. Actually bought it online on cruise off the coast of Afghanistan. I surf these forums regularly but only now decided to post.
I'd like to echo the idea that picket ships be implemented, but with a caveat. Tanker is absolutely correct in his description of early warning tactics and intercept control, in fact we still operate the same way today. Though our Modern AEGIS systems are far more capable and our tactics are proven. I have some practical experience in this area, and hope this aspect of the war, which is near and dear to my heart, is not overlooked.
While it is true that early detection of kamikaze attacks is important to gameplay for both sides, implementing it in the game too early is a dangerous prospect for the Japanese if done without considering the fact that the US didn't really field it to good effect until later in the war when it became VERY necessary. Prior to Kamikaze attacks the impetus to develop early warning Air Radar aboard the Essex class Carriers was there no doubt, though I'll submit the first Kamikaze attacks accelerated any previous progress and tightened up any loose tactics. This was also likely the point at which Destroyers as early warning Air Radar pickets became SOP.
My long-winded point is... I hope that if a "Special Rule" re: picket ships is added that it be introduced as an upgrade to ships in theater and on new ships commisioned as dedicated Pickets later in the war. Additionally, the Special mission of "Early Warning/Intercept Control" should only be an option when it is deemed historically appropriate by all the 40 lb heads out there who do this kind of research (No offense to any 40 lb heads out there, I have a 35 lb head myself). The balance in gameplay would certainly be skewed in favor of the US if picket ships are introduced too early.
All that being said, if an attempt is made to make Naval R&D a reality, may I suggest the afore-mentioned capabilites be some of those R&D items to be optionally accelerated by the US player. Of course at the cost of something else, whether it be a limited # of R&D Spending points, or other R&D Projects etc....
....Ok I AM a 40 lb head. I did some research and this is what i found:
1. The Mark 4 Radar IOC 09/01/41. used in coord with Mk 37 & Mk33 directors for Surface and AA Fire Control. Presumably for air search as well, but only to a Range of 19nm. Also unable to cover from the horizon to 10 deg elevation. Limited air search in general not to mention extremely limited vs low Flyers.
2. Mk 12 Radar IOC 01/01/44 due to production delays. Suposed to have been standard on all new Essex class carriers. Haven't found any doc of mounting on Destroyers yet. Max range 22 nm. Said to fill the one gap in the radars performance. I take that to mean improved detection of low flyers
3. 1st intance, in about 2hrs worth of looking, of dedicated picket/fighter director duty 5 APR 44. USS Taylor DD468 DESRON 21 Humboldt Bay Occupation.
4. Fletcher Class Destroyer IOC JUN 42. Later served as picket at Okinawa
5. The Destroyer Escort Sailors Association www.desausa.com states the 4th general duty of the DE was Picket Duty in "The later stages of the war..." a role "developed in the Pacific". Implies a development over time.
I'll keep looking into this. If I find any defining info I'll be sure to post it.
V/R
Elf
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES
-
madflava13
- Posts: 1501
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Alexandria, VA
Elf,
Glad to have you aboard...
From what I know of the Pacific War, there were basically no radar pickets before the Okinawa campaign. Raid warning came from whatever onboard systems the task forces had as well as ground and air spotters. For this reason, I don't think radar pickets should be modeled. There's a finite number of items that can be added to this game, and frankly I don't think a limited modification to a small number of ships that really only played a part in one battle should be high on the list. Okinawa was a unique campaign in that the TFs were tied to the island for an extended period in support of the troops. This happened in no other situations that I know of during the war. Unless there is a specific, small Okinawa scenario included, I see no reason to model the pickets.
Just my $.02, as usual.
Glad to have you aboard...
From what I know of the Pacific War, there were basically no radar pickets before the Okinawa campaign. Raid warning came from whatever onboard systems the task forces had as well as ground and air spotters. For this reason, I don't think radar pickets should be modeled. There's a finite number of items that can be added to this game, and frankly I don't think a limited modification to a small number of ships that really only played a part in one battle should be high on the list. Okinawa was a unique campaign in that the TFs were tied to the island for an extended period in support of the troops. This happened in no other situations that I know of during the war. Unless there is a specific, small Okinawa scenario included, I see no reason to model the pickets.
Just my $.02, as usual.
"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."
I think if anything that, the increase in effectiveness of Allied radar tactics (be it TF dispostion, better command and control, whatever), could be easily enough simulated within the current routines, by simply adding a modifier to the radar value of the TF after a certain date (or a certain point reached in R&D if that's the case).
UV doesn't really -care- about the physical placement of the ships in a TF. I presumes that the important guys are in the middle, and the DDs are on the outside. It's algorithims (to which I am -NOT- privy), probably come up with a composite value, a check is made against that value, and the closeness to that threshold is the effectivness rating of the radar. The effectivness rating is then the modifier that is used to determine the percentage of CAP that is available to intercept, and might affect the accuracy/amout of flak used by the defenders.
So lets say (just for example, humor me), a TF without radar allows 40-60% CAP to intercept and enemy strike, and 70-90% flak to be brought to bear. Having radar will help you, by adding a modifier that allowes these numbers to be increased.
So a strike attacks our TF with radar, whole composite "radar defense value" is 1000 (we're just throwing a number here, it really means nothing). A roll is made for the incoming strike...
A number over 1000 would mean that somebody spilled black paint on the screen, and the radar was completely ineffective.
A number close to 1000, but below it (say 900), means your radar didn't do you much good. The "bonus" you get for having the radar is only an additional 10% CAP than if you didn't have any radar. So you'd get the (40-60%) + 10% more of that.
A very low number, say 150, means your radar operator had extra coffee that morning, and is very observant. The "bonus" you get for having the radar is 85% more CAP than if you didn't have any radar. So you'd get (40-60%) + 85% more of that.
Don't split hairs about the math, this is just an example of how a VERY SIMPLIFIED model of how radar PROBABLY works. Obviously, the CXAM radar on a CV is inherently going to give you better numbers than the smaller sets on CA. Alititude of the attack also factors in I'm sure. But it was simply a basic example.
But now we move into say July '44, when USN radar tactics and command-n-control are really getting refined. Maybe it's a hard date, after such-n-such a date, that the bonus takes effect (similar to the discussion about USN torps getting better after June '43). Or maybe it's an R&D item. Don't know, don't care. But after the event has been reached (either by static date, or by R&D), the USN gets an additional percentage (say addtional 30% increase) in it's effectiveness. Or if you made it a "constant" R&D item, instead of having it as a "majik" 30%, it's a number that slowly increased as R&D points are spent on it.
Again, I don't know the "radar algorithms". I just makeing an example on how might be similarly done in UV. But something like that is VERY tricky for play balance. On the UV boards, there is already substantial concern about the current routines for radar, with the comments being that it is already too effective for the USN. Making it even -MORE- effective, or more effective SOONER (due to R&D), could have a massive impact on the playability of the game.
And that's my 2 pfennigs.
-F-
UV doesn't really -care- about the physical placement of the ships in a TF. I presumes that the important guys are in the middle, and the DDs are on the outside. It's algorithims (to which I am -NOT- privy), probably come up with a composite value, a check is made against that value, and the closeness to that threshold is the effectivness rating of the radar. The effectivness rating is then the modifier that is used to determine the percentage of CAP that is available to intercept, and might affect the accuracy/amout of flak used by the defenders.
So lets say (just for example, humor me), a TF without radar allows 40-60% CAP to intercept and enemy strike, and 70-90% flak to be brought to bear. Having radar will help you, by adding a modifier that allowes these numbers to be increased.
So a strike attacks our TF with radar, whole composite "radar defense value" is 1000 (we're just throwing a number here, it really means nothing). A roll is made for the incoming strike...
A number over 1000 would mean that somebody spilled black paint on the screen, and the radar was completely ineffective.
A number close to 1000, but below it (say 900), means your radar didn't do you much good. The "bonus" you get for having the radar is only an additional 10% CAP than if you didn't have any radar. So you'd get the (40-60%) + 10% more of that.
A very low number, say 150, means your radar operator had extra coffee that morning, and is very observant. The "bonus" you get for having the radar is 85% more CAP than if you didn't have any radar. So you'd get (40-60%) + 85% more of that.
Don't split hairs about the math, this is just an example of how a VERY SIMPLIFIED model of how radar PROBABLY works. Obviously, the CXAM radar on a CV is inherently going to give you better numbers than the smaller sets on CA. Alititude of the attack also factors in I'm sure. But it was simply a basic example.
But now we move into say July '44, when USN radar tactics and command-n-control are really getting refined. Maybe it's a hard date, after such-n-such a date, that the bonus takes effect (similar to the discussion about USN torps getting better after June '43). Or maybe it's an R&D item. Don't know, don't care. But after the event has been reached (either by static date, or by R&D), the USN gets an additional percentage (say addtional 30% increase) in it's effectiveness. Or if you made it a "constant" R&D item, instead of having it as a "majik" 30%, it's a number that slowly increased as R&D points are spent on it.
Again, I don't know the "radar algorithms". I just makeing an example on how might be similarly done in UV. But something like that is VERY tricky for play balance. On the UV boards, there is already substantial concern about the current routines for radar, with the comments being that it is already too effective for the USN. Making it even -MORE- effective, or more effective SOONER (due to R&D), could have a massive impact on the playability of the game.
And that's my 2 pfennigs.
-F-
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me
-
madflava13
- Posts: 1501
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Alexandria, VA
Feinder,
I think you nailed it.
I have no problems with a solution like you posted about - I think that would be entirely workable and realistic. I just didn't see the need for a whole new "class" of ships in the game. A mathematical solution like you suggest seems to me a great way to solve the issue.
I think you nailed it.
I have no problems with a solution like you posted about - I think that would be entirely workable and realistic. I just didn't see the need for a whole new "class" of ships in the game. A mathematical solution like you suggest seems to me a great way to solve the issue.
"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."
Feinder,
Concur. I know that whatever Matrix decides to do it will be done right, and gameplay issues will be considered from both camps( IJN & USN ). Whether its as simple as a bonus for CAP coverage after a certain date or as complex as a newe ship type resulting from R&D.
Besides, as one who enjoys the challenge of changing history for the Japanese, I'm afraid of improved radar!
Concur. I know that whatever Matrix decides to do it will be done right, and gameplay issues will be considered from both camps( IJN & USN ). Whether its as simple as a bonus for CAP coverage after a certain date or as complex as a newe ship type resulting from R&D.
Besides, as one who enjoys the challenge of changing history for the Japanese, I'm afraid of improved radar!
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES
One important consideration for CAP effectiveness was IFF. The IJN did not have it, the US did. One reason why US CAP was more effective at intercepting IJN raids that had piggybacked themselves onto returning US raids.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
-
LargeSlowTarget
- Posts: 5062
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Originally posted by Snigbert
Didnt one radar picket get attacked by something like 17 kamikazes in one day, lose half their crew, and paint on the deck a large arrow and 'Carriers that way' to get the kamikazes to stop?
I've read that, too. Spector's 'Eagle against the Sun' quotes another book which claims that during the Okinawa battle sailors on a radar picket destroyer "...set up a huge arrow-shaped sign pointing rearward and reading 'Carriers this way' " (p. 537 in the paperback edition). The footnote says Spector quoted from a book called 'Typhoon of Steel' by Belote and Belote, which unfortunately I do not own and thus cannot track down this story further. A short google search came up with interesting sites on radar pickets, but none of them mentioned this episode. I hope someone else can shed some light on this.
BTW, I'm making a fuss about this because I have a kind of academic interest in soldier's black humor - as my alias might tell
.