Page 16 of 26
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:40 pm
by Mr.Frag
This look better?
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/18/44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 61,74
Japanese Ships
DD Wakazuki
DD Shimotsuki
DD Tamanami
DD Fujinami
DD Kishinami
DD Okinami
DD Asashimo
DD Hayashimo, Shell hits 1
DD Akishimo
DD Yukikaze
DD Isokaze
DD Urakaze
DD Hamakaze
DD Nowaki
DD Michishio
DD Yamagumo
DD Asagumo
DD Shiratsuyu
DD Shigure
DD Samidare
DD Hatsushimo
DD Hibiki
DD Uzuki
DD Yunagi
DD Tsuga
Allied Ships
AP W.A. Holbrook, Shell hits 10, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Frederick Funston
AP Harris
AP Doyen, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AP Sheridan, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
AP Callaway, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Sumter
AP Bolivar, Shell hits 10, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Custer
AP Cambria, Shell hits 7, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
AP Warhawk, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP James O'Hara
AP Leon, Shell hits 8, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Storm King, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Knox, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AP John Land, Shell hits 14, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AP Cavalier
AP Winged Arrow, Shell hits 12, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Herald of Morning, Shell hits 3, on fire
AP Clay, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Baxter, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Comet
AP Hercules, Shell hits 12, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AP Fremont, Shell hits 8, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AK Leonis, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Kenmore, Shell hits 9, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
AP Livingston
AP De Grasse
AK Prince Georges
AK Thuban
AK Jupiter
AK Auriga
AK Columbian
AK Dakotan
AK Montanan
AK Wind Rush, Shell hits 1
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:41 pm
by ZOOMIE1980
ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi, I think it was decided that in order to have statisics that could be used to base any conclusion you needed over 1400 samples.
(The transports move 1 hex every half phase. If the battle began in the center of a hex and lasted 8 hours and there were more then 6 transports at start that survived there would be a transport in every adjecent hex before the turn was over. )
Here, in my firm, we take it for granted that once the software reaches production, only then will we begin to see the "scaling" bugs. No amount of testing can ever hope to match the load and conditions encountered in the real world over a time. Sometimes design flaws are not even observable until applications are under long term real world stress.
In the case of WitP, this certainly seems to be one of those cases. Where there is this much smoke, there is ALWAYS fire.
Another problem here is the conceptual one of at what level is the abstraction at in the design. I think, overall, things are MUCH MORE abstracted than what you presenting. It's the same thing as two LCU's 59.5 miles apart in the same hex, still engaging in a shock attack..... At some point the abstraction takes over, and for game purposes the two units are co-located.
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:42 pm
by ZOOMIE1980
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
This look better?
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/18/44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 61,74
Japanese Ships
DD Wakazuki
DD Shimotsuki
DD Tamanami
DD Fujinami
DD Kishinami
DD Okinami
DD Asashimo
DD Hayashimo, Shell hits 1
DD Akishimo
DD Yukikaze
DD Isokaze
DD Urakaze
DD Hamakaze
DD Nowaki
DD Michishio
DD Yamagumo
DD Asagumo
DD Shiratsuyu
DD Shigure
DD Samidare
DD Hatsushimo
DD Hibiki
DD Uzuki
DD Yunagi
DD Tsuga
Allied Ships
AP W.A. Holbrook, Shell hits 10, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Frederick Funston
AP Harris
AP Doyen, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AP Sheridan, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
AP Callaway, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Sumter
AP Bolivar, Shell hits 10, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Custer
AP Cambria, Shell hits 7, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
AP Warhawk, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP James O'Hara
AP Leon, Shell hits 8, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Storm King, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Knox, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AP John Land, Shell hits 14, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AP Cavalier
AP Winged Arrow, Shell hits 12, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Herald of Morning, Shell hits 3, on fire
AP Clay, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Baxter, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Comet
AP Hercules, Shell hits 12, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AP Fremont, Shell hits 8, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AK Leonis, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Kenmore, Shell hits 9, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
AP Livingston
AP De Grasse
AK Prince Georges
AK Thuban
AK Jupiter
AK Auriga
AK Columbian
AK Dakotan
AK Montanan
AK Wind Rush, Shell hits 1
Very nice! That's more along the lines of something I'd expect to see almost every time. Too bad I have yet to see something like this in any game I have played to date!
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:44 pm
by ZOOMIE1980
ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
I agree with what you're saying but I think the combat routine just makes it look a little bit worse than it is in terms of one ship getting a huge percentage of hits inflicted. When ship A hits ship B the computer adjusts the sys/flt/fire damage of B and, assuming sys damage affects speed and speed affects hit probability, B is now more likely to be hit by the next shot that A fires. If A is a ship w/ high ROF weapons and hits B early in A's firing sequence, B will quickly get to 100/100 sys/float damage, virtually guaranteeing A hitting B when it fires. Unfortunately, A and B aren't aware that B is sunk until the entire combat round (all the ships on both sides have fired) is over so the hits rapidly accumulate. The ship may have actually sunk on the 5th or 6th shot, it just won't know it. It also prevents A from engaging any other ship for the round.
If that, indeed is the kind of algorithm employed, I'd say it has serious flaws. Something is serious wrong with the abstraction level in this one.
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:44 pm
by RAM
that's an exceptional combat report result, Mr.Frag...achieving only 50% of those losses I would've never said a bit about the issue, but the combat report fits OK in what I think would be such an one-sided engagement.
how did you get that???? many ships are reported as sunk!...how many rounds were played?...
As it is now I can't believe that with the current version of WitP you can achieve such results...are you a tester, and is this a bone tossed at us? [:D]
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:44 pm
by anarchyintheuk
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
This look better?
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/18/44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 61,74
Japanese Ships
DD Wakazuki
DD Shimotsuki
DD Tamanami
DD Fujinami
DD Kishinami
DD Okinami
DD Asashimo
DD Hayashimo, Shell hits 1
DD Akishimo
DD Yukikaze
DD Isokaze
DD Urakaze
DD Hamakaze
DD Nowaki
DD Michishio
DD Yamagumo
DD Asagumo
DD Shiratsuyu
DD Shigure
DD Samidare
DD Hatsushimo
DD Hibiki
DD Uzuki
DD Yunagi
DD Tsuga
Allied Ships
AP W.A. Holbrook, Shell hits 10, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Frederick Funston
AP Harris
AP Doyen, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AP Sheridan, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
AP Callaway, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Sumter
AP Bolivar, Shell hits 10, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Custer
AP Cambria, Shell hits 7, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
AP Warhawk, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP James O'Hara
AP Leon, Shell hits 8, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Storm King, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Knox, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AP John Land, Shell hits 14, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AP Cavalier
AP Winged Arrow, Shell hits 12, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Herald of Morning, Shell hits 3, on fire
AP Clay, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Baxter, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Comet
AP Hercules, Shell hits 12, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AP Fremont, Shell hits 8, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AK Leonis, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Kenmore, Shell hits 9, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
AP Livingston
AP De Grasse
AK Prince Georges
AK Thuban
AK Jupiter
AK Auriga
AK Columbian
AK Dakotan
AK Montanan
AK Wind Rush, Shell hits 1
Don't know the conditions under which it occurred, but assuming those are optimal . . . yup.
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:45 pm
by Mr.Frag
Very nice! That's more along the lines of something I'd expect to see almost every time. Too bad I have yet to see something like this in any game I have played to date!
I understand ... the problem is it just *did* come from the very game you are running.
Thats a bunch of DD's eating their way through unprotected transports ... Note the DD's are not leashed to capital ships, but free to pursue ... If you include cap ships, the dd's don't go and play.
Not taking a stance on right or wrong, simply stating what I see.
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:49 pm
by RAM
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
I understand ... the problem is it just *did* come from the very game you are running.
Thats a bunch of DD's eating their way through unprotected transports ... Note the DD's are not leashed to capital ships, but free to pursue ... If you include cap ships, the dd's don't go and play.
OHHHH! nice!!!!
Suddenly all in a moment, all the arguments about the "commander and ships not seeing the enemy", "60 miles of hex","ships firing at the same target" etc, are sent straight to the bottom [:D]
Ok, on the issue and combat report itself: this kind of damage should be the result with or without capitol ships involved of a naval combat with a surface combat fleet vs any unescorted, or almost unescorted, convoy.
Or is someone to tell me now that in a surface action cruisers and battleships are a negative asset? [;)]
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:49 pm
by Bradley7735
Hi Mr. Frag,
Sorry, but your example is a night engagement. I think the issue is Day engagments. I don't think anyone has problems with night engagments (although with this forum, I'm probably wrong [:D])
bc
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:50 pm
by RAM
ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
Hi Mr. Frag,
Sorry, but your example is a night engagement. I think the issue is Day engagments. I don't think anyone has problems with night engagments (although with this forum, I'm probably wrong [:D])
bc
My (the 2BB, 6 cruiser, 6 DD) engagement vs the 55+ transports plus 2 MSWs is a night engagement.
I do have a problem with it...dunno if anybody else, but I do, fer sure [:'(]
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:52 pm
by dtravel
Well, as someone who is guilty of his own high-temperature rules arguments <waves hello to Mr.Frag from his bomber [:'(]>, I'd have to say I think this thread has reached the "both sides dug in and not moving" stage. Someone let me know when things cool down, please. [>:]
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:52 pm
by mogami
Hi, And again we return to the beginning. When a surface combat TF engages unescorted transports the transports scatter. But then the player sees his ships in a nice neat line firing at transports in a nice neat line and this is his picture of the battle.
The animation does not show the transports scattering.
The animation says "range 3k" and the player thinks every enemy ship is 3k from all of his ships. No the ships that are firing are firing at a ship 3k away. If a ship does not fire or is not fired at it could be that they are out of range during this segment of firing but in no case are the 2 opposed neat lines a picture of what is going on.
Now I am aware of the "But the TF leader would breakup his formation" Really? and to what end? By the time the firing begins those ships there are taking fire and those ships that are doing the firing are the ones that are in contact. Break formation and go where? More likely the TF commander would have his ships fire at the targets in range.
The transports do not remain a bunched up herd or easy to kill ships. They scatter. Even at 10ks they cover ground.
(OK take your buddy out on the road. Give him a 10 mile headstart. You chase him doing 30 mph while he evades at 10mph. See how long it takes to catch him. Now take two buddies out. Have one go north at 10mph and the other south at 10mph and see if you can catch them both. Now take 3 but before you chase the first 2 the third starts only 5 miles away and you must catch him before you can chase the other 2.
Now do all this and be back at your starting place or 30 miles towards home (retire orders)
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:55 pm
by Tankerace
Methinks I see the issue, and its one I have held for a while.
The problem is, your capital ships aren't going to go on a wild goose chase. They are too valuable to loose. YOur screening vessels (DDs/CA/CLs) will only go so far, their main duty being to protect the battleship.
However, as in my AAR of just cruisers and destroyers, and Mr. Frag's sole destroyer TF, they are allowed to "roam free and play". Basically, using a battleship for this kind of commerce raiding hurts more than it helps. But if you use smaller ships, then you can net some good stuff.
Is that basically how the game is programmed? Which makes sense, considering the entire cruiser role (as set by WWI and continued to an extent in WW2) is as a commerce raider. The BB is there to knock off supporting vessels.
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:57 pm
by mogami
ORIGINAL: RAM
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
I understand ... the problem is it just *did* come from the very game you are running.
Thats a bunch of DD's eating their way through unprotected transports ... Note the DD's are not leashed to capital ships, but free to pursue ... If you include cap ships, the dd's don't go and play.
OHHHH! nice!!!!
Suddenly all in a moment, all the arguments about the "commander and ships not seeing the enemy", "60 miles of hex","ships firing at the same target" etc, are sent straight to the bottom [:D]
Ok, on the issue and combat report itself: this kind of damage should be the result with or without capitol ships involved of a naval combat with a surface combat fleet vs any unescorted, or almost unescorted, convoy.
Or is someone to tell me now that in a surface action cruisers and battleships are a negative asset? [;)]
Hi, You know know there is a range difference between Japanese torpedos and Allied torpedos and that Japanese ships carry reloads. Also was that a retire or do not retire mission. And I count at least 17 transports that escaped unharmed.
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:57 pm
by RAM
(OK take your buddy out on the road. Give him a 10 mile headstart. You chase him doing 30 mph while he evades at 10mph. See how long it takes to catch him. Now take two buddies out. Have one go north at 10mph and the other south at 10mph and see if you can catch them both. Now take 3 but before you chase the first 2 the third starts only 5 miles away and you must catch him before you can chase the other 2.
this isn't appliable. You don't need to *catch* a ship to sunk it. That's why you've got guns for...since the Medieval eras ships can shoot cannons, you know...
A more decent example would be the following:
take your buddy out on the street. Give him a 10 yard headstart. You chase him doing 30 feet por second while he evades at 10fps. See how long it takes to catch him. Now take two buddies out. Have one go north at 10fps and the other south at 10fps and see if you can catch them both. Now take 3 but before you chase the first 2 the third starts only 5 yards away and you must catch him before you can chase the other 2.
my answer in naval gunfire engagements:
with my 15 inch shotgun they won't run too many yards...and I won't need to run them either [:D]
of course when one of my buddies receives a shotgun hit and is clearly dead or dying I don't keep on beating the crap out of his body while the other two are getting away. I make sure he's dying ,then I shoot another one.
BTW: piece of advice after reading this...never try to be a buddy of mine, at least if I have a shotgun near me [:'(]
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:58 pm
by Tankerace
As to splitting up the TF, a Battleship commander isn't going to send his destroyers off to hunt the transports, because he needs them to protect his BB from enemy subs. And he can't send off his cruisers, because 1) he doesn't want to loose them by air attack come morning, and 2) being a small TF, he can't send any DDs to protect them along. If he does, problem 1 crops up. So, in a small TF, he keeps it all together.
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:00 pm
by Tankerace
Yes, that is what guns are for. But remember its night, and you don't want to waste preciously few 15" rounds on a target you can't see, or can't see clearly. You save it for when/if a better, clearer target comes up.
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:00 pm
by mogami
ORIGINAL: RAM
(OK take your buddy out on the road. Give him a 10 mile headstart. You chase him doing 30 mph while he evades at 10mph. See how long it takes to catch him. Now take two buddies out. Have one go north at 10mph and the other south at 10mph and see if you can catch them both. Now take 3 but before you chase the first 2 the third starts only 5 miles away and you must catch him before you can chase the other 2.
this isn't appliable. You don't need to *catch* a ship to sunk it. That's why you've got guns for...since the Medieval eras ships can shoot cannons, you know...
A more decent example would be the following:
take your buddy out on the street. Give him a 10 yard headstart. You chase him doing 30 feet por second while he evades at 10fps. See how long it takes to catch him. Now take two buddies out. Have one go north at 10fps and the other south at 10fps and see if you can catch them both. Now take 3 but before you chase the first 2 the third starts only 5 yards away and you must catch him before you can chase the other 2.
my answer in naval gunfire engagements:
with my 15 inch shotgun they won't run too many yards...and I won't need to run them either [:D]
of course when one of my buddies receives a shotgun hit and is clearly dead or dying I don't keep on beating the crap out of his body while the other two are getting away. I make sure he's dying ,then I shoot another one.
BTW: piece of advice after reading this...never try to be a buddy of mine, at least if I have a shotgun near me [:'(]
Hi, You have to be in range. You catch a ship when it is in range. You can't quote 15in range and wonder why your DD did not engage. Thye have to catch the enemy. In my example after you catch the first guy at 5 miles you'll never find the other 2 even being 3 times faster.
Frags example shows the difference between Allied torpedos and the Long Lance.
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:04 pm
by RAM
ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi, You know know there is a range difference between Japanese torpedos and Allied torpedos and that Japanese ships carry reloads.
all I see is a wonderfully equal gunfire dispersion pattern between the ships hit. Which is exactly one of my principal and main concerns regarding surface engagements in WitP, that they keep beating out the hell out of the dead horse until the poor horse is dead at least ten times (or more).
And I count at least 17 transports that escaped unharmed.
Again, I insist, I don't ask for convoys to be anihilated by surface TFs. Quite a number of them SHOULD escape unharmed...but the ammount of ships ACTUALLY HEAVILY DAMAGED (and with the number of hits given, torpedo or no, many of them would sunk sooner or latter), is what catches my eye and makes me give my approval.
I don't know where do you take the idea that I'm asking big convoys to be totally destroyed, for I never have asked for it. However, a 6% loss when attacked by 14 ships, two of them battleships, forces me to say that the combat rules as they are now simply don't work most of the time, giving out absurd results.
RE: Surface Combat Sux
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:10 pm
by RAM
ORIGINAL: Mogami
In my example after you catch the first guy at 5 miles you'll never find the other 2 even being 3 times faster.
if I'm fast enough appying enough damage to the first ship to ensure her sinking (and with such ammount of firepower and the merchant nature of the enemy hull, she won't take long), the 2nd one won't be far, and I will kill it no matter what. ´Maybe the third runs away, but 2 out of 3 I can live with...
What I can't live with is with 6% of the ships, that's fer sure.
ORIGINAL: Tankerace
Yes, that is what guns are for. But remember its night, and you don't want to waste preciously few 15" rounds on a target you can't see, or can't see clearly. You save it for when/if a better, clearer target comes up.
and remember, PoW carries state-of-the-art radar, can track unseen enemies, and fire blind at night with high degree of accuracy (as was shown at Matapan) and's got a quite nice DP secondary battery if the commander is hesitant to fire his 14' guns.
PoW was present on the combat report I posted and was part of the massacre of TWO ships out of 55 while the rest went out almost unharmed by gunfire...'nuff said.