Hi, In that report I count at least 8 Japanese ships hit by a TF containing 14 ships. (14.5 percent of enemy TF hit) Is this a poor result? Yes is it the normal result I don't know but I posted a daylight engagement above it where the Allied TF does better (it is larger)
Only 3 ships in your TF have guns larger then those carrired by the AP. Also it is clear your smaller ships closed the range because there were torpedo hits. To hit these ships your smaller ships had to ignore all but the target ship. I am assuming that not every one of your ships that fired torpedos scored a hit.
How did you do the following turn?
Surface Combat Sux
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
RE: Surface Combat Sux
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
RE: Surface Combat Sux
ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi, In that report I count at least 8 Japanese ships hit by a TF containing 14 ships. (14.5 percent of enemy TF hit) Is this a poor result?
Which report are you talking about??....mine had something like 58 transports and two MSW
had the other ships been hit 5-6 times, yes ,it would've been a good result even not seeing direct sinkings. But the following distribution of impacts in my engagement was:
Hits------------ships
25---------------1
14---------------1
3----------------2
2----------------1
1----------------3
I find higly unsatisfactory and hardly believable, mostly because for the time they had been impacted 10 times, both of the most impacted ships were already dead, and fire should've shifted to another target in range.
As I said, it's the problem of shifting fire from already DEAD ships what I've got the biggest quarrel against. If you solve this thing, the results will be much more realistic, leading to more widespread damage without reaching in any case a truly anihilation of an unescorted convoy (wich-I agree- is unrealistic)
To hit these ships your smaller ships had to ignore all but the target ship. I am assuming that not every one of your ships that fired torpedos scored a hit.
IIRC there was something like 5-6 "torpedoes in the water" messages. Can't recall exactly, but weren't many of them
How did you do the following turn?
Still have to play it, even while I've almost everything set to press the "next turn" button...now that I've lost Revenge and Prince of Wales, I just got one british "R" BB on the zone some 25 hexes NW from Batavia....After the suprise of finding the Kido Butai nearby I'll withdraw all my surface assets out of the zone for the time being. I've still got a quite powerful cruiser force in my hands, even while I have to send Houston back to Colombo or to Sydney (has 11 sis damage from previous engagement)...
all in all I can't keep on trying to interfere in the japanese landings with my surface fleets anymore, and the loss of PoW has been a real kick between my legs...it is by far the most powerful allied surface combat ship until the North Carolinas show up...
RAM
"Look at me! look at me!!!
Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
"Look at me! look at me!!!
Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
RE: Surface Combat Sux
I must say I agree with the overarching point of this threat. The Surface combat is fine vs. combatants, but for "raider" type battles it is insane.
To start I have no trouble with "nitpicking" things like this in this game. this is after all a game for nitpickers.
Several points, mogami (whose opinion I've respected since UV) please comment. All of these items address daylight combat. I have NO problem with night combat being confusing.
1) I have repeatedly seen this scatter theory (everyone runs in all directions). This is laughable. One half of the compass is unusable since that half of the compass is bring you CLOSER to the attack warships. While certainly in a large convoy (10 ships plus) some would be able to get away but unless that convoy is traveling line astern with four miles between each ship and the attacking ships hit from one end, what convoy geometry would allow more than 30% of the ships to evade clear sighting?
2) What kind of crews are on these ships? An allied AK taking lets say six hits from the main guns of your name sake would be a flaming, ruptured, smoldering death trap. No crew would remain on board. Why are these ships not abandoned?
3) The ships that take "some" damage, how is that possible? Lets say a single undergunned destroyers has set its sights on a single AK and htis its twice. These two hits alone with hurt the ship badly, but how do these ships always get away? Unless the assumption that all naval combat occurs ten minutes prior to nightfall, a DD going 30 could catch a 12 knot AK from a 20K yard lead in less than ONE HOUR. Even a DD with just two 40mm AA guns and a single 5"er would pulverize a cargo ship in a few minutes.
4) Air spotting. If attacking ships are told that there are fifteen cargo ships and no visible escorts according to air spotters (either this ships own complements on CA's or LBA) why the hell would any captain accept the finding and sinking of two ships as a good days work? He knows they are around there somewhere and if they are cargo ships they couldn't have gone very far?
I have no overall problem with some combat results being dissapointing (representing random stupidity or genius or bravery on one side). But I almost NEVER see a brutal assbeating like I should when the tranports on the East cost of the PI run for it and some big ass Japanese CA/DD execution squads hits those eight cargo ships and in broad daylight manages to kill two wound one and let five get by.
To start I have no trouble with "nitpicking" things like this in this game. this is after all a game for nitpickers.
Several points, mogami (whose opinion I've respected since UV) please comment. All of these items address daylight combat. I have NO problem with night combat being confusing.
1) I have repeatedly seen this scatter theory (everyone runs in all directions). This is laughable. One half of the compass is unusable since that half of the compass is bring you CLOSER to the attack warships. While certainly in a large convoy (10 ships plus) some would be able to get away but unless that convoy is traveling line astern with four miles between each ship and the attacking ships hit from one end, what convoy geometry would allow more than 30% of the ships to evade clear sighting?
2) What kind of crews are on these ships? An allied AK taking lets say six hits from the main guns of your name sake would be a flaming, ruptured, smoldering death trap. No crew would remain on board. Why are these ships not abandoned?
3) The ships that take "some" damage, how is that possible? Lets say a single undergunned destroyers has set its sights on a single AK and htis its twice. These two hits alone with hurt the ship badly, but how do these ships always get away? Unless the assumption that all naval combat occurs ten minutes prior to nightfall, a DD going 30 could catch a 12 knot AK from a 20K yard lead in less than ONE HOUR. Even a DD with just two 40mm AA guns and a single 5"er would pulverize a cargo ship in a few minutes.
4) Air spotting. If attacking ships are told that there are fifteen cargo ships and no visible escorts according to air spotters (either this ships own complements on CA's or LBA) why the hell would any captain accept the finding and sinking of two ships as a good days work? He knows they are around there somewhere and if they are cargo ships they couldn't have gone very far?
I have no overall problem with some combat results being dissapointing (representing random stupidity or genius or bravery on one side). But I almost NEVER see a brutal assbeating like I should when the tranports on the East cost of the PI run for it and some big ass Japanese CA/DD execution squads hits those eight cargo ships and in broad daylight manages to kill two wound one and let five get by.
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Hi, You mean POW was sunk in the hex the combat occrued in the same turn? I missed something here.
Can you send the file before the combat to Mogami69bsa@aol.com?
Can you send the file before the combat to Mogami69bsa@aol.com?
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
RE: Surface Combat Sux
ORIGINAL: RAM
A more decent example would be the following:
take your buddy out on the street. Give him a 10 yard headstart. You chase him doing 30 feet por second while he evades at 10fps. See how long it takes to catch him. Now take two buddies out. Have one go north at 10fps and the other south at 10fps and see if you can catch them both. Now take 3 but before you chase the first 2 the third starts only 5 yards away and you must catch him before you can chase the other 2.
BTW: piece of advice after reading this...never try to be a buddy of mine, at least if I have a shotgun near me [:'(]
I certainly wouldn't want to be your friend if that's what you do..., but what do you do to your enemies.
But I want to take the analogy a bit further. You can't use a shotgun, you have to use a ballistic weapon at least at farther ranges... So, while you are running you must bend at the waist forward, and then lean back and repeat..., the faster you go, the more severe the bends. Now, while doing this, try to lob rocks at your friend. Occasionally one will hit and do damage, but it will take a few to hurt him this way enough to make him stop. While doing this, try to keep your eye on the other people running away while concentrating on hitting number 1 with your rocks. You may use the shotgun/torpedo when you get close enough... Due to the spectator nature of humans, most people will be watching the action but you don't have a crew so you need to do it all yourself.
Hope you at least enjoy the mental image that brings. [:D]
RE: Surface Combat Sux
and in one more piece of shameless mirth... a quote
"Although the forts' reply was ineffective, and conditions were ideal with bright sun and the gentlest of offshore breeze, the organisation for controlling the aim of the great guns proved deficient; there were no range-finders or fire control telegraphs, and messages passed by voice pipe were frequently inaudible in the din. Meanwhile, the flat calm created problems for the gunlayers trained to take aim as the ship rolled the sights on target; in at least one vessel the whole ship's company not employed at the guns was marshalled to move back and forth across the battery deck to create a roll..."
Rule Britannia [:'(]
"Although the forts' reply was ineffective, and conditions were ideal with bright sun and the gentlest of offshore breeze, the organisation for controlling the aim of the great guns proved deficient; there were no range-finders or fire control telegraphs, and messages passed by voice pipe were frequently inaudible in the din. Meanwhile, the flat calm created problems for the gunlayers trained to take aim as the ship rolled the sights on target; in at least one vessel the whole ship's company not employed at the guns was marshalled to move back and forth across the battery deck to create a roll..."
Rule Britannia [:'(]
RE: Surface Combat Sux
LOL@Belphegor!!! [:D][:D]
I've just run the next turn, so no combat file anymore
.
No, let's see, I explained it already in a previous post. In the night impulse I got into the surface combat vs that massive transport TF. That way, by daylight the ships would already be some 4 hexes away, and make detection & air attack by Betties based on the continent much harder for the japanese.
It turned out to be that I had the KB,which was on the area undetected (I'm going to kill those dutch recce aircraft for letting them slip so near their bases, damnit!
) . On the day 12 hour impulse the japanese carriers detected the surface combat group and sent three attacks on the ships. A DD and a CL received medium damage, but both Revenge and PoW took 7 torpedos each...needless to say , they were under the waves before the end of the turn came.
Then came a 3-plane strike of Bettys with bombs; they didn't hit a barn as I expected them to.
The surface attack was a calculated risk in face of long range air attack, and it seemed not as big a risk at first. Most Betties are putting bombs in Rangoon, Manila and Clark each turn so I guessed (mostly right seeing only 3 betties hitting the TF) that most of the japanese bomber squadrons are on land attack missions. The idea was : Slam into the invasion fleet, kick their a$$es off, and then run like screaming babies back to Soerabaja...
the,previously undetected, KB altered the expected outcome quite a bit [:(]...now I'm left with the Royal Sovereign and my cruisers, and subs have detected a couple of Kongo BBs E of Phillipinies aiming for south Borneo...methinks that Balikpapan is the next objective, I am not going to risk the last british BB (the repulse is repairing 23 damage from a sub torpedo at Colombo so cant be used for now) so she's already withdrawing back to Sri Lanka... and if there are BBs around the beaches I can't do anything with only cruisers...not to mention the mere presence of the japanese carriers...
Last turn was mostly fine...Clark still is holding OK, and the rest of my surface fleet minus the damaged CL and DD is back at port (I set the rest of the fleet on full speed to run back as fast as they could)...I'm now trying to figure what would a real life allied commander do to keep on fighting the japanese tide, for what I'm not going to do is leaving it as an easy picking for them to take [:)]
ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi, You mean POW was sunk in the hex the combat occrued in the same turn? I missed something here.
Can you send the file before the combat to Mogami69bsa@aol.com?
I've just run the next turn, so no combat file anymore
.No, let's see, I explained it already in a previous post. In the night impulse I got into the surface combat vs that massive transport TF. That way, by daylight the ships would already be some 4 hexes away, and make detection & air attack by Betties based on the continent much harder for the japanese.
It turned out to be that I had the KB,which was on the area undetected (I'm going to kill those dutch recce aircraft for letting them slip so near their bases, damnit!
) . On the day 12 hour impulse the japanese carriers detected the surface combat group and sent three attacks on the ships. A DD and a CL received medium damage, but both Revenge and PoW took 7 torpedos each...needless to say , they were under the waves before the end of the turn came.Then came a 3-plane strike of Bettys with bombs; they didn't hit a barn as I expected them to.
The surface attack was a calculated risk in face of long range air attack, and it seemed not as big a risk at first. Most Betties are putting bombs in Rangoon, Manila and Clark each turn so I guessed (mostly right seeing only 3 betties hitting the TF) that most of the japanese bomber squadrons are on land attack missions. The idea was : Slam into the invasion fleet, kick their a$$es off, and then run like screaming babies back to Soerabaja...
the,previously undetected, KB altered the expected outcome quite a bit [:(]...now I'm left with the Royal Sovereign and my cruisers, and subs have detected a couple of Kongo BBs E of Phillipinies aiming for south Borneo...methinks that Balikpapan is the next objective, I am not going to risk the last british BB (the repulse is repairing 23 damage from a sub torpedo at Colombo so cant be used for now) so she's already withdrawing back to Sri Lanka... and if there are BBs around the beaches I can't do anything with only cruisers...not to mention the mere presence of the japanese carriers...
Last turn was mostly fine...Clark still is holding OK, and the rest of my surface fleet minus the damaged CL and DD is back at port (I set the rest of the fleet on full speed to run back as fast as they could)...I'm now trying to figure what would a real life allied commander do to keep on fighting the japanese tide, for what I'm not going to do is leaving it as an easy picking for them to take [:)]
RAM
"Look at me! look at me!!!
Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
"Look at me! look at me!!!
Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
RE: Surface Combat Sux
ORIGINAL: doomonyou
I must say I agree with the overarching point of this threat. The Surface combat is fine vs. combatants, but for "raider" type battles it is insane.
To start I have no trouble with "nitpicking" things like this in this game. this is after all a game for nitpickers.
Several points, mogami (whose opinion I've respected since UV) please comment. All of these items address daylight combat. I have NO problem with night combat being confusing.
1) I have repeatedly seen this scatter theory (everyone runs in all directions). This is laughable. One half of the compass is unusable since that half of the compass is bring you CLOSER to the attack warships. While certainly in a large convoy (10 ships plus) some would be able to get away but unless that convoy is traveling line astern with four miles between each ship and the attacking ships hit from one end, what convoy geometry would allow more than 30% of the ships to evade clear sighting?
2) What kind of crews are on these ships? An allied AK taking lets say six hits from the main guns of your name sake would be a flaming, ruptured, smoldering death trap. No crew would remain on board. Why are these ships not abandoned?
3) The ships that take "some" damage, how is that possible? Lets say a single undergunned destroyers has set its sights on a single AK and htis its twice. These two hits alone with hurt the ship badly, but how do these ships always get away? Unless the assumption that all naval combat occurs ten minutes prior to nightfall, a DD going 30 could catch a 12 knot AK from a 20K yard lead in less than ONE HOUR. Even a DD with just two 40mm AA guns and a single 5"er would pulverize a cargo ship in a few minutes.
4) Air spotting. If attacking ships are told that there are fifteen cargo ships and no visible escorts according to air spotters (either this ships own complements on CA's or LBA) why the hell would any captain accept the finding and sinking of two ships as a good days work? He knows they are around there somewhere and if they are cargo ships they couldn't have gone very far?
I have no overall problem with some combat results being dissapointing (representing random stupidity or genius or bravery on one side). But I almost NEVER see a brutal assbeating like I should when the tranports on the East cost of the PI run for it and some big ass Japanese CA/DD execution squads hits those eight cargo ships and in broad daylight manages to kill two wound one and let five get by.
Hi, Before I begin I must say that I don't post to prevent any change to the game. I'm playing the same game everyone else is and I'd like to sink every enemy ship I catch.
However even small ships can require multiple hits. it is not the number of hits but how large and where. That matter. There are examples provided by history of a large warship sinking to a few hits and a samll warship taking many and surviving.
Since before anyone on the test team can take any point raised on the boards for review he must understand exactly what the problem is and how often it is being seen. (It helps it it also occurs while he is play testing but to set up a test he has to know all the details)
Reading over this thread many times I feel there are in fact several complaints.
There is a night result complaint and a day result complaint. IN both cases in normal PBEM play I have had results that indicte to me that these results are not the normal result. (Understand they may be the normal result for the people posting the complaint. I have to discover why they get this normal result and other people do not get this normal result)
As for scatter. Draw a circle. Now place a dot for the surface TF anywhere on the circle.
Now on the opposite side place another dot for the transports.
Now draw another circle around the transports. (Ideally the first circle would have the 2 TF at the spotting range and the circle around the transports would be how far they can move.) Using only course that do not directly go toward enemy you will see there is still many directions for each ship. The surface TF has to commit to a target Almost any target they head for will open the range on the others. (doubling back is a common tactic in evasion because when a ship reverse course it can now point in many new directions. The temporary condition of shortening the range can produce more rapid opening if the other ship goes after another ship)Also ships that are scattering are also trying to increase the range between one another as well as the ships they are trying to evade.
A ship doing 30kt will cover 20k yards in 20 minutes. The target doing 10kt would move 6751 yards so after a 20 minute pursuit a ship that began 20k yard behind a transport would now be 6751 a stern. However every transport not being chased that was on another course will be 6751 further out. There is a period where this is not turn and some ships might actually be closer. It now just becomes a mathamatical excersie of moving those transports and pursing ships. and checking what a ship can still see after it finishes the ship it is chasing.
I do not feel any WW2 officer would ever hoist some kind of "engage in general melee" flag to his TF. He would go after the largest collection of ships or the ships in sight with the highest value.
- Attachments
-
- scatter.jpg (3.25 KiB) Viewed 362 times
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Hi, RAM so your TF was set to retire and had moved 4 hexes by the next movement phase?
This movement required part of the time that would be used chasing enemy ships if set to do not retire. Also a TF set to retire is not going to break formation. Using only half the normal combat time they scored hits on 8 enemy ships trying to evade. It really does not matter so much how many enemy ships there were. If there were fewer you should score around the same number of hits. I mean it is not the number of targets that matter as long as there are enough to fill up the available time. In this case it appears around 8 enemy ships. If your TF had been larger you would have hit more ships. If your TF had been smaller it would have hit fewer.
Do we have many examples of "Do not retire" TF not doing increased damage.
How far did you move to reach the hex? (did you start the night pahse there?)
This movement required part of the time that would be used chasing enemy ships if set to do not retire. Also a TF set to retire is not going to break formation. Using only half the normal combat time they scored hits on 8 enemy ships trying to evade. It really does not matter so much how many enemy ships there were. If there were fewer you should score around the same number of hits. I mean it is not the number of targets that matter as long as there are enough to fill up the available time. In this case it appears around 8 enemy ships. If your TF had been larger you would have hit more ships. If your TF had been smaller it would have hit fewer.
Do we have many examples of "Do not retire" TF not doing increased damage.
How far did you move to reach the hex? (did you start the night pahse there?)
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Heya again, Mogami...
It's not with the disengagement rules what I have a problem with. The disengagement after a couple of rounds of combats fits fine with my idea of how the battle should develop. As I said, the idea of the whole operation was "Slam in, burn'em, run fast", so I am fine with the early disengagement.
I find 7 transport ships hit a fine number, too, for the time the battle took, and the early disengagement. I don't have a problem with that either.
However, what I have a problem with, is the fact that my ships were firing upon only two transport ships when there were at the very least 5 more visible (something proved by the fact that they were actually fired upon, but just a couple or three times each), and many more in sight of the TF (because the battle screen showed several more names). The problem I have is that those two ships were far long dead much before they received the latest hits...
in short, I think the disengagement rules are about right for the battle I fought, I think 7 merchants hit are almost right, too, for that battle.
What I don't find right is that of those 7 merchants only two received enough gun damage to go down at least five times while the others went out more or less safe (I'm talking about ONLY gunfire here, the fact that there was another torpedo hit in another transport is a side thing as I don't have problems with torpedo attack routines, either.). Had the ships shifted fire when those targets were undeniably sunk, many if not all of the 7 transports would've received very heavy damage, enough to sink them in the spot or in the following days.
If that was the case there would be no issue. As I said, I have no problem with a 15% loss to that TF given the battle I fought. As I also said I would not be satisfied, but wouldn't put in doubt the combat routines, if only a 10% would've received that treatment (meaning 5-6 transports lost for the japanese). I don't want mauled nor anihilated convoys. I want realistic results and those numbers would've fine for me in this battle.
But the fact is that I sank 2 out of 55 transports using gunfire, a 6%, because my ships insisted in firing nonstop at two already sunk ships. 82.9% of my TF's firepower was directed to two ships that after receiving much less than that were already sinking wrecks. And that simply ain't right, Mogami. The ships should shift targets after the current one is already doomed, and this is exactly what's failing here.
Remember the combat report about the japanese DDs engaging allied ships?...what I loved about that report wasn't so many ships sunk by torpedo effects, what I loved about it was the almost even fire distribution between the transports. Some were more heavily hit up to 10 times, but there were many other hit 4-8 times, enough to put a transport down after some days if not interned in a large port ASAP. But there was no "magneto" ship which attracted 25 hits, for instance, leaving the other ships without their fair ammount of hits...
as for the distance for the hex before the turn started, the TF was only 1 hex away from the battle scene.
It's not with the disengagement rules what I have a problem with. The disengagement after a couple of rounds of combats fits fine with my idea of how the battle should develop. As I said, the idea of the whole operation was "Slam in, burn'em, run fast", so I am fine with the early disengagement.
I find 7 transport ships hit a fine number, too, for the time the battle took, and the early disengagement. I don't have a problem with that either.
However, what I have a problem with, is the fact that my ships were firing upon only two transport ships when there were at the very least 5 more visible (something proved by the fact that they were actually fired upon, but just a couple or three times each), and many more in sight of the TF (because the battle screen showed several more names). The problem I have is that those two ships were far long dead much before they received the latest hits...
in short, I think the disengagement rules are about right for the battle I fought, I think 7 merchants hit are almost right, too, for that battle.
What I don't find right is that of those 7 merchants only two received enough gun damage to go down at least five times while the others went out more or less safe (I'm talking about ONLY gunfire here, the fact that there was another torpedo hit in another transport is a side thing as I don't have problems with torpedo attack routines, either.). Had the ships shifted fire when those targets were undeniably sunk, many if not all of the 7 transports would've received very heavy damage, enough to sink them in the spot or in the following days.
If that was the case there would be no issue. As I said, I have no problem with a 15% loss to that TF given the battle I fought. As I also said I would not be satisfied, but wouldn't put in doubt the combat routines, if only a 10% would've received that treatment (meaning 5-6 transports lost for the japanese). I don't want mauled nor anihilated convoys. I want realistic results and those numbers would've fine for me in this battle.
But the fact is that I sank 2 out of 55 transports using gunfire, a 6%, because my ships insisted in firing nonstop at two already sunk ships. 82.9% of my TF's firepower was directed to two ships that after receiving much less than that were already sinking wrecks. And that simply ain't right, Mogami. The ships should shift targets after the current one is already doomed, and this is exactly what's failing here.
Remember the combat report about the japanese DDs engaging allied ships?...what I loved about that report wasn't so many ships sunk by torpedo effects, what I loved about it was the almost even fire distribution between the transports. Some were more heavily hit up to 10 times, but there were many other hit 4-8 times, enough to put a transport down after some days if not interned in a large port ASAP. But there was no "magneto" ship which attracted 25 hits, for instance, leaving the other ships without their fair ammount of hits...
as for the distance for the hex before the turn started, the TF was only 1 hex away from the battle scene.
RAM
"Look at me! look at me!!!
Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
"Look at me! look at me!!!
Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Hi, I wish I had the replay. Sadly number of hits is nothing I can use to judge.
The game uses a system where ships have a number that reflects their durabilty and weapons inflict damage compared to that duribilty. Being hit hundereds of times in the super structure will not result in a ship sinking during combat. (The fires might do it in later)
And then again this was a night action. At night the circle of escape I used for daylight does cover the entire compass. (with some course changes to keep a low profile)
I think we are under rating the amount of damage it takes to sink a ship. Using just the combat report you can't tell a 1.5k AP from a 4.5k AP. AK are from 3.5k to 7k for Japanese a 7k AK is a large ship that is either large open spaces or engineering. Hits in one have almost no effect (other then fires) hits n the other can stop the ship.
Gunfire does not sink ships as fast as torpedos. But once a ship is being hit the rate of fire of DD and CL guns can score many hits. If the range is low enough a single DD using AA/MG can make the hit score look silly. I don't know if that is the case. When you check the ship sunk in your intell what weapon does it say sank the Japanese ships? (the weapon that did the most damage will be listed where a ship is hit by more then 1)
Also I don't think the firing ship always (night or day) knows the effect of their own fire in time to effectivly aquire a new target make course adjustments fire the spotting rounds and commence firing for effect when on target. And at night I don't think there ever will be any orders to a ship to break formation.
No TF with retire orders will ever engage in surface combat during daylight unless the enemy TF moves into their hex or the TF also has reaction orders and enemy TF in daylight triggers the reaction. A TF with do not retire will if it does not reach in the night move move on and fight in daylight.
Do I think 8x8in shells will sink a 7k AK?....Sometimes but not if they are hitting the tower and without special damage when other locations are hit. The ship will be in danger but not in the context of the length of a combat phase. Without below the water line damage the ship will remain afloat longer then that.
If you watch any air strikes against a ship you will see that once the ship sinks the following aircraft are unable to locate. In surface combat ships that sink after a round sink before the next round (change in range) if a ship is a target for more then one round of fire it means it was still floating at the start of the later phase.
Do not place to much into the actual animation. It reflects nothing but who is firing and what ship is the target. It shows no formation or speed or anything. You can not tell a forward ship from a rear ship. And I'm not certain all the hits are genuine.
The game uses a system where ships have a number that reflects their durabilty and weapons inflict damage compared to that duribilty. Being hit hundereds of times in the super structure will not result in a ship sinking during combat. (The fires might do it in later)
And then again this was a night action. At night the circle of escape I used for daylight does cover the entire compass. (with some course changes to keep a low profile)
I think we are under rating the amount of damage it takes to sink a ship. Using just the combat report you can't tell a 1.5k AP from a 4.5k AP. AK are from 3.5k to 7k for Japanese a 7k AK is a large ship that is either large open spaces or engineering. Hits in one have almost no effect (other then fires) hits n the other can stop the ship.
Gunfire does not sink ships as fast as torpedos. But once a ship is being hit the rate of fire of DD and CL guns can score many hits. If the range is low enough a single DD using AA/MG can make the hit score look silly. I don't know if that is the case. When you check the ship sunk in your intell what weapon does it say sank the Japanese ships? (the weapon that did the most damage will be listed where a ship is hit by more then 1)
Also I don't think the firing ship always (night or day) knows the effect of their own fire in time to effectivly aquire a new target make course adjustments fire the spotting rounds and commence firing for effect when on target. And at night I don't think there ever will be any orders to a ship to break formation.
No TF with retire orders will ever engage in surface combat during daylight unless the enemy TF moves into their hex or the TF also has reaction orders and enemy TF in daylight triggers the reaction. A TF with do not retire will if it does not reach in the night move move on and fight in daylight.
Do I think 8x8in shells will sink a 7k AK?....Sometimes but not if they are hitting the tower and without special damage when other locations are hit. The ship will be in danger but not in the context of the length of a combat phase. Without below the water line damage the ship will remain afloat longer then that.
If you watch any air strikes against a ship you will see that once the ship sinks the following aircraft are unable to locate. In surface combat ships that sink after a round sink before the next round (change in range) if a ship is a target for more then one round of fire it means it was still floating at the start of the later phase.
Do not place to much into the actual animation. It reflects nothing but who is firing and what ship is the target. It shows no formation or speed or anything. You can not tell a forward ship from a rear ship. And I'm not certain all the hits are genuine.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
RE: Surface Combat Sux
you are certiainly right that a ship may not just "insta-sink" from gun fire...but for unarmored ships they certainly can do quite well.
I would also point out (not to be bitchy mind you, but because if this is the reason this should be modeled) if the convoy response to surface attack is Multi directional super scatter, its a) very annoying that they are instantly reformed the next morning b) travel far enough apart that a large mass of surface warships can't really catch more than a few but that convoy escorts have a good chance at any attacking sub and c) I still think the unarmored damage model is wierd. Where in a cargo ship (aside from a lucky one carrying large loaded of non-flammable inert substances) could an 8" shell land and detonate that would not cause hellish visible damage, meaning I understand overshooting a few shells (smoke, uncertainty, FOW, etc) but not what we have seen. Even a seven K cargo vessel is a thin skinned vessel, unlikely to have significant bulkheading or amror, Even GP shells would be going off half a deck inside the ship.
Say just four 8" shells hit a 7K AK. Lets figure no water line hits or engine room direct hits (which would just plain DOA that ship for the purposes of getting away) Maybe a bridge hit wouldn't threaten the keel but it would likely blow much of the tower apart. A second shell detonating even in an empty hold would likely either cave in the deck in that area or at high angle detonate against the keel....I don't know, I can't imagine the six or seven targeted ships getting away. That's what really blows me away is the combat ships letting an AP with four shell hits somehow getting away. Certainly the fall of night or a fortuituous fog bank could do the trick, but cargo ships in this game are the Black Pearls of the Pacific...
Once engaged a cargo ship should not really be able to get away in any but the wierdest of circumstances. Just fixing that would likely resolve all the complaints. A cargo ship engaged by surface raider should either a) get away b) get blasted unless the surface raider is a pg or some little boat.
I would also point out (not to be bitchy mind you, but because if this is the reason this should be modeled) if the convoy response to surface attack is Multi directional super scatter, its a) very annoying that they are instantly reformed the next morning b) travel far enough apart that a large mass of surface warships can't really catch more than a few but that convoy escorts have a good chance at any attacking sub and c) I still think the unarmored damage model is wierd. Where in a cargo ship (aside from a lucky one carrying large loaded of non-flammable inert substances) could an 8" shell land and detonate that would not cause hellish visible damage, meaning I understand overshooting a few shells (smoke, uncertainty, FOW, etc) but not what we have seen. Even a seven K cargo vessel is a thin skinned vessel, unlikely to have significant bulkheading or amror, Even GP shells would be going off half a deck inside the ship.
Say just four 8" shells hit a 7K AK. Lets figure no water line hits or engine room direct hits (which would just plain DOA that ship for the purposes of getting away) Maybe a bridge hit wouldn't threaten the keel but it would likely blow much of the tower apart. A second shell detonating even in an empty hold would likely either cave in the deck in that area or at high angle detonate against the keel....I don't know, I can't imagine the six or seven targeted ships getting away. That's what really blows me away is the combat ships letting an AP with four shell hits somehow getting away. Certainly the fall of night or a fortuituous fog bank could do the trick, but cargo ships in this game are the Black Pearls of the Pacific...
Once engaged a cargo ship should not really be able to get away in any but the wierdest of circumstances. Just fixing that would likely resolve all the complaints. A cargo ship engaged by surface raider should either a) get away b) get blasted unless the surface raider is a pg or some little boat.
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Hi, I think so far in my PBEM I have sunk more transports with gunfire then by air attack.
I'll do a count as I do each turn in my PBEM. Be interested in getting totals from other people as well.
Also the combat phase is only part of the battle. Ships will sink later from damage inflicted and you can chase the TF by giving your TF orders. A full speed transport only moves 2 hexes. This is where the speed of your warships becomes the important factor.
I'll do a count as I do each turn in my PBEM. Be interested in getting totals from other people as well.
Also the combat phase is only part of the battle. Ships will sink later from damage inflicted and you can chase the TF by giving your TF orders. A full speed transport only moves 2 hexes. This is where the speed of your warships becomes the important factor.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
-
Joel Billings
- Posts: 33613
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Santa Rosa, CA
- Contact:
RE: Surface Combat Sux
I don't know if Mike Wood has posted in this thread as I haven't been able to keep up with the volume of posts here. I just wanted to give you my take on this discussion. I think that the model is probably lacking in dealing with daylight engagements against totally unprotected convoys. Once you bring in night and/or any escort of more than token size, I think the model works pretty well. There is so much going on under the hood with detection levels of the TFs (pre-combat and post combat) as well as working within the limited abstraction of the naval combat system that for most situations the I feel the game comes out with reasonable results. One thing that seems odd to me is that TFs docked (unloading/loading) don't get hit any harder when attacked. Part of that is based on the assumption that in many of these cases, the ships would have some warning of the approaching enemy TF and would have pulled up anchor. This is even assumed at some level when dealing with airstrikes against docked TFs, although I've forgotten by now exactly how the model deals with these situations. Of course, there is always the chance that the TF would be caught by surprise and should be sitting ducks.
So fundamentally I agree with those that think the realism of the combat model could stand to be improved in the situations I mentioned. Having said that, I also don't find the weakness in these areas to be so important to greatly impact the overall game. Of course, that's just my opinion and I can understand those that disagree. From my point of view, this issue is not a bug that requires immediate attention. Mike is still trying to get rid of things like disappearing units (which is a bug), and combat formula changes have to take a back seat unless they are getting in the way of playing the game. Once the important bugs have been fixed, then we can move on to trying to improve things that aren't broken but just aren't quite working as well as we think they should. Now, assuming we agree that a change is desirable (and I do), and we have the time to look at it (after the bugs are fixed), we get to the difficult part of figuring out just how to make that change without making the game worse instead of better. The bad news here is that I'm guessing that it will be very difficult for Mike or Gary to adjust the code to get the desired results without throwing another part of the surface combat system out of whack. I bet that with some investment in time, they could find a few formulas to tweak, but that they will be guessing at the impact of the changes and won't know for sure what other parts of the game they will be affecting. I've been down this path before and can tell you that the combat formulas in this game are multistep formulas that impact many different areas. They are not the simple formulas I was used to dealing with back in the days of the Apple II (anyone remember Warship). During development I was always amazed whenever I asked Gary about a formula, only to find out from Gary that what I expected to be 2 or 3 lines of code was actually more like 20, with the interrelationships of the variables being very hard to figure out. I can't say that this area is going to be like that, but I'd bet good money it is. So when they go to look at this to try to make a change, it's likely that either the simple change will impact more than we want, or a much more complex, case specific change will have to be made. This probably can be done, but will take more time and won't necessarily get the desired effect. At that point testing will have to be done to see if it worked on the test saves, but there's always the risk it will break something else which won't get noticed in test.
For me, the first question I ask if I'm trying to decide whether to look into changing something is "just how important is getting this right to my enjoyment of the game" or said another way, "if I get this to work just right, will my enjoyment of the game been taken to a new level". Given the chance of making things worse, the answers usually had better be that it's pretty important and yes, it would make the game much more enjoyable. Does this issue pass the test?
On this issue, I'd say that as it is not a bug, it should wait until the bugs are done. Once the important bugs are fixed, it's worth looking at to see if there is a simple fix, or reasonably simple fix in those areas that seem to be the biggest problem (daytime, small/no escort, unloading). If yes, it will get addressed. If the answer is no, than a decision will get made as to whether it's worth the time and risk at that point. The decision won't get made until the programmer makes that initial evaluation, so any comment now would be premature, other than to say that it will get looked at. This is true on many issues that are not really bugs, but things in the game that people understandably would like to see improved.
I hope this helps you understand the situation better. Mike and the testers are working through bugs and user posts as quickly as they can. As you all know by now, this game is massive, which means that testing any change is a very difficult undertaking that takes time. Think of WitP as a battleship steaming along at 30 knots. Getting the ship to change direction takes time. It's not a PT boat. UV was a PT boat compared to WitP. But then PT boats is an altogether different surface combat issue, isn't it. [:)]
So fundamentally I agree with those that think the realism of the combat model could stand to be improved in the situations I mentioned. Having said that, I also don't find the weakness in these areas to be so important to greatly impact the overall game. Of course, that's just my opinion and I can understand those that disagree. From my point of view, this issue is not a bug that requires immediate attention. Mike is still trying to get rid of things like disappearing units (which is a bug), and combat formula changes have to take a back seat unless they are getting in the way of playing the game. Once the important bugs have been fixed, then we can move on to trying to improve things that aren't broken but just aren't quite working as well as we think they should. Now, assuming we agree that a change is desirable (and I do), and we have the time to look at it (after the bugs are fixed), we get to the difficult part of figuring out just how to make that change without making the game worse instead of better. The bad news here is that I'm guessing that it will be very difficult for Mike or Gary to adjust the code to get the desired results without throwing another part of the surface combat system out of whack. I bet that with some investment in time, they could find a few formulas to tweak, but that they will be guessing at the impact of the changes and won't know for sure what other parts of the game they will be affecting. I've been down this path before and can tell you that the combat formulas in this game are multistep formulas that impact many different areas. They are not the simple formulas I was used to dealing with back in the days of the Apple II (anyone remember Warship). During development I was always amazed whenever I asked Gary about a formula, only to find out from Gary that what I expected to be 2 or 3 lines of code was actually more like 20, with the interrelationships of the variables being very hard to figure out. I can't say that this area is going to be like that, but I'd bet good money it is. So when they go to look at this to try to make a change, it's likely that either the simple change will impact more than we want, or a much more complex, case specific change will have to be made. This probably can be done, but will take more time and won't necessarily get the desired effect. At that point testing will have to be done to see if it worked on the test saves, but there's always the risk it will break something else which won't get noticed in test.
For me, the first question I ask if I'm trying to decide whether to look into changing something is "just how important is getting this right to my enjoyment of the game" or said another way, "if I get this to work just right, will my enjoyment of the game been taken to a new level". Given the chance of making things worse, the answers usually had better be that it's pretty important and yes, it would make the game much more enjoyable. Does this issue pass the test?
On this issue, I'd say that as it is not a bug, it should wait until the bugs are done. Once the important bugs are fixed, it's worth looking at to see if there is a simple fix, or reasonably simple fix in those areas that seem to be the biggest problem (daytime, small/no escort, unloading). If yes, it will get addressed. If the answer is no, than a decision will get made as to whether it's worth the time and risk at that point. The decision won't get made until the programmer makes that initial evaluation, so any comment now would be premature, other than to say that it will get looked at. This is true on many issues that are not really bugs, but things in the game that people understandably would like to see improved.
I hope this helps you understand the situation better. Mike and the testers are working through bugs and user posts as quickly as they can. As you all know by now, this game is massive, which means that testing any change is a very difficult undertaking that takes time. Think of WitP as a battleship steaming along at 30 knots. Getting the ship to change direction takes time. It's not a PT boat. UV was a PT boat compared to WitP. But then PT boats is an altogether different surface combat issue, isn't it. [:)]
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
-- Soren Kierkegaard
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Hi, Don't stop posting surface TF versus unescorted transport TF results.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
-
Mike Scholl
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
- Location: Kansas City, MO
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Joel. It would seen that the problems that have everyone so excited revolve around
two points. ONE, the "detection levels" don't seem to work right for daytime combats.
Teh design seems oriented to night actions, and the modifiers don't seem to adequately
reflect the differences when visability is greatly increased. The SECOND is the way the
system constantly "breaks off the action". It works alright when both sides have signi-
ficant combat forces, but produces ludicrous results when one side is lightly or un-escor-
ted merchant shipping. The break-offs may be in intregal and unchangable portion of
the combat system; but in these "one-sided" fights the RANGE should NEVER increase
from the end of one to the beginning of the next. If the Surface Combat TF was consis-
tantly "closing the range" the damage results would increase and most of the problem
would dissappear.
two points. ONE, the "detection levels" don't seem to work right for daytime combats.
Teh design seems oriented to night actions, and the modifiers don't seem to adequately
reflect the differences when visability is greatly increased. The SECOND is the way the
system constantly "breaks off the action". It works alright when both sides have signi-
ficant combat forces, but produces ludicrous results when one side is lightly or un-escor-
ted merchant shipping. The break-offs may be in intregal and unchangable portion of
the combat system; but in these "one-sided" fights the RANGE should NEVER increase
from the end of one to the beginning of the next. If the Surface Combat TF was consis-
tantly "closing the range" the damage results would increase and most of the problem
would dissappear.
-
Joel Billings
- Posts: 33613
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Santa Rosa, CA
- Contact:
RE: Surface Combat Sux
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Joel. It would seen that the problems that have everyone so excited revolve around
two points. ONE, the "detection levels" don't seem to work right for daytime combats.
Teh design seems oriented to night actions, and the modifiers don't seem to adequately
reflect the differences when visability is greatly increased. The SECOND is the way the
system constantly "breaks off the action". It works alright when both sides have signi-
ficant combat forces, but produces ludicrous results when one side is lightly or un-escor-
ted merchant shipping. The break-offs may be in intregal and unchangable portion of
the combat system; but in these "one-sided" fights the RANGE should NEVER increase
from the end of one to the beginning of the next. If the Surface Combat TF was consis-
tantly "closing the range" the damage results would increase and most of the problem
would dissappear.
But the reality is that they are increasing for some ships and decreasing for others (as the convoy scatters). I'm not sure how to handle what you are saying given the abstraction of one range. I do agree with you on the DL issue.
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
-- Soren Kierkegaard
-
Culiacan Mexico
- Posts: 600
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 10:00 am
- Location: Bad Windsheim Germany
RE: Surface Combat Sux
I would expect that 'historically' an intercepting task force to react much more aggressively to a non-escorted convoy than one that has proper escort. I would think a non-escorted convoy would show considerably more destruction spread out amongst the merchant ships vs. a properly escorted one.ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Here's my question ... do you expect more of those ships to be sunk? Like all of them?
I need to know what you expect to happen.
"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig
-
ZOOMIE1980
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am
RE: Surface Combat Sux
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Very nice! That's more along the lines of something I'd expect to see almost every time. Too bad I have yet to see something like this in any game I have played to date!
I understand ... the problem is it just *did* come from the very game you are running.
Thats a bunch of DD's eating their way through unprotected transports ... Note the DD's are not leashed to capital ships, but free to pursue ... If you include cap ships, the dd's don't go and play.
Not taking a stance on right or wrong, simply stating what I see.
So we have "capital ship leashing" algorithms afoot in the game. Is that in the manual?
-
ZOOMIE1980
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am
RE: Surface Combat Sux
ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi, And again we return to the beginning. When a surface combat TF engages unescorted transports the transports scatter. But then the player sees his ships in a nice neat line firing at transports in a nice neat line and this is his picture of the battle.
The animation does not show the transports scattering.
The animation says "range 3k" and the player thinks every enemy ship is 3k from all of his ships. No the ships that are firing are firing at a ship 3k away. If a ship does not fire or is not fired at it could be that they are out of range during this segment of firing but in no case are the 2 opposed neat lines a picture of what is going on.
Now I am aware of the "But the TF leader would breakup his formation" Really? and to what end? By the time the firing begins those ships there are taking fire and those ships that are doing the firing are the ones that are in contact. Break formation and go where? More likely the TF commander would have his ships fire at the targets in range.
The transports do not remain a bunched up herd or easy to kill ships. They scatter. Even at 10ks they cover ground.
(OK take your buddy out on the road. Give him a 10 mile headstart. You chase him doing 30 mph while he evades at 10mph. See how long it takes to catch him. Now take two buddies out. Have one go north at 10mph and the other south at 10mph and see if you can catch them both. Now take 3 but before you chase the first 2 the third starts only 5 miles away and you must catch him before you can chase the other 2.
Now do all this and be back at your starting place or 30 miles towards home (retire orders)
Well the combat surface force can scatter as well! At least if the is no Frag defined "capital ship leashing" going on! In my example, it certainly seems as though by CL's and 6 DD's can pick one of the four identified targets and each group of two combatants can chase down their target. That indeed seems to be what is modelled in Fraggo's example!