Been like this since UV PLEASE FIX

[The Gnome]

Surface TF hits a convoy of 18 unescorted merchants.... 26 hits on ONE ship only two others fired at for one hit each. Same goes for bombing missions.

Can you please do something with the randomizer? It needs an overhaul.

I'm shelving the game until it's addressed as it's no fun to take hours planning and implenting only to have this happen over and over again. This isn't a fluke result it's the norm.

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

Surface TF hits a convoy of 18 unescorted merchants.... 26 hits on ONE ship only two others fired at for one hit each. Same goes for bombing missions.

Can you please do something with the randomizer? It needs an overhaul.

I've always taken this sort of result to mean the the other ships were successful in fleeing the engagement. That it had nothing to do with a hit "randomizer". One could argue that too many slow merchants are allowed to get away, but that is another issue. A possibly valid one.

[The Gnome]

If this happened once in a while I'd agree. But as often as it occurs, I think I'd need some acrobatic training to stretch my imagination that far that often.

Also, I doubt it's the case when you catch them offloading supplies over the beach AND you get surprise.

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

If this happened once in a while I'd agree. But as often as it occurs, I think I'd need some acrobatic training to stretch my imagination that far that often.

Maybe so. But with so many other show-stopping bugs in the game, I wouldn't expect this issue to be tweaked any time soon.

[SunDevil_MatrixForum]

I have seen this as well, it is frustrating I just pretend the ship that gets hit the most was the closest ship to my fleet and the three CA's that land shell after shell on my four BB's was blocked by the ships that my fleet sunk.

[The Gnome]

Maybe so. But with so many other show-stopping bugs in the game, I wouldn't expect this issue to be tweaked any time soon.

It must be a humdinger of a problem to migrate here from UV. I understand CTD's and other showstoppers need to be fixed first, but this is the type of thing that sucks the joy of playing out of me.

[Black Cat]

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

Maybe so. But with so many other show-stopping bugs in the game, I wouldn't expect this issue to be tweaked any time soon.

It must be a humdinger of a problem to migrate here from UV. I understand CTD's and other showstoppers need to be fixed first, but this is the type of thing that sucks the joy of playing out of me.

Not speaking for Matrix, and I `ve seen the same thing, BUT I`ve also seen Surface TF vs TF battles where the hits are well spread out in numbers among _ all_ 8-10 ships on both sides. Same with a airstrike against a surface TF. It really is much better then in UV IMO.

When the thing you talk about happens, it seems to be in Surface Battles with more then 10 ships on one or more sides.

[MadDawg]

Actually I just saw this in an intercept myself....12 warships intercepted about 15 *unescorted* transports and only hit 3. I wasnt too happy then the rest began unloading their troops the next day.

[SunDevil_MatrixForum]

Joel Billings a developer said this:

60 mile hex. Convoy gets word that enemy TF is approaching and is ordered to scatter. Weather is not good and the Allied TF is worried about a Japanese carrier operating nearby and land based airpower that has been routinely striking ships in the area. Finding a few ships fleeing into rain squalls, they manage to get a few rounds off before a mistaken radar officer announces an inbound airstrike. The TF turns to take up AA positions. Confusion between Dutch and American ships causes several near collisions. The TF commander, realizing he has scattered the enemy TF, decides to withdraw towards his base and friendly airpower. It happned all the time. Much more than the inverse (a TF badly mauled in a surface battle). The Battle of Komandorski Island is one of my favorites and is a great example of many strange things happening causing an outcome that one would only expect in Hollywood (if you just looked at the lineup of surface ships and nothing else).


What I described happened more often than a convoy getting wiped out. However, I can't say how likely what happened in this account will happen in the game. I don't know too many things about the engagement to know what I would want to have happen. Frag said something about them being low on ammo/fuel. Leader aggressiveness has a lot to do with what happens in a surface battle. My bias is against the mass slaughter scenario that you are looking for (again keeping in mind this was an open sea meeting of forces in a game with 12 hours pulses where a lot can happen during the 12 hours and the combat is in many ways an abstraction), but I don't know what would happen if you ran this 100 times. Given the way the game plays and its huge size, I can only listen to tester feedback as to whether things "feel" right or not. We had many areas where testers were concerned and we took corrective action when we agreed with the concern. This was not one of the areas of concern brought up by the testers.

http://www.matrixgames.com/default.asp? ... 4%26key%3D

[pad152]

I'm very happy with combat results so far, nothing seems to happen the same way twice. My favorite the CA Houston sent in to stop a near by landing, JA forces 1DD, 2PG, 4AK, 2AP to my suprise the JA DD fires first and the Houstion aborts contact and runs aways without every firing a shot!

[MadDawg]

SunDevil, I actualy read that post, but....I think that if you intercept a group of AP's whilst in the middle of landing troops then it probably should be a slaughter. Most of those AP's would be stationary whilst unloading only smaller craft and even if they got underway would have no chance of escaping warships already firing at them. Currently, not only do you usually only hit 2-3 but the rest go on unloading their troops as if nothing had happened.

[2Stepper]

There's so many abstractions in this game, I'm not sure a slaughter EVERY TIME in such a case would be appropriate either. One of the posters in this thread mentioned that despite taking some damage, the AP task force continued unloading the next turn. Perhaps, despite warnings, etc saying that a force was coming and they scatter (assuming do to RETIRE being turned off), we need a sort of "Morale check".

Where by even when RETIRE is turned off, such an overwhelming attack as a group of CA's would be against unguarded AP's would cause them to weigh anchors, and get out regardless of consequence. Sharp as I'm sure some of them were, I don't think many AP/AK commanders would be all steely eyed in the face of a heavy cruisers guns.

Sounds like a wish list item for adjustment. Cause I think this is probably just a quirk within the system.

[The Gnome]

Where by even when RETIRE is turned off, such an overwhelming attack as a group of CA's would be against unguarded AP's would cause them to weigh anchors, and get out regardless of consequence. Sharp as I'm sure some of them were, I don't think many AP/AK commanders would be all steely eyed in the face of a heavy cruisers guns.

And the cruiser skippers - with radar and twice their speed- would be unable to chase them down? They'd be more than content to fire 26-30 shells into an obviously sinking hulk?

I'm begining to wonder whether the "abstration" is just a poor model. Ok some ships will get away - this I have no problem with. But come on, 30 plus hits on a single opponent? The entire task force blowing one ship to pieces ad nauseum while the vast majority escapes?

This defies any logic. Even if this was some major fluke, why does it seem to happen the vast majority of the engagements from surface engagements to air attacks?

Like I said before I'd need to be an acrobat to stretch my imagination that far.

[pompack]

yea but...

In real life, this is what happened virtually every time a surface force caught a small convoy (either escorted or not). The merchies scatter and the raiders stay in a group. The group only catches one or two since the raider group stays together; obviously where it is only a single raider this occurs.

As one example, the Rawalpindi (sp?) was an AMC, but an AMC is just as fragile as a regular merchie. The result was 20-30 hits on the Rawalpindi and none on the other ships. Although an AMC may intimidate a raider, the scatter effect is still there. It's hard to chase down more than one or two if they scatter within visual range in daylight; if they scatter before contact at night it is even harder.

[2Stepper]

One other thing to remember too. Just how effective WAS radar sighting? Sure it worked over strictly visual sighting, but in most of the areas where our battles are occuring right now the weather was down right nasty! It'd be a snap for an AK to sneak out in a bank of weather. Sure that CA might be able to lob 50 shells at it, but how many are going to hit?

Again, it's an abstraction and it is a tad frustrating, but no less then the frustration the crews experienced at the time.

[The Gnome]

In real life, this is what happened virtually every time a surface force caught a small convoy (either escorted or not). The merchies scatter and the raiders stay in a group. The group only catches one or two since the raider group stays together; obviously where it is only a single raider this occurs.

Please at least do me the courtesy of reading my post; the convoy was off loading supplies over a beach. And this wasn’t a small convoy either.

But ok just for fun we’ll assume the convoy scattered. Let’s assume this was a 15 ship Transport TF. 5 of the 15 ships were targeted for firing. Let’s also assume the 10 ships that weren’t targeted at all scattered. I’m fine with this so far, seems good to me. I’ll even throw the bone that the game is unable to tell whether a convoy is off loading or not. Now lets look at why this result has driven me crazy since UV.

Since 5 targets managed to get shot at we can assume that they unsuccessfully managed to scatter and evade the attackers. 10 get away scot-free; are we ok with that? They scattered, got away, disappeared into the mist and may a 15-ton weight drop on my head if I complain about that. . So my 9 ships are effectively attacking 5.

So for two pulses my entire TF fires at 1 of the 5 ships - I won’t even complain that it was the smallest of the 5. They score 20-25 hits including several 14 and 15-inch gun hits. They must have still been shooting at the thing when the stern was vertical and going under. Hey, at least they made certain, right? So then they start shooting at the 4 unlucky merchies that stuck around for the fireworks. They land one or two hits on them and then what? They go back to shooting up the first bastard until the “sunk” message comes through.

This is beyond abstraction; it's an unrealistic result. I'm fine with abstraction if it does its job and generates believable outcomes. If the abstraction includes convoys scattering then hey great... work in a message saying "Convoy Scatters", disband the TF and send the scattered ships to their home ports.

I think the model as it stands is too simplistic and isn't giving good results. I could have broken a major landing and seriously dented the enemy's timetable. Instead a force consisting of 1 BB, 1 BC, 2 CL's, and 5 DD's encountered an unescorted invasion convoy in the middle of off loading and sunk – very thoroughly sunk- one AK. The convoy stayed and continued to off load.

Oh and I ran the turn 2 or 3 times to see what the likelihood of other results are and they were all basically the same. I got as many as 2 AK’s sunk once! What a rout.

[The Gnome]

Sure that CA might be able to lob 50 shells at it, but how many are going to hit?

That was 30 HITS on one of the merchies. I had fog of war OFF so that's not it either.

[2Stepper]

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

Sure that CA might be able to lob 50 shells at it, but how many are going to hit?

That was 30 HITS on one of the merchies. I had fog of war OFF so that's not it either.

Gnome, I can totally sympathize with your sentiments amigo. And no one is trying to "flame" them. Least of all me. Truth be told, I remember reading about a supposed bug from UV that forced an entire TF to focus on one ship. I remember reading absolutely silly results like 60 hits on one DD and nothing elsewhere. When you look at full task forces arrayed against one another then this is even more silly... (eg 10 raiders vs 12 AKs for ex)

What I'm curious about and this is more for the developers then you or me is if the way the surface actions is displayed is what's wrong... Maybe if in the process of engagement, only two of the AK's were even sighted? Or in the example you gave Gnome, five of the 15. So in that case I should only see 5 AK's on the battle screen. NOT the whole lot. Cause frankly that just adds to the confusion and frustration about what's going on. I think if it worked out that way it would probably mitigate a lot of aggravation with this part of the game.

PARTICULARLY if the combat results that come out so lop-sided with one ship taking all the punishment really ARE a representation of that ship being the only one the attackers saw... hence it got all the punishment...

Not sure if that tracks or not, but that's how I try and resolve battles like that in my head. Right or wrong, it works... Least until they see a necessary adjustment needs getting made.

[The Gnome]

Gnome, I can totally sympathize with your sentiments amigo. And no one is trying to "flame" them. Least of all me. Truth be told, I remember reading about a supposed bug from UV that forced an entire TF to focus on one ship. I remember reading absolutely silly results like 60 hits on one DD and nothing elsewhere. When you look at full task forces arrayed against one another then this is even more silly... (eg 10 raiders vs 12 AKs for ex)

Sorry for getting my feathers ruffled, I didn't take it as being flamed, sorry if I came off as defensive. I want to make sure I get across exactly why I'm frustrated and why I think the result is the result of a hole in the model.

Again, this is surely lower priority than some show stoppers that are in the code base now - I'm a programmer and can sympathize. I just want to make sure that it gets at least looked at sometime. Maybe I get told I'm mad as a hatter and the results are spot on but at least then I can agree disagree.

[2Stepper]

Very true. In the very least I think it's a case for a minor FOW issue. I mean if I only spot 4 ships of a 16 ship task force and focus all my fire on them, I should see only 4 on the battle screen, AND only 4 in the after action report. That or 4 sighted, and a number that remained unsighted... whether subject to FOW on that or not...

seems a worthy idea, as does your point. [8D]