Surface Combat Sux

[mogami]

Hi, Thats not true. But it appears pointless after so many tries to point out that I need to know more then "It's broken" to test. You don't know it is broken. You just don't like a result you got. Then someone else with a result like that posts Soon every bad result is a broken routine. You squeal until someone says we'll look at it. But you ninnies don't understand the moment a tester posts in your thread your problem is being looked at.

When we come back and ask "who was in command" "retire or not retire" "movement before combat" "weather" "ammo " and everything else we are looking. When we go to great lengths to explain how it supposed to work we don't get "ah ok but thats not what happened" we get "why are you defending this crap"

In truth there are times where you will not damage as much as you wish. Whether the mechanism for protecting transports is giving too much protection is the issue being looked at. Not whether surface TF always inflict signicant damage. (They will not always do so. Other things contribute to that beyond mere ship speed and gun size)

I don't care what is changed. As I said from the start this is a non issue with me. I only care about 1 thing. Are the results produced being produced correctly. I know most of what I am looking for. I catch flak because I try to explain to others how the results are supposed to be produced so rather then making a post like "my results sux the game is broke" We get a detailed explantion of what happened. We've posted many times that if you think something is out of whack just be able to repeat the event and send in a save.
How hard is that? If it is a bug and we get a save it will get fixed right then and there.

A bug is when the game does not work as designed. A result you don't agree with but that is the result of proper function of game is not a bug. A bug gets fixed right away (as soon as we can repeat it with a save) Something not everyone is happy with has to be occuring at a rate that warrents a change that the majority of players agree with.

My personal feeling is that super allied Taskforce do not exist in Dec 1941 and that is likely the most common factor involved. However Mr Frag has made me aware that he had a result using Tanaka so there is more here then I thought. But we are testing to make sure. I've had good luck so far in my games. But I seem to be on the lucky side and other people are not so lucky as often. If I had been seeing the same results as Japan while testing it would have been reported. I can't report what I don't see. As soon as a forum member posts a problem before I post I go run a few tests of the same item. I posted the results in this thread. Based on those results I felt it was more a matter of TF size and period of war. If you have a save showing these events in progress it would help.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

ORIGINAL: Bodhi
Don't know if you're trying to insult me here, but if you are it's uncalled for and usually indicative of someone loosing an argument.

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Responding to an insult with an insult, for sure.

Sorry don't see any insult there, only an observation that when someone starts insulting someone else it's usually a sign of a loosing argument. Besides which, is it an insult if you loose an argument? [&:]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Overwhelming.....well from what i can tell you are about the only one who sees NO problem of any kind. A few others see a potential problem but not enough of one to worry much about since such engagements are rare anyway. The rest are hung up on it. What 20 or so see at least some kind of problem. 2 or 3 agree it;s no big deal (I'm actually one of those, it's broken to me, but it is something that I think will only happen a half dozen or so times in a 1500+ turn game) and then .... you ... who seems to see no problems of any kind with any aspect of this game.....

Let's be generous and say that there are 30 posters in this thread that have a problem with this aspect of WitP (although I think your value of 20 may be nearer the mark). Now another assumption: WitP has sold 1,000 copies - don't know if this is reasonable or not, but when the very first patches were released via the forum, the number of downloads was soon in the 700-800s. Now, my walnut brain can't handle the calculation as it can't do decimals, but I'd hazard a guess that a small percentage of users are concerned about this issue. I just wonder how the other few hundred users view this problem. I assume your "overwhelming" was directed to the many who either don't perceive a problem, or can't be bothered to post.

There is obviously enough of a volume of complaint, accompanied by quality, logical arguement to

1) Get the programmers to agree that it IS a potential problem worthy to look at

2) To agree that they will likely make engage in some fine tuning for the one problem area, daytime surface combat TF engagement of unescorted transport TF's.

Which is precisely what those complaining about this issue wanted to see.

Billings and Co. agree this area doesn't seem right, so i guess the thread served it's purpose just as the threads on upgrades, VP toggles, Allied ASW, and the myriad of other areas in the above poll the betas seemed overwhelminingly opposed to....

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
True, for sure. But these are the people that consider it important enough to post about it. I think is it logical to extrapolate the percentages to the overall population. I mean Gallup polls a 1000 people on the Presidential election in the US, and extrapolates that to represent almost 200,000,000 potential voters.....

Yes but Gallop try very hard to get a random sampling of voters, WitP users who delight in 13 page discussions and "consider it important enough to post about" may not be typical users. So, I'm sorry even my walnut brain balks at your extrapolation.

Guess it was good enough to get the developers to look at it!

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

LOL... in that case...it comes out too.... lets see.... 2 percent even. A measley 2 percent, or 1 out of every 50 people who own the game.

Yea, and only roughly 12.5% of Americans decide who is President every four years. Only those eligable to vote, that bother to register and then bother to actually turn out and vote. And 51-55% of that group picks the President. In the end 12% or so ACTUALLY choose the President!

Bottom line, if you don't "vote" (participate in the discussion)you are IRRELEVANT.

[Bodhi]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
and the myriad of other areas in the above poll the betas seemed overwhelminingly opposed to....

Why do you always seem to see things as ZOOMIE1980 vs the betas? I may not always agree with everything the betas post, but I recognise that they have more knowledge of how the games works, and is meant to work, than any users who've had this game for only a few weeks. I also admire the dedication that they've shown into testing the game to get it to this point. I fail to see why every thread that highlights a possible game issue always seems to include a prerequisite "let's beat on the beta testers" angle to it.

(BTW, any who may still be reading, feel free to use "ZOOMIE1980 vs betas" as the name for your new band.) [:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

LOL... in that case...it comes out too.... lets see.... 2 percent even. A measley 2 percent, or 1 out of every 50 people who own the game.

Well, being in the business of dealing with the public, I learned very early on the concept of the silent majority. These are the folks who don't complain out loud, they do it by simply not returning a second time. If you only count those who are loudest and fail to take their complaints or numbers seriously, you are taking a risk.

[mogami]

Hi, You like the word "overwheming" Find a post by me where I say at any time "I am opposed to any change"
Then do some homework before saying I am opposed to anything. For the record the first mention of victory points being turned off was back in Feb 2002. About 3 posts after victory conditions were first explained. Read all the public posts on victory conditons.
The private ones you can't read and I will not post them but in public in more then one post I stated.

1. I am against using points to decide victory.
2. Victory should be the surrender (or not) of Japan.
3. Japanese surrender should be tied to her supply status, Allies agreeing to retain emperor (Unconditional surrender raised allied victory 1 level but Japan would not surrender unless Emperor was kept or cites in Japan were occupied by Allied troops

However once the designers went the point route that is what I tested. When players asked for the auto toggle I was not opposed but I pointed out that if they were getting the ratios then something was wrong somewhere. And that the AI was not designed to play without the VP

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Thats not true. But it appears pointless after so many tries to point out that I need to know more then "It's broken" to test. You don't know it is broken. You just don't like a result you got. Then someone else with a result like that posts Soon every bad result is a broken routine. You squeal until someone says we'll look at it. But you ninnies don't understand the moment a tester posts in your thread your problem is being looked at.

When we come back and ask "who was in command" "retire or not retire" "movement before combat" "weather" "ammo " and everything else we are looking. When we go to great lengths to explain how it supposed to work we don't get "ah ok but thats not what happened" we get "why are you defending this crap"

In truth there are times where you will not damage as much as you wish. Whether the mechanism for protecting transports is giving too much protection is the issue being looked at. Not whether surface TF always inflict signicant damage. (They will not always do so. Other things contribute to that beyond mere ship speed and gun size)

I don't care what is changed. As I said from the start this is a non issue with me. I only care about 1 thing. Are the results produced being produced correctly. I know most of what I am looking for. I catch flak because I try to explain to others how the results are supposed to be produced so rather then making a post like "my results sux the game is broke" We get a detailed explantion of what happened. We've posted many times that if you think something is out of whack just be able to repeat the event and send in a save.
How hard is that? If it is a bug and we get a save it will get fixed right then and there.

A bug is when the game does not work as designed. A result you don't agree with but that is the result of proper function of game is not a bug. A bug gets fixed right away (as soon as we can repeat it with a save) Something not everyone is happy with has to be occuring at a rate that warrents a change that the majority of players agree with.

My personal feeling is that super allied Taskforce do not exist in Dec 1941 and that is likely the most common factor involved. However Mr Frag has made me aware that he had a result using Tanaka so there is more here then I thought. But we are testing to make sure. I've had good luck so far in my games. But I seem to be on the lucky side and other people are not so lucky as often. If I had been seeing the same results as Japan while testing it would have been reported. I can't report what I don't see. As soon as a forum member posts a problem before I post I go run a few tests of the same item. I posted the results in this thread. Based on those results I felt it was more a matter of TF size and period of war. If you have a save showing these events in progress it would help.

When 100% of my surface combats show the same general results, yes, it IS broken. When the majority of posters in the forum report similar things, that just further confirms it. I don't really give a damn if they ALL provide you an AAR with a same game file. That's not needed to identify that this is a problem.

And thank Goodness that doesn't seem to be needed by the coders to recognize a problem, either. Posting AAR's, emailing save game files, etc... is a PAIN THE ASS. We only have a few short hours a day to play the game, we damned sure as HELL don't have time to futz with all that CRAP. In these cases, when enough posters state they see the same general problems, that should be ENOUGH to recognize that there is some kind of problem. the team should be able to recreate the general situation on their own without the need of save game files (load any game in the #15 or #16 scen and set up a 2CL, 4-6 DD TF on one side and 10 AK;s on the other. Run it 20 times. You will see the problem....)

Irrelevant, anyway, since they are going to look at and probably tweek this part whether you like it or not....

[Bodhi]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Bottom line, if you don't "vote" (participate in the discussion)you are IRRELEVANT.

At the risk of being pedantic, no, he's not irrelevant, he's Tankerace, this is irrelevant

[Tankerace]

[:D] I cracked up when I read that.... lol.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
and the myriad of other areas in the above poll the betas seemed overwhelminingly opposed to....

Why do you always seem to see things as ZOOMIE1980 vs the betas? I may not always agree with everything the betas post, but I recognise that they have more knowledge of how the games works, and is meant to work, than any users who've had this game for only a few weeks. I also admire the dedication that they've shown into testing the game to get it to this point. I fail to see why every thread that highlights a possible game issue always seems to include a prerequisite "let's beat on the beta testers" angle to it.

(BTW, any who may still be reading, feel free to use "ZOOMIE1980 vs betas" as the name for your new band.) [:D]

First off, being a professional in the business, I fully understand testers, what they are good for, what they are not good for. Generally once software has been out for while, the betas no longer have a monopoly on game knowledge at all. And the volume of their testing can't even begin to compare with the overall volume of use by the customers.

And with this particular group, we seem to see a common trait. Heels firmly dug in against virtually EVERYTHING anyone sees as a problem. I guess they see it as an insult to their ability to uncover problems prior to release. In most software genres, the betas no longer have any say at all once the product ships. They are basically done, for good and are no longer relevant. the USER BASE is then front and center. And when the USER BASE speaks, developers generally listen.

These developers seem to do just that. They listen and they respond, and in this game, it seems they respond in spite of often VIGOROUS opposition to almost anything brought up by the users.

The betas did a good job. But as far as I and many others are concerned, their job is over. They now just a single user, no more knowledgable than any other dedicated user, many of whom are software professionals themselves.....

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace
I think what they are getting at Zoomie is all people posting in this thread, problem or not, is less than 40. That is only a fraction of the at least 1,000 (or even 500) people that own WiTP. He is saying you aren't getting a good enough sample to make any conclusions as to whether it is or is not a problem. YOu have heard from only a select few people.

A select few... you are correct. But I wonder what harm there is in just looking at it? If it is too involved forget about it, but there doesn’t seem to be any reason to at least not explore the question.


Joel Billings

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.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, You like the word "overwheming" Find a post by me where I say at any time "I am opposed to any change"
Then do some homework before saying I am opposed to anything. For the record the first mention of victory points being turned off was back in Feb 2002. About 3 posts after victory conditions were first explained. Read all the public posts on victory conditons.
The private ones you can't read and I will not post them but in public in more then one post I stated.

1. I am against using points to decide victory.
2. Victory should be the surrender (or not) of Japan.
3. Japanese surrender should be tied to her supply status, Allies agreeing to retain emperor (Unconditional surrender raised allied victory 1 level but Japan would not surrender unless Emperor was kept or cites in Japan were occupied by Allied troops

However once the designers went the point route that is what I tested. When players asked for the auto toggle I was not opposed but I pointed out that if they were getting the ratios then something was wrong somewhere. And that the AI was not designed to play without the VP

Ugh... The AI was not designed....... So keep the points for the AI, just don't end the game for those that want to play on! Let the AI use the point values for what it needs them for, but don't end the game!

Sometimes you are IMPOSSIBLE to deal with.

The surface combat in this narrow situation is BROKEN. The communication of why the research is the way it is, was entirely MISSING from the documentation. Allied ASW is BROKEN, it is TOO potent. DD's in bombardment TF's containing BB's and CA's is BROKEN. Ai death spirals it can't seem to deal with. All these are already FULLY recognized by the developers from everything we have been told. Yet the betas opposed changes in ALL of these areas. Why?

When finally cornered you guys you always fall back on the old tired "chaning this will have unintended consequences and new bugs elsewhere", or "time devoted to that means bugs aren't being fixed" . Fine..... Then the very rigidity of the design itself is an issue then, and "who's bugs?"

A real set of disturbing traits has developed in these threads. You "betas" or at least most, are adamantly opposed to EVERY design flaw fix ever posted. When finally cornered you want USERS????? to create the new designs for the developers! What software firm has CUSTOMERS provide design solutions for the developer??? That is INSANE!

You damned betas are becoming bigger liabilities in a lot of ways than assets at this stage of the game, mostly because of your entrenched attitudes and egos.

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

ORIGINAL: Tankerace
I think what they are getting at Zoomie is all people posting in this thread, problem or not, is less than 40. That is only a fraction of the at least 1,000 (or even 500) people that own WiTP. He is saying you aren't getting a good enough sample to make any conclusions as to whether it is or is not a problem. YOu have heard from only a select few people.

A select few... you are correct. But I wonder what harm there is in just looking at it? If it is too involved forget about it, but there doesn’t seem to be any reason to at least not explore the question.


Joel Billings

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.

I'm not saying whether I am for or against the issue. I am saying that is way Joel and Mike and Gary aren't saying they'll definately look at it. The responses in this thread, with the exception of a few people, are mediocre compared to some of the other threads, where dozens of people complained. Once a large percentage jumps in, we might see results.

[Bodhi]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

And with this particular group, we seem to see a common trait. Heels firmly dug in against virtually EVERYTHING anyone sees as a problem. I guess they see it as an insult to their ability to uncover problems prior to release. In most software genres, the betas no longer have any say at all once the product ships. They are basically done, for good and are no longer relevant. the USER BASE is then front and center. And when the USER BASE speaks, developers generally listen.

These developers seem to do just that. They listen and they respond, and in this game, it seems they respond in spite of often VIGOROUS opposition to almost anything brought up by the users.

The betas did a good job. But as far as I and many others are concerned, their job is over. They now just a single user, no more knowledgable than any other dedicated user, many of whom are software professionals themselves.....

From what I read of the betas posts, it's not that they refuse to budge on any issue, it's just that sometimes they don't recognise the issue as a definite problem. I believe they're more interested in getting the best possible game rather than burnishing some "I'm a Beta" badge they may have received.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with your opinion that the betas are "no more knowledgable than any other dedicated user". I find it difficult to believe that on release they magically loose all the knowledge they built up over the months of testing. Even now I understand they have a private forum where they can discuss game issues directly with the developers/designers. I also believe they test any new version, so I don't think their "job is over", unless you want any patches to be untested. It's obvious you have some issue with the betas, but I guess that's your problem to deal with.

[tabpub]

Off the tutorial, I ran some quickies:
First one, is a large SC going in at night against some AK’s(7k variety)
For this one, I had forgotten to start as HTH, so the Jap air was active, but should not be a factor in the night combat results that are here. Since the AI was on, for some reason it had split off the Genoa Maru on its own. Thus the two combats.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/12/44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 58,70

Japanese Ships
AK Genoa Maru, Shell hits 16, and is sunk

Allied Ships
BB North Carolina
BB Washington
CA Baltimore
CA Boston
DD Anthony
DD Aulick
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Charles Badger
DD Beale
DD Bell
DD Bennett
DD Bennion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 58,70

Japanese Ships
AK Getuyo Maru, Shell hits 12, and is sunk
AK Glasgow Maru, Shell hits 5, on fire
AK Gosyu Maru
AK Goyo Maru, Shell hits 19, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AK Hague Maru, Shell hits 58, and is sunk
AK Hakkai Maru
AK Hakodate Maru, Shell hits 12, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AK Hakonesan Maru
AK Hakubasan Maru, Shell hits 22, and is sunk

Allied Ships
BB North Carolina
BB Washington
CA Baltimore
CA Boston
DD Anthony
DD Aulick
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Charles Badger
DD Beale
DD Bell
DD Bennett
DD Bennion

All in all, fair dispersion, the 2 unhit and the Glasgow were the only survivors (Glasgow with 18/2/4 damage from her 5 alleged hits (I say alleged because of the FOW, later on, there are ships that are said to have been hit, but have no damage) Hague got riddled by DD’s as the ranges varied from 8 to 6 thru 4 rounds (8.7,6,7)

Round 2:

Same ships, broken into 2 TF; 1BB, 1CA and 4 DD per.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/12/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 58,70
Ranges 6,4,2,9 (kyds)
Japanese Ships
AK Genoa Maru
AK Getuyo Maru
AK Glasgow Maru
AK Gosyu Maru, Shell hits 19, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AK Goyo Maru, Shell hits 2 damage of 19/0/0
AK Hague Maru, Shell hits 11, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage damage 89/72/28
AK Hakkai Maru, Shell hits 12, and is sunk
AK Hakodate Maru, Shell hits 14, on fire, heavy damage(sank during turn)
AK Hakonesan Maru
AK Hakubasan Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire (28/14/13) believed to be a 16” hit

Allied Ships
BB Washington
CA Boston
DD Anthony
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Bell
DD Bennett

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat at 58,70
Ranges 24,21, 15,10 (kyds)
Japanese Ships
AK Genoa Maru
AK Getuyo Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire (31/17/19) another 16” hit
AK Glasgow Maru
AK Hakonesan Maru, Shell hits 18, on fire, heavy damage (28/14/13) 5”inchers

Allied Ships
BB Washington
CA Boston
DD Anthony
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Bell
DD Bennett

So, several sunk, several severe damages and a couple of light ones.
It was the same group on patrol that hit twice you will notice. The other group with lesser captain didn’t engage at all. This group has the default Radm on board that comes with Washington.

Round 3:

I forgot to save the combat for 3. It was to be a day time action but I miscalculated somehow and ended up in a night one again, even though the movement rates should have precluded it. I had set the American on Cruise and it still covered 3 hexes during the “night” turn.

Results were about the same…2 away clean, 1 slight damage, rest sunk. Again, there was a ship “hit” but with no damage on the TF screen next turn.

Round 4:
Crap, still got a night action, I must be tired.
Small group, decent dispersion, this one got surprise! and I think that helped the dispersion of shot, most of the attackers pick on fresh vessels in the first round.
Ranges were 6, 3, 8 kyds


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/13/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 60,70

Japanese Ships
AK Genoa Maru, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AK Getuyo Maru, Shell hits 17, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AK Glasgow Maru
AK Gosyu Maru
AK Goyo Maru
AK Hague Maru, Shell hits 1 (18/2/2)
AK Hakkai Maru, Shell hits 37, and is sunk
AK Hakodate Maru
AK Hakonesan Maru, Shell hits 1 (1/0/0) FOW at work
AK Hakubasan Maru, Shell hits 5, on fire (50/35/16)

Allied Ships
BB Washington
CA Baltimore
DD Anthony, Shell hits 1
DD Aulick
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Charles Badger

Phase 5: Decided, the heck with it, just send in a DesDiv and see what they do.
From the results, I don’t think I will bother with BB’s vs, merchies anymore.
Ranges were 18,15,9 kyds and it stayed on 9 for a LONG time.


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/13/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat at 58,70

Japanese Ships
AK Genoa Maru
AK Getuyo Maru, Shell hits 3 (3/6/3)
AK Glasgow Maru
AK Gosyu Maru, Shell hits 21, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage (sunk)
AK Goyo Maru, Shell hits 44, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AK Hague Maru, Shell hits 13, on fire, heavy damage (99/62/33)
AK Hakkai Maru
AK Hakodate Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire (40/12/22)
AK Hakonesan Maru
AK Hakubasan Maru, Shell hits 1 (11/0/0)

Allied Ships
DD Anthony
DD Aulick
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Charles Badger


What I really think is happening is that the BB’s with their “low” ammo load outs are prompting any non-hyper aggressive leader to withdraw from combat after the ammo levels go down past a third used. In addition, during daylight combat, inclusion of BB tends to be a force reducer. It prompts the firing to open at a greater distance and closure is not as swift nor sure. DD’s start closer and will get closer on their own.

Both times that I had the BB division go in by itself followed by the DD’s, the DD’s found and attacked the merchants w/o BB commitment afterward. Actually, I don’t mind this, as if there WERE a enemy SC TF around, it would be nice to have the BB division ready to engage it with full mags and no wear on the barrel liners ( not that barrel liner wear is modeled, but I guess that is another possible never-ending debate…..)

So, my suggestion to the players would be to leave the wagons back if you are merchie hunting and leave it to the littler guys; for the devs/programmers (if they care to listen) perhaps a simple line of : IF NO combat vessel in TF (ie DE or higher) then TF auto surprised, no matter the DL on the ATTACKING TF.

Just some thoughts from a nut in the gallery.

[BartM]

wow

Let's be generous and say that there are 30 posters in this thread that have a problem with this aspect of WitP (although I think your value of 20 may be nearer the mark). Now another assumption: WitP has sold 1,000 copies - don't know if this is reasonable or not, but when the very first patches were released via the forum, the number of downloads was soon in the 700-800s. Now, my walnut brain can't handle the calculation as it can't do decimals, but I'd hazard a guess that a small percentage of users are concerned about this issue. I just wonder how the other few hundred users view this problem. I assume your "overwhelming" was directed to the many who either don't perceive a problem, or can't be bothered to post.

guessing the other few hundred users are reading these long threads and wondering what they got themselves into... myself, Im very timid to even post here anymore, either asking questions, offering advice from what I have learned so far in the game or giving feedback when someone testers or the developement team asks for it.

dunno, but really I think the "surface combat" issue has been completely lost at this point, perhaps, a new argument should be started for us silent users to read about ?

[Bodhi]

ORIGINAL: BartM
Im very timid to even post here anymore, either asking questions, offering advice from what I have learned so far in the game or giving feedback when someone testers or the developement team asks for it.

That's a pity BartM, your point of view is as valid as anyone else's.

ORIGINAL: BartM
dunno, but really I think the "surface combat" issue has been completely lost at this point, perhaps, a new argument should be started for us silent users to read about ?

Agreed, want to pick a topic?[:D]

[mogami]

The surface combat in this narrow situation is BROKEN. The communication of why the research is the way it is, was entirely MISSING from the documentation. Allied ASW is BROKEN, it is TOO potent. DD's in bombardment TF's containing BB's and CA's is BROKEN. Ai death spirals it can't seem to deal with. All these are already FULLY recognized by the developers from everything we have been told. Yet the betas opposed changes in ALL of these areas. Why?

Hi, Well lets check my voting record on the topics mentioned and see if I am against every thing brought up.

1. The surface combat in this narrow situation is BROKEN.

Being looked at. Never said I was against change. The current view is that daylight actions versu unescorted TF is off. In this thread there are a number of night actions listed as being part of the problem. I don't think I focus on day or night or opposed any change.


2. The communication of why the research is the way it is, was entirely MISSING from the documentation.

Never made a single post on the subject.

3. Allied ASW is BROKEN, it is TOO potent.

Only post I ever made here was that we changed it every exe trying to find the G-spot. And it is likely it will changed again. Its a hard one to nail down. What gave you the idea I was against it? I'm Japan in 7 PBEM games with another soon to start.

4. DD's in bombardment TF's containing BB's and CA's is BROKEN.

Never posted in this one. I don't have an answer except for not using DD (by this I mean any DD in TF are just not counted either way)

5. Ai death spirals it can't seem to deal with.

Never posted. Players will always find where the AI leaves it's self open.

So Gee whiz Mr Zoomie1980 what the heck are you talking about. I never opposed any of these 5 major issues.


And I'm in favor of no upgrade path for human controled airforces.
I don't care if you turn off victory conditions in your game. (I won't in mine)
Get rid of Japanese turn 1 extended movement.
Get rid of restricted HQ (Just allow Soviets to react if force too low)(normal PP cost alone is enough to limit and there are very good reasons not to depete a region and I'll be happy to show it to my opponents who do it)
Player controlled production builds
No pilot pools replace with pilot schools

But I won't lead a protest movement over any of them. And I don't think my opinion counts more then yours. In the end I will play what they give me and while they are asking I'll tell the truth about the results I obtain. Before I complain I will take the time to provide help in fixing anything I feel is a problem

Current poll results. I've not voted since I don't really care. I'll test to check if any changes are working as designed.

A check for surface ships like the one for submarines 16% (8)

Tone down PT boats 8% (4) (Overwhelming)

DDs stand off when BBs and CAs are present in Bombardmet TF 38% (19)

Better chance of destroying unprotected transports in naval combat 8% (4) (Overwhelming)

Sub Vs Sub capability 0% (0) ( I like this one)

A portion of a transport’s cargo to be destroyed when its damaged 14% (7)

More Hot Keys (see wish list) 6% (3)

Additional Filters (see wish list) 10% (5)

[Sneer]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Prehaps only spotted ships should move into animation screen. And all unspotted ships remain unknown. Then when players see their TF catch 1 or 2 transports and sink them they would be happy but not realize that 20 others escaped.

I could be mistaken but I believe part of the single transport being hit many times is that it is the sighted ship and no other targets are inr range.

During night battles at close range the "hits" total shown often includes many small calibur hits that do no real damage to heavy ships.

For God sake
it does make sense in night engagements but not in day light
Attacker can be not sure about number of Merchies for 20-30 min in that position
BTW it is specific situation.
Moreover if they are closing range then attacked ships need to turn and show exactly their numbers