Naval combat

[fcooke]

I don't think the IJN ASW ability is off - I think the S boats are just too good and this makes IJN look even worse that it was historically. In one of my PBEM I think Yamamoto sank 5 S boats in one turn. Granted they were in shallow water at PM, but it does prove the point that IJN ASW does work....

[MemoryLeak]

Since a lot of different topics are being covered here, I would like to mention searching again. I would like to see the success rate of spotting everything that moves, toned down a bit. It would be nice to at least have some chance of conducting a surprise naval mission, but the chance of doing that in UV is practically nil.

[mogami]

Originally posted by MemoryLeak
Since a lot of different topics are being covered here, I would like to mention searching again. I would like to see the success rate of spotting everything that moves, toned down a bit. It would be nice to at least have some chance of conducting a surprise naval mission, but the chance of doing that in UV is practically nil.

Hello, I manage to move a large number of TF's without beng spotted. (and get suprised a bit as well)

[Bax]

I agree with those that complain that UV's surface battles are pretty much slugfests that go on....and on.....and on.

An improvement to me would be that every surface engagement would have a good chance of being very different. Most night battles would be brief, intense fights followed by a breakoff by one or both sides, as the commanders try to regain some form of control over their TF's. Some day fights would be long and bloody, but these should be rare. I can't see any commander throwing caution to the wind and continuing the fight when he's got multiple ships on fire.

The exception to this rule, of course, would be when a TF of warships intercepts an unescorted group of AK's and AP's. These type of encounters should almost always result in the destruction of all the transports.

In a nutshell, I think a greater variety of encounters need to be added. The surface fights shouldn't always end with both sides being in shambles(although occasionally this should happen as well).

[CapAndGown]

Originally posted by Bax

The exception to this rule, of course, would be when a TF of warships intercepts an unescorted group of AK's and AP's. These type of encounters should almost always result in the destruction of all the transports.

The two occasions where this happened (that I recall) were Balikapapan and Banten Bay. In both cases, very few of the transports were actually hit and sunk.

[mdiehl]

It's pretty useless to generalize about what happens to unescorted merchant/AP TFs hit by combat vessels. At Balikpapan five or maybe six ships were sunk. The limiting factor was that the USN DDs expended all their torpedoes. Had Marblehead been able to join the action, it is quite likely that more transports would have been sunk. But that's not to say that a TF under way could not have scattered and escape substantial destruction. Didn't this happen a couple times in the Atlantic?

[2Stepper]

Here's a thought...

I agree in principle at least with some of the aspects of what's going on, with one major exception. Can anyone HONESTLY remember seeing or hearing of a transport surviving three 16" shell hits from a BB? Some would roll over and sink from one 5" shell let alone a 16" shell. My point is, the AI in combat needs a tweek...

Which brings me to the other AI/Graphics tweek I'd like to see... A chance... doesn't matter how small... 5% say IF you had an ammo hit, etc... but a CHANCE of a FLASH/KILL of a ship... One hit.. (BB Arizona for ex), and BOOM! One flash explosion, then nothing but a funeral pyre of smoke as the ship just evaporates and sinks... This would work well too for those hard to kill supply barges that take 10 hits from 5" shells and don't sink right off. LOL! Fix that, and add a lil extra glitz on the sinkings and I think you'll have a winner... Cause I look at the battles themselves like this... If they're important, they're fun to watch... it's like TV, if I don't care what's going on, I can always change the channel! UV is a hit, and WiTP is a hit in the making..

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by 2Stepper
Here's a thought...

I agree in principle at least with some of the aspects of what's going on, with one major exception. Can anyone HONESTLY remember seeing or hearing of a transport surviving three 16" shell hits from a BB? Some would roll over and sink from one 5" shell let alone a 16" shell. My point is, the AI in combat needs a tweek...

Dont recall any BB-AK interactions off the top of me head. Closest you get is Leyte and Savo (CA's next best thing) However i could easily see an AK surviving three such hits, depending on the type of shell (AP or HE) and the Hit location of course. Part of the reason the Japanese didn't do more damage to Taffy 3's CVE's was due to their complete lack of armor coupled with the IJN firing AP shells. Under such conditions, more often than not, the shellfire would pass completely through the hull before exploding causing minimal damage in the process (crew/troop casualties due to splinters is another thing if we're talking a AK packed to the gills with troops)

For a hit to be lethal requires two components. Type, and Hit Location. A 16 inch AP shell alone is not going to gurantee lethality. If it hits along the waterline for example, even if it still passes through the ship before exploding you will have flooding as a result and Merchants are very vulnerable to this kind of damage. Also, midline WL hits will also in most cases damage the engines or boilers. A hit through the superstructure on the other hand will probably do little unless it explodes before passing through the light structure causing a blast effect and starting potentially lethal fires.

An HE shell instead of an AP in this case, would be far more potentially devastating as it would behave like a General Purpose (HE) bomb, create a big blast effect and have a much greater chance to start massive fires.... the shell having a much greater preportion of explosive inside the shell as opposed to an AP shell which would have as little as 4% explosive by total weight...the rest solid metal designed to punch through heavy armor.

I'm hoping WitP's model will incorporate improvements that will better represent HL's and types of weapons.....not just size and effect as it is now.

[2Stepper]

I think we're generally on the same page... cept for one minor note. The BB vs AK/AP conflict I was referring to was one that occured in a UV game I played. In fact they tend to occur a few times in the course of the single player gameplay I've had. And quite frankly they're unrealistic in the extreme. I have to concede the point about APvsHE shells. I don't know if that's being considered, but in my mind, a 16" shell or even the 18 inchers of the Yamato/Musashi (flying volkswagons) SHOULD blow a transport off the surface of the water. Hence the notion of the FLASH/KILL graphic I was talking about. Either in ship vs ship conflicts, or ESPECIALLY when hit by a bomb from a plane. I've seen MANY graphics of IJN transports just coming apart from critical hits. The shear "cool" value of such a graphic would be a nice gloss to finish off an otherwise effective combat system.

For others, don't get freaky over the idea that I might be saying it's totally "realistic" with the line for line battles left and right, etc... It's not. BUT, in defense of the game, it's also one of the best translations of a great old board style wargame (PACIFIC WAR) to the computer screen. Something I've been looking for, for SOME TIME NOW! Next project in my mind would be bringing RISE AND FALL of the THIRD REICH to the PC... I know it was attempted and failed years ago by Avalon Hill, but in this day and age, a success with that effort should be childs play.

WiTP couldn't come out too soon in my book... even though it's missing an online TCP/IP option, BUT, that's another argument entirely. LOL!

[Zakhal]

I really liekd the UV naval combat, though i think it could use more options, things and special happenings to juice it up. Its a bit sterile and static "slugmatch" now. Little drama would always help.

Im also a fan of football manager games with 2d/3d match engines.

Its just a gameplay aspect i really fancy. Choosing up policies, giving few orders and forming up the "team" and then starting the "match" and watching it go real-time to see whether your tactic was sound.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Originally posted by Nikademus
Dont recall any BB-AK interactions off the top of me.

Not in the PTO, but German BBs (or BCs) Scharnhorst & Gneisenau as well as CAs (e.g. Hipper) engaged British convoys in the Atlantic and off Norway and sank quite a few freighters. Of course this had been their specific mission, they were used as kind of über-AMCs.

Will fully functional AMC/Raider/Hilfskreuzer be represented in WitP?

I'd like to second some suggestions, notably the 'at sea-interception', the 'not used to operate together'-penalty, and the the 'flagship selection with bad radar/commo-penalty for leadership'-issue.
I also like the flash/kill graphics and the 'opposing forces on top and bottom instead left/right' suggestion - your own force in the foreground and the enemy in the back, with the silhouette size depending on range and with weather/search light/muzzle flash/tracer/splash/hit/fire/explosion-effects - oops sorry, I've played too much Fighting Steel... Anyway, watching naval battles in UV while clenching fists and gritting teeth is part of the fun, and better graphics would add a lot more flavor. As tri71669 has observed: "...we happened to let a naval battle unfold and suddenly everyone was glued to the edges of thier seats with interest in who the winner would be and the damages."

[edit for sp]

[pasternakski]

Byron, I'm not suggesting anything that detailed. Consider, though, that the current game attempts (IMHO, lamely) to depict a surface battle. Why not improve it?

No surface battle ever fought looked like what is in UV (with the possible exception of the opening positions at Salamis).

[SamRo]

Long lance baby!!!! ye!!!

im the usn 2.20 in uv, & as I would expect IJN CA & DD, keep my Surface groups well at bay!

[Admiral DadMan]

I would like to see what ship got hit by what type ordinance. As it stands now, you just see the total.

Something like this:
________________________________________________
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 11/30/42

Weather: Partly Cloudy

Night Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese Ships
BB Musashi, Shell hits: 3x16in/45, 6x8in/55, 5x8in/50, 4x5in/38, on fire, heavy damage
CA Suzuya, Shell hits 6x8in/55, on fire
CL Natori, Shell hits 1x5in/38
DD Akigumo, Shell hits 8x5in/38, on fire, heavy damage
DD Kagero, Shell hits 4x5in/38, on fire, heavy damage
DD Tanikaze, Shell hits 3x5in/38, on fire
DD Oshio, Shell hits 14x5in/38, on fire, heavy damage
DD Asagumo, Shell hits 12x5in/38, on fire, heavy damage
DD Murasame, Shell hits 2x8in/50, on fire
DD Yudachi, Shell hits 5x5in/38, on fire, heavy damage
DD Kawakaze, Shell hits 17x5in/38, and is sunk
DD Mikazuki, Shell hits 16x5in/38, and is sunk

Allied Ships
BB South Dakota, Shell hits: 1x6.1in/60
CA Pensacola
CA New Orleans
CA Astoria
CA San Francisco, Shell hits: 1x8in/50
CA Vincennes, Shell hits: 1x8in/50
CA Canberra
CL Helena, Shell hits: 1x5.5in/50
CL Phoenix, Shell hits: 2x5.5in/50, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CL Nashville, Shell hits: 3x5.5in/50
CL Boise
CL Honolulu, Shell hits: 2x5.5in/50, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DD Fletcher
DD Duncan
DD Lansdowne
DD McCalla
DD Patterson
DD Gridley
DD Craven

[Drongo]

I was prompted by a recent UV surface naval combat to put forward a suggested change to the routines. The target allocation routine is one that I have disliked since getting the game.

The battle was between (IJN) 10 CAs and 6 CLs vs (USN) 2 CAs and 8 DDs.

The Japanese delivered a surprise long lance attack with about 60% of their ships involved, hitting 1 USN CA and 2 DDs. After that opening, the battle settled down to a slugging match as follows.

First round :
The 2 IJN CAs paired off with the 2 USN CAs and then the other 8 IJN CAs each selected a USN DD each, leaving the 6 IJN CLs free to choose any target.

The damaged USN CA (from the torp hit) exchanged fire with its IJN CA opponent, both scoring serious hits. The other USN CA outshot its opposing CA, damaging it severely without taking any hits in return. The other 8 CAs happily began pulverising the allied DDs (the range did not allow the allied DDs to penetrate their opposing CAs armour). 2 of the free CLs went after some now damaged DDs but the other 4 CLs decided to engage the 2 USN CAs (for no effect as they couldn't penetrate the armour). The 2 USN CAs had no such problem, badly damaging 2 of the CLs with their return fire.

Given the chaos of historical night combat (pre good quality centimetric radar and experienced operators, etc), the initial inefficient targeting is understandable. However, at some point, a ship facing an enemy in an obviously higher weight division would normally realise when it's holding the rough end of the stick. Also, the 8 CAs happily belting the crap out of poor little DDs should also realise that a 5 to 1 advantage in CAs will only be an advantage if the superior firepower is brought to bear on the USN CAs.

Second Round :
2 USN DDs sank after the first full combat round. What happened in the 2nd round now that the IJN had 2 free CAs? Did they pitch in and help their now crippled CA brothers from being pummeled by the USN CAs? Why no, they targeted burning USN DDs of course. What did the CLs do after getting smacked around by the USN CAs? They attacked them again of course (this time without any torpedoes).

Aftermath :
3 consecutive battles (10 rounds) later, the Japanese TF finally broke off the combat. 1 USN CA was crippled and sinking. 1 USN CA was UNTOUCHED. 4 DDs were sunk and 2 were crippled. The IJN had a CA crippled and sinking, another with heavy damage, a CL sunk and 3 others with heavy damage. All of this was done by the 2 USN CAs (including the crippled one). Except for one IJN CA for one round, the (eventually) 4 unengaged IJN CAs continually went after burning DDs. The bulk of the unengaged CLs persisted in targeting the 2 USN CAs. Yes, I know ships at night will not see the whole picture but it's kind of the wrong way round, especially over 10 rounds. When you read accounts of historical night battles, you tend to notice that, given time, most ships were able to eventually identify the types of enemy ships within their sphere of combat (big flash - big ship, little flash - little ship, etc).

I suspect one of the culprits may be the way the UV routine allocates targets depending on a ships position in the battle order. But that is just an observation as I know nothing of how the routines are programmed:p .

As a suggestion, I'd put forward the following.
First round of combat, could do with a look (especially torp target allocation in surprise attacks) but it could be left as is so as to represent opening night confusion.

Second round and thereafter, experience/radar check to do the following for the round's target selection.
Torpedo armed ship - target preference : a visible high value target (ie DD or IJN CL should attempt to engage CA (or USN CL) or higher).
Non torpedo armed ship - target preference - same class (best) or smaller. If no other target, engage a larger ship but consider evading like buggery (see next).
Non torpedo armed ship engaged by larger ship - target preference : the larger firing ship. However, the smaller ship should be considered evading (low chance to hit and be hit).
Larger ship engaged by smaller ship - target preference : the smaller ship but using only secondary batteries. Main guns used only if large ship not engaged with another of the same class.

If a ship fails the targeting check, it follows current UV targeting logic.

I'm sure people can find faults all over the place with my suggestion (probably full of logic traps). Be nice, I made it all up (not the battle, of course) as I wrote. The concept obviously needs development. But the intentions were good. :p

Just trying to work within the existing UV/(WitP?) model.

[mdiehl]

The combat report that you describe seems perfectly reasonable for a night combat.

[Nikademus]

You may be a victim of too much weak Aussie beer Drongo but i like your suggestions anyway :p

I've been very much in favor of an EXP/Radar check for some time and would like to see further penalties placed against SC radar sets when fighting in close terrain hexes.

I have also been continually disatisfied with gunnery resolution routines coupled with EXP. IJN in particular rarely if ever outshoots a US warship with substantially lower EXP ratings. The overall results dont always appear skewed though because there's usually a torp hit or two to balance things up. Take away the torp hits though and IJN TF's regularily get outshoot regardless of tactical situation or EXP levels.

[demonterico]

If the combat simulations can be improved thats great. If they can't be improved, then put them in WITP as they are. I would be greatly disappointed if WITP didn't have them. Do I always watch them? No, not all the time, but there are times when I can't take my eyes off of them. They can be very dramatic to say the least, and if an important engagement is taking place you can be d--- sure I'm watching. For those who think they are to long and boring, thats what the done button is for. Now there is something that can be improved upon. Make the buttons bigger.

Although I cannot claim to have enough expertise in the subject to speak with authority, it does seem to me that naval battles do continue on when I feel one side should be attempting to disengage. I've also seen attacks made by TFs that were seriously out gunned, when in my opinion the smaller TF should have been attempting to evade combat. However, it is possible it was to late for such maneuvers.

The last thing I want to say is just because A happens it doesn't necessarily mean that B will follow. In war there is only one absolute, and that is, there are no absolutes. Therefore, I hope the game designers will continue to write code that attempts to recreate the actual physical and histroical events as acurately as possible. I've said it before and I'll say it agian, Thanks Matrix your doing a great job.

[Drongo]

Posted by Nik

You may be a victim of too much weak Aussie beer Drongo

This coming from someone who probably couldn't last through the first round of a shiela's drinking contest.

[Drongo]

Posted by demontercio

If the combat simulations can be improved thats great. If they can't be improved, then put them in WITP as they are.

Agreed, but considering they're looking for suggestions, why not take the opportunity.