Matrix Games Forums

I don't think we actually know how long a round is supposed to be in real time. We could of course try to calculate it with the range decreases and such (but then we'd have to guess at the angle etc.).

I'm not sure whether many surface engagements lasted all that long during WWII. And many things could break of combat (I expect even minor combat units like PG or PC could fire smoke and temporarily screen a force to break away), a short rain squall, a false report of enemy ships clsoing, air alert etc.

Particularly, I have had very good results in cruiser/destroyer (allied) engagements against unescorted or weakly escorted transports (japanese). Yes, much fire seems to be concentrated against single transports, but I have also noted that in many cases those transports are very combative (firing back and taking another round of suppressive fire by cruisers and destroyers). Most ships won't take only a few minutes to sink, even a cargo will unless it's cut in half (even half a hull can and will float if the condtions are right, and visibility might not make the damage apparent right away to the enemy) stay afloat a while, well beyond the duration of a surface engagement.

My last extensive game, before quiting I decided to check the ai's situation (reload the game from the japanese point of view) and found their casualties were much higher then I had expected from the combat reports. While the ai seems to scuttle ships unreasonably early at times (in a later game I found the allies had apparently scuttled Prince of Wales after a single bomb hit during a port raid against Singapore), this correctly reflects how a cargo might limp (drift) out of a battle area for a day or two before it finally sinks (or is sunk by a PT boat or patrol plane).

All in all, naval combat works for me. Obviously I'd prefer to tear those convoys to pieces faster. But there are good reasons why the on the scene commander (who is responsible for ship and crew, if he loses a cruiser because he failed to spot an approaching enemy while hapilly pounding away at a tanker he will face court martial and a life in misery (particularly RN captains historically iirc)) might have broken off a fight or why several ships might have concentrated fire on a ship of little strategic value and let others get away.

What I find more shocking is how convoys will push on to their old target day after day when controlled by the ai (but then that's a purely ai issue). I expect against a human player (my first PBEM game is being setup and should stat tonight) things will be quite different and a task force will not fall to the same trap twice (or my own cruiser squadrons lay the same trap twice in a row without risk of being caught in turn by an enemy squadron).

Marc aka Caran...

ORIGINAL: pertsajakilu

If that formation was attacked IRL in real life by 2 BBs, several cruisers and destroyers, I'd be surprised if half of it survived the slaughter. That means 20 ships heavily hit or sinking.


In WitP, you would got all her escorts sunk and (if lucky) 3 transports with others with light damage before the system disengages the battle.


I've said several times that I can live with it as it is now, but that the system as is portrayed in WitP doesn't work. Please, don't keep on defending what has no defense. I admit there are a lot of opinions but your's simply isn't backed up by the facts...at least that is how I see it.

I've not read all these posts but I do think the surface combat is flawed. But does anybody know of any reasonably sized merchant convoy that was total destroyed? There might be, but I doubt if it was solely destroyed by surface action.

Convoys scattered when confronted by overwhelming fire power. This scattering could be respresented in the game by the attacking TF breaking off the attack in which case the message needs changing.

ORIGINAL: RAM




If that formation was attacked IRL in real life by 2 BBs, several cruisers and destroyers, I'd be surprised if half of it survived the slaughter. That means 20 ships heavily hit or sinking.

HI!

Give an real life examples. I found one example when Hipper found slow unescorted convoy. I don't know about weather conditions. Result seems to be like wolf and herd of sheeps. 01.02 - 14.02.1941: Second Atlantic Mission: On Feb. 11, Admiral Hipper attacks the unprotected convoy SLS64 at 37°12'N, 21°20'W, sinking 7 of the 19 merchants and damaging several others. Due to fuel shortage, Admiral Hipper has to return to Brest, France.

This might be the only ocassion ( andybody any reference ) when unescorted convoy was attacked by surface forces. When there are escorts along ( even weak ) merchant losses should be much less.

Pertsajakilu

[I think you misunderstand the test. It is 10 different outcome of the same encounter, not 10 succesive encounters.

About the TF break off: I agree round 1 and 3 makes Ching Lee look like a sissy, but I guess they could occur. The other rounds he does close the range and fire on many of the detected ships. Its not the total annihilation some people wants, but it will surely ruin the day for the AKs/APs.

When checking the ships after the battle, I noticed that the cruisers many times had ran out of ammo for their main batteries, this is probably the reason for the break off in the end. Also like I said before, the TF commander doesn’t have the birds-eye view we do, so it’s easy to complain about poor results.

EDIT DJAndrews: I posted this before I read your post, I think you are right about the ammo thing.
[/quote]
And you are wrong [8D]
I understand combat mechanics and test conditions enough ( after playing UV so long [:D]) - think what is written

I wrote what I think is maybe not the best but the easiest (from resonable ones)to implement for developers.

BTW have sb ever seen 10 round combat with single TF???

About ammo consumption - very rarely I saw Surface TF running out of ammo after fighting with one TF only.
In most cases I noticed sth like 15-20% of ammo expanded from attack on transport TF

ORIGINAL: Sneer

And you are wrong [8D]
I understand combat mechanics and test conditions enough ( after playing UV so long [:D]) - think what is written

I wrote what I think is maybe not the best but the easiest (from resonable ones)to implement for developers.

BTW have sb ever seen 10 round combat with single TF???

About ammo consumption - very rarely I saw Surface TF running out of ammo after fighting with one TF only.
In most cases I noticed sth like 15-20% of ammo expanded from attack on transport TF

Ok, sorry for taking you as a noob [;)]

In 4 of the 10 encounters 1 or more of the cruiser had run out of main ammo. Other times they had only expended 1 or 2 ammo counts. I guess it vary alot.

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau caught a lightly protected tanker convoy that scattered on them in 3/41. Between them they bagged 13 ships + damage to others. Now if a full fledged TF, complete with DD support, makes such an interception......the carngage factor would unless circumstances were unusual, would be many times greater

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau caught a lightly protected tanker convoy that scattered on them in 3/41. Between them they bagged 13 ships + damage to others. Now if a full fledged TF, complete with DD support, makes such an interception......the carngage factor would unless circumstances were unusual, would be many times greater

Yes... exactly... this is one of the best examples what damage to unprotected merchant ships (AK/AP/AO/TK) can be in such situations...


Leo "Apollo11"

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau caught a lightly protected tanker convoy that scattered on them in 3/41. Between them they bagged 13 ships + damage to others. Now if a full fledged TF, complete with DD support, makes such an interception......the carngage factor would unless circumstances were unusual, would be many times greater

Just to be fair, that happend over 2 days (15/16 march). 16 merchants sunk or captured according to my sources.

true....but the fact remains they were only 2 ships. [;)]