RE: PoW sinks Hyuga, Fuso! Yamashiro crippled!
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:19 pm
I've added the last battle (Repulse vs. Convoy) and uploaded new screenshots in order to fix some spelling errors and factual mistakes. For instance, BC Repulse didn't fire a TT against Takao, but against a destroyer guarding the convoy - and the torpedo hit!! [X(] [:D] Am I the first one to have a battlecruiser score a torpedo hit?
Also I forgot to mention what all those lines in the screenshots represent:
Thick lines: fire from caliber 8in and above
Thin lines: fire from caliber 6in and below (not all shots are displayed)
Dotted lines: torpedoes fired (but not necessarily hits)
Kereguelen,
vielen Dank! [:)] The Japanese BB TF sunk some PT boats last turn. So yes, they had been in combat before, but no, they were not out of main gun ammo. IIRC not a single 14in shell was fired by the three battleships against the PT boats. By now Chuck and I have exchanged several emails about this battle: Tanaka was in command of the battleships, and they were in a surface combat TF. Only the cruiser TF had orders to bombard Kuching that day, and this certainly explains the bad performance of this TF against the inferior and inexperienced US Navy TF (bombardment TFs behave 'strange' during surface combat).
Vetamur,
this is indeed a known issue and discussed in several threads. I urge you (and everyone interested in the basics of the surface combat engine) to read Tom Hunter's 'Naval Gunnery Thread'. Tom explains how the AI pairs ships, and why it is better to send several small TFs against a superior enemy - against common sense!
tm.asp?m=1080410
I did not deliberately exploit this quirk of the surface combat engine by splitting PoW, Repulse and Houston into three TFs. I would have added Repulse to the PoW TF if she had arrived on time at Pontianak, and Houston was supposed to attack at daylight. I've talked with Chuck about this, and we will both continue to form our surface combat TFs as we think it would have happened in real life, and not to maximise results in the WitP engine.
ny59giants,
great success indeed! This will change the situation in the DEI quite a lot, now I just have to figure out what changes, and how much! [:D]
csatahajos,
keep in mind that there are Nells flying from Saigon and Kota Bharu, and I have no doubt lots of I-boats are closing in. Tomorrow I'll lose Kuching (it almost fell today), and then I have to rely on inefficient LRCAP to cover my ships. I'll look into it as soon as I have the turn, though, I definitely want to hunt some cripples and have another shot at the invasion convoy, but I doubt I will risk anything larger than a CA.
niceguy2005,
Tanaka commanded the Japanese battleships, and I have no doubt Chuck selected all captains by hand. I'm afraid he didn't make a single mistake which could explain this lopsided victory. In hindsight I didn't make any mistake either, so I guess it all boiled down to sheer LUCK!
bradfordkay,
LOL! I guess I've used up all my luck regarding SC engagement until 1944. OTOH, this might just be revenge for Pearl Harbor and the 4 US battleships sunk there.
Also I forgot to mention what all those lines in the screenshots represent:
Thick lines: fire from caliber 8in and above
Thin lines: fire from caliber 6in and below (not all shots are displayed)
Dotted lines: torpedoes fired (but not necessarily hits)
Kereguelen,
vielen Dank! [:)] The Japanese BB TF sunk some PT boats last turn. So yes, they had been in combat before, but no, they were not out of main gun ammo. IIRC not a single 14in shell was fired by the three battleships against the PT boats. By now Chuck and I have exchanged several emails about this battle: Tanaka was in command of the battleships, and they were in a surface combat TF. Only the cruiser TF had orders to bombard Kuching that day, and this certainly explains the bad performance of this TF against the inferior and inexperienced US Navy TF (bombardment TFs behave 'strange' during surface combat).
Vetamur,
this is indeed a known issue and discussed in several threads. I urge you (and everyone interested in the basics of the surface combat engine) to read Tom Hunter's 'Naval Gunnery Thread'. Tom explains how the AI pairs ships, and why it is better to send several small TFs against a superior enemy - against common sense!
tm.asp?m=1080410
I did not deliberately exploit this quirk of the surface combat engine by splitting PoW, Repulse and Houston into three TFs. I would have added Repulse to the PoW TF if she had arrived on time at Pontianak, and Houston was supposed to attack at daylight. I've talked with Chuck about this, and we will both continue to form our surface combat TFs as we think it would have happened in real life, and not to maximise results in the WitP engine.
ny59giants,
great success indeed! This will change the situation in the DEI quite a lot, now I just have to figure out what changes, and how much! [:D]
csatahajos,
keep in mind that there are Nells flying from Saigon and Kota Bharu, and I have no doubt lots of I-boats are closing in. Tomorrow I'll lose Kuching (it almost fell today), and then I have to rely on inefficient LRCAP to cover my ships. I'll look into it as soon as I have the turn, though, I definitely want to hunt some cripples and have another shot at the invasion convoy, but I doubt I will risk anything larger than a CA.
niceguy2005,
Tanaka commanded the Japanese battleships, and I have no doubt Chuck selected all captains by hand. I'm afraid he didn't make a single mistake which could explain this lopsided victory. In hindsight I didn't make any mistake either, so I guess it all boiled down to sheer LUCK!
bradfordkay,
LOL! I guess I've used up all my luck regarding SC engagement until 1944. OTOH, this might just be revenge for Pearl Harbor and the 4 US battleships sunk there.


























