RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-)
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:45 pm
The more surface combat I see with the Japanese attacking the more concerned I am that surface combat is borked.
These battles don't bother me in one respect, the Japanese TF heavily outnumbered the Oklahoma TF and under those circumstances the Oklahoma should get murdered.
But the way the Japanese plow through enemy surface TFs is much more effective than what the Allies do. And my experience is with British Tfs, with night fighting experience in the 70s and 80s, and admirals with 60+ naval skill and 60+ agression.
In my game with Mogami as Japanese attack similar to this one just went off and got similar results. The Japanese seem to attack everything in the hex, the Allies seem to hit about half.
There are also very serious problems with hits and damage. The combination of high manuever and high rate of fire in CLs makes them too dangerous in comparison with a BB. High rate of fire is what generates hits in this game, and high manuever causes misses. The result is that BBs (low ROF, low manuever) get hit and don't do much damage, but CLs (high ROF, High Manuever) score lots of damage and don't get hit. This shows a failure to understand naval combat, because in WWII ships that are trying to score hits need to steam in straight lines, which means by definition they are not using manuever.
I'm not very sympathetic to Nomad in this situation becuase I think he came to the party with inadiquate force and then lost. But I am absolutely certain that surface combat has problems for the reasons I listed above, and I suspect that there are bonuses to the Japanese that we are not aware of and that the Allies need to play around in order to be successful.
I do think your playing rings around Nomad, just as you did with Wobbly. With Dave its is harder to tell because the two of you were in a build up stage so there were no huge battles.
These battles don't bother me in one respect, the Japanese TF heavily outnumbered the Oklahoma TF and under those circumstances the Oklahoma should get murdered.
But the way the Japanese plow through enemy surface TFs is much more effective than what the Allies do. And my experience is with British Tfs, with night fighting experience in the 70s and 80s, and admirals with 60+ naval skill and 60+ agression.
In my game with Mogami as Japanese attack similar to this one just went off and got similar results. The Japanese seem to attack everything in the hex, the Allies seem to hit about half.
There are also very serious problems with hits and damage. The combination of high manuever and high rate of fire in CLs makes them too dangerous in comparison with a BB. High rate of fire is what generates hits in this game, and high manuever causes misses. The result is that BBs (low ROF, low manuever) get hit and don't do much damage, but CLs (high ROF, High Manuever) score lots of damage and don't get hit. This shows a failure to understand naval combat, because in WWII ships that are trying to score hits need to steam in straight lines, which means by definition they are not using manuever.
I'm not very sympathetic to Nomad in this situation becuase I think he came to the party with inadiquate force and then lost. But I am absolutely certain that surface combat has problems for the reasons I listed above, and I suspect that there are bonuses to the Japanese that we are not aware of and that the Allies need to play around in order to be successful.
I do think your playing rings around Nomad, just as you did with Wobbly. With Dave its is harder to tell because the two of you were in a build up stage so there were no huge battles.


