Surface Combat Sux

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by Mr.Frag »

You have an obligation over and above whatever corny document Matrix and/or 2by3 give you to sign to try and make this product as good as possible. If you can't understand that then you ought not to be a playtester. I don't care whose toes you step on along the way, I don't care if you're summarily dumped as tester, your ultimnate role and objective as a tester remains as stated above.

If you don't understand by now that my only interests in doing this is to make the game better, I really have no idea what to say. It is much easier to work from the inside then the outside. Being dumped is rather counter productive to improving the game.

There is no purpose to denying a problem exists as it does not get things fixed.

The role we play here is sorting out the *real* problems from the subjective complaints. I can tell you is it not exactly what one would call enjoyable. It tends to make you the whipping boy for everyone who is having a bad day. [:-]
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by Nikademus »

cheer up Frag....noones called you an Axis fanboy yet......you AXIS FANBOY!!!!

[:'(]
User avatar
Tristanjohn
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
Location: Daly City CA USA
Contact:

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by Tristanjohn »

ORIGINAL: Mogami

(TF spot one another at 20k yards. In time pursuit moves 20k yards Transports move 10k yards. But every transport has taken a different course so the surface ship has only closed the range on 1 transport. Other transports depending on course might now have opened range to 30k. )

In order for the surface ships to fire broadsides thay must assume a course that results in opening of the range or take a course 15 degrees or so from the target ship and wait. Each surface ship will be able to do this to 1 target. The transports are no longer in formation. The surface ships speed advantage allows them to manoveor to avoid the transports fire and of course the larger surface ships can begin firing while out of range of return fire but any DD that uses guns or torpedos is in range for return fire.

If there are 6 transports and they each upon contact with enemy TF assume a course 60 degrees (12 transports do a 30 degree course difference) from one another they will be running in all directions. A surface ship cannot close the range with one without opening the range with all the others.

Your points are somewhat valid but onesided.

Why would a ship need to turn broadsides on a slow merchie? Chasing rounds could bring it to a half fast. And why would the combat fleet continue to sail as a unit? More likely its commander would send individual ships after various merchies and collect quite a haul in the process. Plus, assuming chasing rounds early in the conflict a warship could cripple more than one merchie (in theory), thus leaving these bobbing on the water to deal with at leisure later.

I don't pretend ot have any definitive answer to all these questions of the thread, but it's apparent the naval model at present can't handle daylight actions well. Which is the overall point of this thread.
Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
User avatar
Tristanjohn
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
Location: Daly City CA USA
Contact:

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by Tristanjohn »

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
You have an obligation over and above whatever corny document Matrix and/or 2by3 give you to sign to try and make this product as good as possible. If you can't understand that then you ought not to be a playtester. I don't care whose toes you step on along the way, I don't care if you're summarily dumped as tester, your ultimnate role and objective as a tester remains as stated above.

If you don't understand by now that my only interests in doing this is to make the game better, I really have no idea what to say. It is much easier to work from the inside then the outside. Being dumped is rather counter productive to improving the game.

There is no purpose to denying a problem exists as it does not get things fixed.

The role we play here is sorting out the *real* problems from the subjective complaints. I can tell you is it not exactly what one would call enjoyable. It tends to make you the whipping boy for everyone who is having a bad day. [:-]

I appreciate your effort and have no doubt you want to make a difference for the best of reasons. Try not to take offense always. But when it comes to playtesting the restricted definition you apply to that role does not set well here.

As for me, I'm not having a bad day. The sky is robin-egg blue here. [:)]
Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by mogami »

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
ORIGINAL: Mogami

(TF spot one another at 20k yards. In time pursuit moves 20k yards Transports move 10k yards. But every transport has taken a different course so the surface ship has only closed the range on 1 transport. Other transports depending on course might now have opened range to 30k. )

In order for the surface ships to fire broadsides thay must assume a course that results in opening of the range or take a course 15 degrees or so from the target ship and wait. Each surface ship will be able to do this to 1 target. The transports are no longer in formation. The surface ships speed advantage allows them to manoveor to avoid the transports fire and of course the larger surface ships can begin firing while out of range of return fire but any DD that uses guns or torpedos is in range for return fire.

If there are 6 transports and they each upon contact with enemy TF assume a course 60 degrees (12 transports do a 30 degree course difference) from one another they will be running in all directions. A surface ship cannot close the range with one without opening the range with all the others.

Your points are somewhat valid but onesided.

Why would a ship need to turn broadsides on a slow merchie? Chasing rounds could bring it to a half fast. And why would the combat fleet continue to sail as a unit? More likely its commander would send individual ships after various merchies and collect quite a haul in the process. Plus, assuming chasing rounds early in the conflict a warship could cripple more than one merchie (in theory), thus leaving these bobbing on the water to deal with at leisure later.

I don't pretend ot have any definitive answer to all these questions of the thread, but it's apparent the naval model at present can't handle daylight actions well. Which is the overall point of this thread.


Hi, I think if you run tests where the TF has a aggresive flag officer in command and run the same test with a cautious ship captain in command you'll find the flag officer does at least 4x as much damage. The question as I see it presented in this thread is "is that enough damage" I really do not think a TF that opens fire on another TF is going to inflict a lot of damage where only the forward guns are employed against targets presenting the smallest angle. (This is where ship ratings would matter most) When does the surface TF decide to break formation? At start it likely does not even see entire enemy TF. The major mistake in the surface combat routine is showing the player too much info in the animation. Because the player sees every ship he thinks that every one of his ships sees every enemy ship. (Even when a ship reveals it's name in the animation not every other ships sees it)

So one of my problems remains that the surface TF cannot breakup in pursuit of ships it does not see. And it can't damage ships it does not fire at because it cannot see them. If each ship goes off in pursuit of a target then the excess transports will by default escape.

It is true any ship spotted should risk damage but if a major portion of the transports are unspotted (except by the player knowing they are there because he sees them in the animation) they will not be damage.

This applies even to daylight combat. Where the hrozon can be anywhere from 5 to 25 miles. If you spot the rear ship in a TF 25 miles away and alter couse to pursue (and it changes course to evade while all the unspotted ships do the same) you will catch that ship but never know you missed encountering the others.

In WITP we know that if a surface TF is in the same hex as a friendly transport TF that any enemy surface TF will be engaged by the surface TF.

However the routine is designed where any TF commander enters an engagement not knowing complete details that we find out before the turn is over.

(Forgive my art) I just want to show what I refering to. If the surface TF (black) spots the rear ship in transport TF (blue) and rear ship comes left 90 degrees to evade and surface TF does the same to follow. The surface TF will never see the rest of transport TF. (the distance between all but the pursuit and the transport being followed will open not close.)

Image


The result of such action would be the single transport getting all the fire from the surface TF.
Attachments
surface battle1.jpg
surface battle1.jpg (3.45 KiB) Viewed 161 times
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
There are many different kinds of "screams," my friend.


None of which i know that would be effective. [:D]
User avatar
Tristanjohn
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
Location: Daly City CA USA
Contact:

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by Tristanjohn »

ORIGINAL: Mogami
ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
ORIGINAL: Mogami

(TF spot one another at 20k yards. In time pursuit moves 20k yards Transports move 10k yards. But every transport has taken a different course so the surface ship has only closed the range on 1 transport. Other transports depending on course might now have opened range to 30k. )

In order for the surface ships to fire broadsides thay must assume a course that results in opening of the range or take a course 15 degrees or so from the target ship and wait. Each surface ship will be able to do this to 1 target. The transports are no longer in formation. The surface ships speed advantage allows them to manoveor to avoid the transports fire and of course the larger surface ships can begin firing while out of range of return fire but any DD that uses guns or torpedos is in range for return fire.

If there are 6 transports and they each upon contact with enemy TF assume a course 60 degrees (12 transports do a 30 degree course difference) from one another they will be running in all directions. A surface ship cannot close the range with one without opening the range with all the others.

Your points are somewhat valid but onesided.

Why would a ship need to turn broadsides on a slow merchie? Chasing rounds could bring it to a half fast. And why would the combat fleet continue to sail as a unit? More likely its commander would send individual ships after various merchies and collect quite a haul in the process. Plus, assuming chasing rounds early in the conflict a warship could cripple more than one merchie (in theory), thus leaving these bobbing on the water to deal with at leisure later.

I don't pretend ot have any definitive answer to all these questions of the thread, but it's apparent the naval model at present can't handle daylight actions well. Which is the overall point of this thread.


Hi, I think if you run tests where the TF has a aggresive flag officer in command and run the same test with a cautious ship captain in command you'll find the flag officer does at least 4x as much damage. The question as I see it presented in this thread is "is that enough damage" I really do not think a TF that opens fire on another TF is going to inflict a lot of damage where only the forward guns are employed against targets presenting the smallest angle. (This is where ship ratings would matter most) When does the surface TF decide to break formation? At start it likely does not even see entire enemy TF. The major mistake in the surface combat routine is showing the player too much info in the animation. Because the player sees every ship he thinks that every one of his ships sees every enemy ship. (Even when a ship reveals it's name in the animation not every other ships sees it)

So one of my problems remains that the surface TF cannot breakup in pursuit of ships it does not see. And it can't damage ships it does not fire at because it cannot see them. If each ship goes off in pursuit of a target then the excess transports will by default escape.

It is true any ship spotted should risk damage but if a major portion of the transports are unspotted (except by the player knowing they are there because he sees them in the animation) they will not be damage.

This applies even to daylight combat. Where the hrozon can be anywhere from 5 to 25 miles. If you spot the rear ship in a TF 25 miles away and alter couse to pursue (and it changes course to evade while all the unspotted ships do the same) you will catch that ship but never know you missed encountering the others.

In WITP we know that if a surface TF is in the same hex as a friendly transport TF that any enemy surface TF will be engaged by the surface TF.

However the routine is designed where any TF commander enters an engagement not knowing complete details that we find out before the turn is over.

(Forgive my art) I just want to show what I refering to. If the surface TF (black) spots the rear ship in transport TF (blue) and rear ship comes left 90 degrees to evade and surface TF does the same to follow. The surface TF will never see the rest of transport TF. (the distance between all but the pursuit and the transport being followed will open not close.)

Image

I don't argue with any of that. I certainly agree the animation screen needs to be changed to show only sighted merchies. All warships then, however, need to be able to "see" that merchie (not for gunnery purposes but aware it's there for purposes of the chase so that they can then get their own sights on it).
Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by mogami »

Prehaps only spotted ships should move into animation screen. And all unspotted ships remain unknown. Then when players see their TF catch 1 or 2 transports and sink them they would be happy but not realize that 20 others escaped.

I could be mistaken but I believe part of the single transport being hit many times is that it is the sighted ship and no other targets are inr range.

During night battles at close range the "hits" total shown often includes many small calibur hits that do no real damage to heavy ships.
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
User avatar
Tristanjohn
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
Location: Daly City CA USA
Contact:

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by Tristanjohn »

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Prehaps only spotted ships should move into animation screen. And all unspotted ships remain unknown. Then when players see their TF catch 1 or 2 transports and sink them they would be happy but not realize that 20 others escaped.

Exactly! (I've only made this point about nine times now. [:D])
Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by Nikademus »

it might reduce confusion i agree, but i found that my results were mostly similar regardless of whether the ships were spotted (i.e. their names apeared) or not.
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by mogami »

Hi, Well now that everyone understands what is actually occuring there is no need to change it. Just say "damn I could have gotten more if that knucklehead in command had seen what I see"

Really Nik, even changing TF leaders produced the same results. Now don't forget the transport TF always scatters as soon as it spots the surface TF. The scatter does not begin when the shooting begins. So I would think a great deal of the result is the scatter being impletmented. Players want to catch more of the transports and I agree that any transport spotted would be a possible target. But right away all the unspotted transports would be immune. And there are many ways a spotted ship could still escape. (many of these relate directly to the leader of the surface TF)
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
vils
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by vils »

Thing is that ships tolerate to much damage, or.. there is to little difference between a BB and a TK in absorbing hits. The BB takes to few before its sunk, and teh TK takes to many.

I hit a TK with 21 torpedoes and some 15 1000lb bombs, and it sailed away!
Take Command! - Lewis E. Lyle
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by mogami »

ORIGINAL: vils

Thing is that ships tolerate to much damage, or.. there is to little difference between a BB and a TK in absorbing hits. The BB takes to few before its sunk, and teh TK takes to many.

I hit a TK with 21 torpedoes and some 15 1000lb bombs, and it sailed away!


Hmmmmm don't suppose you still have the replay/file? Quite often my airstrikes cannot locate target half way through the strike. (This means the ship they are looking for has sunk)
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Really Nik.....

Really really. [:D]

The point is that the ships escape too often too much of the time. This includes transport TF's attacked at close quarters, day , night , and especially while unloading. I am well aware of the methodologies in which merchant convoys may use to evade surface warships.
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by mogami »

Hi, I'm thinking then that the scatter is too effective. It seems to me that the transports that are caught are being sunk but the players do not want the transports to be able to get away and this I think is produced at the start by their scattering. When I use a flag officer compared to a ship captain I catch more transports.
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
User avatar
Tristanjohn
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
Location: Daly City CA USA
Contact:

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by Tristanjohn »

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

it might reduce confusion i agree, but i found that my results were mostly similar regardless of whether the ships were spotted (i.e. their names apeared) or not.

It would reduce the perception of model error, but of course not address the actual problem.
Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
User avatar
dtravel
Posts: 4533
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 6:34 pm

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by dtravel »

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Day Time Surface Combat at 61,74

Japanese Ships
AO Hayasui, Shell hits 39, and is sunk
TK Choran Maru, Shell hits 3 (21/6/6)
TK Gen'yo Maru, Shell hits 66, and is sunk
TK Kyokuto Maru
TK Nihon Maru, Shell hits 6, on fire (42/13/49)
TK San Pedro Maru
AK Genoa Maru
AK Getuyo Maru, Shell hits 3, on fire (55/21/17)
AK Glasgow Maru
AK Gosyu Maru
AK Goyo Maru
AK Hague Maru
AK Hakkai Maru
AK Hakodate Maru
AK Hakonesan Maru
AK Hakubasan Maru
AO Medan Maru, Shell hits 12, on fire, heavy damage (83/72/49)
TK Kyokuho, Shell hits 4, on fire (42/26/36)

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

More ships ... only some ships spotted (weather Rain)

Here's my question ... do you expect more of those ships to be sunk? Like all of them?

I need to know what you expect to happen.

IMHO. I would expect: The Gen'yo Maru to have either sunk or no longer be a target long before being hit 66 times. The Hayasui to be sunk or no longer a target before being hit 39 times. If the Medan Maru was an AK or TK, to see it sunk or obviously about to sink and therefore no longer a target at about this number of hits. (As an AO with a more military crew and better damage containment construction its probably about right.) To see many/most of the excess shot fired at Gen'yo Maru and Hayasui fired at otherwise unengaged ships.

Those results would be more intuitively reasonable to me personally, but at this point I haven't seen enough of these types of actions myself to form a strong opinion. (Hence why I've not posted to this thread before now. Will post results of any similar engagements from my own game if/when they occur.) The gist of the complaint(s) seem to boil down to two issues. 1) Excessive concentration of fire on a small number of targets. 2) Civilian vessels surviving what appear to be an excessive number of hits by large size rounds (which exasperates #1, if they sank faster then fire could not be excessively concentrated on them).

Possible changes to address this. a) Reduce how much damage civilian vessels can withstand (see Merchant Durability thread). b) Change surface combat routines to spread fire out more. c) Change surface combat routines so that warships do not treat civilian/merchant ships as the same kind of targets as other warships.

Gut feeling. Try small changes first. No basis for the feeling, but suspect that it would not take much to cause significantly different outcomes.
This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

Image
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by mogami »

Hi, Just for the record. I would like to make it so that every unescorted ship is sunk by any TF that catches it. I don't think I will lose too many ships more then I do now. But I will certainly sink more.

The next question is then how much escort is enough to allow the transports to evade?
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
User avatar
Tristanjohn
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
Location: Daly City CA USA
Contact:

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by Tristanjohn »

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I'm thinking then that the scatter is too effective. It seems to me that the transports that are caught are being sunk but the players do not want the transports to be able to get away and this I think is produced at the start by their scattering. When I use a flag officer compared to a ship captain I catch more transports.

One might expect even a junior yachtsman to do better than these fellows in the game--at least the former could be reasonably expected not to throw another fifty-odd rounds into an already-burning hulk.
Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
User avatar
Tristanjohn
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
Location: Daly City CA USA
Contact:

RE: Surface Combat Sux

Post by Tristanjohn »

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Just for the record. I would like to make it so that every unescorted ship is sunk by any TF that catches it. I don't think I will lose too many ships more then I do now. But I will certainly sink more.

The next question is then how much escort is enough to allow the transports to evade?

That's a superb question. Don't know off the top of my head. It would "depend." [:D]

One might reasonably draw from historical encounters for some informed thought. A light escort might cause a little slowdown, get gobbled up, and the "chase" would merely resume a few minutes behind original schedule. A larger (say, CA or old BB) escort might well give pause to the thought of "chase" altogether and make it rather a real sea battle.

Who knows?
Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”