Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I think I remember something way back about this, but I tend to agree with you. If there is any code, it has to be pretty minor. BB/CV's seem to be weighted equally as targets. Then CA's. Of course detection has a lot to do with it … mistakes (poor target selection) is far more common at low detection in my experience.

I don't think that is correct, I think it is a factor of DL and also perhaps from the commander of the carrier task forces. I know from personal experience when DL are low my planes attack BBs far more often than CVs, and when DL is high, they attack CVs almost exclusively.

Also, I think if they can be spotted at night prior, that helps with a morning and afternoon attack.

But putting in slower battleships, does mean the task force is a little easier to be hit I think. Always a tradeoff somewhere...

Target selection inside of a TF doesn't have anything to do with DL, I don't think. We've never had any suggestions of that.

Target selection of TFs themselves, however - we do know that planes will attack (and I think this is the correct order): (1) CVs (of any type), (2) APA/AKA types, (3) BBs, (4) other surface forces in descending order of ship size, ("7") merchants. I might have 2 and 3 flipped, maybe. But that's for target selection of TFs if those types are spotted (or your guys think they're spotted) in a given TF.

Once the strike is over the TF itself? They seem to go after the biggest ships, for the most part, unless the strike is very large and then sometimes you'll see planes breaking off to drop bombs on random DDs in a CV TF, for example.

[rustysi]

Yes, the conversions. They have reasonable AA.

Agreed, its why I like them. Anything added by the air unit(s) is just a bonus.

[rustysi]

And you don't always run at flank in combat, or at least I hope you don't - waste of fuel

I would hope you do. I don't know, but in every docu that I've seen of naval action those ships appear to be bookin'. I would hope they do the same in the game while under attack.

I for one want to save my ships, not fuel.

[rustysi]

Is Alfred in the room?

I see him.[:D]

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I think I remember something way back about this, but I tend to agree with you. If there is any code, it has to be pretty minor. BB/CV's seem to be weighted equally as targets. Then CA's. Of course detection has a lot to do with it … mistakes (poor target selection) is far more common at low detection in my experience.

I don't think that is correct, I think it is a factor of DL and also perhaps from the commander of the carrier task forces. I know from personal experience when DL are low my planes attack BBs far more often than CVs, and when DL is high, they attack CVs almost exclusively.

Also, I think if they can be spotted at night prior, that helps with a morning and afternoon attack.

But putting in slower battleships, does mean the task force is a little easier to be hit I think. Always a tradeoff somewhere...

Target selection inside of a TF doesn't have anything to do with DL, I don't think. We've never had any suggestions of that.

Target selection of TFs themselves, however - we do know that planes will attack (and I think this is the correct order): (1) CVs (of any type), (2) APA/AKA types, (3) BBs, (4) other surface forces in descending order of ship size, ("7") merchants. I might have 2 and 3 flipped, maybe. But that's for target selection of TFs if those types are spotted (or your guys think they're spotted) in a given TF.

Once the strike is over the TF itself? They seem to go after the biggest ships, for the most part, unless the strike is very large and then sometimes you'll see planes breaking off to drop bombs on random DDs in a CV TF, for example.

1. In descending order of priority for aircraft to target ships in a TF:

Carriers
Battleships
Cruisers
Transports
other ships

2. Within the surface naval combat algorithm, individual ships have their own "visibility" level known to the enemy. This visibility level is dynamic. Only identified ships can be targeted.


In short, visibility is factored into the combat algorithms. The term "visibility" may have, or maybe not, have exactly the same meaning as that of "detection" which is covered in chapter 10 of the manual.[:)]

Alfred

[rustysi]

Thanks Alfred.

Any comments on TF speed while under attack?

[Alfred]

1.  Fuel expenditure is calculated on the basis of "effort" expended on leaving a hex.

2.  Combat is a tactical operation conducted entirely within a hex.

3.  Within the tactical operation, the maximum speed of individual ships inter alia is factored into the combat algorithm.

Alfred

Edit: This post needs to be read in conjunction with post #4194

[rustysi]

Once again, thank you Alfred.

As to the speed, its as I thought, but its better around here to get some kind of confirmation by those more in the know than I.

I for one will continue to run my CV's as I have, and again its not a hard and fast rule of mine, its a guideline.

[Lokasenna]

There's a little known tidbit that ships in a TF under air attack will expend 1 Endurance per plane attacking the TF, by the way.

I don't know that, other than that, any fuel is expended by a TF during combat. I've never checked, and unless you know exactly how far a TF moved you can't know how much was from movement and how much was from combat.


As for ships "booking it" in combat.... sure, but I'm talking about the number of hexes moved on the map, not their speed during combat actions. I only occasionally need to move more than 8 hexes per turn with my combat TFs when engaging enemy ships. Bombardment is a different matter. When setting up my approaches, if I've done it correctly (and in time) then I don't need to use full speed hardly at all.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Alfred



1. In descending order of priority for aircraft to target ships in a TF:

Carriers
Battleships
Cruisers
Transports
other ships


In short, visibility is factored into the combat algorithms. The term "visibility" may have, or maybe not, have exactly the same meaning as that of "detection" which is covered in chapter 10 of the manual.[:)]

Alfred

Well, that means to me that the pilots need to identify the ship types somehow. I have certainly seen many mis-identifications from naval search, combat replays. I am going to hold to my belief that higher DL will result in superior targeting of carriers over BBs.

I did apply the visibility from surface combat, which is mentioned in the rulebook, to something equivalent for aerial targeting.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

There's a little known tidbit that ships in a TF under air attack will expend 1 Endurance per plane attacking the TF, by the way.

I don't know that, other than that, any fuel is expended by a TF during combat. I've never checked, and unless you know exactly how far a TF moved you can't know how much was from movement and how much was from combat.


As for ships "booking it" in combat.... sure, but I'm talking about the number of hexes moved on the map, not their speed during combat actions. I only occasionally need to move more than 8 hexes per turn with my combat TFs when engaging enemy ships. Bombardment is a different matter. When setting up my approaches, if I've done it correctly (and in time) then I don't need to use full speed hardly at all.

Should fuel expended be based on the duration of the attack? A 100 plane attack wouldn't necessarily last twice as long as a 50 plane attack. Maybe a logarithmic scale? Suppose the attacking planes are in waves?

[Lokasenna]

It is to represent the size of a strike/the effort expended to avoid the attacks and/or maneuver in defensive formation. It's endurance, not points of fuel - typically many endurance points are spent per 1 point of fuel.


As for "misidentifications" in the combat animation... that is 100% just fluff text. It means nothing. Same thing as the number of asterisks on a "near miss rattles sub" message. In practical terms, it means literally nothing.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Alfred



1. In descending order of priority for aircraft to target ships in a TF:

Carriers
Battleships
Cruisers
Transports
other ships


In short, visibility is factored into the combat algorithms. The term "visibility" may have, or maybe not, have exactly the same meaning as that of "detection" which is covered in chapter 10 of the manual.[:)]

Alfred

Well, that means to me that the pilots need to identify the ship types somehow. I have certainly seen many mis-identifications from naval search, combat replays. I am going to hold to my belief that higher DL will result in superior targeting of carriers over BBs.

I did apply the visibility from surface combat, which is mentioned in the rulebook, to something equivalent for aerial targeting.

If the internal "visibility" level of a CV and a BB within the same attacked TF is exactly the same, the attacking aircraft are more likely to attack the CV. If the BB has a much higher internal "visibility" level than the CV, the aircraft are then more likely to focus on the BB. If the TF has no CVs but a BB and a CA, and they both have exactly the same internal "visibility" level, the attacking aircraft are more likely to attack the BB rather than the CA.

I am deliberately refraining from using the term "detection" level in this discussion because some players would then demand to know how to maximise individual ship target selection. The player has no control over the factors involved in individual ship target selection. What the player can do is maximise the chances of increasing both the DL and MDL of enemy TFs. Doing so feeds into the internal "visibility" level calculations. For understanding the DL and MDL aspect, reading chapter 10 of the manual is essential.

Alfred

[Alfred]

In rereading post #4187 I can see that the short comments I made may lead to some misunderstandings of the game design.
 
The game design does not simply equate fuel consumption directly with fuel points.  An intermediary called "endurance" is interposed.  This is because whilst the vast majority of fuel expenditure is directly linked to ship travel from hex A to hex B, there are some actions totally contained within the hex occupied by a TF which also consume endurance points.  All these abstractions are involved in the "effort" I referred to in the post.  These abstracted expenditures are reduced to generic endurance costs which do not accurately reflect differences in ship types, power plant efficiencies and characteristics, length of combat and so on.
 
To complicate the issue a cost in operation points, which are not related to fuel points, is often imposed from single hex actions.
 
For detail on these single hex abstractions, see s.6.2.13 of the manual.
 
Alfred

[Mike Solli]

Wow, I turn my back for a few days and people go crazy talking about some tiny aspect of WitP. [:D] Gotta love this game!

2 Dec 43

Sub War

The Harder, still sitting on my route from Palembang to Singapore, torpedoed and sank the APD Hagi and got away again. She's a real pain in the butt. I have 3x ASW TFs there. Someone will get lucky eventually. But, I'm sure he'll just put a fresh sub there.

5 Fleet

I'm getting closer to possibly doing a deliberate assault at Umnak, but most of the 19 Division is still disabled. The infantry is repairing at only a few a day. The tank regiment is in very good shape though. Wonder if I should try an attack with just the tanks? Right now, the tank regiment AV is 53 while the division AV is only 133. Still have a few days to think about it.

My Sally sentai is going to hit the airfield tomorrow. That damage is down to 60%. I want to keep it a little higher.

4 Fleet

Well, Bunker Hill made it to Pearl Harbor, along with the other carrier that was accompanying her. [8|] An opportunity lost. [:(] On the bright side, that's 2 carriers that are out of the war for awhile. Most of mine are repaired or close to it. More on that below.

SE Fleet

Ted was content to bomb Rabaul with 100+ sorties again today. I suspect he plans on invading. I have pulled out most of the garrison. The remainder has no supply. He'll be surprised at how easy it'll fall. I may drop off some mines, just in case.

There are a few ships sitting at Aitape. ASW maybe? Not sure, but they're definitely now first line combat ships. I'm going to sneak a few DDs in to kill them off.

SRA

The three US CVLs have withdrawn again. I can still see them so I know where they're going. I had always suspected this but never had confirmation. I can't send my carriers after them because they would have to go between Darwin and Merauke, both major Allied air bases. Not worth it. I am sending a few subs down there, including a Glen sub, to keep an eye on things and possibly get a shot off.

Burma

My Frank sentai shot down 5 of 6 P-40N5s, but my bombers didn't fly once again. There are some 50 transports there now. I'm planning an op with the 3 Raiding Regiment to see if they can do something nasty in that area. We'll see what transpires.

A couple Hurricanes were shot down over Chittagong.

China

Bombers destroyed 12 squads and disabled another 222 squads.

The deliberate assault with the entire army is about a week out. Any thoughts on using the 27 artillery units there to bombard more frequently than just during the assaults?

Other Stuff

Another Grace factory completed repair, making 3 of 4. The last is at 24(6). The Grace will now be operational 3/44 (instead of 4/44).

Chitose completed repairs and will rejoin MKB at Ambon. Akagi and Soryu are 11 and 12 days from complete repairs/refit and Zuikaku is still a week out from reaching the Home Islands to begin complete repairs.

[mind_messing]

I'm getting closer to possibly doing a deliberate assault at Umnak, but most of the 19 Division is still disabled. The infantry is repairing at only a few a day. The tank regiment is in very good shape though. Wonder if I should try an attack with just the tanks? Right now, the tank regiment AV is 53 while the division AV is only 133. Still have a few days to think about it.

I forget what unit it is specifically opposing you on Umnak, but I'd advise against it. Unsupported tank attacks work great against the Chinese (with squads with anti-armor of 1), but less so against the Allies. For reference, the 1943 USA line squads that the Allies should have here have an anti-armor value of 35! That's thirteen points more than their soft attack.

[Mike Solli]

Ouch. It's the 201 Sep Infantry Brigade. Guess I'll wait for the division to stop goofing off and repair some more squads.

[ny59giants]

Hit the "D" button to bring up the Database.
Sort by Infantry.
Look at anti-armor and anti-soft values for Allied squads.
Stay away from the Marines. [:-]

[rustysi]

Any thoughts on using the 27 artillery units there to bombard more frequently than just during the assaults?

Absolutely, there's little reason to not have them bombard every turn. The only one I could think of is if you're low on supply.

These units will have no disruption and little fatigue, and will gain little of either as I'm sure his response will be virtually non-existent. At the very least you'll be adding to his disruption/fatigue levels and he'll be expending what little supply he may have or get in 'counter-battery' fire.

So, I say blast away.

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum

Hit the "D" button to bring up the Database.
Sort by Infantry.
Look at anti-armor and anti-soft values for Allied squads.
Stay away from the Marines. [:-]

I never knew that! It's brilliant!