Surface Combat Sux

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

RAM
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon May 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Bilbao,Vizcaya,Spain
Contact:

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by RAM »

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, OK you are upset because a single Japanese ship in a TF of 4 escaped?



He, don't know, but I'm for sure WELL upset because out of more than 55 APs only two got sunk. let's go with the report of the battle I spoke about, before I go back to my game...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Singkawang at 25,57

Japanese Ships
MSW W.1, Shell hits 3, and is sunk
MSW W.2
AP Aikoku Maru
AP Asama Maru
AP Awajisan Maru
AP Ayato Maru
AP Ayatosan Maru, Shell hits 1
AP Chihaya Maru, Shell hits 25, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Daifuku Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire
AP Gosei Maru
AP Hakozaki Maru
AP Hikade Maru, Shell hits 2
AP Hikawa Maru, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Hokuriku Maru
AP Huso Maru
AP Iwaki Maru
AP Josho Maru
AP Kaika Maru
AP Kashi Maru
AP Kasuga Maru
AP Kasui Maru
AP Kinjosan Maru
AP Kisogawa Maru
AP Kiyozumi Maru
AP Koan Maru
AP Kogi Maru
AP Kogyo Maru
AP Koryu Maru
AP Koshu Maru #3
AP Kuroshio Maru
AP Marsue Maru
AP Meiko Maru
AP Meisho Maru
AP Meiyo Maru
AP Midori Maru
AP Mogamigawa Maru
AP Nichiai Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire
AP Nichiryu Maru
AP Nissen Maru #2
AP Nitta Maru
AP Nojima Maru
AP Ryugi Maru
AP Ryujo Maru
AP Santos Maru
AP Shoho Maru
AP Sumiyoshi Maru
AP Syoka Maru
AP Taibun Maru
AP Takuei Maru
AP Tatibana Maru
AP Tatsuho Maru
AP Tatumiya Maru
AP Tatuta Maru
AP Teiun Maru
AP Teiyo Maru
AP Tsunushima Maru
AP Ume Maru
AP Victoria Maru
AP Yoshinogawa Maru
AP Yuzan Maru
AP Tamatsu Maru, Shell hits 14, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage


if someone finds this normal, or acceptable, then I must resign my colors, because nothing will convince him otherwise

[edit] the combat report doesn't list the allied ships in the combat, weird but true. Ships there were BB PoW, BB Revenge, CA Houston (flagship), CA Dorsetshire, CA Cornwall 3 CLs and 6 DDs

The Houston was the flagship so I could put an american officer of high agressiveness and capability into the TF[/edit].
RAM

"Look at me! look at me!!!

Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
ZOOMIE1980
Posts: 1283
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by ZOOMIE1980 »

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, OK you are upset because a single Japanese ship in a TF of 4 escaped?


No, upset that one in four slow, large targets going against 8 fast, agile pursuers takes 94% of all hits while two others take the remaining 3% and one doesn't get hit at all???

That is patently insane and beyond even the furtherest stretch of rational logic. But that combat result is the NORM. And as such, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that formula needs a tweek of sorts.

And before you ask, a LOGICAL result would be:

AP Arizana Maru, shell hits 6, on fire
AP Eiko Maru, Shell hits 8, on fire
AP Kisaragi Maru, Shell hits 12, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Somedono Maru, Shell hits 26, on fire, heavy damage


That's what I'd expect to be the arithmetic mean of 20 such daylight engagements with this pursuit group....
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by mogami »

Hi, I can't see what is doing the damage so I can say. However any ship that is torpedoing another is not "catching" any other ship. With that many ships there is no way more then a fraction of them will be caught. (A ship on all points of the compass? pick one the others will get away.)
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
CV8 Hornet
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:27 pm

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by CV8 Hornet »

It seems to me that we are talking about 60 miles hexes. That's a lot of area to get lost in. Wouldn't the battle at Savo have included the Allied transports in the same hex as attacking Japanese surface forces and the defending allied cruisers?
CV-8 U.S.S. Hornet
RAM
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon May 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Bilbao,Vizcaya,Spain
Contact:

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by RAM »

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I can't see what is doing the damage so I can say. However any ship that is torpedoing another is not "catching" any other ship. With that many ships there is no way more then a fraction of them will be caught. (A ship on all points of the compass? pick one the others will get away.)


What's exactly "a fraction" for you, out of a transport TF of more than 55 transports escorted by TWO MSWs?...

See, Mogami, I would accept your arguments, I would think that even a 15% of losses could be explainable, yet out of a TF of some 58 ships that means 7-8 enemy transports sunk...Personally I fail to see why the cruisers and some destroyers can go for some of the fleeing transports while the BBs and the rest of the DDs go for the rest, but I am willing to take 15%. Heck, I'd take 10%, meaning 5-6 transports sunk.

But I Sank ONLY TWO transports, possibly THREE at the most, fer christsakes!!!!!!...


The allied force doesn't come in the report txtfile, as I already said in my edit avobe...but I can go into the game and give you the exact names of the ships involved, as, other than hte PoW and the Revenge, the TF is intact.
RAM

"Look at me! look at me!!!

Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
ZOOMIE1980
Posts: 1283
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by ZOOMIE1980 »

ORIGINAL: RAM
ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, OK you are upset because a single Japanese ship in a TF of 4 escaped?



He, don't know, but I'm for sure WELL upset because out of more than 55 APs only two got sunk. let's go with the report of the battle I spoke about, before I go back to my game...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Singkawang at 25,57

Japanese Ships
MSW W.1, Shell hits 3, and is sunk
MSW W.2
AP Aikoku Maru
AP Asama Maru
AP Awajisan Maru
AP Ayato Maru
AP Ayatosan Maru, Shell hits 1
AP Chihaya Maru, Shell hits 25, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Daifuku Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire
AP Gosei Maru
AP Hakozaki Maru
AP Hikade Maru, Shell hits 2
AP Hikawa Maru, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Hokuriku Maru
AP Huso Maru
AP Iwaki Maru
AP Josho Maru
AP Kaika Maru
AP Kashi Maru
AP Kasuga Maru
AP Kasui Maru
AP Kinjosan Maru
AP Kisogawa Maru
AP Kiyozumi Maru
AP Koan Maru
AP Kogi Maru
AP Kogyo Maru
AP Koryu Maru
AP Koshu Maru #3
AP Kuroshio Maru
AP Marsue Maru
AP Meiko Maru
AP Meisho Maru
AP Meiyo Maru
AP Midori Maru
AP Mogamigawa Maru
AP Nichiai Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire
AP Nichiryu Maru
AP Nissen Maru #2
AP Nitta Maru
AP Nojima Maru
AP Ryugi Maru
AP Ryujo Maru
AP Santos Maru
AP Shoho Maru
AP Sumiyoshi Maru
AP Syoka Maru
AP Taibun Maru
AP Takuei Maru
AP Tatibana Maru
AP Tatsuho Maru
AP Tatumiya Maru
AP Tatuta Maru
AP Teiun Maru
AP Teiyo Maru
AP Tsunushima Maru
AP Ume Maru
AP Victoria Maru
AP Yoshinogawa Maru
AP Yuzan Maru
AP Tamatsu Maru, Shell hits 14, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage


if someone finds this normal, or acceptable, then I must resign my colors, because nothing will convince him otherwise

[edit] the combat report doesn't list the allied ships in the combat, weird but true. Ships there were BB PoW, BB Revenge, CA Houston (flagship), CA Dorsetshire, CA Cornwall 3 CLs and 6 DDs

The Houston was the flagship so I could put an american officer of high agressiveness and capability into the TF[/edit].

This is quite normal in the game, but I find it a bit illogical. This isn't as bad as the one I'm making my point with (you've got two ships at least taking a significant portion of the hits instead of just one). But in such a large target TF, a decent attack commander should have the ability to engage in an attack with a wider spread than that.
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by mogami »

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, OK you are upset because a single Japanese ship in a TF of 4 escaped?


No, upset that one in four slow, large targets going against 8 fast, agile pursuers takes 94% of all hits while two others take the remaining 3% and one doesn't get hit at all???

That is patently insane and beyond even the furtherest stretch of rational logic. But that combat result is the NORM. And as such, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that formula needs a tweek of sorts.

And before you ask, a LOGICAL result would be:

AP Arizana Maru, shell hits 6, on fire
AP Eiko Maru, Shell hits 8, on fire
AP Kisaragi Maru, Shell hits 12, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Somedono Maru, Shell hits 26, on fire, heavy damage


That's what I'd expect to be the arithmetic mean of 20 such daylight engagements with this pursuit group....


Hi, If it was the "norm" then evey post would be the same. I've posted results that are much worse then that (from the Japanese POV)
What kind of hits? When a DD gets to within AA range it begins firing AA and MG scoring "hits" but so what? So the one enemy ship DIW took AA/MG fire as every ship in your TF went by pursing the ones that took the other "3" percent.


Sometimes it appears to me that everyone thinks everyship in their TF has a firing solution on every enemy ship from start to finish of a naval battle and all they really need is the control to "direct " the fire. Every ship has a rating, every leader has a rating.
WITP is not a tactical game. You do not get to decide the tactical outcome of battles and no one here knows what the little cyber battle resolving during the animation actually looks like. It is not 2 opposing lines of ships firing at each other. In no combat it what is taking place two neat lines of ships firing at each other. It is just so you can see who hit what with what. That is all.

I want to know does every battle between surface ships and unescorted transports result in only 1 transport being lost in daylight actions. (I don't think so since I just posted one where 41 percent of the transports were sunk)

In that AAR with the 50+ Japanese there are Japanese ships taking torpedo hits. They were the unlucky ships the USN pursued.
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
ZOOMIE1980
Posts: 1283
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by ZOOMIE1980 »

ORIGINAL: CV8 Hornet

It seems to me that we are talking about 60 miles hexes. That's a lot of area to get lost in. Wouldn't the battle at Savo have included the Allied transports in the same hex as attacking Japanese surface forces and the defending allied cruisers?

I my fourship example all four were spotted and identified, all with in line of sight of the attackers. All slow 10 knot targets being pursued by 30+ knot attackers.
ZOOMIE1980
Posts: 1283
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by ZOOMIE1980 »

ORIGINAL: Mogami
ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, OK you are upset because a single Japanese ship in a TF of 4 escaped?


No, upset that one in four slow, large targets going against 8 fast, agile pursuers takes 94% of all hits while two others take the remaining 3% and one doesn't get hit at all???

That is patently insane and beyond even the furtherest stretch of rational logic. But that combat result is the NORM. And as such, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that formula needs a tweek of sorts.

And before you ask, a LOGICAL result would be:

AP Arizana Maru, shell hits 6, on fire
AP Eiko Maru, Shell hits 8, on fire
AP Kisaragi Maru, Shell hits 12, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Somedono Maru, Shell hits 26, on fire, heavy damage


That's what I'd expect to be the arithmetic mean of 20 such daylight engagements with this pursuit group....


Hi, If it was the "norm" then evey post would be the same. I've posted results that are much worse then that (from the Japanese POV)
What kind of hits? When a DD gets to within AA range it begins firing AA and MG scoring "hits" but so what? So the one enemy ship DIW took AA/MG fire as every ship in your TF went by pursing the ones that took the other "3" percent.


Sometimes it appears to me that everyone thinks everyship in their TF has a firing solution on every enemy ship from start to finish of a naval battle and all they really need is the control to "direct " the fire. Every ship has a rating, every leader has a rating.
WITP is not a tactical game. You do not get to decide the tactical outcome of battles and no one here knows what the little cyber battle resolving during the animation actually looks like. It is not 2 opposing lines of ships firing at each other. In no combat it what is taking place two neat lines of ships firing at each other. It is just so you can see who hit what with what. That is all.

I want to know does every battle between surface ships and unescorted transports result in only 1 transport being lost in daylight actions. (I don't think so since I just posted one where 41 percent of the transports were sunk)


First off, I don't have that many of these ever happen. I have started 14 games, all the main campaign (#15 or Lemurs #26) most of which make it to about Feb 42, one is in early Apr 42. Out those I have had fewer than a dozen of these actually happen. But in EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, the transport TF suffers major damage or a sinking on only one ship with maybe one other getting at least some significant (greater than 20%) damage. Last week I had an 8 AK TF get ambushed by 6 Dutch DD's and 2 CL and lost one and had about 60% Flt damage on a second, the other six got away virtually unharmed. Daylight attack. Based on the postings here, I'd say that is the norm for most of us.

Sometimes I think you must be playing on a different game build than everyone else.....no one ever seems to have anywhere near the kind of results you ever seem to post.
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by mogami »

Hi, You read the animation better then I do. How do you know they were all observed by every ship in your TF? Or could it be that the 1 that got away was only spotted by 1 of your ships and that ship also saw another target and fired at it instead?
That half your TF only saw one ship and pounded it. That of the other half only part of them saw the other 2.
I mean from the animation, the combatreport or anything ever placed in the manual do you know that every one of your ships saw every other ship.

In that AAR with 50 ships there is nothing to suggest any of them were saw by the USN except by a single ship as they passed out of sight.
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by mogami »

Hi, I think target selection goes down a path like this.

1. Enemy ship spotted
2. Enemy Ship in range

Where more then 1 enemy ship are spotted and in range a value is assigned and target with highest value is selected to fire at.

Combat does not occur at ranges given. Combat begins at ranges given and where the range is closing the range for next round decrease. Where ranges opening the range increases. When no target in range the TF "break contact"

I don't think a TF leader would be unhappy with sinking 2 out of 4 enemy ships in the length of time 1 movement/combat phase represents. These are not all day battles. None of them can last more then 8 hours and next phase the surface TF is all reformed and moving again. So however far one of these ships move to chase it has to move back before the end of phase. If you want to pursue in the following orders phase you break up your TF and pursue.

Transports scatter at outset. Transports are not trying to fire but evade. Even a 10 kt ship is hard to hit when it is evading. (At 10k a ship doing 10kts will move more then it's length in the time your shells require to travel) You don't aim at a target but at the empty space it will occupy when your shot gets there. If the target does not fill up that space you miss)
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
RAM
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon May 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Bilbao,Vizcaya,Spain
Contact:

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by RAM »

Japanese Ships damaged during the combat:

MSW W.1, Shell hits 3, and is sunk
AP Ayatosan Maru, Shell hits 1
AP Chihaya Maru, Shell hits 25, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Daifuku Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire
AP Hikade Maru, Shell hits 2
AP Hikawa Maru, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Nichiai Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire
AP Tamatsu Maru, Shell hits 14, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage


So, out of a TF of some 55+ transports you're telling me that they saw only a single ship.
In that AAR with 50 ships there is nothing to suggest any of them were saw by the USN except by a single ship as they passed out of sight.


Barring the fact that most of the ships in the screen had name on it (meaning they were well known and spotted), at least SEVEN Transports were clearly seen, as at least SEVEN transports were fired upon and hit.

It just happens that out of 47 gun hits, 39 were inflicted on TWO ships, meaning that 82.9% of my naval TF gunfire, seeing AT LEAST Seven transports (in fact they saw many more of them as their names were visible), was directed at those TWO ships even while they were already clearly doomed. This simply isn't correct, no matter what.


As I said, I leave this debate with you as impossible not because you aren't a reasonable guy (that you are) but because I'm getting the feel that no matter what is put before you will be dismissed with an ad-hoc rational explanation that could make sense on 10% of the cases...but not on 90% of them, as is the problem now.

As I said, I leave this debate with you as impossible...that you try to defend that out of a TF of more than 55 transports, only SEVEN are seen (while the tactical screen said otherwise) and only TWO of them get 82.9% of my gun's attention is out of my reach and comprehension. Maybe I'm too brainchallenged to understand it, but so are most of the people who have intervened in this thread.
RAM

"Look at me! look at me!!!

Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
ZOOMIE1980
Posts: 1283
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by ZOOMIE1980 »

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, You read the animation better then I do. How do you know they were all observed by every ship in your TF? Or could it be that the 1 that got away was only spotted by 1 of your ships and that ship also saw another target and fired at it instead?
That half your TF only saw one ship and pounded it. That of the other half only part of them saw the other 2.
I mean from the animation, the combatreport or anything ever placed in the manual do you know that every one of your ships saw every other ship.

In that AAR with 50 ships there is nothing to suggest any of them were saw by the USN except by a single ship as they passed out of sight.


The logical error you always make is trying to parse every AAR posted and try and come up with a rational explanation, based on the designed model, as to why THAT PARTICULAR AAR might have happenned.

You fail to see the forest for the leaves on the trees. Stand back and look at the BIG PICTURE. It is clear from the 11 pages in this thread that almost ALL posters are getting results in these engaments where one ship is taking 90+% of all the attacker's shots. Each, individually, might be able to be explained away in terms of the arithmetical model as being within game parameters. But the results AS A WHOLE, the forest, MAKES NO SENSE!!! Across the breadth of the game, amongst all players, the combat results should be showing a much wider damage spread on unescorted TF's being engaged by the 6-10 ship Cl/DD surface TF's.

Fortunately for us, the developers seem to have come to the same general conclusion.
ZOOMIE1980
Posts: 1283
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by ZOOMIE1980 »

ORIGINAL: RAM

Japanese Ships damaged during the combat:

MSW W.1, Shell hits 3, and is sunk
AP Ayatosan Maru, Shell hits 1
AP Chihaya Maru, Shell hits 25, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Daifuku Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire
AP Hikade Maru, Shell hits 2
AP Hikawa Maru, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Nichiai Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire
AP Tamatsu Maru, Shell hits 14, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage


So, out of a TF of some 55+ transports you're telling me that they saw only a single ship.
In that AAR with 50 ships there is nothing to suggest any of them were saw by the USN except by a single ship as they passed out of sight.


Barring the fact that most of the ships in the screen had name on it (meaning they were well known and spotted), at least SEVEN Transports were clearly seen, as at least SEVEN transports were fired upon and hit.

It just happens that out of 47 gun hits, 39 were inflicted on TWO ships, meaning that 82.9% of my naval TF gunfire, seeing AT LEAST Seven transports (in fact they saw many more of them as their names were visible), was directed at those TWO ships even while they were already clearly doomed. This simply isn't correct, no matter what.


As I said, I leave this debate with you as impossible...that you try to defend that out of a TF of more than 55 transports, only SEVEN are seen (while the tactical screen said otherwise) and only TWO of them get 82.9% of my gun's attention is out of my reach and comprehension. Maybe I'm too brainchallenged to understand it, but so are most of the people who have intervened in this thread.


Yes Mogami obviously has his heels dug in on this one, as completely ILLOGICAL as it is. Fortunately, it appears the developers are not so dug in. 10 pages indicates that this is an unacceptable logic BUG. I simply have a hard time, sometimes, following Mogami's logic process. Your post, and those of the ones claiming this problem, seem perfectly LOGICAL to me. It is OBVIOUS this is a problem. It's not a big one, it simply appears a formula or check needs a MINOR tweek.
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by mogami »

Hi, No there is trouble because some people cannot concive that while they might see 100 ducks flying overhead they can only shoot at few. More shooters will hit more ducks but they also might shoot the same duck.

It's not simply how many do I see. It's how many can I sink before moving to the next target. The target on the other hand is going in every direction. Once you get the first one you can't get all the rest. You might get another. And when this round of combat is done the battle is not over unless you say it is over and leave the area. If you want to pursue the next orders phase is the time to decide. Unless before the combat you had told the leader to retire in which case he has save movement that he might have used killing ships to leave the hex.

Does anyone really suppose that a TF with 50+ transports could be destroyed in less then 8 hours?
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
User avatar
Tankerace
Posts: 5408
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 12:23 pm
Location: Stillwater, OK, United States

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by Tankerace »

I'd guess, in all honesty, that to sink that many ships would take at least 72 hours, assuming a good sized surface TF, a dozen subs, and good airpower.
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.
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by mogami »

Hi, I think it was decided that in order to have statisics that could be used to base any conclusion you needed over 1400 samples.

(The transports move 1 hex every half phase. If the battle began in the center of a hex and lasted 8 hours and there were more then 6 transports at start that survived there would be a transport in every adjecent hex before the turn was over. )
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
RAM
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon May 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Bilbao,Vizcaya,Spain
Contact:

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by RAM »

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, No there is trouble because some people cannot concive that while they might see 100 ducks flying overhead they can only shoot at few. More shooters will hit more ducks but they also might shoot the same duck.

Firstly, when the duck falls, noone keeps it shooting while the dead bird's falling from the sky. In WitP everyone keep pounding the poor duck until even its own duck-mother would think it was her meal, not her son, if she saw the remains.


Secondly, I can accept two ships firing at the same target, maybe three. 14 ships firing at the same burning sinking piece of scrap forever makes no sense, at all.

Does anyone really suppose that a TF with 50+ transports could be destroyed in less then 8 hours?


Please don't distort what I said. I already said that even a 15% loss on the convoy would be acceptable for me (I would take it a bit on the low side on what I could expect, but I would accept it with no problems). That means 7-8 ships out of 55. I sank 2...maybe 3 after the (lucky, because if there had been none that ship would've also escaped) torpedo hit on one of the "unnattended" transports.


I don't beg for a 55+ convoy being destroyed from first to last transport. Never have. So your comment is out of context and purpose here and can mislead any casual reader on what I'm pointing out.

All I'm asking is for realistic loss % on them. 3 out of a 55 convoy means a 6% loss. Under such an amazing amount of firepower from far faster ships, and without protection nearby, sorry but 6% loss is just plain ridiculous.

And the fact that to achieve that 6% loss I have been devoting 82.9% of my firepower is even more plainly ridiculous.


There are things undefendible, and this is one. You're not going to change your point of view (that is clear at this stage). Thankfully like ZOOMIE1980 said, the developers have changed theirs and we'll hopefully see it fixed. That it's what matters to me, after all [:)]
RAM

"Look at me! look at me!!!

Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
ZOOMIE1980
Posts: 1283
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by ZOOMIE1980 »

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, No there is trouble because some people cannot concive that while they might see 100 ducks flying overhead they can only shoot at few. More shooters will hit more ducks but they also might shoot the same duck.

It's not simply how many do I see. It's how many can I sink before moving to the next target. The target on the other hand is going in every direction. Once you get the first one you can't get all the rest. You might get another. And when this round of combat is done the battle is not over unless you say it is over and leave the area. If you want to pursue the next orders phase is the time to decide. Unless before the combat you had told the leader to retire in which case he has save movement that he might have used killing ships to leave the hex.

Does anyone really suppose that a TF with 50+ transports could be destroyed in less then 8 hours?


Again and again and again......The major mistake the testers have made in testing this game, is they take the notion that because each instance of a test performs within the defined design parameters if that part of the game, that that automatically means the the whole thing, over its entire breadth, is performing within performance parameters. That is almost NEVER the case in the real world.

The FACTS are that large number of posters are seeing combat results with 6-10 surface combat ships engaging unescorted transport TFs where only one or two ships are taking 95% of the hits and damage. If I've a 100 ducks and five shooters we might get 3 ducks. If I've got 50 shooters I will get 20 or more ducks. If I have 200 shooters I should get over half the ducks. In WiTp that 200 shooters is still getting only 2 ducks! That is INSANE! Even though I can probably logically explain in each instance why only two got shot.

Logically being able to explain each, individual, AAR does NOT mean something is NOT wrong. And that is what you fail to be able to understand.
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by anarchyintheuk »

I agree with what you're saying but I think the combat routine just makes it look a little bit worse than it is in terms of one ship getting a huge percentage of hits inflicted. When ship A hits ship B the computer adjusts the sys/flt/fire damage of B and, assuming sys damage affects speed and speed affects hit probability, B is now more likely to be hit by the next shot that A fires. If A is a ship w/ high ROF weapons and hits B early in A's firing sequence, B will quickly get to 100/100 sys/float damage, virtually guaranteeing A hitting B when it fires. Unfortunately, A and B aren't aware that B is sunk until the entire combat round (all the ships on both sides have fired) is over so the hits rapidly accumulate. The ship may have actually sunk on the 5th or 6th shot, it just won't know it. It also prevents A from engaging any other ship for the round.
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”