Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat

[Tom Hunter]

Mogami is correct in his description of the number of rounds per ammo factor on Warspite, and the same goes for most BBs. But (just for example) the British had a standard number of rounds per gun for 6" guns that was the same for all their CLs. However in game the ammo factors on:

Town Class = 50 rounds
Leander Class = 33 rounds
Fleet (Dauntless) Class = 17 rounds

Personally I don't buy Mogami's argument that the results need to be looked at operationally either. If the individual battles don't work the operational result will be wrong too. You can't really expect a game where BBs consistently fail to control the sea to result in operational control off the sea. Any game that hope to be operationally correct by being tacticaly incorrect is bound to have problems.

But I am not really here to pick apart the game. I am here to tell you all to run your BBs in single ship TFs [:D]

[Tom Hunter]

This is a snip from my most recent post in the Lunacy AAR:

"Figuring out the naval combat exploit took a lot of work, but the combat Replay of Warspite plowing through the Japanese convoy was kind of amazing, even though she did a fraction of the damage she should have. 15" high explosive rounds at 4,000 yards in daylight should have simply obliterated Japanese merchant ships.

And as for the operational side off the simulation, in Fear and Loathing there were about 100 Japanese ships in a 60 mile hex with land on three sides and 15 Royal Navy Warships steaming in at fulls speed. Operationally the Japanese lost 6 ships. It is true that some of them may sink later, but later is after they unload the infantry divisions they are carrying onto Java. Operationally that is a huge failure, caused by the tactical failings of many parts of the games operating system."


I think this is a very important point. In the real war ships sink in minutes or hours, not days and if a mixed force of 2 Battleships, 6 cruisers and 7 destroyers had plowed into the Japanese invasion of Java that would have been the end of the invasion, right there, that day forever. Look at the damage the Houston did while engaging a vastly superior force of Japanese, now imagine Warspite, Revenge and freinds Vs. only a few patrol craft.


Of course no Japanese admiral would ever have come close to letting this happen. But WE can let this happen, because the ships don't actually sink for a variety of reasons. So we launch invasions that would never have been launched historically. We launch them because they will work no matter what. The naval combat system simply won't allow 100 merchant ships to be sunk in a day no matter how many surface warships you send. So the risk of operational failure goes way down, and people launch crazy operations because crazy suceeds in this game. Real admirals would have launched them too if they would succeed.

But everyone knows that if the forces that just clasaed off of Soerbaja had really met it would have been a massacre of Japanese shipping. Even though the Japanese got badly hurt the fact is that the 60,000 odd troops that are still on those ships will all unload tomorrow night. In fact one 20+ship convoy is still unloading supplies at Soerbaja right now, right over the beaches! The game did not allow the British to find it.

The Japanese were defeated off Soerbaja in Fear and Loathing when the launched an invasion they should have escorted more heavily. But the reality is they took a gamble that in this game was a really good bet, and if we had kept Warspite and Revenge in the same TF the Japs would have suffered a fraction of the casualties they did.

But in reality they should have lost tens of merchant ships, not 6. The risk of such a high loss rate would have put the brakes on doing really dumb things and forced them to play in a smarter more historical way.

So I don't buy Mogami's argument. If you look at the operational picture it is deeply flawed due to problems with the underlying tactical combat system. It is just more difficult to see those problems because the cause and effect relationships are very complex and take a long time to understand.

Now that I do understand them personally I can't accept them. I'm not arguing that the game was not a good effort, or that no one should play. I think I got fair entertainment value for my money. But I am somewhat disapointed, if the thing worked it would be a truly fascinating simulation.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I bet you could go back 2 years or more and find that to figure out what 1 point of ammo represent divide ammo allotment in WITP by ammo in ships loadout per gun.
example HMS Warspite carried 100 rounds per gun and a full load in WITP is 9 rounds or 11 rounds per ammo point. 3 points of ammo are reseved for HE with 6 for AP. So if your Warspite fires and you check following turn and she has 5 points left she fired 4 points 4x11=44 rounds.

I take it you mean 'per gun', which is then x 8 for the ship in question.

This is an approx since WITP does not track specific ammo (but a BB will never fire more then 3 rounds against land targets on bombardment mission) Also a BB might fire all 9 rounds in surface combat even though it is only consider to have 6 points of AP (and no I don't think it changes to HE.

I was commenting that IRL HE would be used against ships as needed and as appropriate. I understand the game engine just does damage as though an AP penetrated and exploded inside the target.

Regarding the overall results, I find them generally good, but Tom is right on the areas for improvement. In fighting an alternate WWII, going over the 'too bloody A2A' threshold is very easy with reasonable actions. It is not just a matter of trying to do things when you lack air superiority. Putting a very capable - and large - CAP over your own base can result in lopsided (read: unrealistic) slaughter of your forces.

Regarding surface combat, Tom's comments about the effect of the asymmetry probelms (i.e. cruisers vs. battleships) are correct. BB's should kick butt on cruisers more than they seem to be doing. In any game where one side has his BB's out of action, he will gain an operational advantage that he should not enjoy.

Regarding land combat, some of the movement issues I agree are problems (some are just bugs it seems). The other land combat issues I am less qualified to comment on.

For now we have what we have. I do wish it were better.

[treespider]

So if your Warspite fires and you check following turn and she has 5 points left she fired 4 points 4x11=44 rounds. This is an approx since WITP does not track specific ammo (but a BB will never fire more then 3 rounds against land targets on bombardment mission)

Sounds like a pretty thin hair!

In the first sentence you say that each point equals 11 rounds ...yet in the second sentence you say WitP doesn't track specific ammo.


Don't get me wrong i'm in favor of looking at the Zen of the game and not the details and will not play with animations on as they only provide a false impression... I was just pointing out that your above comments seem to be splitting a pretty fine hair.

[tsimmonds]

(but a BB will never fire more then 3 rounds against land targets on bombardment mission)

My experience is that BBs of both sides will normally use 6 rounds per gun on a single bombardment mission.

[mogami]

Hi, Interesting I normally have 7 rounds left after a bomberment mission if there is no surface action the same turn. I'll have to ask dadman to track his ammo in our game (he is the one currently conducting bombardment missions and he has a history of hitting 2 nights in a row. )

[tsimmonds]

Yet another bombardment; Maryland before.....

[tsimmonds]

....and Maryland after.

[tsimmonds]

Pennsylvania before.....

[tsimmonds]

.....Pennsylvania after.

[treespider]

Were these single ship bombardments?
Were escorts bombarding on or off?

[mogami]

Hi, Before

[mogami]

Hi, After

[mogami]

Hi, I wonder why we get different results here. How are you bombarding and not using any fuel? Maybe if you are based in the target hex you fire more ammo?

[treespider]

Were these single ship bombardments?

Were escorts bombarding on or off?

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Were these single ship bombardments?

No.

Were escorts bombarding on or off?

This one was "off", but I have another TF in the same hex doing the same thing with escorts bombard "on", it makes no difference.

[treespider]

I see one difference - The US endurance did not drop. Presumably they are parked in the hex laying waste all day long

Whereas the Endurance on Yamato dropped presumably from a shoot and scoot.

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I wonder why we get different results here. How are you bombarding and not using any fuel? Maybe is you are based in the target hex you fire more ammo?

Indeed; it's interesting. I don't remember ever having a bombardment that only used 2 rounds. I do remember once I had one use only 4.

How far is your TF steaming to do the bombardment? I am normally bombarding a hex adjacent to where I am steaming from; I never zoom in from far away. Perhaps it is a factor of op points available.

[mogami]

Hi, Maybe. Is that a single bombardment? Is it day or night. Mine is a night run in and out mission.
I've never had a TF that had a target 1 hex away. And if the enemy was sending TF from 1 hex away I would do something drastic to stop it.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I wonder why we get different results here. How are you bombarding and not using any fuel? Maybe is you are based in the target hex you fire more ammo?

Indeed; it's interesting. I don't remember ever having a bombardment that only used 2 rounds. I do remember once I had one use only 4.

How far is your TF steaming to do the bombardment? I am normally bombarding a hex adjacent to where I am steaming from; I never zoom in from far away. Perhaps it is a factor of op points available.

See my post just before yours