Surface Combat Sux

[mogami]

Hi, Without knowing the ranges and what the hits were I can't say. But a destroyer with 5x5in/38 can pumpout 66 rounds in less then 2 minutes.

Every surface battle I've seen at less then 5k shows a large number of AA/MG hits. Most of the time they are doing nothing but slow the animation down. But they are listed as hits at end of battle.

BB Yamato 3984 shell hits (all from 7mm MG) would have 1 sys damage maybe as a result.

it's not the number of hits that matter. It is what hits and where. 1 good hit can do more damage then many ineffective hits.

Strafe PT with Nates. You hit quite often but the Nate does no real damage. (Now the 20mm on A6M2 is another matter)

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Without knowing the ranges and what the hits were I can't say. But a destroyer with 5x5in/38 can pumpout 66 rounds in less then 2 minutes.

Every surface battle I've seen at less then 5k shows a large number of AA/MG hits. Most of the time they are doing nothing but slow the animation down.

And a Brooklyn-class more and bigger stuff than that. What's your point?

And would you consider not prefacing each and every one of your posts with "Hi"?

[mogami]

Hi, No.

[Nikademus]

yes. That and the fact that the engine appears to treat the engagement as a surface TF vs surface TF type engagement. They trade several "rounds" of fire, then mutually break off.
An aggressive commander will increase the poss. of a couple more "rounds" thus increasing damage, but the TF's will still then "mutually break off"

I'm hoping that a roll can be instititued where a competant commander will "realize" the target type he has and therefore will conduct combat far more aggressively vs the normal careful exchange of fire approach.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, No.

Well, at least I can count on you for a prompt response. [:D]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

yes. That and the fact that the engine appears to treat the engagement as a surface TF vs surface TF type engagement. They trade several "rounds" of fire, then mutually break off.
An aggressive commander will increase the poss. of a couple more "rounds" thus increasing damage, but the TF's will still then "mutually break off"

I'm hoping that a roll can be instititued where a competant commander will "realize" the target type he has and therefore will conduct combat far more aggressively vs the normal careful exchange of fire approach.

That would be a step in the right direction at least.

[mogami]

Hi, The point with number of hits shown beside a ship after a battle has no relation to the damage suffered and it does not reflect the time required to score that many hits.

There seems to be this idea that a TF has some complex fire control that directs every gun. Once a ship begins scoring hits it does not halt firing it goes to rapid fire. The chance that any one ship will engage more then 1 other ship in a surface action is remote.

In order for most DD to fire all their torpedos thay have to make several runs. In order for ships that can reload torpedos to do so they have to reduce speed. (and then spend 30 minutes to an hour per torpedo)

Ship fire controls do not engage multiple targets with the same type weapon.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

yes. That and the fact that the engine appears to treat the engagement as a surface TF vs surface TF type engagement. They trade several "rounds" of fire, then mutually break off.
An aggressive commander will increase the poss. of a couple more "rounds" thus increasing damage, but the TF's will still then "mutually break off"

I'm hoping that a roll can be instititued where a competant commander will "realize" the target type he has and therefore will conduct combat far more aggressively vs the normal careful exchange of fire approach.

Hi, I think the break off is usally the result of the surface TF sinking all the spotted targets and all the unspotted targets running away. The fact good leaders for me at least seem to inflict 4x the damage means they are better at fighting their TF and finding more targets. We should also give credit to the other leader for breaking off.

I have to admit that I do not encounter this as much in my games because I have the habit of placijng combat ships in my transport TF.s (I give the TF leader at least a CL for a flagship. (In UV I killed Tanaka many times as Allied by sinking AP/AK) Then I always also provide a DD. If I am moving between my own bases I don't alays provide the combat ships and Dadman has caught me more then once but he always pretty much wipes out my TF so I don't think he would complain.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, The point with number of hits shown beside a ship after a battle has no relation to the damage suffered and it does not reflect the time required to score that many hits.

There seems to be this idea that a TF has some complex fire control that directs every gun. Once a ship begins scoring hits it does not halt firing it goes to rapid fire. The chance that any one ship will engage more then 1 other ship in a surface action is remote.

Ship fire controls do not engage multiple targets with the same type weapon.

Within the context of this thread (daylight naval action versus merchies) that's a silly position to take. We're not talking confused night actions here.

[mogami]

Hi, Why not. Are daylight surface actions not also confused? What in daylight allows a ship firing its forward guns only in pursuit to target multiple targets?
In a surface combat where both sides want to fight they assume couse and formation that allows the fight to proceed. A transport TF is going to be trying to get away. While you are sinking this ship, that other ship is getting away. Once you finish the first you have to relocate the second and that might not be possible.

We can make the program as bloody as we want. This does not make it any more realistic.
No combat result can be predicted before the action occurs. There is more here then just X number of surface ships versus X number of transports result in X number of transports being lost.

Certainly the lower the range the first contact is made will make it harder for the transports to evade. But a large part of the following results will be comparing the two TF leaders. The fact that the combat "breaks off" so soon tells me the scatter is being used. If the game treated it as normal surface battle there would be more rounds and after one action ended another would begin. (like in normal surface versus surface actions)

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi, I think the break off is usally the result of the surface TF sinking all the spotted targets and all the unspotted targets running away. The fact good leaders for me at least seem to inflict 4x the damage means they are better at fighting their TF and finding more targets. We should also give credit to the other leader for breaking off.

Sometimes, but not always.

I have to admit that I do not encounter this as much in my games because I have the habit of placijng combat ships in my transport TF.s (

Yes i noticed that in the last PBEM test we did [:D]

[Mr.Frag]

Perhaps we also need the hexes weather condition at the time of the battle added to the AAR to help qualify the results.

[mogami]

Hi, I want to be clear here. I don't care how the system is changed. I will adapt myself to any change. I provide escorts to my transports so I'm not worried about losing some exploit in the system. I think I catch more unescorted TF then I provide.
But on the other hand I've never had a problem with the results. This is not defending the game beynd reason it is the simple truth. When I catch 10 transports and sink 4 and escape I am happy.

There is only a problem if these results are not what were intended. If that is the case then they will be changed to produce the desired results.

As long as we are all here submitting our opinions then the opinion I submit is that I don't think transport TF will (would have been) wiped out. Also is there not a check to see if when a surface TF is detected the transport TF runs (backs out of hex) to avoid combat altogether? (You see a message "transport TF xxxx aborts mission due to enemy surface ships in area" or something. So when combat occurs in the first place the surface TF has already gotten a good result. The damage is free because there might have been no battle in the first place.


I think wargames are too bloody most of the time but I am not opposed to making it more bloody to play badly. If we just wipe out any unescorted TF when caught we will improve play across the board greatly. We will also remove many of the exploits currently to be found. Now we only need to decide what is "unescorted" To me having a few PC/MSW in a TF still makes it unescorted if it encounters a enemy surface TF. The player who places a CL and 4-6 DD in his transport TF will still save most of the transports. (From time to time my escorts win the battle outright)

[Nikademus]

Just to further clarify the nature of the wish list item. "complete destruction" or "wipeout" is not the goal. Greater damage is. I would be happy with more common results of undefended or ill defended transports being serious damage and sinkings (immediate and eventual)

The ratio/preportion of which becomes more severe dependant on size of intruder force, speed differential and of course then throw in visability conditions.

The exceptions should be the common results seen now for the most part. Essentially a flip flop is needed. Such a reality would go a long way towards encouraging players to better plan their targets, and the organization it takes to successfully take said target. It would also make laying siege to a target more viable as well.

[mogami]

Hi, And we are happy at night this is all a daylight issue? (This could be another reason I never have problem since I stay under my own air)

[Nikademus]

No. night time battles are actually just as bad. Daylight can at least be excused to some degree because of distance as you've pointed out, though as the Germans showed, daylight was dangerous as well.

Night battles carry inherant disadvantages of course, mainly lack of visability. However If training is high enough, and equipment up to the job and conditions aren't too serious (i.e. weather) than a close range battle might still end up causing serious damage/destruction to an underdefended convoy. If the TF is actually unloading , the carnage factor should be particularily maximized. The British, as mentioned made an art out of night time convoy interception, mid ocean.

[Mr.Frag]

I'm game either way. It will simply alter some playing styles.

The question is where do you draw the line?

Lets say to go to extremes we have a 100 AK TF coming from the West Coast to Oz.

Japan in their infinite skill manage to get a 25 ship heavy surface TF and catch it at sea on a clear day.

What do you expect for results?

[Mr.Frag]

a close range battle might still end up causing serious damage/destruction to an underdefended convoy

Not too sure I can agree to that one ... at night ... how do you *know* it's not escorted?

For all you know, the groups massive escort is heading right for you as you pick on a couple of ships near the edge of the pack ... suddenly your tasty treat turns into a couple of BB's! [X(]

I view night encounters as always iffy

[mogami]

Hi, Well night battles in my games result in the transport TF being wiped out so I can't see the problem there unless it is too exessive at night and too light in the day. I've wiped out every transport TF I've found and the one Dadman snuck up on he sank over half outright. He hit every ship in the TF.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I'm game either way. It will simply alter some playing styles.

The question is where do you draw the line?

Lets say to go to extremes we have a 100 AK TF coming from the West Coast to Oz.

Japan in their infinite skill manage to get a 25 ship heavy surface TF and catch it at sea on a clear day.

What do you expect for results?

Yes, obviously there is some room for varience. My viewpoint is that it is better to err on the side of carnage vs, the current "fleeting contact" in regards to transport TF's. The result of which will inevitably be, more honest well planned play vs the oft complained about, "amphib operation on the fly" that players love to do because we (the wargamers) dont have to answer to anyone for our actions, and noone of course is actually getting killed due to our careless mistakes.

Players who have as much fear of their fragile transports becoming nine-pins as the real life commanders will ensure that the chance of said interceptions are minimized. If they dont protect them....then they will pay the consequences, up too and including a failed/botched invasion. This goes hand in hand with another wish list item i championed.....a tweak that causes transports that are unloading and are hit by ordinance while unloading to suffer substantial losses in cargo and troops. The latter is already modeled somwhat, but not the cargo. (supply/fuel) I still recall the frustration i felt in trying to stop Kid from reinforcing Tarawa in our game. I was actually bombing the crap out of his transports but unless i could "actually" sink the transport in question, it continued to unload at the normal rate with it's full capacity....even if it was at 99% SYS. Add to that the Allied damage control bonus and you can see the problem.

As to your example. If those 100 transports are undefended and they are attacked by a compentant balanced naval force, i'd say the results would be very heavy. as much as 25 to 50% casualties. The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, working alone without support managed to destroy between them over a dozen merchants in the time allotted vs one convoy they intercepted. An undefended convoy vs a full fledged TF in good vis conditions? aieee is what i expect. Pursuit! hunt! destroy!

[:D]