Surface Combat Sux

velkro · Post by **velkro** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:01 pm

OK,
A Brit TF consisting of the Revenge, 1 CA, 4 CLs, and 2 DDs intercept 26 Japanese TKs, AKs, and APs with not a single warfighting ship amongst the Japanese TF. Out of the 26, 13 of them are already smoking after numerous air raids. This TF is moving at about 6 knots due to damaged ships. So, I turn on the combat display so I can see my fun.

You would think it would be a shooting gallery, right?

WRONG!

For some odd reason, every one of my ships decides to pummel a damaged TK and a damaged AP. Each of those two Japanese ships received like 55 hits. Not one other ship was even shot at!!! What the heck!!!???!!! Is my peoples stupid or is this a software glitch!?!? If you think about it, the Brits should have taken out like at least half of those tubs...it was daytime and the Japanese TF was SLOW. The Brits had full load of ammo and fuel and was set to "Patrol".

How often do you get a shot like that? It's 10 Jan 42...I'm thinking about breaking up the Brit TF into one-ship TFs just to see what happens. This is crap...

Dr. Foo · Post by **Dr. Foo** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:29 pm

Change Commanders. [:)]

I have had some rather questionable things happen as well. While playing Coral Sea my carrier planes would constantly go after AK's and not the carriers that were in range and spotted.[:@]

cave_45 · Post by **cave_45** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:00 pm

Those two ships probably acted as screen ships absorbing the fire from your TF. If you only have an average commander, but the AI is clued up a little more they will employ this tactic more effectively to avoid the loss of many ships.
As you admit the battle was completely one sided, the AI would not just sit arround waiting to be picked off one by one , they will flee, and with certain nominated ships try and provide a screen to let the others escape.

This seems to be what has happened here, I would suggest changing your surface commander, and possibly loosing revenge from the TF. In my own personal experience I have found 1 CA a couple of CL's and DD's works very affectively at smashing up enemy shipping, especially with a good commander.

Of course not all battled are not favourable, and the outcome will not always be what you hope... but there are a lot of variables so from time to time things will seem very unfair, ti's war remember there are no rules as to who wins and who looses, you can only try your best, and if it doesn work,.... try harder next time!

John B · Post by **John B** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:10 pm

This does seem to happen frequently in surface combat. But although we see the action as each ship firing in turn, they are actually presumably all engaging simultaneously. The "screening ship" idea may be part of it, but surface combat commanders do seem to have a habit of ordering all their ships to concentrate on one or two targets rather more often than they would historically. Itt seems to happen particularly when a combat surface task force engages an unescorted convoy. You would expect, when the opposition had DDs especially, for quite a few AKs /APs to go down , but often its only one or two, maybe 10% of the convoy.

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 6:25 pm

is "Sux" a word?

[:'(]

pasternakski · Post by **pasternakski** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 6:58 pm

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

is "Sux" a word?

[:'(]

I don't thinxo.

Mike Scholl · Post by **Mike Scholl** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 7:11 pm

Welcome to the aggrivating world of "surface combat". Wait until you get the
"explanations" of how those two staggering six-knot wrecks "shielded" the rest
of the 7-11 knot targets from the attack of a group of 20-35 knot warships in-
tent on their destruction. On a clear day with good visibility......

It's a bug in the surface action system that arose from the desire to reflect the
rather common occurance of a few blazing (and very visable) targets to attract
a lot of fire during a night action. Unfortunately, it also shows up during daytime
actions when it produces rediculous results such as you experianced. Keep your
fingers crossed that the next patch will offer a fix.

2ndACR · Post by **2ndACR** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 7:30 pm

I am waiting on the standard answer we have seen so many times.

"It is a 60 mile hex and some of the ships were not sighted".

velkro · Post by **velkro** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 8:46 pm

The commander was "top notch" for the Brits...he wasn't the problem, unless...

"TF Commander to All Ships: Now hear this, now hear this...OK, you see those two screening ships? OK, on my signal, I want all friendly fire concentrated on those two 6-knot tubs. Let the 24 other scantily-armed, slow-ass ships loaded with Japanese troops, equipment, and supplies escape. TF Commander, out."

Splinterhead · Post by **Splinterhead** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 9:01 pm

Are there any examples of task forces dispersing to pursue a scattering task force? The only approximation I can think of was Leyte Gulf and the pursuit of Taffy 3 and the Japanese did not dispurse and did not engage or sink all 6 CVEs. [&:]

pasternakski · Post by **pasternakski** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 9:55 pm

Look at what happened in real life, then be thankful for a game that simulates it so well.

Leyte Gulf - overwhelming surface force gets marginal victory against screening forces and does not penetrate to the invasion transports at all.

Savo Island - surface force annihilates screening ships and does not penetrate to the invasion transports.

There's not much point in going on and on about this. I suggest that you attribute the "kill one let the other hundred go" results to fate, command, circumstance, and whatever else you want.

This game is already far too bloody in its naval combat results as it is. Leave it alone. Many's the surface force commander who broke off action on the basis of "if we continue, we'll be within range of LBA at first light," "there are reports of superior enemy surface forces just beyond the horizon," and the like.

SpitfireIX · Post by **SpitfireIX** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 10:12 pm

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Look at what happened in real life, then be thankful for a game that simulates it so well.

Leyte Gulf - overwhelming surface force gets marginal victory against screening forces and does not penetrate to the invasion transports at all.

Savo Island - surface force annihilates screening ships and does not penetrate to the invasion transports.

There's not much point in going on and on about this. I suggest that you attribute the "kill one let the other hundred go" results to fate, command, circumstance, and whatever else you want.

This game is already far too bloody in its naval combat results as it is. Leave it alone. Many's the surface force commander who broke off action on the basis of "if we continue, we'll be within range of LBA at first light," "there are reports of superior enemy surface forces just beyond the horizon," and the like.

This would be fine, if we got the occasional decisive engagement. I certainly haven't played enough yet to know how often, if ever, decisive surface engagements do happen, but from what I've read on the forums here, they seem to be extremely rare.

Tankerace · Post by **Tankerace** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 10:18 pm

Well, don't forget about the Battle of the Dogger Bank in 1915.

The British side, HMS Lion had been put out of action, and on the German side, the SMS Blucher had been reduced to a blazing wreck.

Admiral Beatty (HMS Lion) had wanted his second in command to go on after the rest of the German Fleet, as Blucher was going to sink anyway. Instead, his 2IC misinterpretted the signal, and used the remaining British battlecruisers to pound the Blucher until she finally turned turtle. Because of this, the rest of the German battlecruisers, a few of whom had suffered considerable damage, made good their escape. Very odd things can happen in war, for a variety of different reasons.

Such as the Battle of the River Plate. The Graf Spee could have easily eluded Force G, but Kapitan zur See Langsdorf mistook the 3 cruisers for destroyers, and closed the range. He did tealize what he had done until he was under 6 and 8" cruiser fire. Even Commodore Harwood (HMS Ajax) remarked "I can't understand what their captain is doing. If you have a longer reach than the other dellow, why get in close?).

Battles are a mixed, and confused thing.

Also, what you could be experiencing is like the convoy attack of the Admiral Shceer on HX 84. The Merchant cruiser Jervis Bay purposely drew the fire of the Scheer, so that the rest of the convoy could escape. In the end, the Scheer only netted a few ships, instead of the feeding ground of dozens of ships. Again, it is all part of the fast pace of battle, limited intel and communications, and the plain not realizing what is out there.

kew · Post by **kew** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 10:46 pm

Perhaps this is

the Chaos theory at work?

velkro · Post by **velkro** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 10:53 pm

I disagree...

"Leyte Gulf" = The Japs were getting shelled by DDs, bombed by fighters and Avengers, and knew that a crapload of CVs were around.

"Savo Island" = More than 2 Allied ships were attacked, and they were COMBAT vessels, not cargo...they shot back.

In my game, the Jap convoy was moving at 6 KNOTS, deep inside MY LBA range and wayyyy outside of his, and getting shadowed by recon planes. My slowest ship was a 20-knotter. BUG BUG BUG

"fate, command, circumstance, and whatever else you want." = BUG

velkro · Post by **velkro** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 11:10 pm

Scheer vs. merchant CRUISER could cause a skipper to want to take out the most dangerous vessel first, but not if it was Scheer vs. pea-shootin' cargo ships...

velkro · Post by **velkro** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 11:13 pm

...Something tells me that the Scheer's opponents weren't limping along at 6 knots...

Tankerace · Post by **Tankerace** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 11:13 pm

ORIGINAL: velkro

I disagree...

"Leyte Gulf" = The Japs were getting shelled by DDs, bombed by fighters and Avengers, and knew that a crapload of CVs were around.

Incorrect sir. The Fighters and Avengers, flying from Taffy's 2 and 3, had exhausted their stores of bombs and torpedoes after the first run. Subsequent runs were made by Macheguns only.

Second, there weresn't a "crapload of CVs around". The Japanese knew that Halsey had been lured away by Ozawa's First Striking force, and were at that time in the process of sinking his carriers. The Japanese knew that no massive airstrike would be coming for at least 6 hours.

The retreated due to the fact that the screening vessels put up a hell of a fight, and that he would have to depart at some point to make sure Halsey's Third Fleet couldn't get in range to launch.

I assume you are referencing the attack on Taffy 3, which aside from Surigao Straight was the only major surface attack at the time.

Tankerace · Post by **Tankerace** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 11:14 pm

ORIGINAL: velkro

Scheer vs. merchant CRUISER could cause a skipper to want to take out the most dangerous vessel first, but not if it was Scheer vs. pea-shootin' cargo ships...

A merchant cruiser means a merchant SHIP with 2 to 4 6" guns., Not an actual Cruiser.

Tankerace · Post by **Tankerace** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 11:14 pm

ORIGINAL: velkro

...Something tells me that the Scheer's opponents weren't limping along at 6 knots...

You are right. They were doing 9 to 11, the typical speed of an early British Merchantmen.

Surface Combat Sux

Surface Combat Sux

RE: Surface Combat Sux

RE: Surface Combat Sux

RE: Surface Combat Sux

RE: Surface Combat Sux

RE: Surface Combat Sux

RE: Surface Combat Sux

RE: Surface Combat Sux

RE: Surface Combat Sux

RE: Surface Combat Sux

RE: Surface Combat Sux

RE: Surface Combat Sux

RE: Surface Combat Sux

RE: Surface Combat Sux

RE: Surface Combat Sux

RE: Surface Combat Sux

RE: Surface Combat Sux

RE: Surface Combat Sux

RE: Surface Combat Sux

RE: Surface Combat Sux