Surface combat drives me nuts

[ltfightr]

Admiral Doorman in charge for the allies 12-14-1941

Day Time Surface Combat at 35,61

Japanese Ships
AP Choko Maru
AP Eihuku Maru
AP Giyu Maru, Shell hits 11, on fire, heavy damage
AP Gosei Maru
AP Haguro Maru, Shell hits 3, on fire
AP Hakka Maru
AP Hakusika Maru, Shell hits 1
AP Hakutetsu Maru #13, Shell hits 12, on fire, heavy damage
AP Hikade Maru, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage
AP Hokuhi Maru, Shell hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
AP Iwaki Maru, Shell hits 9, on fire, heavy damage
AP Josho Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
AP Kaihei Maru
AP Kaika Maru, Shell hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
AP Kaiko Maru, Shell hits 6, on fire
AP Kaishi Maru

Allied Ships
CL Java
CL De Ruyter
CL Dragon
CL Durban
DD Peary
DD Pillsbury
DD Pope
DD Whipple
DD Stewart
DD Banckert
DD Van Nes
DD Witte de With
DD Evertsen
DD Kortenaer
DD Piet Hein
DD Van Ghent

Japanese ground losses:
359 casualties reported
Guns lost 6

True not exactly the a team but you would think a little more success against this tf is in order.

[String]

Hm.. well yes and now. For all we'd know half of the TF could have been gone fleeing around the next cape by the time those ships were sunk.

That said, yes.. one would expect a massacre, atleast hits on all of the TF.. then again, perhaps Doorman was uneasy about possible japanese air strikes and was in a hurry.

The only time i get consistent wipeouts are when I intercept barges with very superior force.

[ltfightr]

I am not asking for a wipe out but a 2-3 confirmed sunk would not be out of line.

[Capt. Harlock]

Also, there was not a single torpedo hit with that target-rich situation. Granted, the American DD's couldn't be expected to hit anything, but what about the British and Dutch ships?

[ADavidB]

True not exactly the a team but you would think a little more success against this tf is in order

I never expect much from Allied surface combat TFs during the first couple months of the war. In particular, unless some of those ships have radar (which is unlikely in mid-December 1941) they won't spot most of the opposing TF.

And while Doorman is "okay", he isn't good enough to over come the effect of having weak captains for your individual ships.

All-in-all, I'd say that you did as well as could be expected and you were lucky that your opponent didn't include any escorts in that TF.

Good luck -

Dave Baranyi

[Ron Saueracker]

The model does not work at all well. Could use alot more variation, without the missing ships in the same TF stuff especially. Never understood any of it in terms of concept. For eg. One enemy TF vs one friendly TF. Both TFs find each other within the 60 mile hex, yet ships WITHIN those TFs are always missing from the combat for whatever reason. Yet, put multiple TFs in the hex and all TFs still find each other while ships WITHIN those TFs don't. Concept is at the very least BACKWARDS.

[Tom Hunter]

Based on many surface combats you did really well. Some of those ships may go down later. I'm not defending the model, just sharing my past experience. I've sent in 15 ship TFs with 2 BBs, the same number of CLs and some CAs and gotten worse results.

The surface combat model is very odd, though I sometimes think it would solve many of the air combat problems if we used it for air combat.

I don't really know if using the air combat model would solve surface combat problems.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Based on many surface combats you did really well. Some of those ships may go down later. I'm not defending the model, just sharing my past experience. I've sent in 15 ship TFs with 2 BBs, the same number of CLs and some CAs and gotten worse results.

The surface combat model is very odd, though I sometimes think it would solve many of the air combat problems if we used it for air combat.

I don't really know if using the air combat model would solve surface combat problems.

Weird. I was just thinking that perhaps it is good that the model is weak, otherwise those massive TF battles we see might end up like death matches akin to the air combats.

[AmiralLaurent]

I personnaly think that merchant ships are far too much resistent in WITP. Yes most were bigger than DD but warships had armor (even DD, contrary to what the game is showing), better damage control and even etanche compartiment. But in WITP most AP may survive a dozen of 8in shells.

Also in RL merchant crews usually left the ship when it was seriously hit, at least they did that faster than in warships. And transports did explode: when they were not carrying ammunition they may carry aviation fuel. They should explode far more than warships.