Ahem - he's here again [8|]. Guys, you really don't have to try to make any convoluted imaginary leaps to try to explain this 'phenomenon'. This is just a very silly feature as clearly specified in the manual.
The game has been programmed to target the highest Detection Level ship on the other side (as Mike Scholl has said). Watch the replays, the only time you will not see a ship going for the highest DL target on the other side is when it is firing back defensively at someone who has just fired at it.
So, when it gets to it's turn to fire, a ship looks amongst the visible enemy ships for the one with the highest DL level, and fires at it. The stupidity is that obviously the ships with the highest DL are the ones which are already on fire. Result - massive concentration on any burning ship (even in daylight) to the exclusion of the others. You see huge amounts of hits on a very few ships while the rest are ignored.
I haven't attended a naval gunnery school, but would take a guess that target threat, mission, firer capabilities, friendly targetting and much other goodness is factored in to a fire plan. Was any Captain taught to always empty all his guns into the biggest inferno he could see and totally ignore everything else?
If ships were declared as sunk more regularly in surface actions (to force the firers to look for alternative targets) it would help. But we've all seen how long ships take to sink in WITP, even transports can take masses of hits before the AI declares them sunk. Factor this in with the single digit rounds of combat phases, and it is unfortunately exacerbated further.
Imagine you are commanding the Iowa. At 25,000 yards range you spot the Yamato about to open fire at you, and also a dead in the water, totally ablaze from end to end, minesweeper. As you watch all your guns swing over to the minesweeper, do you still think this system is remotely realistic?
Hehe, sorry for the rant. I love this game, but I can't stand this surface combat routine.
Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please MATRIX PLEASE DROP DETECTION LEVELS AS THE TARGETTING DETERMINANT.
It's fine for determining who is visible, but for targetting anything else would be a huge improvement, even if they were just chosen randomly.
Surface Combat Sux
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
RE: Surface Combat Sux
I spend my time building castles in the air, but in the end all of them, and I, blow away in the wind.
- Don Juan
- Don Juan
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
RE: Surface Combat Sux
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.
"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
Control yourself, you'll spurt.
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Way to go Montrose! Now, it's off to put another 60 rounds into two more APs...
RE: Surface Combat Sux
ORIGINAL: velkro
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...
You have the right idea there... the game currently allows the TF that gets the worst of a fight to "teleport" to a neighboring hex. So if you break up your TFs into smaller groups, and place them around the hex that you will attack, you will can sometimes get two attacks on the same retreating TF.
In a way, this "feature" actually helps the Allies early on in a campaign game, because it means that you can spread your surface combat ships all over the place and really mess up the Japanese attacks and troop movements. And as a bonus, it means that if you run into a Japanese surface combat TF, you only loose one or two ships instead of a number.
Essentially, there is no way to wipe out a large transport TF without lots of attacks from lots of surface combat TFs, and preferably with lots of air attacks too. And in WitP transport TFs don't turn-and-run at the first shot as they did in UV and Pacwar. So they do stick around longer to allow more shots at them.
Does all this rationalization mean that the current targeting system is a "good" system? No, but it's all that we've got, and the designers appear to be "in love" with it, so I guess that we've just got to learn to live with it.
Dave Baranyi
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
RE: Surface Combat Sux
ORIGINAL: velkro
spurt[X(]
Stick with it, velkro.
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
RE: Surface Combat Sux
OK, back to redoing the surface rutines, If the forces split up, maybe we should also add a rutine for scatter where large ship concentrations of lightly armed ships break into smaller groups upon contact with more hevily armed ships that are less numerous, ending the debate about, "why didn't my ships shot target X?
SUX is a word Nic, is is latin for really really bad[:-]
SUX is a word Nic, is is latin for really really bad[:-]
"Tanks forward"
-
Ron Saueracker
- Posts: 10967
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
RE: Surface Combat Sux
[:@]
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Actually, I think that the surface combat routine is fine the way it is.
If one imagines hitting a big gaggle of freighters all bunched neatly in a small area, then the results are hard to explain.
However, in fact, it was traditional for freighters -- when not escorted -- to run with picket ships. That is to say, one or two freighters would run a fair distance away from the pack. The idea is that the surface ships would see this freighter, he would radio in to the rest of the pack, which would scatter, moving off in all directions.
The task force commander then has the option of going after -- perhaps -- one or two more ships, or splitting up his own task force to go after multiple shiips. But, there is safety in numbers -- in terms of AA coverage, in terms of firepower in case the task force should run across some enemy surface ships. Plus, there is the fact that surface ships travelling in a straight line are at risk of submarine attack, and go through fuel quickly (reducing the amount of time they have on patrol). And, a fleeing merchant ship, if it is fleeing anywhere, just might be seeking the protection of some really big guns that happen to be in the area. Splitting up to pursue multiple targets is very dangerous. To get one or two more freighters, it hardly seems worth it.
So, I think, the existing model does a good job of capturing what would actually happen if a group of surface ships encountered freighters in the actual war. The picket ship would certainly die. The task force would be able to hunt down one or two additional ships. Then the task force would go back into traditional patrol mode.
If one imagines hitting a big gaggle of freighters all bunched neatly in a small area, then the results are hard to explain.
However, in fact, it was traditional for freighters -- when not escorted -- to run with picket ships. That is to say, one or two freighters would run a fair distance away from the pack. The idea is that the surface ships would see this freighter, he would radio in to the rest of the pack, which would scatter, moving off in all directions.
The task force commander then has the option of going after -- perhaps -- one or two more ships, or splitting up his own task force to go after multiple shiips. But, there is safety in numbers -- in terms of AA coverage, in terms of firepower in case the task force should run across some enemy surface ships. Plus, there is the fact that surface ships travelling in a straight line are at risk of submarine attack, and go through fuel quickly (reducing the amount of time they have on patrol). And, a fleeing merchant ship, if it is fleeing anywhere, just might be seeking the protection of some really big guns that happen to be in the area. Splitting up to pursue multiple targets is very dangerous. To get one or two more freighters, it hardly seems worth it.
So, I think, the existing model does a good job of capturing what would actually happen if a group of surface ships encountered freighters in the actual war. The picket ship would certainly die. The task force would be able to hunt down one or two additional ships. Then the task force would go back into traditional patrol mode.
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Spurt again. [:'(] Come on, now. blah blah blah. Are you kidding me?
The existing model does not capture the fact that 26 slow, burning, unescorted Jap cargo ships got pounced on deep inside the DEI by ten or so fast combat ships, and only 2 Jap ships were targeted! This has been going on for 3 game days in a row now with the same result!
"TF Commander to all ships: Now hear this, now hear this: The movie tonight will be "Mildred Pierce". Oh, yeah, and if I catch anyone destroying more than 2 APs in one engagement, that officer will be cashiered! Now hurry up with those next two ships so we can get back to port, drink some tea at the club, and reload...That is all..."
The existing model does not capture the fact that 26 slow, burning, unescorted Jap cargo ships got pounced on deep inside the DEI by ten or so fast combat ships, and only 2 Jap ships were targeted! This has been going on for 3 game days in a row now with the same result!
"TF Commander to all ships: Now hear this, now hear this: The movie tonight will be "Mildred Pierce". Oh, yeah, and if I catch anyone destroying more than 2 APs in one engagement, that officer will be cashiered! Now hurry up with those next two ships so we can get back to port, drink some tea at the club, and reload...That is all..."
RE: Surface Combat Sux
improving surface combat TF vs Transport TF interactions is a wish list item.
Is that enough of a 'spurt'? [;)]
Is that enough of a 'spurt'? [;)]
-
Mike Scholl
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
- Location: Kansas City, MO
RE: Surface Combat Sux
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.
Sorry Pasternaski, but these won't fly. Letye Guls was a group of warships intercepted
by another group of warships, Group One, while on the rather weak and impotant side,
did have some meangfull escorts, and MORE IMPORTANTLY was supported by the air
assets of the other "Taffy's" as well. And the Japanese DID split up in pursuit..., their
CA's were just bringing the target's under effective fire when ordered to retire by their
Admiral's failure of nerve under the stress of continuous air attack.
Savo Island was an example of the attacker "sighting and engaging" the Surface Support
Group TF, but in game terms, not spotting the transport TF. A more reasonable use of
the "well, it's a 60-mile hex" explanation. They did engage, and virtually annialated,
the TF they spotted. And it was a night action, not what the poster was referring to at all.
Neither example has anything to do with a beat-up group of 10-knot Merchies all by themselves being engaged in daylight by numerous and much faster group of warships.
-
Ron Saueracker
- Posts: 10967
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
RE: Surface Combat Sux
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
[:@]
Like that? Fried my keyboard by spilling my tea on it![8|]
[:@]
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
-
Ron Saueracker
- Posts: 10967
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
RE: Surface Combat Sux
ORIGINAL: Thayne
Actually, I think that the surface combat routine is fine the way it is.
If one imagines hitting a big gaggle of freighters all bunched neatly in a small area, then the results are hard to explain.
However, in fact, it was traditional for freighters -- when not escorted -- to run with picket ships. That is to say, one or two freighters would run a fair distance away from the pack. The idea is that the surface ships would see this freighter, he would radio in to the rest of the pack, which would scatter, moving off in all directions.
The task force commander then has the option of going after -- perhaps -- one or two more ships, or splitting up his own task force to go after multiple shiips. But, there is safety in numbers -- in terms of AA coverage, in terms of firepower in case the task force should run across some enemy surface ships. Plus, there is the fact that surface ships travelling in a straight line are at risk of submarine attack, and go through fuel quickly (reducing the amount of time they have on patrol). And, a fleeing merchant ship, if it is fleeing anywhere, just might be seeking the protection of some really big guns that happen to be in the area. Splitting up to pursue multiple targets is very dangerous. To get one or two more freighters, it hardly seems worth it.
So, I think, the existing model does a good job of capturing what would actually happen if a group of surface ships encountered freighters in the actual war. The picket ship would certainly die. The task force would be able to hunt down one or two additional ships. Then the task force would go back into traditional patrol mode.
What are you using for these hallucinations?[:)]
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Hey I just got a copy of the surface comat model in a text file:
"...if a rootin' tootin' shootin' bunch of surface combat vessels intercepts an unescorted damaged convoy, then
# of convoy vessels engaged = random (2) x random (1)..."
So, I stand corrected. The model works perfectly.
"...if a rootin' tootin' shootin' bunch of surface combat vessels intercepts an unescorted damaged convoy, then
# of convoy vessels engaged = random (2) x random (1)..."
So, I stand corrected. The model works perfectly.
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Hmm, I thought the forum was more interested in important stuff like continuing games after they end?
Why worry about trivial stuff like naval combat?
Why worry about trivial stuff like naval combat?
-
Ron Saueracker
- Posts: 10967
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
RE: Surface Combat Sux
[;)]ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Hmm, I thought the forum was more interested in important stuff like continuing games after they end?
Why worry about trivial stuff like naval combat?
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
RE: Surface Combat Sux
My personal feelings are that while naval combat does need to be tweaked, the entire system is not flawed. Not all naval battles should be decisive. The should be a hodge-podge of bad ideas, luck, and the unkown causing fairly stupid and inexplicable results (the model now). However, there should also be a few decisie battles, where both sides have their heads together, and go after the big stuff. A fix is needed, yes, but not an entirely new system.
Does the current system suck? no, not really. Is it flawed, and slightly unrealistic? At times. Is it frustrating? Very often. But then several battles were.
It seems to me the system they have in place was done to prevent too many gamey results, but it also prevents some of the fewer historic successes. Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of thing.
Does the current system suck? no, not really. Is it flawed, and slightly unrealistic? At times. Is it frustrating? Very often. But then several battles were.
It seems to me the system they have in place was done to prevent too many gamey results, but it also prevents some of the fewer historic successes. Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of thing.
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.
RE: Surface Combat Sux
lolWhat are you using for these hallucinations
Ron,
Stop drinking tea... that surely is the problem
Down with tea!!!
OH ya what was this post about? right surface cambat..
Anyone like the convoy scatter suggetion? hate it? other?
"Tanks forward"