Admirals Edition Naval Thread

[Terminus]

Not gonna happen.

[HMSWarspite]

Pity - hate to see the RN just become TF n+1 of the USN!

[Terminus]

Well, that's what ended up happening, so...

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, that's what ended up happening, so...

Sorry, I meant in 1942. I have always said the restrictions should wear off in 1944.

And actually, 1 fast carrier task force became TFn+1. The vast majority could not be supported due to the lack of a fleet train that could keep up etc...

[pauk]

hi guys,

First thank you all for trying to make AE as close as posible to history!


Don't have time for scrolling all those pages, so i don't know if this was raised before.


I would suggest to make naval encounters more realisticly, especially in such encounters



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Woleai at 57,72

Japanese Ships
CA Ashigara, Shell hits 14, on fire, heavy damage
CA Mikuma, Shell hits 48, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
CA Kinugasa, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Urakaze, Shell hits 35, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Hatsuyuki, Shell hits 4, on fire

Allied Ships
CA Sussex, Shell hits 14
CL Sumatra, Shell hits 7, on fire
CL Hobart, Shell hits 19, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DE Shelton, Shell hits 3, on fire
DE Straus
DE Halloran
DE Manlove
DE Steele
AP President Garfield
AP Fuller
AP Frederick Funston
AP George F. Elliot
AP Monrovia
AP Sheridan
AP Warren, Shell hits 2, on fire
AP James O'Hara
AP Windsor
AP Baxter
AP Adair
AP Henderson
AK Murada
AK Asphalion
AK Cetus
AK Eridanus
AK Caelum
AK Rotanin
AK Allioth
AK Gainsar
AK Grumium
AK Alkaid
AK Aldebaran
AK Sabik
AK Lesuth
AK Alnitah
AK Venus
AK Ascella
AK Cheleb
AP Kenmore
AP Livingston
AP De Grasse, Shell hits 1, on fire
AK Prince Georges
AK Allegan
AK Appanoose
AK Blount
AK Cabell
AK Chatham
AK Betelgeuse
AK Boreas
AK Jupiter
AK Aurelia
AK Mazama
AK Yunnan
AK Wrangell
AK Solon Turman
AK H.T. Dodge

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Woleai at 57,72


Allied aircraft
no flights


Allied aircraft losses
SOC-3 Seagull: 2 destroyed

Japanese Ships
CA Chokai, Shell hits 2
CL Kitakami, Shell hits 5, on fire
DD Mutsuki, Shell hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
DD Oite, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Hasu, Shell hits 16, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CA Chicago, Shell hits 44, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
DD Marshall, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage
DD McCord, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
DD McGowan, Shell hits 19, on fire, heavy damage
DE Willmarth
DE John C. Butler
DE Abercrombie
DE Howard F. Clark
DE William Seiverling
DE Silverstein, Shell hits 1
DE Stafford
DE Richard W. Suesens
DE Stadtfeld
AGC Mount McKinley
AK Tuscana
AK Adhara
AK Trianglum
AK Ganymede
AK Calamaries
AK Acubens
LSV Monitor
LST LST-167
LST LST-169
LST LST-170
LST LST-581
LST LST-582
LST LST-584
LST LST-585
LST LST-586
LST LST-588
LST LST-589
LST LST-590, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
LST LST-599
LST LST-600
LST LST-601
LST LST-603
LST LST-604
LST LST-605
LST LST-606
LST LST-607
LST LST-609
LST LST-610
LST LST-630
LST LST-631
LST LST-632
LST LST-633
LST LST-634
LST LST-635
LST LST-636
LST LST-637
LST LST-640
LST LST-642
LST LST-644
LST LST-661
LST LST-662



We have quite a lot examples (from AAR games) in such night naval interceptions where weaker escort can wreck intercepting TFs. IMO, it is not realistic.

#1. owerhelming TF is very often beated by weaker escort
#2. night intercepters should have advantage because they have choice. Concentrate on escort or look for the weak spot in the convoy and deliver a hard punch. So many transports and so few escort means that escort can not be in the right place (and well concentrated in one TF).

is this being looked?

[Andy Mac]

Ummm odds were against Japanese in those encounters Pauk Sussex and Ashigara dueleed and Sussex came off best Chokai and Chicago duelled and Chicago came off worst - well they are all 8" cruisers and both encounters had the other tracked on radar at 23,000 yards so the allied screen had time to intercept.
 
You would have done better to combine TF into 1 you walked into two escorts most of which are equipped with Radar and have night xp (especially the first TF) thats as good or better than Japanese
 
Both escorts were stronger than your raiders and neither side had suprise as allied radar tracked you all the way in.
 
I just watched thew replay and if I believe the message the allies were traking the Japanese all the way in
 
Andy
 
 

[HMSWarspite]

Agreed. Or in RL speak, in neither case was the attacking force enough to get through the escorts. There are numerous examples of convoy actions like this in RL. In both cases seceral DEs weren't engaged and sheparded the convoy away (except for the one LST that got caught) whilst almost equal forces slugged it out.

[pauk]

I'm still not satisfied:

1. numerous examples from various AARs
2. Andy, you are serious when you counted DEs as escort?? (even with that i had 1st TF better than your escort)
3. Warspite, how many transports are in attacked formatomation - i belive close to 100 - so if we have stacking limits for atolls (ground units, which i welcomed) i'm wondering myself how many square miles would "occupy" such huge convoys? And, few allied ships can cover them all?


Never mind, it is not about Jap or Allied advantage/disadvantage. In this particular example, Japs get screwed. Could be opposite.

So, knowing that AE designers are nice historical-want bunch of guys[;)] , i'm interested if this is being looked or not?

[Andy Mac]

Pauk I dont agree this particular example is out of the ordinary but I am not involved on the navy side so you would have to ask them

But ignoring the transports for a second.

Combat 1

Sussex has 8 8" Guns the best surface radar in the game and as an RN Heavy Cruiser she has 8 TT's and is very high night exp she is a handfull for any IJN Cruiser.
Sumatra is weak but has decent XP and 10 x 5.9" Guns
Hobart is a rebuilt Leander class with radar, good 6" guns and 8 TT's

Outside of a Baltimore or Clevelend the rebuild Londons are about as good as it gets for the Allies in Cruisers.

Add to that 5 DE's with nothing special in the gun dept but each one has 3 TT's and top notch radar.

Arguably the Japanese had a stonger TF in fight one but it was not a material superiority Sussex is a match for any Jap CA and Leanders after the upgrades are not bad and can easily go toe to toe with a Jap CA after the upgrades and it was Torpedos that did the damage to the Jap TF and thats the one thing that RN Cruisers and DE's have a lot of.

In this case the Japanese probably had an edge but not much of one that its out of the ordinary.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Woleai at 57,72

Japanese Ships
CA Ashigara, Shell hits 14, on fire, heavy damage
CA Mikuma, Shell hits 48, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
CA Kinugasa, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Urakaze, Shell hits 35, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Hatsuyuki, Shell hits 4, on fire

Allied Ships
CA Sussex, Shell hits 14
CL Sumatra, Shell hits 7, on fire
CL Hobart, Shell hits 19, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DE Shelton, Shell hits 3, on fire
DE Straus
DE Halloran
DE Manlove
DE Steele

Second Combat

A jap CA, CL and 3 DD's

Took on
Chicago an upgraded Northampton class CA with mediocre night XP but good radar.
3 x Fletcher class DD's
9 x DE's each with good Torps and radar./

You were badly outgunned in this fight those three Fletchers are as nasty as they come I would say the IJN were the underdog on that fight and won it.

The Jap DD's took a pounding but against three Fletchers I am not suprised.

Thats as good an IJN victory as you will get without suprise

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Woleai at 57,72


Allied aircraft
no flights


Allied aircraft losses
SOC-3 Seagull: 2 destroyed

Japanese Ships
CA Chokai, Shell hits 2
CL Kitakami, Shell hits 5, on fire
DD Mutsuki, Shell hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
DD Oite, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Hasu, Shell hits 16, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CA Chicago, Shell hits 44, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
DD Marshall, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage
DD McCord, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
DD McGowan, Shell hits 19, on fire, heavy damage
DE Willmarth
DE John C. Butler
DE Abercrombie
DE Howard F. Clark
DE William Seiverling
DE Silverstein, Shell hits 1
DE Stafford
DE Richard W. Suesens
DE Stadtfeld

The biggest piece of bad luck you had was that you attacked the two most heavily guarded TF's in the base I have others with just DE's or SC's guarding them your TF's attacked the ones with a rebuilt London class CA and a Northampton as lead escort.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: pauk


I'm still not satisfied:

1. numerous examples from various AARs
2. Andy, you are serious when you counted DEs as escort?? (even with that i had 1st TF better than your escort)
3. Warspite, how many transports are in attacked formatomation - i belive close to 100 - so if we have stacking limits for atolls (ground units, which i welcomed) i'm wondering myself how many square miles would "occupy" such huge convoys? And, few allied ships can cover them all?


Never mind, it is not about Jap or Allied advantage/disadvantage. In this particular example, Japs get screwed. Could be opposite.

So, knowing that AE designers are nice historical-want bunch of guys[;)] , i'm interested if this is being looked or not?

47 in the first and 42 in the second. From a quick search the largest convoy ever mounted was HX300 at 167 ships. 50 was entirely normal for ocean convoys. Actually convoys occupy a lot less sea than you think (that is the point). Given the hexes in WitP are 50 miles across (i.e. approx 1963sq miles), a convoy of 50 ships in a 10 columns of 5 formation at the ludicrously large spacing of 1 mile between ships occupies a 9x4 rectangle (36sq miles, or 1.8% of a hex). Now the escorts expand that some (maybe as much to 12x7 - although again too big - 84 sq miles or 4.2%). Given the escorts had radar (as said from someone else) and had ample time to screen, and it was dark, so visibility was what? a mile? it is very easy to believe the result you got. Even the Jervis Bay battle (where the escorts were completely outclassed) only lost 4 or 5 merchants against an 11" pocket battleship in daylight.

Oh, and for the purposes of laying smoke etc what have you got against DE (Destroyer Escorts)? They do not have the torpedo armament of a DD but they have almost the same guns (depending on class etc). Against CA, there isn't a huge difference between 4.7/5" and 4"! 3CA and 2DD vs CA, 2 CL and 4DE is not a grossly uneven battle - especially at night. You had nowhere near the forces to cause the massacre I think you want... In fact I would have bought a result where the attackers never saw the main convoy at all! (Just the escorts)

[edit: to clarify wording]

[pauk]

oh well, i got the point... Never go into debate about naval combat model (yes, i recall when Tom Hunter tried to explain serious flaws there)..

Since everything works fine and well, i have no other choice than not to buy Admiral Edition.

Ok, i really wont polute AE threads anymore.

[HMSWarspite]

Don't be like that. I am not convinced that convoy actions present a realistic range of outcomes. However the examples you chose to raise are not two of them. Either present views (or better facts) that support your case, or find another example that does.

[PzB74]

Improvement is indeed needed in this rea.

Put 5 destroyers together with 20 transports and an attacking force of 10 cruisers and destroyers
will spend 95% of their resources on utterly destroying the escorts while the transports get away.

In Leyte Gulf and in the Battle for the Barents Sea inferior escorts indeed succeeded in their task,
but it should be possible to do better than this. Unfortunately WitP is very one sided here and even small
patrol crafts and MSWs will distract attention from capital ships in convoy battles.

If a TF succeeds in pushing through the escort screen a lot of transports should be taken under fire and
sunk or damaged.

Suggest a check for this in AE based on opposing forces speed and ability to achieve surprise.

[Andy Mac]

I am not disagreeing that their can be issues with surface v convoy we have all seen them
 
Merely that this wasnt one of them as the escorts were as strong if not stonger than the attacking force.
 
Had that situation arose against a convoy escorted by a MSW and you had 10 DD's and 3 CA's and had onyl sunk 3 ships out of a 100 ship convoy (which has happened) then I would agree but the specific two incidents we are discussing were not IMO unreasonable

[sven6345789]

Wonder how people would react if they got a similar result like the historic action off Samar. The Japanese with BBs and CAs and the Allies with CVEs and DDs. And the Allies won???? No, the game system must be completely wrong.... can't be, won't buy this. It is unrealistic etc.
still, that is what happened in real life.
What do you expect of a convoy battle. You can generally only take one Merchant ship under Fire, and you can only start attacking the merchants onece you slug it out with the escorts. If there are no escorts it can really hurt, but with escorts, these will perform exactly like the DDs of Samar did. They will sacrifice themselves for the ships they escort (be it a CVE or an AP).

[HMSWarspite]

Exactly. Probably what is needed is a successful screen check for the escort to get in the way. A determined escort can achieve a lot if determined not to withdraw, and the attacker is not usually in a suicidal rush to steam in and get torpedoed...

However it would be nice if the escort got it wrong sometimes...

[Panther Bait]

Not to mention that a convoy of 40+ merchants is going to scatter in every direction possible if the attackers make it through the escort.  Then you have 5 surface ships trying to track down ships on multiple bearings, and unless the escort was annihilated (as opposed to just bypassed) so that they can separate, the raiders can probably only manuever to keep a small portion of the transports (say a quarter or less) in range.

[HMSWarspite]

You can do some simple maths approximations quite quickly based on visibilty and relative speeds, and an assumed time to sink each. In daylight the attackers zip around like flies (assuming they pay no attention to air attack risk etc) but at night it is far more difficult...

[pauk]

.....

[JamesM]

Can anything be done to modify auto ship selection!

In my current game I have allot of DD's currently being refitted so there is mixture of ships with damage from 0 to 19 and when I form a task group using the auto selection (I use it because it cuts down on some of the micromanaging), it seems to select ships with damage in the teens even though there are plenty of ships with 0,1,2 or 3 damage. This is also the case for auto convoys with transports.

Could something be written into the auto ship selection routine to limit the max damage (say 5 or 6) that a ship can have before it can be auto selected into any task group?