Surface Combat Sux

[RAM]

ORIGINAL: 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)

no, I am not happy. I can't be satisfied after engaging no less than 25 transports and 2 PGs in the last turn of my game with a 2BB, 2 CA, 3 CL, 6 DD force...the japanese group was so big the battle screen only showed the japanese force, not mine.

Japanese losses were limited to one PG, three transports sunk. Some light damage to other 4 transports. The usual "lead-magneto" effect was on, one of the transports took about 65 hits and a couple of torpedos, the other, no less than 50 and another torpedo, before they sank (after the battle).

any BB surface combat TF against such a transport TF would've caused at least four times that damage.


Revenge and PoW sank next morning because KB was nearby (and it had went unnoticed) and mauled them with 7 torpedos each. That also contributes to the fact that I'm pissed off, not for the fact that I've lost my most powerful assets in the DEI (as losing ships because you've not spotted the enemy carriers is part of the game), but because those ships should've caused a major invasion TF to be devastated...and that was denied by the surface combat routine. All in all I lost 2 BBs in exchange for almost nothing, when I should've cut that transport TF to pieces.


Something must be done to avoid ships overkilling already dying targets, that should improve the thing so much that I'm sure most complaints will disapear.

[mogami]

Hi, You know even during the day the faint hearted officer looking out on bridge wing will see a CA (really AP) or BB (really AK) and miss a great chance.
The foolhardy officer will see DD (CA) or CL (BB) and get killed

[Mr.Frag]

Hi, You know even during the day the faint hearted officer looking out on bridge wing will see a CA (really AP) or BB (really AK) and miss a great chance. The foolhardy officer will see DD (CA) or CL (BB) and get killed

[:D]

Quite true.

So, now for the next discusion point in the "bloody" combat ...

When do ships break off or do you also expect them to use up every last shell?

Inquiring air force pilots want to know [;)]

Next issue I can see right off ... SYS damage to the attackers due to prolonged use of heavy weapons. Not a BB built that could actually use up all it's ammo without shaking itself to pieces ... wheres the line need to be drawn?

[Nikademus]

The officer that (often) doesn't recognize his target is one who will quickly be removed. Bear in mind that in the 'real world' the commander being assigned his mission will in most cases be briefed on what his objective is. If that objective is "destruction of commerce/intercept a convoy/destroy a invasion TF" then if he encounters said golden opportunity and doesn't follow through then he will have alot to answer for.

Look what happened to Mikawa. He wont one of the greatest naval victories for his nation at little cost but at the moment of decision he opted to withdrawl rather than hunt for the transports he knew were present. Yamamotto was not happy on hearing this news despite the reports of mass naval losses to the Americans and a cloud decended on Mikawa as a result.

Now 'had' Mikawa actually contacted the transports.....i seriously doubt he would have just contended himself with exchanging a couple rounds of fire and THEN deciding he'd had enough and withdrawn.

Had he done THAT....he would have gotten more than a frown from Yamamotto...he would have been relieved.

[Bradley7735]

In my opinion, surface forces that engage moving transport taskforces during the day should sink between 4 and 10 transports if unescorted and between 0 and 4 transports if escorted. Night examples should have reduced damage due to less knowledge on both sides. Unloading transports should receive almost all sunk if unescorted and some damage if escorted (depending on escort)

I'm not sure how the game is working, (not a lot of examples to base my opinion), but I HIGHLY agree with Mogami on his posts regarding surface fleets pursuing transports. Historically, only 2 or 3 convoys in the med suffered complete loss (I think Ron posted much earlier in this thread) and the German raiders had some successes, though never complete loss to a convoy that I know of.

Fix the model if it is broken, but don't allow for complete destruction of convoys unless actively unloading. (please)

[mogami]

Hi, OK I agree. If I get results that I do not approve of I stop using the officer. That does not prevent my having to lose a few golden chances while I sort through my officers.


I spend almost all my PP early in the game (both sides) changing officers. Not moving airgroups or landunits to new HQ swapping officers for LCU and airgroups and assigning them to TF's

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

In my opinion, surface forces that engage moving transport taskforces during the day should sink between 4 and 10 transports if unescorted and between 0 and 4 transports if escorted. Night examples should have reduced damage due to less knowledge on both sides. Unloading transports should receive almost all sunk if unescorted and some damage if escorted (depending on escort)

I'm not sure how the game is working, (not a lot of examples to base my opinion), but I HIGHLY agree with Mogami on his posts regarding surface fleets pursuing transports. Historically, only 2 or 3 convoys in the med suffered complete loss (I think Ron posted much earlier in this thread) and the German raiders had some successes, though never complete loss to a convoy that I know of.

Fix the model if it is broken, but don't allow for complete destruction of convoys unless actively unloading. (please)

Hi, If the TF is escorted then you cannot predict how many transports will be sunk. In fact the surface TF might be sunk instead.

[Bradley7735]

Right. that's why i said (depending on escort). (the battle of Samar is a good example of escort whipping a greater surface force)

I'm with you Mogami. I can only give an opinion on what I expect the game to do. I havent played enough to know what the game does.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, OK I agree. If I get results that I do not approve of I stop using the officer. That does not prevent my having to lose a few golden chances while I sort through my officers.

Right, but if you still get medicore results more time than not, even using 'good officers'.... [;)]

[juliet7bravo]

Nice to see some things never change here in the Matrix forums, LOL. The one constant in an ever-changing world.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

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

If the commander is competant enough and his crews well trained enough, they will be able to both take advantage of the golden opportunity presented (the achieving of the goal of the mission) confident that if any escort does show up that it will be dealt with when it happens.

The emphasis is of course on competant. Mikawa was certainly worried about escorts. That didn't stop him or his crews from acting decisively each time he sighted and engaged enemy warships. I wouldn't expect such a commander and crews to preform any differently or any less decisively just because they are suddenly facing the quarry that brought them out there.

[mogami]

Hi, Does anyone think that when trying to prove a negative there will be unanimous agreement?

"OK this never happened, but if it did this would have been the result"

The disagreement is OK. The debate is OK. In only 2 points is it not OK.

When it becomes personal. And when it is working as it is supposed to be working but still considered broken. No matter what stance the designers take they will have a "loyal opposition" Personally I tend to think things are always too bloody. And even with watered down combat the game (Like most war-games) will produce loss rates that make WW2 look like a skirmish. (I've played Gettysburg games where the total loss combined exceeded 100k men)

In a normal surface battle there is a good chance (or should be) that no ship gets hits and every ship expends ammo. In WITP it is most common for one side to thrash the other. Why? Because early in the war the IJN outnumbers the Allies and the crews and leaders have higher numbers. The Japanese do not have to send a surface TF out that does not contain a BB or several CA while at the point of contact the Allies have 1 BB 1 BC and 1 CA with a horde of odd duck CL.. The combat record of these ships is not very impressive. Nothing suggest to me that they would wipe out anything night or day. The one thing that is certain is in WITP they will do better then they actually did in the war.

So I tend to view lack of results as more accurate a result of combat then excessive results. But this is strictly my personal opinion.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: 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)

There is absolutely nothing you can do to convince anyone on this forum that one AK/AP/TK ship in a 20 ship AK/AP/TK TF taking 95% of the shell hits from a 6-8 ship surface combat TF is in any way a realistic combat result. There is no logic on earth that can justify that.

[RAM]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

There is absolutely nothing you can do to convince anyone on this forum that one AK/AP/TK ship in a 20 ship AK/AP/TK TF taking 95% of the shell hits from a 6-8 ship surface combat TF is in any way a realistic combat result. There is no logic on earth that can justify that.

That's exactly my point of view.

[mogami]

Hi, Well you should say there is no logic on earth that will convince you. Since I don't have a problem with it and I have served on board ship chasing other ships.
I have served with officers I trusted and others who scared me.
Just like in any combat situation the end result is often decided by skill and not by numbers. There has been absoluty no consideration allowed for anything but calculation of fire power.

We can spread the discussion to include all bombers caught unescorted will be shot down.

In any event the portion of players who are happy with it as it presently is will have to conform to changes brought about to make other players happy. It will have little to no impact on me personally because I am normally the player with the surface TF in these situations and not the player with unescorted transports. All I can do is gain from the changes.

[mogami]

Hi, Now had this TF stayed to fight it out in normal surface action I would expect more of it to have been lost. However since it was fleeing it all the directions of the compass from the start I think the surface TF accounted for a good haul.



Day Time Surface Combat at 59,72

Japanese Ships
AO Hayasui
TK Choran Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
TK Gen'yo Maru, Shell hits 25, and is sunk
TK Kyokuto Maru
TK Nihon Maru
TK San Pedro Maru, Shell hits 24, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AK Genoa Maru
AK Getuyo Maru
AK Glasgow Maru
AK Gosyu Maru, Shell hits 25, and is sunk
AK Goyo Maru, Shell hits 20, and is sunk
AK Hague Maru, Shell hits 28, on fire, heavy damage
AK Hakkai Maru
AK Hakodate Maru
AK Hakonesan Maru, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AK Hakubasan Maru, Shell hits 9, on fire, heavy damage
AO Medan Maru, Shell hits 6, on fire
TK Kyokuho, Shell hits 1

Allied Ships
BB Indiana, Shell hits 1
BB Alabama
BB Iowa
BB New Jersey
CA Indianapolis
CA Louisville
CA Salt Lake City
CA New Orleans
CL Birmingham
CL St. Louis
CL Honolulu
DD Anthony
DD Aulick
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Charles Badger
DD Beale
DD Bell
DD Bennett
DD Bennion
DD Boyd
DD Bradford
DD Braine
DD Clarence Bronson
DD Brown
DD Bryant

2 Japanese sank after battle. 7 out of 17 (41 percent of engaged ships lost in a single action)

Many people are acting like the battle is now over. A naval battle can last several days.
If I want to split up my TF now and pursue I can. The orginal post said the enemy TF was back the next day however he could have ordered his TF back again as well. The result of a battle is when 1 player says the battle is over by not continuing it. In this case here the Allied player could wipe out the entire Japanese TF by splitting his TF. It might require more then 1 day. We are also forgetting time it seems to me. Sinking many ships requires the surface TF to do a good deal of steaming. I don't think it would happen in a single movement phase. (8 hours from start to finish. Minus time required to move into hex minus time saved for retire by TF with those orders Minus time for tracking down ships.)

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Well you should say there is no logic on earth that will convince you. Since I don't have a problem with it and I have served on board ship chasing other ships.
I have served with officers I trusted and others who scared me.
Just like in any combat situation the end result is often decided by skill and not by numbers. There has been absoluty no consideration allowed for anything but calculation of fire power.

We can spread the discussion to include all bombers caught unescorted will be shot down.

In any event the portion of players who are happy with it as it presently is will have to conform to changes brought about to make other players happy. It will have little to no impact on me personally because I am normally the player with the surface TF in these situations and not the player with unescorted transports. All I can do is gain from the changes.

Why do you folks always take such a black and white stance on EVERYTHING? 1 in 20 ships taking 95% of the hits is completely assinine no matter how you look at it, leadership, experience, anything. History does not in any way validate that. But that does not mean all 20 take 5%. That's just as assinine as the former! It is perfectly logical, say for the lead/first-encountered ship to take 50-60% maybe 65-70% at night, with #2 taking another 25% or so, with the rest scattered about, maybe half the other taking at least one or two hits with maybe 8-10 escaping completely unhit.

It is a matter of DEGREE. There are some aspects of this game that are in the EXTREME and that's what most people get worked up about.

[RAM]

Mogami, in a surface fight between combatants, I agree, the results are mostly decided by skill...

however no ammount of great skill can prevent a surface commander with 25 slow, cumbersome transports full of troops and supplies to avoind losing a great number of his ships against a couple of battleships, half a dozen cruisers and a good number of destroyers.


in a similar fashion, there's no way that a completely lacking commander would order 90% of his TF fire to be directed at ONE Transport to pound it until it's nothing but long-time-gone rubbish while he sees many others; to then engage other ONE transport, pound it to hell without firing at the other ships he sees...before fleeing at once.

THAT is what it's out of any explanation or logic...not the fact that superior numbers don't win a battle (which has been the case in many places&times)

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Now had this TF stayed to fight it out in normal surface action I would expect more of it to have been lost. However since it was fleeing it all the directions of the compass from the start I think the surface TF accounted for a good haul.



Day Time Surface Combat at 59,72

Japanese Ships
AO Hayasui
TK Choran Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
TK Gen'yo Maru, Shell hits 25, and is sunk
TK Kyokuto Maru
TK Nihon Maru
TK San Pedro Maru, Shell hits 24, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AK Genoa Maru
AK Getuyo Maru
AK Glasgow Maru
AK Gosyu Maru, Shell hits 25, and is sunk
AK Goyo Maru, Shell hits 20, and is sunk
AK Hague Maru, Shell hits 28, on fire, heavy damage
AK Hakkai Maru
AK Hakodate Maru
AK Hakonesan Maru, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AK Hakubasan Maru, Shell hits 9, on fire, heavy damage
AO Medan Maru, Shell hits 6, on fire
TK Kyokuho, Shell hits 1

Allied Ships
BB Indiana, Shell hits 1
BB Alabama
BB Iowa
BB New Jersey
CA Indianapolis
CA Louisville
CA Salt Lake City
CA New Orleans
CL Birmingham
CL St. Louis
CL Honolulu
DD Anthony
DD Aulick
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Charles Badger
DD Beale
DD Bell
DD Bennett
DD Bennion
DD Boyd
DD Bradford
DD Braine
DD Clarence Bronson
DD Brown
DD Bryant

2 Japanese sank after battle. 7 out of 17 (41 percent of engaged ships lost in a single action)

Sorry, not buying the "extrapolate the exception to be the norm" line. That's the kind of result that be the norm, but it seldom is. I personally have yet to have that kind of result in any game I've played. Below is the OVERWHLEMING norm

Day Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 67,97

Japanese Ships
AP Arizana Maru
AP Eiko Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
AP Kisaragi Maru, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Somedono Maru, Shell hits 48, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CA Minneapolis
CL Detroit
CL St. Louis
CL Phoenix
DD Mugford
DD Ralph Talbot
DD Henley
DD Dale
DD Aylwin
DD Allen
DD Litchfield

Japanese ground losses:
556 casualties reported
Guns lost 14

Sorry, but that's simply INSANE. There is no logic on the planet that can justify that kind of result. NONE. But yet, that is the NORMAL in the game.

[mogami]

Hi, OK you are upset because a single Japanese ship in a TF of 4 escaped?