Surface Combat Sux

[Nomad]

Just to stick my toe in the water here, it seems( I have no real knowledge ) that each SHIP checks the DL when it is time for it to fire. That would explain why all ships seem to fire at one or two blazing ships. I would think it better if at the start of a combat round the entire TF select targets for each firing ship. You might still get most ships firing at a few targets but at least the DL levels should be fairly even at the start.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Just to stick my toe in the water here, it seems( I have no real knowledge ) that each SHIP checks the DL when it is time for it to fire. That would explain why all ships seem to fire at one or two blazing ships. I would think it better if at the start of a combat round the entire TF select targets for each firing ship. You might still get most ships firing at a few targets but at least the DL levels should be fairly even at the start.

Assuming none have taken any previous combat damage I'd guess.

[Bradley7735]

Hi Tristanjohn, Sorry, my response wasn't directed to you. I can only peek at the forum from work, so my responses come in slower than I'd like. It was really a general response to many.

Ron, I agree with you re unloading transports. They should be hit repeatedly if spotted. But remember the battle in early 42 when US flushdeckers found some AP's unloading. I think long after the war it was decided that the Jap defenders did more damage to AP's than the US DD's did. Either way, they didn't sink the entire invasion force. But, in an unloading case, I'd agree that more than 50% of the AP's could get decimated.

bc

[Erik Rutins]

Hi all,

I haven't ready every single post in this thread, but I've scanned through and gotten the gist of things. I understand that, historical examples aside, those results can seem too weak if they are consistent. However, if you are concerned with surface combat, trying to convert other posters or argue with testers or developers won't help move things along.

The best way to present the case is to set up a test save in the tutorial scenario and run it quite a few times (say more than 20) in both night and day and cautious and aggressive commanders to prove the normal result. Then post the save and the results here. With all due respect, that will help move things along much more quickly than revisiting just one or a few cases. My understanding is that this is already being looked into by the testers, but the above is a way to help constructively with that process.

Regards,

- Erik

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

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

I'm not so sure that's why this thread exists, Ron . . . but I'd like to believe it does. [;)]

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: kaiser73
And please guys, let's be realistic. why defending always everything in WITP. i love this game, but this doesn't mean we have to defend the undefendable.

That is the definition of a fanboy. When you are a fanboy of X, X is perfect, and can do no wrong, ever.

Its not just the guys willing to come up with the thinnest explanations possible to support something in WitP - and no matter what you tell them, they will never change their minds. No I've seen it many, many, many, many... (etc.) times before.

Some people are like that, never figured out why.

"I like something. Its good, therefor it is PERFECT!"

I've never figured out how A leads to B.

There are quite a few things in my life that I like, or even love, but under no circumstances are they perfect.

My girlfriend for example. Great lady. Probably most important person or thing in my life. But she ain't perfect, no chance. There are things about her I would change if I could (for instance, her frequent use of the phrase 'kit and kaboodle').

And yet I'm supposed to attach the perfection label to a computer game?

I think not.

Now the nice thing about a game as opposed to a gf, is things can be changed. Alter so code, release a patch, ta da!

I don't think there is a Gloria 1.1 patch coming out any time soon. Fortunately, Gloria 1.0 doesn't have any serious bugs that I consider reason enough to leave her on the shelf for a while.

[;)]


(Okay, neuro has lost it...)

Anyway, I must echo the sentiment. There is clearly a problem with the targeting routines in the UV and WitP surface combat routines. It is silly. It should be fixed.

That doesn't mean that you cannot still love the game. It just means you should stop providing the really thin 'real world' explanations for why the game does the same dumb things over, and over, and over (uncommon events in the real world becoming the norm in the game... strangely almost alwas centered around targetting, air to surface, and surface to surface).

[Tankerace]

Well, In my game the dirty sons of.....the Rising Sun, have decided to invade the Canal months early (4/29/42). Fortunately, I had a US Cruiser/Destroyer TF present. Here are the combat Results.

Day Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 67,97

Japanese Ships
AP Arizana Maru
AP Eiko Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
AP Kisaragi Maru, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Somedono Maru, Shell hits 48, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CA Minneapolis
CL Detroit
CL St. Louis
CL Phoenix
DD Mugford
DD Ralph Talbot
DD Henley
DD Dale
DD Aylwin
DD Allen
DD Litchfield

Japanese ground losses:
556 casualties reported
Guns lost 14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Somedono Maru was pounded into driftwood, by 8, 6 and 5 inch shells. However, as she became increasingly hit, the ships shifted targets, crippling 1 other merchie and damaging another. A Result like this, in a combat I didn't even expect, I can live with.

[neuromancer]

Better I will agree. But still, that ship would have SUNK long before you got to 48 shell hits.

Which gets back to checking for sinking is done too infrequently.

[Tankerace]

That I'll agree with.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Well, In my game the dirty sons of.....the Rising Sun, have decided to invade the Canal months early (4/29/42). Fortunately, I had a US Cruiser/Destroyer TF present. Here are the combat Results.

Day Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 67,97

Japanese Ships
AP Arizana Maru
AP Eiko Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
AP Kisaragi Maru, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Somedono Maru, Shell hits 48, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CA Minneapolis
CL Detroit
CL St. Louis
CL Phoenix
DD Mugford
DD Ralph Talbot
DD Henley
DD Dale
DD Aylwin
DD Allen
DD Litchfield

Japanese ground losses:
556 casualties reported
Guns lost 14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Somedono Maru was pounded into driftwood, by 8, 6 and 5 inch shells. However, as she became increasingly hit, the ships shifted targets, crippling 1 other merchie and damaging another. A Result like this, in a combat I didn't even expect, I can live with.

This is VERY typical of what I have consistantly seen. It's a bit excessive.

[Culiacan Mexico]

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.

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.

Velkro - In addition, I spotted about 18 of the 26 ships during the surface action (the names appeared on the combat display).


The surface fleet spotted 18 out of the 26 and was only able to hit 2 of that 18. Some of these 18 ships were already damage and unable to move at full speed (restricted to 6 knots), while the intercepting task force had ships able to travel at 30 knots.

Maybe the subroutine is working correctly, but such results are interesting don’t you think?

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
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

Velkro - In addition, I spotted about 18 of the 26 ships during the surface action (the names appeared on the combat display).

The intercepting task force intercept 2 out of 18 ships spotted (not dispersed over 60 miles).

I could understand someone arguing that it was just extremely poor luck… fair enough. We could thing discuss if it was 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000, but for you to claim 2 out of 18 was “pretty damn lucky”. Interesting.

[Tristanjohn]

TTT

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Well, In my game the dirty sons of.....the Rising Sun, have decided to invade the Canal months early (4/29/42). Fortunately, I had a US Cruiser/Destroyer TF present. Here are the combat Results.

Day Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 67,97

Japanese Ships
AP Arizana Maru
AP Eiko Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
AP Kisaragi Maru, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Somedono Maru, Shell hits 48, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CA Minneapolis
CL Detroit
CL St. Louis
CL Phoenix
DD Mugford
DD Ralph Talbot
DD Henley
DD Dale
DD Aylwin
DD Allen
DD Litchfield

Japanese ground losses:
556 casualties reported
Guns lost 14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Somedono Maru was pounded into driftwood, by 8, 6 and 5 inch shells. However, as she became increasingly hit, the ships shifted targets, crippling 1 other merchie and damaging another. A Result like this, in a combat I didn't even expect, I can live with.

This is VERY typical of what I have consistantly seen. It's a bit excessive.

Let me get this straight. Four unescorted 12-knot merchants sailing directly towards
eleven 30+ knot combat vessels in broad daylight and none are sunk? One isn't even
engaged? And you call that "excessive"??? What would you view as "normal"??? Do
you think one of the AK's should have rammed a DD? I would charicterize the results
above as pitifully dissappointing from the Allied side; and a cause for joyous celebration
by the Japanese.

[Mr.Frag]

Sorry, just not seeing that.

Night Time Surface Combat at 61,74

Japanese Ships
AK Hakkai Maru, Shell hits 28, and is sunk
AK Hakodate Maru, Shell hits 48, and is sunk
AK Hakonesan Maru, Shell hits 14, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage (sinks immediately after combat ends)
AK Hakubasan Maru, Shell hits 59, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CA Minneapolis
CL Cleveland
CL Montpelier
DD Anthony
DD Aulick
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Charles Badger
DD Beale
DD Bell

I really think you guys need to be putting aggressive commanders in your surface fleets.

[Bradley7735]

Hi Frag,

I think what they're saying is that daylight surface combats are messed up. (only one or two ships fired at.)

Your example is night combat. Unfortunately, in WITP, I haven't had enough daylight combats to really give an opinion. I personally think night combats are being done well. But, I think the gist of this thread is daylight surface combats vs unescorted AP's.

bc

[Mr.Frag]

Your example is night combat. Unfortunately, in WITP, I haven't had enough daylight combats to really give an opinion. I personally think night combats are being done well. But, I think the gist of this thread is daylight surface combats vs unescorted AP's.

Daylight on the way ...

Day Time Surface Combat at 61,74

Japanese Ships
AK Hakkai Maru, Shell hits 30, and is sunk
AK Hakodate Maru, Shell hits 27, on fire, heavy damage (sunk immediately after combat ended)
AK Hakonesan Maru
AK Hakubasan Maru

Allied Ships
CA Minneapolis
CL Cleveland
CL Montpelier
DD Anthony
DD Aulick
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Charles Badger
DD Beale
DD Bell

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Well, In my game the dirty sons of.....the Rising Sun, have decided to invade the Canal months early (4/29/42). Fortunately, I had a US Cruiser/Destroyer TF present. Here are the combat Results.

Day Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 67,97

Japanese Ships
AP Arizana Maru
AP Eiko Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
AP Kisaragi Maru, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Somedono Maru, Shell hits 48, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CA Minneapolis
CL Detroit
CL St. Louis
CL Phoenix
DD Mugford
DD Ralph Talbot
DD Henley
DD Dale
DD Aylwin
DD Allen
DD Litchfield

Japanese ground losses:
556 casualties reported
Guns lost 14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Somedono Maru was pounded into driftwood, by 8, 6 and 5 inch shells. However, as she became increasingly hit, the ships shifted targets, crippling 1 other merchie and damaging another. A Result like this, in a combat I didn't even expect, I can live with.

This is VERY typical of what I have consistantly seen. It's a bit excessive.

Let me get this straight. Four unescorted 12-knot merchants sailing directly towards
eleven 30+ knot combat vessels in broad daylight and none are sunk? One isn't even
engaged? And you call that "excessive"??? What would you view as "normal"??? Do
you think one of the AK's should have rammed a DD? I would charicterize the results
above as pitifully dissappointing from the Allied side; and a cause for joyous celebration
by the Japanese.

Somedono Maru

I have a feeling that by "excessive" Zoomie meant all those redundant hits on Somedono Maru.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Your example is night combat. Unfortunately, in WITP, I haven't had enough daylight combats to really give an opinion. I personally think night combats are being done well. But, I think the gist of this thread is daylight surface combats vs unescorted AP's.

Daylight on the way ...

Day Time Surface Combat at 61,74

Japanese Ships
AK Hakkai Maru, Shell hits 30, and is sunk
AK Hakodate Maru, Shell hits 27, on fire, heavy damage (sunk immediately after combat ended)
AK Hakonesan Maru
AK Hakubasan Maru

Allied Ships
CA Minneapolis
CL Cleveland
CL Montpelier
DD Anthony
DD Aulick
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Charles Badger
DD Beale
DD Bell

I'd run that test with 1) 3x as many transports 2) twenty times or so. And just to be complete I'd run it from both sides with similarly rated Allied and Japanese surface-combat commanders.

[Mr.Frag]

Same test ... better weather.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat at 61,74

Japanese Ships
AK Hakkai Maru, Shell hits 32, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage (sunk immediately after)
AK Hakodate Maru, Shell hits 2
AK Hakonesan Maru, Shell hits 42, and is sunk
AK Hakubasan Maru, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage (88/42/30)

Allied Ships
CA Minneapolis
CL Cleveland
CL Montpelier
DD Anthony
DD Aulick
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Charles Badger
DD Beale
DD Bell