Matrix Games Forums

Ok, so I asked if there were any convoys in WWII that were wiped out by surface combat. This entire forum came up with 3 convoys in the Med. (And one of these were composed of barges?).

In another thread, I hinted that if someone had the historic results of the battle of Samar, there'd be screaming of surface combats aren't modeled correctly. (20+ surface ships vs 6 CVE and 6 escorts, with only 3 escorts and 1 CVE sunk, and 3 attacking CA sunk)

I sincerely hope that Matrix does NOT change the code to increase damage done to transports in surface engagements. I feel they currently tend to take too much punishment when compared to historic battles.

Why would a surface force pound one lowly PG to dust?? Because it might be identified as a DD and the admiral is worried about his BB taking a torpedo or two. (S&G vs Glorius in the North Sea give you an example of why you need to concentrate on the DD escort?)

Why would AK's escape? Rain squalls, smoke laid by escorts, low feul in the attackers bunkers, possibility of enemy air strikes, cowardly/incompetent comanders, possibility of SS attacks on the attackers, one lucky hit in the map room of the flagship spooks the admiral in charge (Savo Island), etc, etc.

97 out of 100 surface fleets vs transports should have around 20% of the transports sunk, with the rest escaping. Only in the Midway type lucky battles will you sink or damage them all. (hence the 2 examples in the med) If you control the air and the sea, you can pick them off the next day. If not, then congratulate yourself on delaying an invasion and killing some ships/troops and call it a day.

more of my 2 cents.

BC - Official Mogami Fanboy Club

well, only because some posters did not answer the "surface-tf wipe out a convoi" question answered it is not true that were only 3 incidents in the mediteran

Scharnhorst & Gneisenau killed some small convoys
Admiral Scheer did the same
Admiral Hipper did, afer defeating the glorious but helpless defence of the Jervis Bay (Aux Cruiser)


The more important question is, what had happen IF a convoy had to challenge a warship taskforce....cause normaly no sane comander will send undefended convoys out in the ocean.... cause they know it is dead mead for an attacker....

so landings without a strong cover up should be forbidden, at last some respectable defence force should be there (or you have so much airforce and had some heavy fightings that you (fow) belive there is no more enemy ships...)

we speak about a battleship tf against undefended helpless transports, at day. In calm waters, with good sight (if i am wrong, please correct me)... with a tf that was out in the ocean to stop this landings, that know about the landing and should have the ability to defeat them....

if the convoy would escape scattered into 5 directions, after got hit badly, i would agree... but one undefended AP that will be sacrificed by the rest and the convoy come back later and do the landing go on is not really good.

If one of the things you mentioned (DD lay smoke screen, rain squall, etc.. ) would happen, this could explain it. But some people said, it is cause of the night combat-engine... here i agree, at night the escape chance is much better and not all ships should be killed. but i still stand to the "10 warships against 20 ak´s at daylight without any other problems is 20 lost ak´s....even with me at the comander..." and this would be right, cause a player who send out troops in a convoy without cover should be punished, not improved....

Those German ships did not kill entire convoys. Yes, they charged in and sank a few. They also tracked down and sank a few the next day. If you read about the Jervis Bay, you'll know she was considered to save the majority of the convoy she was protecting. The AK's do not line up and wait to be shot. They scatter and most will escape. Whoever controls the air and the sea will decide what happens the next day. (more AK's sunk or the AK's survive).

10 surface ships vs 20 ak's should almost never result in 20 sunk ak's. Anyone who has ever been out to sea knows you never have a mirror surface ocean and limitless visibility. Especially in the tropical area's of the world. Why does Maui have the wettest and dryest spot in the US? Because it rains EVERY day on one side of Maui. Rain squalls do a lot to hide ships.

If we were playing PBEM and I sent in AK's and you sank 3 or 4 out of 20, I'd have been handed a very serious tactical defeat. If I choose to send the survivors back in the next day, I should be court martialed. WITP does have a habit of sending AK's back into harms way, which might be a flaw in the AI, but not in the way surface battles are done. Mogami has posted results of 50% sunk. I've personally seen results of 50% or better sunk. I certainly don't think we should be seeing results of 100% sunk. Except the one in a million chance.

BC - Official Mogami Fanboy Club

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Those German ships did not kill entire convoys. Yes, they charged in and sank a few. They also tracked down and sank a few the next day. If you read about the Jervis Bay, you'll know she was considered to save the majority of the convoy she was protecting. The AK's do not line up and wait to be shot. They scatter and most will escape. Whoever controls the air and the sea will decide what happens the next day. (more AK's sunk or the AK's survive).

10 surface ships vs 20 ak's should almost never result in 20 sunk ak's. Anyone who has ever been out to sea knows you never have a mirror surface ocean and limitless visibility. Especially in the tropical area's of the world. Why does Maui have the wettest and dryest spot in the US? Because it rains EVERY day on one side of Maui. Rain squalls do a lot to hide ships.

If we were playing PBEM and I sent in AK's and you sank 3 or 4 out of 20, I'd have been handed a very serious tactical defeat. If I choose to send the survivors back in the next day, I should be court martialed. WITP does have a habit of sending AK's back into harms way, which might be a flaw in the AI, but not in the way surface battles are done. Mogami has posted results of 50% sunk. I've personally seen results of 50% or better sunk. I certainly don't think we should be seeing results of 100% sunk. Except the one in a million chance.

BC - Official Mogami Fanboy Club

Nobody is actually asking for the friggin' moon here, fanboy. What the concern is about is quite clear, and if you bothered to read this thread "thoroughly", you would know we are not crying for more bloody jello. At the moment, there is no vital need to escort your APs against surface forces as the law of averages pretty much assures you of 10% losses. This blows.

There are also an entire other set of factors which have been pointed out here once again as adversely affecting surface combat results and probability. I don't think any of us here are veterans of these naval actions, but we are history buffs, enthusiasts, history teachers, what have you, and we see a problem.

ORIGINAL: velkro
A Brit TF consisting of the Revenge, 1 CA, 4 CLs, and 2 DDs intercept 26 Japanese TKs, AKs, and APs with not a single warfighting ship amongst the Japanese TF. Out of the 26, 13 of them are already smoking after numerous air raids. This TF is moving at about 6 knots due to damaged ships. So, I turn on the combat display so I can see my fun.

You would think it would be a shooting gallery, right?

WRONG!

For some odd reason, every one of my ships decides to pummel a damaged TK and a damaged AP. Each of those two Japanese ships received like 55 hits. Not one other ship was even shot at!!! What the heck!!!???!!! Is my peoples stupid or is this a software glitch!?!? If you think about it, the Brits should have taken out like at least half of those tubs...it was daytime and the Japanese TF was SLOW. The Brits had full load of ammo and fuel and was set to "Patrol".

REMEMBER THIS??? It's the original post that started this thread. EIGHT (not one or two)
Surface Combat Vessels (slowest speed 21 kts, fastest in the 30's) intercept 26 TOTALLY
UNESCORTED Merchant Ships (HALF of which are already damaged and NONE of which
can exceed 12 kts) in broad daylight and good visability! And the Game produces the
TOTALLY IDIOTIC and INDEFENSABLE result of two already-half sunk Merchants "finished
off" while the rest escape! Anyone with a three digit IQ has got to realize that this is a
bunch of BS!

Had the already damaged half of the convoy been pounded while the still in good shape
half scattered and ran, no one would have been complaining. Had there been a reason-
able escort to "sacrifice itself" (3-4 DD's or something, not a PC and 3 MSW) the result
would have been dissappointing but perhaps acceptable. Had the Brits been "low ammo/low fuel" a case could be made. But the result cited in the circumstances involved
is patently absurd, and the Designers need to pay some attention.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: velkro
A Brit TF consisting of the Revenge, 1 CA, 4 CLs, and 2 DDs intercept 26 Japanese TKs, AKs, and APs with not a single warfighting ship amongst the Japanese TF. Out of the 26, 13 of them are already smoking after numerous air raids. This TF is moving at about 6 knots due to damaged ships. So, I turn on the combat display so I can see my fun.

You would think it would be a shooting gallery, right?

WRONG!

For some odd reason, every one of my ships decides to pummel a damaged TK and a damaged AP. Each of those two Japanese ships received like 55 hits. Not one other ship was even shot at!!! What the heck!!!???!!! Is my peoples stupid or is this a software glitch!?!? If you think about it, the Brits should have taken out like at least half of those tubs...it was daytime and the Japanese TF was SLOW. The Brits had full load of ammo and fuel and was set to "Patrol".

REMEMBER THIS??? It's the original post that started this thread. EIGHT (not one or two)
Surface Combat Vessels (slowest speed 21 kts, fastest in the 30's) intercept 26 TOTALLY
UNESCORTED Merchant Ships (HALF of which are already damaged and NONE of which
can exceed 12 kts) in broad daylight and good visability! And the Game produces the
TOTALLY IDIOTIC and INDEFENSABLE result of two already-half sunk Merchants "finished
off" while the rest escape! Anyone with a three digit IQ has got to realize that this is a
bunch of BS!

You probably meant two-digit IQ there, unless you're thinking in decimal points this morning. [:D]

Had the already damaged half of the convoy been pounded while the still in good shape
half scattered and ran, no one would have been complaining. Had there been a reason-
able escort to "sacrifice itself" (3-4 DD's or something, not a PC and 3 MSW) the result
would have been dissappointing but perhaps acceptable. Had the Brits been "low ammo/low fuel" a case could be made. But the result cited in the circumstances involved
is patently absurd, and the Designers need to pay some attention.

The concept of "screens" I think needs to be investigated further. I've only seen this one time that I can recall, where the silly AI sent an air-combat TF to Lunga. On the surface-engagement battle screen a gaggle of DDs and CLs and CAs were positioned in front of the three CVs, and when I'd finished off the "screen" the action broke off, simulating, I suppose, the escape of those CVs (thanks to the screening action, of course).

No such "screen" is depicted when, say, DDs escort a merchant convoy, where all the ships (space permitting) are just bunched together. I think it ought to be like in the case above, unless the escorted merchant convoy is surprised.

What do you think?

No John...., I figured someone with only a two digit IQ might NOT realize this was BS.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

REMEMBER THIS??? It's the original post that started this thread. EIGHT (not one or two)
Surface Combat Vessels (slowest speed 21 kts, fastest in the 30's) intercept 26 TOTALLY
UNESCORTED Merchant Ships

Once again, it's not 26 ships!!

Only the ships that are "named" during the combat animation are seen! Others remain unseen, undetected. Your little virtual AI admiral thought he was engaging 3 or 4 ships. He, for example, sunk 2 outright, and left other two in what he believed was "sinking state". He never knew there were another 22 AKs in that TF or hex.

Now you may complain about *detection* routines, but *combat* routines themselves seem generally OK to me. A small tweak here and there would be welcome perhaps, but it's not a show stopper.

O.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

No John...., I figured someone with only a two digit IQ might NOT realize this was BS.

Okay, then. But really, how smart does one need to be on some of this stuff? [:)]

The concept of "screens" I think needs to be investigated further. I've only seen this one time that I can recall, where the silly AI sent an air-combat TF to Lunga. On the surface-engagement battle screen a gaggle of DDs and CLs and CAs were positioned in front of the three CVs, and when I'd finished off the "screen" the action broke off, simulating, I suppose, the escape of those CVs (thanks to the screening action, of course).

No such "screen" is depicted when, say, DDs escort a merchant convoy, where all the ships (space permitting) are just bunched together. I think it ought to be like in the case above, unless the escorted merchant convoy is surprised.

What do you think?
[/quote]

This was no screen. It was simply overlap on the animation screen I bet. There is no actual ship stationing or role delineation from what I have seen. Just a big group of ships blasting away Nelson style.

I just want to add that it's the results which will satisfy me, and most likely many others. Combat animations are simply eye candy but have a very negative effect on the gamers view of what is actually being simulated. As it unfolds on the screen, nothing makes alot of sense, but this is not really the intention. The end result is. Get the final results in the strike zone and the issue would be a non one.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

REMEMBER THIS??? It's the original post that started this thread. EIGHT (not one or two)
Surface Combat Vessels (slowest speed 21 kts, fastest in the 30's) intercept 26 TOTALLY
UNESCORTED Merchant Ships

Once again, it's not 26 ships!!

Only the ships that are "named" during the combat animation are seen! Others remain unseen, undetected. Your little virtual AI admiral thought he was engaging 3 or 4 ships. He, for example, sunk 2 outright, and left other two in what he believed was "sinking state". He never knew there were another 22 AKs in that TF or hex.

Now you may complain about *detection* routines, but *combat* routines themselves seem generally OK to me. A small tweak here and there would be welcome perhaps, but it's not a show stopper.

O.

Oleg, I agree completely, it's not a show stopper. It is, however, something that irks some of us and is furthermore something that could in all probability be changed (corrected from my point of view).

As for what's spotted, a better implementation for spotting would be to only have on screen those ships spotted, with names appearing almost never. I mean it's like those Bettys with super binoculars who constantly read "PT-175" from how many thousand feet up? [:D]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

The concept of "screens" I think needs to be investigated further. I've only seen this one time that I can recall, where the silly AI sent an air-combat TF to Lunga. On the surface-engagement battle screen a gaggle of DDs and CLs and CAs were positioned in front of the three CVs, and when I'd finished off the "screen" the action broke off, simulating, I suppose, the escape of those CVs (thanks to the screening action, of course).

No such "screen" is depicted when, say, DDs escort a merchant convoy, where all the ships (space permitting) are just bunched together. I think it ought to be like in the case above, unless the escorted merchant convoy is surprised.

What do you think?

This was no screen. It was simply overlap on the animation screen I bet. There is no actual ship stationing or role delineation from what I have seen. Just a big group of ships blasting away Nelson style.

I just want to add that it's the results which will satisfy me, and most likely many others. Combat animations are simply eye candy but have a very negative effect on the gamers view of what is actually being simulated. As it unfolds on the screen, nothing makes alot of sense, but this is not really the intention. The end result is. Get the final results in the strike zone and the issue would be a non one.

Well, I wondered about that at the time and it's the only time I've seen it, but no, there was no overlap, as you put it, as that would occur with the row closest to the screen edge completely filled up, whereas in this case the only ships positioned there were the CVs, with just a few escorting ships in the row next nearest the enemy (Allies).

I wish someone in the know (actually you'd fit that bill, but apparently you haven't heard of this or seen it yourself) would come forward and say whether or not a "screen" of this sort is implemented when a TF with CVs in it engages.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


Once again, it's not 26 ships!!

Only the ships that are "named" during the combat animation are seen! Others remain unseen, undetected. Your little virtual AI admiral thought he was engaging 3 or 4 ships. He, for example, sunk 2 outright, and left other two in what he believed was "sinking state". He never knew there were another 22 AKs in that TF or hex.

O.

Straw Dog, Oleg. Read velcro's posts again. The Japanese were a 26-ship TF. Nothing
about only seeing four ships (and had it been only four, there is NO EXCUSE for all of
them not to be sunk.). MS Convoys travel together with a few hundred yards between
ships. They aren't spread out all over 3,000 square miles of ocean hiding behind trees.
The attacker is closing the distance at twice the speed the defender can run, so his
ability to spot is getting better all the time. And the MS were being shadowed by friendly
A/C in the example, so the Brit CO knew EXACTLY what he was looking for. It's a flaw
in the system. It's a big game, so there are bound to be some. Why defend an obvious
problem with a bunch of totally silly rationalizations?

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

-whether or not a "screen" of this sort is implemented when a TF with CVs in it engages.

Hmmm, never came across this.[&:] If it exists, it could be used vs PTs when they engage a surface combat TF with heavies or any other TF which would employ one.

Wow, a contentious thread without one single ZOOMIE post!

OK, here's my take.

1) Regardless of what Mogami has seen in his AAR's, it seems his results are almost always different than what almost every casual player is getting. I don't know why, but it certainly seems that way. It is CLEAR that we have a large number of players who seeing the same general result from major surface engagements, i.e. one or two ships sucking up almost ALL the fire, even in daylight engagements. I have played about a dozen and half games now, in fits and starts (completed none) and have maybe had 10 or 12 what I would call major engagements (something other than Uber-PT boats attacking things...an already bloodied dead-horse issue). In EVERY SINGLE ONE of them I have seen this effect. I passed it off as intentional design to simulate what must be the norm for the WWII era....

2) If this is NOT indeed the intent, then the game suffers from a classical "work distribution" bug on a queue or list, very similar to the telemarketing issue of ensuring Agents 1 and 2 in a call center don't get killed while Agents 3, 4, 5, and so on spend their day playing uninterrupted WitP turns on their workstations....

3) And more generally, most poster must understand what we have here with WitP is the actual BETA phase of the game. What the "Beta Testers" were doing was actual pre-release ALPHA testing. That equates to the Vertical Market software market as the predelivery System Tests. When that is done we release software to the Customer and then the Customer enters what we call the Customer Acceptance testing period, otherwise known a the BETA test period. That is what we are in right now, for all practical purposes. Microsoft and other mass-market companies do the same thing. They internally test OS's and office suites then "release" them to a large group of volunteer customers that have no idea what to really expect or to look for, just a feature list and explanation of how they are supposed to work. Only after that group has had it for while and there have been a series of fixes is the product actually released to the general public. Bottom line until anywhere from 2 to 4 MAJOR patches have been release can anyone consider WitP to be a "finished" product.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

-whether or not a "screen" of this sort is implemented when a TF with CVs in it engages.

Hmmm, never came across this.[&:] If it exists, it could be used vs PTs when they engage a surface combat TF with heavies or any other TF which would employ one.

Not sure I got that, Ron. Could you explain further?

Everyone has their right to an opinion. Mine is that I think the surface combat resolution is pretty ok. If anything it should be toned down a little. I tend to look at things as they could have occured, historically. I'm not looking for a doom game. I'd prefer to see Lexington II, not re-spawned US CV's. I'd like to see US PT's miss a little more than they do now.

I haven't seen results in my games that seem rediculous when looking at surface battles (non-PT). If I had the results of the combat that started this thread, I'd write it off as: The transports took an awful beating by air. So, they were completely scattered throughout 60 square miles because of the air attacks. I was pretty damn lucky to kill 2 to 4 of them with my surface force.

I don't think you should ever see a result of 20 AK's sunk in one battle. They don't line up like ducks at a shooting range. Maybe the attacking surface force was spotted by air 20 miles before they engaged the AK's. So, the AK's spread out sooner than the attacker would have liked.

I should also say that I play conservatively, so in my WITP game, I have only seen 5 or so surface battles vs AK's. None of them seemed wrong to me. I have had hundreds of examples from UV, so most of what I say now relates to that game. I am not aware of a difference between the games, but if there is, then there could be a problem. I assume they have the same code, though.

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Everyone has their right to an opinion. Mine is that I think the surface combat resolution is pretty ok. If anything it should be toned down a little. I tend to look at things as they could have occured, historically. I'm not looking for a doom game. I'd prefer to see Lexington II, not re-spawned US CV's. I'd like to see US PT's miss a little more than they do now.

I haven't seen results in my games that seem rediculous when looking at surface battles (non-PT). If I had the results of the combat that started this thread, I'd write it off as: The transports took an awful beating by air. So, they were completely scattered throughout 60 square miles because of the air attacks. I was pretty damn lucky to kill 2 to 4 of them with my surface force.

I don't think you should ever see a result of 20 AK's sunk in one battle. They don't line up like ducks at a shooting range. Maybe the attacking surface force was spotted by air 20 miles before they engaged the AK's. So, the AK's spread out sooner than the attacker would have liked.

I should also say that I play conservatively, so in my WITP game, I have only seen 5 or so surface battles vs AK's. None of them seemed wrong to me. I have had hundreds of examples from UV, so most of what I say now relates to that game. I am not aware of a difference between the games, but if there is, then there could be a problem. I assume they have the same code, though.

I've no problem with you sticking to your guns, Bradley. Didn't know I'd challenged you in that area.

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Everyone has their right to an opinion. Mine is that I think the surface combat resolution is pretty ok. If anything it should be toned down a little. I tend to look at things as they could have occured, historically. I'm not looking for a doom game. I'd prefer to see Lexington II, not re-spawned US CV's. I'd like to see US PT's miss a little more than they do now.

I haven't seen results in my games that seem rediculous when looking at surface battles (non-PT). If I had the results of the combat that started this thread, I'd write it off as: The transports took an awful beating by air. So, they were completely scattered throughout 60 square miles because of the air attacks. I was pretty damn lucky to kill 2 to 4 of them with my surface force.

I don't think you should ever see a result of 20 AK's sunk in one battle. They don't line up like ducks at a shooting range. Maybe the attacking surface force was spotted by air 20 miles before they engaged the AK's. So, the AK's spread out sooner than the attacker would have liked.

I should also say that I play conservatively, so in my WITP game, I have only seen 5 or so surface battles vs AK's. None of them seemed wrong to me. I have had hundreds of examples from UV, so most of what I say now relates to that game. I am not aware of a difference between the games, but if there is, then there could be a problem. I assume they have the same code, though.

I think what have here is a matter of degree. I had one significant surface combat last week that was typical of what I see and most others have seen. 2CA, 2CL and 6DD's engage a force of 12AP and 6 AK's. 1AP gets something like 55 shell hits and 10 Torpedo hits, 1AK gets like 12 shell hits and 2 torp hits and the others get a smattering of one or two shell hits, many get none. This was a daylight engagement.

Now is that normal? I think that needs to be toned down at least a little bit? For those think that's normal and well modelled I'd like to see verifiable historical references of such engagements, if there are any.

I don't think anyone expects an equal distribution of hits across all 18 ships; that would be as unrealistic as one ship taking 97% of all hits. The answer is probably a fine tuning of the target selection forumla, at least in daylight....

Anchored amphibious TFs in the process of unloading ARE sitting ducks,and should be modelled as such. Can you imagine what would have happened to the Guadalcanal invasion fleet off Lunga if Mikawa had continued on after spanking the heavies? Can you further imagine what would have happenned if the Lunga invasion was performed as many do in WITP, and the player did not provide a covering force of cruisers and lesser warships as close escort? It would be like alot like someone let a pack off dingos into a maternity ward.

I'm with you on the reality vein, buddy. That's why this thread exists.