Surface Combat Sux

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Montrose

It could be solved by: 1) Dropping DLs as a targetting determinant. Or 2) Checking for sunk ships more often.

Not just sunk but damaged. How many hits should it require on a TK or AK before a captain moves on to a new target of opportunity? Not so many I think.

Re playtesters and their all-too-predictable alibis: some are worse than others in this regard, but it basically boils down to wanting to be "part of the action" regardless the ultimate cost. I mean how many testers are willing to speak their minds with the threat of "dismissal" hanging over their heads? Not many is the answer. Indeed, how many testers are likely to be plucked from the crowd if they're constantly writing critical posts in the forums? Not many, again. And thus the tester pool by definition tends to be "happy" and "cordial," it becomes a pool that "gets along" but not a pool at all necessarily of the critical mind bent required to really and actually put the product at question through grueling paces.

End result: you're looking at it.

Another old story.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

The whole "High-DL-Ship-becomes-Shell-Magnet" phenomenon is not entirely without merit. In thinking of the various night actions during the war, some facts stand out:

• a ship will never become a target, if it is not spotted.
• a ship which is afire is a much better target than one that is not.
• in the early days of radar fire control systems, there were several actions in which one Japanese ship (the one that produced the largest or the nearest radar return--Takanami at Tassafaronga, Niizuki at Second Kula Gulf, Jintsu at Kolombangara, Sendai at Empress Augusta Bay) became the target of the entire American formation, while the rest of the ships launched torpedoes and then evaded, or at least escaped immediate attention.
  
  DL is not entirely bogus, not in low visibility anyway. Just worth noting.

That isn't the argument here. Neither is it what's happening.

Warships that overtake a merchie or two will put a couple of shells into the enemy then close for the kill (assuming those couple of shells haven't already achieved that goal). Then the warships will move on searching for more enemy vessels. The warships will not stand off at maximum range with bare sighting capability and pummel said enemy vessels all day long with everything they've got. And that's what happens in the game and has happened since forever.

It's a glaring model mistake that needs to be corrected. What could be more clear?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

The whole "High-DL-Ship-becomes-Shell-Magnet" phenomenon is not entirely without merit. In thinking of the various night actions during the war, some facts stand out:

• a ship will never become a target, if it is not spotted.
• a ship which is afire is a much better target than one that is not.
• in the early days of radar fire control systems, there were several actions in which one Japanese ship (the one that produced the largest or the nearest radar return--Takanami at Tassafaronga, Niizuki at Second Kula Gulf, Jintsu at Kolombangara, Sendai at Empress Augusta Bay) became the target of the entire American formation, while the rest of the ships launched torpedoes and then evaded, or at least escaped immediate attention.
  
  DL is not entirely bogus, not in low visibility anyway. Just worth noting.

As you pointed out, you are looking at radar targetted ships in these examples, and I believe this is the effect the design is trying to achieve. Noble and justifiable aim. It just seems they have painted everything with the same brush. This happens when ships close to within visual sighting range at night or daylight. Navies did not train incessantly just so that same training, rules of engagement, fire discipline etc goes out the window at the first sign of the enemy.

I also believe that ships in ones friendly TF not being sighted when on the attack has much to do with the desire to model ships with no or poor radar, much like Missisippi and Pennsylvania at Surigao Strait. If so, it is also a case of painting with too broad a brush, as in my case, one of the most modern ships with best night capability was the one which was not sighted/engaged (the POW).

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Montrose

It could be solved by: 1) Dropping DLs as a targetting determinant. Or 2) Checking for sunk ships more often.

Not just sunk but damaged. How many hits should it require on a TK or AK before a captain moves on to a new target of opportunity? Not so many I think.

Re playtesters and their all-too-predictable alibis: some are worse than others in this regard, but it basically boils down to wanting to be "part of the action" regardless the ultimate cost. I mean how many testers are willing to speak their minds with the threat of "dismissal" hanging over their heads? Not many is the answer. Indeed, how many testers are likely to be plucked from the crowd if they're constantly writing critical posts in the forums? Not many, again. And thus the tester pool by definition tends to be "happy" and "cordial," it becomes a pool that "gets along" but not a pool at all necessarily of the critical mind bent required to really and actually put the product at question through grueling paces.

End result: you're looking at it.

Another old story.

"Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" or in your case
"Ceterum censeo Matrix esse delendam"

In fact a number of the testers have been those who were questioning or critical. Mike Scholl was offered a spot but was unable to devote the time. The tester/developer debates do not take place in the public forum. Once more for those unable to see the job of a tester is not to design the game but report on how it works compared to how the designer intends it to work and report ways to make it do other then intended.

The designers read these boards. They also see the AAR where quite often every combat report is published.

So we have the testers with their all too predictable alibis and the same old grumblers complaining about every aspect of the game. In between are the folks happy to own the game and too busy playing to hang out around here and read the bickering.
The designers know exactly what results are being produced. Where they are bugs they are fixing them. Where they are not what they intended they are fixing them, where they are exactly what they intended they are leaving them alone. All the testers are players as well. I do not understand how you think a tester would benifit from defending the game if it was wrong. The game is released. Someday soon there will be no more changes made by the designers only edits in the DB by players. Why would a tester not want the game to be right? Believe me nothing has appeared in the public forum that the designers do not hear about in private.

[mogami]

Hi, How many times in WW2 did radar equiped ships direct fire at friendly ships?

[Tristanjohn]

That's all wonderful on its face, Magami, but my point still stands. Been there, got the T-shirt.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, How many times in WW2 did radar equiped ships direct fire at friendly ships?

I don't know and that's not in the model, either.

Ought to be, though. [:)]

[tsimmonds]

As you pointed out, you are looking at radar targetted ships in these examples, and I believe this is the effect the design is trying to achieve. Noble and justifiable aim. It just seems they have painted everything with the same brush. This happens when ships close to within visual sighting range at night or daylight. Navies did not train incessantly just so that same training, rules of engagement, fire discipline etc goes out the window at the first sign of the enemy.

Exactly so. We seem to see during daytime combat, a DL-based effect that we might expect to be an important factor at night, but much less so during the daytime.

[Theng]

Okay. Here are my 2 cents. The way the game simulates the enagement of a large surface task force against a convoy is correct.

Just look at Convoy PQ-17. Standard allied modus operandus in the event that the convoy is attacked by a surface TF is to disperse to minimize your losses (so yes, 60 mile hexagon is a lot of territory) The PQ-17 was sunk by subs that took advantage of the dispersed convoy without escorts. Also surface TFs tend to stay together as a cohesive unit, which is impeding their ability to cover all 9352.8 square miles of the hexagon.

The only thing worse for the career of a naval TF commander than not sinking an undefended convoy is to run into an enemy TF that sinks your dispersed TF because you went hunting for an "undefended convoy."

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Xian

Okay. Here are my 2 cents. The way the game simulates the enagement of a large surface task force against a convoy is correct.

Just look at Convoy PQ-17. Standard allied modus operandus in the event that the convoy is attacked by a surface TF is to disperse to minimize your losses (so yes, 60 mile hexagon is a lot of territory) The PQ-17 was sunk by subs that took advantage of the dispersed convoy without escorts. Also surface TFs tend to stay together as a cohesive unit, which is impeding their ability to cover all 9352.8 square miles of the hexagon.

The only thing worse for the career of a naval TF commander than not sinking an undefended convoy is to run into an enemy TF that sinks your dispersed TF because you went hunting for an "undefended convoy."

That would apply some of the time, not all of the time.

[mogami]

Hi, The complaints only occur some of the time not all of the time. No one who thinks it is working posts complaints. I posted a Allied TF against Japanese Transport engaement in this thread that has been ignored since I posted it. The USN scored hits on every single ship in the Japanese TF resulting in the loss of half the ships. So it is nonsense to claim the surface TF never clobber transports. Sometimes they don't and people just close their eyes to why.

I've posted many AAR over the last year that as Japan often contained examples of Allied TF intercepting my transports in all sea hexes. I've lost more transports to allied surface forces then to allied air. It is not some new discovery here that "ALL surface TF only get 1 or 2 transports" because it is not true. Just start reading old AAR and you will find quite early in the war numerous encounters between my transports and enemy surface ships.

[Bradley7735]

I think it would apply almost all of the time. Only in those rare one in a million (Midway, Savo, etc) chances would a surface force wipe out a transport TF.

Does anyone have a historic example of an entire transport TF being wiped out by Surface forces? All the examples I know of are from LBA (Bismark Sea, Guadalcanal (the battle when the Japs beached their transports)). I know of no surface battle where significant percentage of losses happened to the transports. In any ocean, by any navy.

bc

[Tankerace]

Scharnhorst and Gneisnau in 1940 knocked off 3 and 5 ship convoys, I know that. But as to sinking an entire 10+ convoy, no example comes to my mind.

[tsimmonds]

That's because the (IRL inevitable) covering force always spoiled the fun. IRL there were a number of close calls in which a potential interception of a convoy of transports was foiled by its covering force of surface ships. This is what should almost always happen. If the player should provide no such covering force however....

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, The complaints only occur some of the time not all of the time. No one who thinks it is working posts complaints. I posted a Allied TF against Japanese Transport engaement in this thread that has been ignored since I posted it. The USN scored hits on every single ship in the Japanese TF resulting in the loss of half the ships. So it is nonsense to claim the surface TF never clobber transports. Sometimes they don't and people just close their eyes to why.

I've posted many AAR over the last year that as Japan often contained examples of Allied TF intercepting my transports in all sea hexes. I've lost more transports to allied surface forces then to allied air. It is not some new discovery here that "ALL surface TF only get 1 or 2 transports" because it is not true. Just start reading old AAR and you will find quite early in the war numerous encounters between my transports and enemy surface ships.

You seem to have the wrong guy here. I didn't start this thread. As a matter of fact I noted that in UV IJN warships more than once cleaned house on my unprotected merchantmen in port.

My only problem in that regard is that they did so after engaging my own warship screen, and furthermore did so in such "burning" condition as to render the action more than a little ahistoric (per the rules cloaking bombardment TFs more or less invisible to potential retaliatory strikes by LBA).

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

I think it would apply almost all of the time. Only in those rare one in a million (Midway, Savo, etc) chances would a surface force wipe out a transport TF.

Does anyone have a historic example of an entire transport TF being wiped out by Surface forces? All the examples I know of are from LBA (Bismark Sea, Guadalcanal (the battle when the Japs beached their transports)). I know of no surface battle where significant percentage of losses happened to the transports. In any ocean, by any navy.

bc

Tarigo, Lupo and Duisburg convoys during the battle of the Mediterannean. Complete annihilation of two of the three convoys. The Lupo convoy saw some serious confusion on the part of the British, but even in this case, a single cruiser (Orion) manage to destroy 10 of the enemy transports.

[Montrose]

Ok Mogami, you just blew any credibility you had in this thread at least.

the same old grumblers complaining about every aspect of the game

Not once in this thread have I seen anyone who does not agree with the way it has been decided to resolve surface actions 'grumble about every other aspect'. Indeed, they (and me) have gone out of their way to say what an otherwise fine game this is. I have recommended this game to others who bought it, and there is a small amount of customer care to be done even for me.

Perhaps you should bear in mind that your knee-jerk defensive response to any kind of criticism of this game is likely to alienate any number of people. It can be seen as representative of the ethos of the company, and I've seen it with other game companies, particularly Talonsoft. It wasn't pretty. Any company which refuses to accept reasoned, well meaning and constructive criticism could go the same way if the fanbase loses heart.

So let's ditch the defensive attitudes and work together with this.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Tarigo, Lupo and Duisburg convoys during the battle of the Mediterannean. Complete annihilation of two of the three convoys. The Lupo convoy saw some serious confusion on the part of the British, but even in this case, a single cruiser (Orion) manage to destroy 10 of the enemy transports.

Those were Italians - sure you don't want to see that modelled in WITP? [:D]

Weren't those "10 enemy transports" in case of Lupo actually "caiques", ie. very small coastal craft akin to barges in WITP? And are you sure it was only Orion on the British side, not the whole cruiser squadron?

Cruiser squadron vs. lone DE + 10x AG barges is verymuch different than CA vs. DE + 10x AK.

In that action Lupo was hit with no less than 18 6in shells - another brave escort taking punishment trying to save the conwoy, just like those PGs in WITP people complain so much about.

Duisburg - here we have defensive action that is not simply bad, it's embarassing for the Italians. Perhaps such embarassments should be modeled in WITP, but then you'd have even bigger protests from the players who got "Duisburg-ed" while their ships buzzed around too afraid to shoot. In the Pacific such escort embarassments were rare, maybe they have to be modelled for UV-Med? [:D]

O.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Montrose

Ok Mogami, you just blew any credibility you had in this thread at least.

the same old grumblers complaining about every aspect of the game

Not once in this thread have I seen anyone who does not agree with the way it has been decided to resolve surface actions 'grumble about every other aspect'. Indeed, they (and me) have gone out of their way to say what an otherwise fine game this is. I have recommended this game to others who bought it, and there is a small amount of customer care to be done even for me.

Perhaps you should bear in mind that your knee-jerk defensive response to any kind of criticism of this game is likely to alienate any number of people. It can be seen as representative of the ethos of the company, and I've seen it with other game companies, particularly Talonsoft. It wasn't pretty. Any company which refuses to accept reasoned, well meaning and constructive criticism could go the same way if the fanbase loses heart.

So let's ditch the defensive attitudes and work together with this.

Actually Matrix and Grigsby have good (make that stellar) reputations for supporting their stuff, so I doubt you'll see a "Talonsoft" sort of reaction here. Of course were Joel in complete control that might be another story. . . .

Glad to hear you speak up anyway. Always good to encounter an occasional poster with some fire in his belly and a healthy disinclination to just go meekly along with whatever Mogami happens to feel like babbling today. [:)]

[Oleg Mastruko]

Geez, Mog, these n00bz got cocky lately. Issue that call to arms already, and your loyal Praetorian Guard will enter the fray [:D]

People, Mogami is not only the living legend of this board, he is spewing *excellent* WITP advice left and right, for those who WISH, and have enough patience to actually READ his posts. Oh, and for those that actually PLAY the game, of course. 80% of my personal "tips and tricks" files for WITP and UV are made of his posts. His posts are the most useful on the board. MVP - is that the term from NBA basketball games, most valuable player?

His last few replies were spot on. Maybe you should read them again before flaming the man?

<sychopantic mode off>

O.