Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Zebedee
Posts: 535
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 11:52 am

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

Post by Zebedee »

ORIGINAL: pad152

Any one seen a surface combat where the Japanese defeats a equal or superior force? So far I haven't!

Check the AAR forum. The two examples in this thread are outliers with very reasonable ingame explanations (actually given in the combat reports). Remember too that FoW applies to combat reports. I've given up counting how many ships I've sunk which aren't when I've checked once the turn has processed! In AI games, what difficulty level is being used - Very Hard gives combat bonuses to the AI (although whether this touches naval combat, who knows?).
Image
User avatar
Cap Mandrake
Posts: 20737
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 8:37 am
Location: Southern California

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

Post by Cap Mandrake »

OK...here is one:

Night battle off Tassafaronga:

Japs have only 8 DD's, no radar, Takanami, Oyashio, Kuroshio, Kagero, Makinami, Naganami, Kawakaze, and Suzukaze. Even worse, the Japs had no torpedo reloads as they were on a fast transport mission to Lunga.

Allies have the heavy cruisers USS Minneapolis, New Orleans, Pensacola, and Northampton, the light cruiser Honolulu, and four destroyers (Fletcher, Drayton, Maury, and Perkins)...plus radar advantage. Good bye Jap DD's, right?

Nope. The Japs lose one DD, the Allies lose Northampton and the other three CA's are beat up bad..Pensacola was out of the war for 11 mos.

Ridiculous
Image
User avatar
Dixie
Posts: 10303
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:14 pm
Location: UK

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

Post by Dixie »

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

OK...here is one:

Night battle off Tassafaronga:

Japs have only 8 DD's, no radar, Takanami, Oyashio, Kuroshio, Kagero, Makinami, Naganami, Kawakaze, and Suzukaze. Even worse, the Japs had no torpedo reloads as they were on a fast transport mission to Lunga.

Allies have the heavy cruisers USS Minneapolis, New Orleans, Pensacola, and Northampton, the light cruiser Honolulu, and four destroyers (Fletcher, Drayton, Maury, and Perkins)...plus radar advantage. Good bye Jap DD's, right?

Nope. The Japs lose one DD, the Allies lose Northampton and the other three CA's are beat up bad..Pensacola was out of the war for 11 mos.

Ridiculous

We all know real life is bugged though [:-]
[center]Image

Bigger boys stole my sig
SteveD64
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:03 pm
Location: Shaker Hts, Ohio, USA

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

Post by SteveD64 »

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

It's been discussed before I  think but surface combat TFs have an advantage over other types of taskforce.  I think certainly in the case of what happens when they meet air combat TFs, the advantage seems to be far too great.

Surely the sole reason why a BB is in an air combat TF at all is to protect the CVs.   So theres two battleships there whose sole mission is to make sure the CVs are safe.  Thats a hell of a lot more firepower than a CL can manage, and in daylight too, and I presume in open seas.  And then theres a whole mass of DDs to screen against torpedo attacks.

Surely in daylight the Allies would be massacred 95% of the time.

I can understand a night battle being much more of a tossup, but during the day?

There is one issue. Carriers and transports should be behind (at least some of) the destroyers and heavy gunships, not mixed in with them. The game currently organises one or two lines of combatants. It should add a third for carriers and non-combatants.

Yeah, I buy this. As it stands a transport task force has a good chance of being wiped out to the last ship if it encounters a superior surface fleet. Even lightly escorted transports could get away from a battle, maybe not unscathed, simply because of the confusion of the battle and fact that they would scatter. Seems now they're just sitting in a battle line.
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: jjax

I agree that surface combat needs a bit of balancing.

But I think a lot of people are just looking at the number of ships and ship types and thinking that they should have won the battle.


As in Denmark Strait. 1 BB and 1 CA vs. 2 BB and 2 CA. Obviously Bismarck and Prinz Eugen won that one.
Dili
Posts: 4742
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

Post by Dili »

If this was resonable would happen once in a time. Not wacky results so often.
Night battle off Tassafaronga:

Japs have only 8 DD's, no radar, Takanami, Oyashio, Kuroshio, Kagero, Makinami, Naganami, Kawakaze, and Suzukaze. Even worse, the Japs had no torpedo reloads as they were on a fast transport mission to Lunga.

Allies have the heavy cruisers USS Minneapolis, New Orleans, Pensacola, and Northampton, the light cruiser Honolulu, and four destroyers (Fletcher, Drayton, Maury, and Perkins)...plus radar advantage. Good bye Jap DD's, right?

Nope. The Japs lose one DD, the Allies lose Northampton and the other three CA's are beat up bad..Pensacola was out of the war for 11 mos.

Ridiculous

Not necessarely comparable. A bunch of torpedos launched at once can unbalance an engagement, because it happens in small time window and can be made undetected. Shooting up the other one is a bit different, it emplies time and being detected.
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

Post by EUBanana »

ORIGINAL:  Mike Scholl
As in Denmark Strait.  1 BB and 1 CA vs. 2 BB and 2 CA.  Obviously Bismarck and Prinz Eugen won that one.

I dunno.  It'd be quite clear from the AE combat report what happens here...

BC Hood is hit by KMS Bismarck
*MAGAZINE EXPLOSION*
Leach, J orders Allied T to disengage

[:D]

I don't think you'd see people arguing over that one in the forums.
Image
User avatar
kirk23_MatrixForum
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

Post by kirk23_MatrixForum »

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: jjax

I agree that surface combat needs a bit of balancing.

But I think a lot of people are just looking at the number of ships and ship types and thinking that they should have won the battle.


As in Denmark Strait. 1 BB and 1 CA vs. 2 BB and 2 CA. Obviously Bismarck and Prinz Eugen won that one.

Nearly right the 2 British heavy cruiser's played no part in the action,just shadowed and allowed Hood & Prince of Wales to engage Bismarck & Prinz Eugen, Prince of Wales was new with dock yard workmen on board,and Hood was old,plunging fire did the damage at long range,she just blew up !! along with a relative of mine,he is very sadly missed[:(]
Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

Post by EUBanana »

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet along with a relative of mine,he is very sadly missed[:(]

Bummer. [:(]

Image
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 12428
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

Post by Sardaukar »

This is quite funny. When WitP came out, people were appalled that most of the ships in for example Transport TF could escape, since attackers usually concentrated on couple of ships. People demanded change.
 
OK, now it is different in AE and whole TFs can be easily wiped out by Surface Combat TF. And people demand change.
 
[:D]
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
User avatar
kirk23_MatrixForum
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

Post by kirk23_MatrixForum »

Rumour has it that Hood had Ammo still stored on deck,no one can be certain what happened it was over in a blink of an eye,one moment she was there and the next just a sinking wreck blown in half[:(]
Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller
Mark Weston
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 8:16 pm

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

Post by Mark Weston »

Sir.

I am Rear Admiral Victor Crutchely VC, and I would like to complain about the absurd results of last night's naval action. How is it possible that an enemy force of seven cruisers and one destroyer could defeat my eight cruisers and fifteen destroyers without suffering any serious losses themselves? Didn't you beta test this damn war before you released it to the public?

Fix this immediately or you'll be hearing from my solicitors!

Yours etc.

Crutchely
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

Post by EUBanana »

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

This is quite funny. When WitP came out, people were appalled that most of the ships in for example Transport TF could escape, since attackers usually concentrated on couple of ships. People demanded change.

OK, now it is different in AE and whole TFs can be easily wiped out by Surface Combat TF. And people demand change.

[:D]

Well, you can't please all the people all of the time.

I love the new surface combat model. [:)]
Image
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

Post by EUBanana »

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

Sir.

I am Rear Admiral Victor Crutchely VC, and I would like to complain about the absurd results of last night's naval action. How is it possible that an enemy force of seven cruisers and one destroyer could defeat my eight cruisers and fifteen destroyers without suffering any serious losses themselves? Didn't you beta test this damn war before you released it to the public?

Fix this immediately or you'll be hearing from my solicitors!

Yours etc.

Crutchely
Rear Admiral Victor Crutchely VC

That wouldn't happen in AE anyway, those Jap heavy cruisers would be hit by Dauntlesses long before they got near Crutchly. [;)]

(I know it just happened to Admiral Gonichi Banana's forces the other day [:(])
Image
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 12428
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

Post by Sardaukar »

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

This is quite funny. When WitP came out, people were appalled that most of the ships in for example Transport TF could escape, since attackers usually concentrated on couple of ships. People demanded change.

OK, now it is different in AE and whole TFs can be easily wiped out by Surface Combat TF. And people demand change.

[:D]

Well, you can't please all the people all of the time.

I love the new surface combat model. [:)]

Me too. Even though I think that early war Allied radar gives too big effect in surface combat. But generally I am quite pleased.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
SteveD64
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:03 pm
Location: Shaker Hts, Ohio, USA

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

Post by SteveD64 »

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

This is quite funny. When WitP came out, people were appalled that most of the ships in for example Transport TF could escape, since attackers usually concentrated on couple of ships. People demanded change.

OK, now it is different in AE and whole TFs can be easily wiped out by Surface Combat TF. And people demand change.

[:D]

I never played the original game but it sounds pretty great! [:D]
SteveD64
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:03 pm
Location: Shaker Hts, Ohio, USA

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

Post by SteveD64 »

I'm having a ball regardless of whatever minor complaints I can come up with.  [:)]
SteveD64
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:03 pm
Location: Shaker Hts, Ohio, USA

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

Post by SteveD64 »

It's funny that this thread was just started though.  Last night one lone American destroyer ran into CVL Ryujo, BB Mutsu, 2CL's and 2DD's at night.  The BB was hit 5 times and the carrier once and the American destroyer never touched.   Coming up with a narrative for this- "a destroyer blunders into a returning task force and gets off a couple of salvos and gets the hell out of town" - is half the fun.
User avatar
bstarr
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: Texas, by God!

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

Post by bstarr »

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

This is quite funny. When WitP came out, people were appalled that most of the ships in for example Transport TF could escape, since attackers usually concentrated on couple of ships. People demanded change.

OK, now it is different in AE and whole TFs can be easily wiped out by Surface Combat TF. And people demand change.

[:D]

It reminds me of American politics. One extreme or the other. No happy middle ground.

User avatar
JohnDillworth
Posts: 3104
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:22 pm

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

Post by JohnDillworth »

Rumour has it that Hood had Ammo still stored on deck,no one can be certain what happened it was over in a blink of an eye,one moment she was there and the next just a sinking wreck blown in half

Probably not. I don't think the RN would store ammo on deck. This is related to poor flash doors in the turret and old ammo. Same thing that blew up a couple at Jutland. One turret hit and POW!. I read once that even when they fixed the flash doors/curtains the crews would routinely force them to stay open so they could keep their rates of fire high. They even practiced this.
Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”