Surface Combat Sux

[Adnan Meshuggi]

well... as long as not 1000 allied player will have each one such event it isn´t a problem... [:D]

hehe, couldn´t resist.

yes, you are right. Sure you should look about the weather, was it really bad or calm ?

for the single cruiser, this is NOT a problem at all, you could say "surprise" by the fact that they did not know that the enemy come back... also, the "on fire" dd could be behind a squall... but for the BB-group against the transport fleet you are absolutly right. They should slaughter the AP´s... but about POW... it seems the game shows her capability correct... (no, just kidding)... this need to be fixed.

[Culiacan Mexico]

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…

…For some odd reason, every one of my ships decides to pummel a damaged TK and a damaged AP…

I don’t know all the checks the subroutine for surface combat goes through, but one of them should be for escorts. A convoy of 26 merchant vessels guarded by a few DD is going to cause the British commander to be somewhat cautious, and at least engage these escort vessels to some extent before striking at the merchant vessels… generally. However, a convoy this fat with no escorts… is going to be ripped apart, because the intercepting taskforce has virtually nothing to fear.

Twenty-six merchants guarded by two destroyers… might end up with the escorts sacrificing themselves to save their charges.

Twenty-six merchants unguarded = slaughter.

IMO

[steveh11Matrix]

Anyone know what Radar actually does in the game, and able to tell us? I have no real trouble rationalising the lone cruiser problem (multiple sightings at night? Easy to see that one), but can't see how POW doesn't at least get involved. What's this supposed to be simulating - sending Repulse and the DD's to attack the convoy while POW's crew have breakfast?[&:]

Actually, I made a glib comment earlier about capturing the transports - but in reality I can't see it being that unlikely. We're not talking about dedicated Naval crews here, but Merchant seamen. They'd likely put up a (short) fight, then take to the boats. It would be up to the TF commander whether he scuttled the prize or not. That goes for both sides IMHO.

Examples: Graf Spee, Atlantis, Kormorant...

Steve.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

well... as long as not 1000 allied player will have each one such event it isn´t a problem... [:D]

hehe, couldn´t resist.

yes, you are right. Sure you should look about the weather, was it really bad or calm ?

for the single cruiser, this is NOT a problem at all, you could say "surprise" by the fact that they did not know that the enemy come back... also, the "on fire" dd could be behind a squall... but for the BB-group against the transport fleet you are absolutly right. They should slaughter the AP´s... but about POW... it seems the game shows her capability correct... (no, just kidding)... this need to be fixed.

I could not resist either...[;)][8|]All these 60 mile hex, poor weather, Philedelphia experiment, bangers and mash, and myriad other excuses/explanations anyone gives regarding the arbitrary inclusion/exclusion of ships in a TF is caca. It's like the ships stay together right up to the critical juncture, then suddenly turn into misbehaved little brats in a shopping mall and take off in every direction on the compass. I know why it was included but it fails miserably at immitating confusion and uncertainty.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Hehe, no bad feelings...

i still think it is all "no problem" if we all want to belive... we shall overcome... yeah [:'(]

yes you are right... a tf with 2 BBs against an undefended Transport group SHOULD kill at last 50% of these ships... or more, even in bad weather and with the fear of air attacks...

So, let us demand it...

we want a change
we want a change
we want a change....

[mogami]

Hi, Ron who was in command of force "Z" ? When you post the results of a battle everyone please include the officers commanding. They are as important to the outcome as the ships engaged.

[frank1970]

I think it is not a problem of the battle mechanics but the "non destructable" ships.
Usually an AK/AP should sink with one torpedo hit and some gunfire. In WITP AK/APs need several torpedoes and will sink after several days.
If all non military ships and all small ships PG, PC, MSW get reduced damage tolerane, won´t that make better battles possible?

[Adnan Meshuggi]

i don´t think so...

also, merchant ships could take some damage if the hit is not deadly... like a bow-hit of a torpedo, damaged, yes. killed, no. Or some grenades, a fire spread.... ship look like it is sinking but the crew fight back and establish the situation....

problem is the inactivity of the warships... 4 dd and 2 bb against 10 AP should cause in any case a massacre... even with ME as the comander... the captains of the ships knew what to do...[:)]

[castor troy]

My BBs hit the transports with 14 - 16" shells several times. I think 3 or 4 of these hits should sink a normal AP, AK. Why should a freighter be able to take 20 hits of 14" and another 25 hits of 5-8"? Next question: Why should a BB still shoot at a AK, when it has taken allready 10 or more 14" hits? The AK, even when it´s still able to stay on the surface, it´s just lost anyway!

[frank1970]

Yep, and that is why I think it would be good to reduce the survivability. After 5 16" hits the AK is gone. It is "sunk" although it still floats around as a wreck.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

i don´t think so...

also, merchant ships could take some damage if the hit is not deadly... like a bow-hit of a torpedo, damaged, yes. killed, no. Or some grenades, a fire spread.... ship look like it is sinking but the crew fight back and establish the situation....

problem is the inactivity of the warships... 4 dd and 2 bb against 10 AP should cause in any case a massacre... even with ME as the comander... the captains of the ships knew what to do...[:)]

Hi, I don't want to begin a debate over the impact of leadership on the condust and outcome of battles in history. But if you were commanding a TF you ship commanders would not act on their own. They would follow your instructions.

Going into any surface action a TF commander has most likely given his subordinate officers a set of instructions.

Surface action Plan A, Plan B, Plan C

Once action begins the ship CO watch the flag ship for flag or light signals as to what they are to do. Once they see "Execute plan A" hoisted they know what to do. If any change in Plan being executed is required the SOPA will so direct it.

If the TF leader delays issuing commands or issues orders that are confusing the elements that might otherwise provide his force with advantage can be lost or reduced in impact.

If the TF commander does not understand what is occuring (mistakes AO for BB or CA and orders a torpedo attack or smoke screen to shield his force from fire) In short there are a whole host of mistakes a TF leader can make that result in his force being defeated by an otherwise inferiour force or his losing an opportuinty to win a battle or inflict increased loss.

I'm not claiming the surface routine is perfect only that quite often the only consideration being presented on the forum are the types of ships and their numbers not who is in command. We can't go just by numbers because the side with greater numbers has lost a great many battles/wars in history. Thats why we play wargames. Thats why we play this game in particular. The Japanese players don't give a hoot about the numbers.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

nah, not if the grenades go straight through...[:D]

yes, you are right, direct 14" hits should destroy the ship...even 5" or 3"... my point was because of torpedos or small bombs... these freighters were pretty tough... at last many... not all. sure. But the battle BB vers AP should really win the BB withhin a few minutes (if it hit the freighter..

[Adnan Meshuggi]

look. i do not think that the officer could overwrite the larger orders, but with such results something should be done. But the leader with more then 10 points who is qualified as a tf-leader should be able to recognize some things... esp. in this certain case.

The brits wanted to stop the landings
the brits knew the risk to be catched by airforce
the brits urgently wanted to sink these convois...

if hitler and german surfaceships would be discussed, this would be different, cause hitler gave strict orders not to risk the ships... but here and now we have the situation of a tf that want to take the risk. Otherwise the brits should scuttle their ships...

One problem of WitP is the missing Sub-TF, with divisions and so... the following order does not simulate this properly...
also, we should need Mission targets like "take any risk and destroy as much as you could", "avoid superior forces" etc... so i would agree, with some misinterpreting orders by a low experienced tf comander, they could withdraw fromo such battle, cause "no risk at all" was given....

any chance to put it into the game ?

[Sneer]

shipyard designers estimated durability of CA San Francisco for 4-5 AP 14" hits or 10 14" HE hits.
10k displacement warship 4-5 heavy shots - not AP/AK

found long ago in a book about Guadalcanal battles

[2ndACR]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Well, Dave Mitchell and I are three turns into our PBEM and we've had a few surface clashes in the DEI as one would imagine.

The first was funny. The lone CL Boise was ordered to run full speed to Davao to meet up with Houston and a couple of DDs. She arrives first and runs into an invasion TF covered by CL Nagara and 2 Kagero class DDs. Three separate surface battles are fought between the two TFs during the night surface combat phase...three. First one Boise hits a DD a few times they break off. Suddenly, Boise is "surprised" by the same TF in whichg one DD is on fire. Hard to believe that Boise is surprised when she was just in combat. More shots, Boise hits remaining two ships and get hit by a torp. Contact is broken but a third battle starts, with Boise once again being surprised. ???? Unbelievable.

The other battle of note was Force Z slipping into the Kuching roadstead undetected and finding a TOTALLY undefended Transport TF of about 12-16 APs...not even a sampan as escort. Well, should have been a glorious action for the RN as they were fully appraised of what was in the hex, but no. The overwhelming power of Force Z unleashes a few shots from a DD and Repulse only. (the modern radar equipped flagship POW is parked at a pub or something having a jar and does nothing, even though it is the bloody flagship and is in the centre of a five ship TF) So...the TR group escapes with damage to one AP, moves out one hex and is back unloading next day!! It's just not worth initiating naval combat in a naval game. The risk is great but hardly worth taking if surface combat remains as is. The sighted/not sighted silliness needs to be rethought, not just combat vs Transport TFs. Luckily, Force Z was not plowed under by LBA...yet.

I kinda liked that battle myself.[:D] My surface force had just departed for the return to Saigon when Ron came out to play. I half expected him to go north to Kouton or Khoto Bhuto where I had BB's just waiting on him. But he went to Kuching instead.

One of theses days, I will remember to move a Mavis group to Saigon on turn 1 for search duties. Does no good to have 40 Nells on Naval strike if no one is out looking for targets.[:@]

But seriously, POW and company should have pounded my TF to pieces. No if's or but's about it. Even with a so-so leader in charge. I had nothing at all there to defend that TF. In real life, the surface combat TF would have broke ranks and run the AP's down.

[mogami]

Hi, There are 2 Chutai of Nell located at Saigon 9 ready AC each. These are not attack groups (but you can use them as such if you please) Set them to Patrol. That still leaves 81 ready bombers for Naval Strikes. Also a Daitai set to Naval Strike can still commit a percentage of it's ready air to search.

[mogami]

Hi, I don't concur that so-so leaders will do the right thing. Often they see a mouse and believe they are seeing a Tiger.

MacClellan Had Lees Operations order in Sept 1862 and still failed to defeat Lee. He knew where all the scattered parts of Lee's Army were and never was able to hit any one of them because of HOW HE CONDUCTED his movements. With over a 2-1 force he failed to drive Lee from the battlefield because of HOW HE CONDUCTED the battle (which he called a masterpiece) The French collapse in WWII is almost the entire fault of their Supreme Commander. Examples in history of leaders failing in situations that greatly favored them is so numerous it would require decades to compile.

WITP forces you to use leaders. Some of them are unknowns. You have to keep your eye on how they do when they "See the elephant" I'd place a little "x" next to Force "Z" commander and if he was given 1 or 2 more he would find himself sitting in Karachi commanding a garbage barge

[2ndACR]

I know that I could set a percentage to naval search, I just keep forgeting to do it. But it is fixed now. Went in and changed my saved turn 1 for PBEM.

Places it squarley in the DOH!!!! category. I was pounding my head on the wall after he got away.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I don't concur that so-so leaders will do the right thing. Often they see a mouse and believe they are seeing a Tiger.

MacClellan Had Lees Operations order in Sept 1862 and still failed to defeat Lee. He knew where all the scattered parts of Lee's Army were and never was able to hit any one of them because of HOW HE CONDUCTED his movements. With over a 2-1 force he failed to drive Lee from the battlefield because of HOW HE CONDUCTED the battle (which he called a masterpiece) The French collapse in WWII is almost the entire fault of their Supreme Commander. Examples in history of leaders failing in situations that greatly favored them is so numerous it would require decades to compile.

WITP forces you to use leaders. Some of them are unknowns. You have to keep your eye on how they do when they "See the elephant" I'd place a little "x" next to Force "Z" commander and if he was given 1 or 2 more he would find himself sitting in Karachi commanding a garbage barge

You are really pushing the envelope here in your defense of this obviously "crippled" combat model. This happens 99% of the time. Why is it so hard for anyone to admit that maybe the model is sadly short of passable? For a naval game, this is inexcusable if left as is. Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in awhile, Force Z would not have behaved like this even with Iachino in command...the mouse vs tiger analogy does not wash in light of repeated examples of this routine. Captain Leatch is supposed to be a very seasoned combat veteran. While I realize the surface combat routines involving transport TFs are being looked at, the random vessel sighted/not sighted feature should be allowed to crawl away and die. It stretches plausability more than it invites it.

There are a zillion great things about this product. Don't leave a few glaring issues like this to soil an otherwise good project.

[Oleg Mastruko]

I don't understand Ron - aren't you one of the beta testers for WITP? Didn't you raise those issues on the beta board? What was the consensus among the betas then, and how did the developers respond?

O.