Tristanjohn vs ChezDaJez: Lemur's Scen 15

[Tristanjohn]

Reports of this action are scant, but it is believed that Allied headquarters is not completely pleased with the result of this raid by the Dutch fleet, the term "unaccountably timid" being used by one anonymous official source.

[Tristanjohn]

Well, I'm not against going on the recod by saying this result is ridiculous. Most of the crusiers never fired a shot, while the action closed to 3000 yards with several APs sighted yet never targeted. What is that? In my mind it's clearly. . . . [:@]

[Ron Saueracker]

I know, I know. Complete BS. The design idea which allows ships to randomly become "unavailable/unsighted" is really poor. This should have been applied to individual TFs in a hex, not to individual ships in a TF. Guess the concept of formation is beyond the comprehension of the designer(s).

Or is it? While the ships are not subject to the formation concept in some cases during combat (off doing something else or are trapped in a weird green fog), they seem to be locked into it when combating escorted convoys! It's amazing how one little MSW can hold off 20 ships simultaneously. I rarely see the attackers attack anything but the escort. Kind of like imagining all fifteen players on the attacking side in rugby vs the defending side with only one uninjured player, and all the attacking players converge on the one defender ignoring the obvious overlap.!![:D] I've tried to get this changed/tweaked for years but the game was already designed and "no change was forthcoming". What is weird is that this (your example) is the result of patched improvements to surface combat vs convoys.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I know, I know. Complete BS. The design idea which allows ships to randomly become "unavailable/unsighted" is really poor. This should have been applied to individual TFs in a hex, not to individual ships in a TF. Guess the concept of formation is beyond the comprehension of the designer(s).

Or is it? While the ships are not subject to the formation concept in some cases during combat (off doing something else or are trapped in a weird green fog), they seem to be locked into it when combating escorted convoys! It's amazing how one little MSW can hold off 20 ships simultaneously. I rarely see the attackers attack anything but the escort. Kind of like imagining all fifteen players on the attacking side in rugby vs the defending side with only one uninjured player, and all the attacking players converge on the one defender ignoring the obvious overlap.!![:D] I've tried to get this changed/tweaked for years but the game was already designed and "no change was forthcoming". What is weird is that this (your example) is the result of patched improvements to surface combat vs convoys.

Yeah, I'd hoped that that had been changed in WitP but I've found out twice that splitting up a larger TF into many one-ship TFs doesn't do the trick. Chez has caught me twice in that "formation" and twice just walked right down the row kicking these little wooden ducks over. Of course that's the Japanese side we're talking about, not the poor incompetent Dutch. [:)]

Anyway, none of that has anything to do with the fact that of all those cruisers and all the sightings that were available to them only two or three bothered to fire even a single shot. That's the really sad part of this scenario. I mean you'd think they could at least get that part halfway right.

[mogami]

Hi, Can you include TF commanders in battle reports? I won't ask for ship night ratings.
Also you are aware that the animation is not a "movie" of the battle.
The two sides did not square off with the Japanese on the left and the Allies on the right.
There is no way to know the tactical events of the battle as far as where any particular ship was at any particular time or what turns or speed changes it made. All the animation shows is the range beteen the two closest opposing ships and what ship fired at what ship.
The relative postions during the battle are not shown.
There is no animation in WITP that actually claims to represent any tactical action as it occurs. Animations show what platforms employed weapons during the action and what the target was and the reported result of such use.
The animations are never "movies" of a battle. They are visual reports of encounters between opposing operational forces. They resolve in a set order that does not attempt to represent the actual physical location of units.

Tactics in WITP are represented by leader, weapon and unit ratings. Better leaders for example are assumed to "out tactic" poorer enemy leaders. The units they command get better results as a result (or worse if the leader is poor compared to the enemy leader)
So sometimes a ship hits or misses because of the TF leader, sometimes the ship CO and sometimes the crew or all of them together.

There are no tactical animations. And there are a limited number of messages in a turn to describe events. Not all possible events have a precise message.
TF surprised does not mean one Admiral suddendly jumps through the bridge overhead when enemy is spotted because he has been surprised. But his TF is opening the battle in a manner not ideal.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Can you include TF commanders in battle reports? I won't ask for ship night ratings.

Okay. With regard to the mainly Dutch TF, the commander is rated something like 62/60. That's at least close. I'll get you the exact rating if you want, as I'm just about ready to go back into the game again for my next turn. (Speaking of which, you and I seem to be the last two standing tonight. [:D])

[mogami]

Hi, At the rate you play we could finish the 1600 turns in about 9 months. (6 turns per day)

[Ron Saueracker]

The four of us, Chez, Mog TJ and moi might actually be able to get through a four man WITP campaign![:D]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, At the rate you play we could finish the 1600 turns in about 9 months. (6 turns per day)

We have set a fair pace, though we've missed about a week of game turns due to trips, school and whatnot.

About that Dutch commander: it was Getting, F. E., rated 60/50 (I was off on that a bit).

[Tristanjohn]

5 April 1942 Summary

[Tristanjohn]

As a side note regarding that summary, and as it relates to the issue of naval bombardments, of the total 829 aircraft I've lost on the ground thus far in the campaign I venture to say that the majority of those casualties have come from those very same naval bombardments. I could only guess at the actual figure, and of course some were lost in Malaya and the SRA when bases were overrun, and some more to air raids. But the majority of that loss figure is due to naval bombardments, of that I'm sure.

Now let's just suppose that my statment above is true. If it is, that would mean that through approximately four months of the war the Japanese navy has been able to account for at least 415 Allied aircraft through the means of naval bombardment.

Think about that for a minute. Get back to me when you can make sense of it. (Assuming you can.)

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Can you include TF commanders in battle reports? I won't ask for ship night ratings.
Also you are aware that the animation is not a "movie" of the battle.
The two sides did not square off with the Japanese on the left and the Allies on the right.
There is no way to know the tactical events of the battle as far as where any particular ship was at any particular time or what turns or speed changes it made. All the animation shows is the range beteen the two closest opposing ships and what ship fired at what ship.
The relative postions during the battle are not shown.
There is no animation in WITP that actually claims to represent any tactical action as it occurs. Animations show what platforms employed weapons during the action and what the target was and the reported result of such use.
The animations are never "movies" of a battle. They are visual reports of encounters between opposing operational forces. They resolve in a set order that does not attempt to represent the actual physical location of units.

Tactics in WITP are represented by leader, weapon and unit ratings. Better leaders for example are assumed to "out tactic" poorer enemy leaders. The units they command get better results as a result (or worse if the leader is poor compared to the enemy leader)
So sometimes a ship hits or misses because of the TF leader, sometimes the ship CO and sometimes the crew or all of them together.

There are no tactical animations. And there are a limited number of messages in a turn to describe events. Not all possible events have a precise message.
TF surprised does not mean one Admiral suddendly jumps through the bridge overhead when enemy is spotted because he has been surprised. But his TF is opening the battle in a manner not ideal.

I understand the fact that this is a gross abastraction but...

The two sides did not square off with the Japanese on the left and the Allies on the right. There is no way to know the tactical events of the battle as far as where any particular ship was at any particular time or what turns or speed changes it made. All the animation shows is the range beteen the two closest opposing ships and what ship fired at what ship. The relative postions during the battle are not shown

But this is a TF, not a group of TFs. TFs generally operated as a unit, or a set of closely operating sub units. I've seen on too many occasions the flagship of ones TF never take part in a combat! And this with other heavies one must assume are in some kind of formation. This "model" is just too abstract and results in really weird outcomes (not just replays). The notion that some ships are off doing something else should have been on the TF level, not individual ship within a TF level, and reserved for the occasion when more than one friendly TF is in a hex. At least some sort of formation format should apply.

Conversely, a SC TF will engage every single enemy TF in a hex, when these enemy TFs could be 60 miles apart! So, ships in a TF maybe 500 yards apart are subject to WITPs notion of the vagaries of combat and sometimes don't even take part in an action staring it in the face but every TF within a hex, as far as 60 miles apart, always detect each other and are not subject to vagaries until the TFs engage, then the individual ships within the TF, which moments earlier was steaming full tilt to intercept the enemy, split off in every compass bearing like kids in a shopping mall. This is so backwards one has to wonder if naval combat in a naval game took second place to air combat.

Take Savo Island for example. I view the actual OOB of the battle when translated into WITP's "reality" to look like this:

Allied

TF 1 CAs Astoria, Quincy and Vincennes; DDs Wilson, Helm and Ralph Talbot.
TF 2 CAs Canberra and Chicago; DDs Bagley, Patterson and Blue.
TF 3 CLs San Juan and Hobart; DDs Monssen and Buchanan.
TF 4 CA Australia, DDs Mugford, Jarvis, Ellet, Hull, Dewey and the AP/AKs off Lunga.

Japanese

TF 1 CAs Chokai, Aoba, Kako, Kinugasa, Furutaka; CLs Yubari and Tenryu; DD Yunagi.

In RL, during various phases of the battle, IJN TF 1 engaged Allied TF 2 first and all Japanese ships and all Allied ships were involved except one (Blue was a picket for this force and failed to react...I'm sure this, and Oldendorfs BBs at Surigao strait due to non uniform radar suites, was the example upon which the notion that ships regularily miss out in combat within a TF but this is the exception, not the norm so, at the very least, the chance for a ship missing out on combat within a TF should be rather rare.)

Next, IJN TF 1 engaged Allied TF 1 and all Japanese ships engaged and all Allied ships engaged. (WITP would have had at least half the participating ships off roaming somewhere).

IJN TF 1 failed to engage Allied TF 3 and 4.

The notion of ships within a hex not engaging for whatever reason is a valid one but was implemented at the wrong level for the most part. Better if the chance for inclusion or not was at the multiple TF level and only marginally possible at the individual ships within a TF level.

How hard would this be to change. Not hard at all and would give a much better result.

[Tristanjohn]

5 April 1942

American B-17 bombers have begun a concerted effort to neutralize the port of Koepang on Timor Island, with the first of such air raids having been launched yesterday out of Darwin, Australia by two USAAF bomber squadrons.

[mogami]

Hi, I just fought a battle. 11 IJN versus 12 USN/Allied everyship fired. Every ship fired more then once. Everyship fired at more then 1 enemy ship.

There is no correct blanket statment like "WITP has ships in every battle getting lost"

You have to check
leaders and crew ratings.

Have TJ post the night ratings for the ships that did not fire.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I just fought a battle. 11 IJN versus 12 USN/Allied everyship fired. Every ship fired more then once. Everyship fired at more then 1 enemy ship.

There is no correct blanket statment like "WITP has ships in every battle getting lost"

You have to check
leaders and crew ratings.

Have TJ post the night ratings for the ships that did not fire.

Here's the list (ship, ship ratings, commander, commander ratings):

CA Houston___72/51 (CDR *Nishiura, D. 53/39)
CA Canberra___74/47 (CPT Getting, F.E. 60/50)
CL Leander___73/43 (CPT Bevan, S. 60/50)
CL Java___69/52 (CPT van Straelen, PhB. 50/53)
CL Sumatra___71/40 (CDR Willinge, J.J.L. 56/59)
CL De Ruyter___74/50 (CDR Lacombl, E.E.B. 60/53)
CL Tromp___70/49 (CDR de Meester, J.B. 54/47)
CL Perth___71/40 (CPT Waller, H.M.L. 60/50)
CL Hobart___65/51 (*FLT Warren, P. 57/62)
CL Adelaide___68/55 (CPT Showers, H.A. 60/50)
CL Dragon___74/79 (CPT Shaw, R.J. 60/50)
CL Durban___66/82 (CPT Cazalet, P.J.L. 60/50)
CL Marblehead___74/55 (CPT Dockery, L.R. 55/51)

* These are due to the leader bug I've read about?

Not sure which ships did not fire. Only about three, maybe four, did. And of course you saw where all of the shots were directed. Houston behaved best of all, keeping up a constant barrage (almost always on that lone DD, though).

[mogami]

Hi, Battle was not Dragon or Durbans first dance was it.
And these are the post battle ratings correct?

13 Ships engaged.
9 have not yet reached level a ship can train up to without combat. (I mean they are not yet trained night fighters)
2 Have reached max training without combat (trained night fighters)
2 ships can be considered veteran well trained night fighters.

I'm not going to make up stories about how the 9 rookies spoiled the fight but the TF was only 33 percent composed of trained ships for night.
You (and Ron) Know what results you want. What level of training is required to get that result 100 percent of the time?
Should a force composed of 2/3rds untrained units perfom 100 percent effective?

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Battle was not Dragon or Durbans first dance was it.
And these are the post battle ratings correct?

13 Ships engaged.
9 have not yet reached level a ship can train up to without combat. (I mean they are not yet trained night fighters)
2 Have reached max training without combat (trained night fighters)
2 ships can be considered veteran well trained night fighters.

I'm not going to make up stories about how the 9 rookies spoiled the fight but the TF was only 33 percent composed of trained ships for night.
You (and Ron) Know what results you want. What level of training is required to get that result 100 percent of the time?
Should a force composed of 2/3rds untrained units perfom 100 percent effective?

Of course not, but these ships faced practically nothing in the way of opposition and had sighted about half of the enemy formation, yet the majority of Allied ships involved never got off a shot. That's just plain silly, Mogami. It's also a clear demonstration of a suspect system at work.

[Ron Saueracker]

You (and Ron) Know what results you want. What level of training is required to get that result 100 percent of the time?
Should a force composed of 2/3rds untrained units perfom 100 percent effective?

This has nothing to do with ratings, or at least it should not. They should be firing, perhaps not as effectively. The problem is the mislaid abstract notion that ships in a TF are off doing something else. We have ships in a TF behaving like they are in individual TFs.

[mogami]

Hi, I have not seen the replay. But I have seen enough replays of naval actions where both sides fired a lot of ammo without scoring any hits. The combat report does not report who fired what or who hit what so you can't make a judgement from that. Only the player who watched the entire action can say if a ship actually fired and how often with what result.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

You (and Ron) Know what results you want. What level of training is required to get that result 100 percent of the time?
Should a force composed of 2/3rds untrained units perfom 100 percent effective?

This has nothing to do with ratings, or at least it should not. They should be firing, perhaps not as effectively. The problem is the mislaid abstract notion that ships in a TF are off doing something else. We have ships in a TF behaving like they are in individual TFs.

Something like that. In any event the result is a screwball.