FRAG Both sides at Jutland were organized fleets fleets of similar speeds and fullyORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
JOEL. So we are basically to believe that this particular daylight surface action was that
one-in-a-hundred, extreme end-of-the-possibility-table, won't happen again in an entire
game result? If that is the case, your explanation makes sense. Otherwise, Tondern's
point looks pretty valid..., there isn't even a "Jarvis Bay" to go down valiantly buying
time for the rest to scatter. And there are more pursuing ships than targets. Your ex-
planation is valid for a very unusual set of conditions, confusion, and weather..., but I
certainly hope you all have tested to make sure it is a very unusual result as well.
Mike, how many ships were sunk at Jutland? What range were they from each other?
It is the single largest collection of ships in a small area in the history of naval conflicts with the largest number of guns ever assembled. Even WWII has nothing to match it and they were both trying to sink ships, not flee.
armed. And the average weather conditions and visibility in the North Sea might be
matched around the Aleutian Islands, but not in the greater part of the Pacific. Both
fleets were trying to inflict damage while hopefully avoiding reciprical damage.
The situation in the game was not a "meeting engagement" in bad visibility between two
combat forces. As I understand the AAR's and comments, such a meeting engagement
between surface forces isn't possible in WITP. The situation quoted in your AAR was a
deliberate attempt by combat forces of one side to intercept and destroy NON-combat
forces of the other while they were engaged in an operation. The attacking forces had
an average speed of around 30kts, the defenders about 10 kts. The attackers outnum-
bered the defenders, and any one of the attackers was more than capable of sinking
any one of the defenders in short order. Jutland is a "straw dog" arguement.
As I said, Joel's description of events MIGHT be acceptable as one of those incidents
where everything went right for one side and everything went wrong for the other. Such
things do happen. But the NORM for this "contest" had better be a one-sided massacre
or 2by3 is going to have a lot of unhappy customers. Takes a lot of planning and a lot
of good luck to achieve such an encounter..., and if a player finds that the "normal
reward" for such an occurance is to be totally shafted by the combat system (which he
has little or no control over) he is not going to be a "happy camper". That was the crux
of my comment.
