Ship experience

[Skyros]

I think what Ron is getting at and correct me if I am wrong is that Training matters more than experience.

To me the Officers Experience and the training level of the crew is what matters. The officers had to keep there heads and move in to attack or retreat at the appropriate time. The crew had to service their weapons, electronics, damage control etc. They could not break and run such as in a land battle where experience may overcome fear, although some experienced units have been known to run. They also could not get caught up in the battle and continue to attack a position when the officers were trying to stop them. The officers through training and discipline improved the performance of american ships in the war as well as the crews performaning their jobs.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

So are you saying all crew members stay on one ship for the entire war? Model is totally off. Crew got transfered and diluted to help man the ever expanding fleet, especially in the Allied case. Crews did not get better over long haul on a per ship basis, in fact they probably got worse throughout the war.

This does not even invokve crew deaths and injuries. Point is there should have been crew factors modelled into the game to help deal with the myriad of influences on crew quality, naval doctrine etc. We have individual pilots, leaders, squads etc but the ships are all robots![8|]

Another intangible here is that in the Japanese and British Navies (though the British changed this) it was tradition for the captain and/or admiral to go down with their ship. In the American Navy the captain and/or admiral would save themselves to fight another day. An American captain who lost a ship would go before a Naval Board of Inquiry - not necesarilly to be court-martialed but to explain what happened so what he experienced (maybe a new Japanese tactic or weapon, etc) could be diseminated to the fleet and when the captain returned to sea he was just that bit more experienced.

You would also have crews from sunken ships who would be spread out to either existing ships needing replacements or maybe to crew a soon-to-be or newly commissioned warship. "Old-timers" like that can impart a lot of experience and in a way a calming effect on green sailors (inexperienced, not sea-sick sailors).

Another thing that MAY have been done then - I know it was done when I was in the Navy - was that when people were rotated between ship and shore and back you generally stayed with the class of ship you served on. For example I served on an aircraft carrier and had I stayed in and gone back to sea my next sea duty assignment would have been another carrier. Each class of ship has their own ideosynchroses [sic spelling] and what I had no idea about the first time I reported for duty aboard a carrier I'd be familiar with next time. I'm not sure what the sea-shore rotation was for sailors during WWII but I can tell you fleet sailors returning from shore duty to sea duty would be very familiary with ship duties.

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

So are you saying all crew members stay on one ship for the entire war? Model is totally off. Crew got transfered and diluted to help man the ever expanding fleet, especially in the Allied case. Crews did not get better over long haul on a per ship basis, in fact they probably got worse throughout the war.

This does not even invokve crew deaths and injuries. Point is there should have been crew factors modelled into the game to help deal with the myriad of influences on crew quality, naval doctrine etc. We have individual pilots, leaders, squads etc but the ships are all robots![8|]

No I am not, but with your point that crews got worse, that is certainly a good step in the right direction of ships not gaining experience rapidly.

In all fairness, of all games on this subject, or naval combat in general, I have seen no game dealing with modern (i.e. WWI or above) that model in crew factors beyond what WitP models. I suppose that we are going to fault WitP for raising the bar on everything but one item?

Do I think the model is 100% accurate? No. But do I think that it is accurate in the sense gaining experience takes a long time to acheive, and a ship is not going to go past the 100 level? Yes.

I also think that there are people here who are critical of the game, just to be critical of it. Show me a game on WitP's scale where you have individual crew factors.

I have to ask Ron, since you like all these little details, do you assign new captains to each of you DDs, CLs, CAs, BBs, and CVs at least once every nine months? Ship captains rarely commanded a ship longer than 12 months before being assigned or taking over another ship. Now since obviously most players aren't going to do this, why should they have to manage with crew? I agree many respects of the game are oversimplified (a bit too much in some cases), but I also acknowledge that any other game dealing with this subject is far more simplified. (Pac War and Koei's PTO come to mind).

How would you like the crew modeled, "DD Paul Jones has 3 officers and 50 men, waiting on replacements before ship can sail"? Admittedly it would be cool, but it would also ward off numerous players. Few people reject WitP because it is too simple, but many do because it is too complex. So, 2by3 can oversimplify some things(Ship crews, a factor no other game takes into account but lets go ahead and fault them) and make more money, or make it so detailed that 20 people will buy it, the company folds, and then that's all she wrote. I know which I would do....

[Tom Hunter]

I enjoy the game very much, and it is good that they made crew a factor.

Over the time I have had and played the game there have been well thought out critical evaluations of land and air combat, but I have not seen similar evaluations of surface warfare.

There have also been good how too instructions, for example Mogami's pilot training program. Again I have not seen these for surface combat.

Today was the first time I have seen a discussion of the truly strange ammo load system for surface ships. It was the first time anyone looked up the actual ammo loads and firing rates of the guns. On this thread there does not seem to be anyone who can provide data on ship training beyond the information you posted from the manual.

The game is better because we have had intelligent discussions about other aspects of the game. I play better because of these discussion too. Now it's time to dig into surface combat as well.

[Tankerace]

I totally agree. Heck, truthfully, I wish to make surface combats bloodier, and several hour long affairs. My entire point (with regards to Ron's post) is that as the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces Pacific, I would have subordinates who handle individual ship crews, not me.

DO I think Surface Combat is perfect? No. Personally, I would like to see more realistic engagements, where TFs fight several actions to represent two, three, four hour long engagements. I'd also like to see more correct ammo loads (although I used WitP's standard for WPO, for fear of breaking the AI). I would also like to see Divisions and Squadrons formed, so that in the course of a surface battle destroyers will close to make a Torpedo attack, whereas BBs standoff and blast the hell out of the enemy (ala Surigao Strait). I don't think its going to happen, but that is what I would like to see.

[Tankerace]

Also, if anyone thinks I am anti these discussions by my comment some people are critical to be critical, that is not the case. My statement for that was to the people that think "Well, WitP raises the bar on all this but one, so its a fiasco and lets knock it". Hell, truthfully I hope there are discussions like these for WPO when it comes out, so I can make that game even better. But I am afraid I am against knocking a game because it does 9/10 things better than another game, but because that one factor isn't there the game is rubbish.

[witpqs]

Right on, Tankerace and Tom.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I totally agree. Heck, truthfully, I wish to make surface combats bloodier, and several hour long affairs. My entire point (with regards to Ron's post) is that as the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces Pacific, I would have subordinates who handle individual ship crews, not me.

DO I think Surface Combat is perfect? No. Personally, I would like to see more realistic engagements, where TFs fight several actions to represent two, three, four hour long engagements. I'd also like to see more correct ammo loads (although I used WitP's standard for WPO, for fear of breaking the AI). I would also like to see Divisions and Squadrons formed, so that in the course of a surface battle destroyers will close to make a Torpedo attack, whereas BBs standoff and blast the hell out of the enemy (ala Surigao Strait). I don't think its going to happen, but that is what I would like to see.

Oh wouldn't that be nice! My one reservation about UV/WitP when I just started playing was the complete inability to command forces in battle...but once I got past that I have enjoyed the game a lot more.
If they ever did give us some tactical options for naval battle (like choosing formations) that would be a big plus....

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Also, if anyone thinks I am anti these discussions by my comment some people are critical to be critical, that is not the case. My statement for that was to the people that think "Well, WitP raises the bar on all this but one, so its a fiasco and lets knock it". Hell, truthfully I hope there are discussions like these for WPO when it comes out, so I can make that game even better. But I am afraid I am against knocking a game because it does 9/10 things better than another game, but because that one factor isn't there the game is rubbish.

I agree with you Tankerace...I have had a lot of posts, and often I'll say I disagree with this or that - but 99% of my negative comments are just directed at how units are rated...not the game. Almost anything I have voiced a complaint about can be changed just using your editor.

I am all for improving WitP - who isn't? But it's still an awesome game out of the box.

B

[cassius44]

Quick comment...

One of the issues is that ships have a cap on expereince gained through simply sailing around, the 75/55 (or whatever).

As a hypothetical, to incorporate improved training, etc., I should think a simple fix would be to allow this maximum to increase throughout the war (esp. for the Allies). In other words, by sailing around in 1943 a DD could eventually get to 80/65 night experience, then 85/75 in '44, etc. (And for the Japanese, perhaps the level goes down in '45?)

Not familiar with the editor - don't suppose there is anyway to change this now? (Even by going in at an agreed time and changing?) Or someday when the code is released....

Thoughts,
Cassius

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

So are you saying all crew members stay on one ship for the entire war? Model is totally off. Crew got transfered and diluted to help man the ever expanding fleet, especially in the Allied case. Crews did not get better over long haul on a per ship basis, in fact they probably got worse throughout the war.

This does not even invokve crew deaths and injuries. Point is there should have been crew factors modelled into the game to help deal with the myriad of influences on crew quality, naval doctrine etc. We have individual pilots, leaders, squads etc but the ships are all robots![8|]

I disagree that crerws would get worse. Sure you had turnover but you always had the veterans with experience who would train the inexperienced crew up to snuff. I was on the Midway and we constantly had crew turnover (everybody had their own separate transfer dates so people were coming and going all the time) and we never had our level of experience degrade. In the three years I was on her I managed to get three Battle E's that she won during that period so even with comings and goings we were top notch. That would go for ANY navy, not just the American. I'm sure CheDaJez can back me up on this one that what I'm saying.

And as far as crew deaths and injuries ... I got onboard the Midway during the Iranian crisis and she was carrying what was called a "wartime" manning level. The photolab I was assigned to normally would only have 12-18 photographers at most, but during the "wartime" manning period we had 36-40 specifically to cover any losses we might take so we could keep working. All divisions and departments aboard the ship were similiarly manned.

[Oldsweat]

One point I would make regarding experience in naval units is that even when they are "just sailing around" ships tend to do the things they would do in battle, short of shooting the guns (and even that isn't necessarily true, it is not uncommon to conduct "quickdraw" drills at sea where the TF CDR directs ships to fire in down a given bearing top exercise the crews). West of PH ships typically went to modified GQ where there was always a minimal crew manning the weapons. Watch sections in CIC/CCI/Gunplot normally conduct internal exercises to maintain and sharpen the sections skills. Even without the exercises the force commander and watch section heads impose mundane tasks like unrep, formation maneuvers and formation changes go towards sharpening everyone's skills. As was mentioned earlier it would be atypical to make a wholesale crew change, at least in USN practise, specificaly to avoid adversly impacting crew readiness.
One point about the US Navy is the extensive training command system that developed from around 1939 onwards: it probably provided a much better prepared sailor than one might expect. Even now one never really stops going to school (this is especially true for officers, but applies to pretty much everyone). One good example is the attack trainer that was developed in Pearl Harbor, submarine attack teams cycled through this system when on rest periods to keep them sharp and introduce them to the latest tactical innovations. Damage control training and other skills were also emphasised during inport periods. The list of schools and training, both initial and refresher, is almost endless. So the USN, in particular, should continue to improve it's skills constantly.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Oldsweat

One point I would make regarding experience in naval units is that even when they are "just sailing around" ships tend to do the things they would do in battle, short of shooting the guns (and even that isn't necessarily true, it is not uncommon to conduct "quickdraw" drills at sea where the TF CDR directs ships to fire in down a given bearing top exercise the crews). West of PH ships typically went to modified GQ where there was always a minimal crew manning the weapons. Watch sections in CIC/CCI/Gunplot normally conduct internal exercises to maintain and sharpen the sections skills. Even without the exercises the force commander and watch section heads impose mundane tasks like unrep, formation maneuvers and formation changes go towards sharpening everyone's skills. As was mentioned earlier it would be atypical to make a wholesale crew change, at least in USN practise, specificaly to avoid adversly impacting crew readiness.
One point about the US Navy is the extensive training command system that developed from around 1939 onwards: it probably provided a much better prepared sailor than one might expect. Even now one never really stops going to school (this is especially true for officers, but applies to pretty much everyone). One good example is the attack trainer that was developed in Pearl Harbor, submarine attack teams cycled through this system when on rest periods to keep them sharp and introduce them to the latest tactical innovations. Damage control training and other skills were also emphasised during inport periods. The list of schools and training, both initial and refresher, is almost endless. So the USN, in particular, should continue to improve it's skills constantly.

And Oldsweat they drill you until it becomes second nature. I was out of the Navy for a few years when living in an apartment a young girl living across from me had a grease fire in a pan she was cooking and (don't ask me WHY) she panicked and ended up placing it in the middle of the hallway in front of my door. I remember opening the door but I DON'T remember anything after that until I had my fire extinguisher in my hands putting the fire out. The old Navy firefighting training kicked in and I acted without even thinking.

[ChezDaJez]

And Oldsweat they drill you until it becomes second nature.

In the airdale Navy, we were constantly drilled. Every flight had a least one drill be it bailout, fire of unknown origin (FOUO) or ditching. And there was NATOPS. NATOPS was the aviator's bible for each type aircraft. Mine was for the P-3. The unclassified version weighed about 17lbs and covered the general aircraft equipment, emergency procedures and operating characterisitics. The classified version weighed another 5lbs and covered my mission specific equipment. There was also a software reference manual that diagrammed each and every function of the computers and sensors.

Every 3 months we had to take a 24 question open book exam and a 40 question closed book exam. The open book exam was brutal as ANYTHING printed in the book could be a question source. You'ld end up with BS questions like "How many wheels are on a P-3? Answer: 8. (6 on the landing gear , 2 on the ladder.) Or "The stowable electric boarding ladder unfolds at a rate of _____ degrees per second" Answer: 4.1 degrees per second.

Stupid questions to be sure but it sure did make you familiar with the book. The closed book exam was normally easier as it tended to deal with emergency procedures and equipment that everyone had to know by heart. Circuit breakers were a royal pain though as there are 602 of them readily accessible on the P-3 and you had to know what equipment they powered, what their power source was (i.e. what bus they operated off) and what generators powered each bus. They would test your c/b knowledge during a FOUO drill by placing a strobe on a piece of equipment to simulate a fire. You then had to name the location of every piece of associated equipment and point out each and every circuit breaker that applied to it.

Then once a year, you had a NATOPS Evaluation flight where an instructor came on a flight to grade your performance in every aspect of flight operation from briefing and preflight to postlfight. They would mess with your equipment prior to test how thorough your preflight procedures were. They would loosen hold down, cannon plugs, remove fuses... all kinds of stuff. It was an automatic down for the flight if you missed something on your emergency gear. If you got a down for the flight, then you could only fly with another qualified aircrewman until you passed a retake. Fail it twice and you were no longer an aircrewman.

I doubt that WWII training standards were that comprehensive but drilling has always been a part of naval crew training whether inport or at sea. Nothing sucks worse than to be all soaped up in the shower and have the water suddenly stop and the words "General quarters, general quarters! This is a drill, man your battle stations!" come over the 1MC.

Chez

[Dereck]

Nothing sucks worse than to be all soaped up in the shower and have the water suddenly stop and the words "General quarters, general quarters! This is a drill, man your battle stations!" come over the 1MC.

Chez

Or to have the 1MC say "General Quarters, General Quarters, This is NOT a Drill". We had that happen once during an unrep in the Indian Ocean when some smart ass Soviet sub skipper decided to surface between the Midway and the unrep ship. Talk about an emergency breakaway and a lot of soiled underware. I was in the aft mess deck enjoying an ice cream cone during a break when that came over and never saw so many people move so damn fast. I know I was scared because GQ drills were always announced before hand and to know it could be the real thing was terrifying but your training takes over and you just react without thinking and your training takes over.

No idea what happened to the Soviet sub skipper but he was probably commended for messing with the Americans. I know there were a lot of sonor-operators in the US task group who were very red-faced at not spotting the sub to begin with.

[Big B]

So,
dereck, ChezDaJez, Oldsweat..
Are you guys satisfied that the typical USN experience rating of 60Day/35night is accurate?

B

[ChezDaJez]

No idea what happened to the Soviet sub skipper but he was probably commended for messing with the Americans. I know there were a lot of sonor-operators in the US task group who were very red-faced at not spotting the sub to begin with.

At least he didn't surface in front of you like that Victor I SSN did in front of the Kittyhawk in the Sea of Japan on 12 March 1984. The Kittyhawk ran right over him and caused the sub to roll more than 90 degrees. Some said he did a 360 but I don't think it would have survived that. As it was, the collision tore the forward torpedo room open on the sub. Somehow, I don't think this skipper got a commendation.

Chez

[Dereck]

It's a historical fact that at the beginning of the war and up until sometime in 1943 the Japanese were almost without exception the victors in night actions with the US but after a point in 1943 (I haven't found it yet) the Americans turned the tide and the Japanese never again won a night action against the US.

It was a combination of training by crews (and even crews who never were in battle would be trained based on the experience gained by ships who were in combat so they would be trained on what to do) as well as the US using radar to control their night time gunfire. You have to remember each American ship that was sunk would have what happened to it -- and WHY -- disseminated throughout the fleet and those lessons would be incorporated into subsequent tactics and training.

The actual game mechanics I believe reflects this as well as any game can. If anything there are two sides (I tend to be an Allied fan-boy but still try to be objective) to this issue as always. The Japanese did have prior war training for nighttime fighting the Americans didn't BUT the Americans learned their lessons fast and the hard way. It could be that the Japanese night experience may be a tad too high and the American night experience a tad too low based on the game mechanics of how hard it is to raise experience.

IF it is so hard to gain nighttime experience except by combat then it may be that people have to take a step back from "realism" and realize this is a game and some fudging may have to be made to reflect that the Americans did eventually overtake and surpase the Japanese at night fighting. Maybe the only was would be to alter the starting experience levels to reflect both the initial gap and the way experience is gained in the game.

A "green" ship coming into the war zone for the first time may not have the battle EXPERIENCE, but they would have been trained enough to know WHAT to do.

This is a game - a damn good one despite my frustration over being stuck without pilot replacements and unable to continue for now - but it is ONLY a game and can't be made to reflect reality 100% of the time. Sometimes you just have to grin and bear it and just have fun with it.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

No idea what happened to the Soviet sub skipper but he was probably commended for messing with the Americans. I know there were a lot of sonor-operators in the US task group who were very red-faced at not spotting the sub to begin with.

At least he didn't surface in front of you like that Victor I SSN did in front of the Kittyhawk in the Sea of Japan on 12 March 1984. The Kittyhawk ran right over him and caused the sub to roll more than 90 degrees. Some said he did a 360 but I don't think it would have survived that. As it was, the collision tore the forward torpedo room open on the sub. Somehow, I don't think this skipper got a commendation.

Chez

We had Krivak destroyers/cruisers who would turn in front of us hoping for a collision and an international incident. We always had to go up and take pictures to prove the Soviets turned into our path.

[ChezDaJez]

Are you guys satisfied that the typical USN experience rating of 60Day/35night is accurate?

Its hard to compare the training standards today with those of yesterday but I would hazard a guestimate that for early war (1942) those numbers are reasonable as the US Navy had little night training. But after the lessons learned during Guadalcanal and with the development of tactics emphasizing radar, I would say no. A radar equipped ship (not just search radar but FC radar too) from 1943 on should be more like 60/60 in my opinion. With effective use of radar, it doesn't matter whether its day or night. The radar operator is squirreled away in CIC and could care less as to what time of day it is. In today's navy, the captain is more likely to fight his ship from CIC than he is from the bridge.

BTW, We need to make a distinction between experience and effectiveness. A crew can be highly experienced but when new technology is introduced (such as radar), they are not necessarily effective at using it. It takes awhile to learn the idiosyncrasies of the technology and incorporate it into your battle tactics. Fine tuning of its employment can take months or years in some cases.

Chez

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: Big B

So,
dereck, ChezDaJez, Oldsweat..
Are you guys satisfied that the typical USN experience rating of 60Day/35night is accurate?

B

I think the experience gap is way to large. Instead of 35-45 night exp for USN and 75-85 night exp for Japan, it should be more like 50 for USN and 60 for Japan.

The USN won at least one battle in 42 (Balikpapan) and I would argue they won at least two more (both Guadalcanal fights where Japan lost a BB). And the battle where Furutaka (or Kinugasa) bought it. That was a clear cut USN win. They only lost a DD for a CA and a DD.

Japan had a slight advantage in night battle experience. They have a HUGE advantage in their torpedoes. So, giving them double the exp and great torpedoes means that the USN has a 1 in 10 chance of winning night battles in the game. It needs to be at least a 4 in 10 chance for the USN to win.

Japan should have a significant chance to be surprised. It happened once in 42 and many times in 43/44. Giving 80 night exp to Japan makes it impossible for the USN to catch up in 43/44.

All i'm saying is that the gap is too large. It makes the USN out to be inept most of the time and Japan to be superhero's most of the time. It needs to be closer.