Surface combat - still needs some tweaking

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
tigercub
Posts: 2026
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 12:25 pm
Location: brisbane oz

RE: Surface combat - still needs some tweaking

Post by tigercub »

Why are they not engaging if they have spotted out as far as 30,000 yards and starting firing when they see the whites of they eyes![:@][:@][:@]


Tiger!


Image
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Surface combat - still needs some tweaking

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: tigercub

Why are they not engaging if they have spotted out as far as 30,000 yards and starting firing when they see the whites of they eyes![:@][:@][:@]


Tiger!

Because:
Low visibility due to Thunderstorms
Maximum visibility in Thunderstorms: 3,000 yards
Dili
Posts: 4742
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Surface combat - still needs some tweaking

Post by Dili »

Well thundestorms, 3000yds visibility, anything can happen. Specially with a 20 Torpedo battery of Kitakami class! I think some BB Commanders need to be a bit more intelligent.
User avatar
tigercub
Posts: 2026
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 12:25 pm
Location: brisbane oz

RE: Surface combat - still needs some tweaking

Post by tigercub »

Maximum visibility in Thunderstorms: 3,000 yards, storms poor light, I think is getting to many ships get to close, the combat is fine but when they are engaging is Crap!


Tiger!
Image
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life
User avatar
tigercub
Posts: 2026
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 12:25 pm
Location: brisbane oz

RE: Surface combat - still needs some tweaking

Post by tigercub »

Its just happends to much that they getting to close this short of thing happen once in a blue moon and at night!!
The game is stopping the fleets from engaging this would be ok if it did not happen to offten.



Tiger!
Image
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life
Dili
Posts: 4742
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Surface combat - still needs some tweaking

Post by Dili »

The question here is why the BB commander want to fight at 3kyd. He shouldn't.
User avatar
tigercub
Posts: 2026
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 12:25 pm
Location: brisbane oz

RE: Surface combat - still needs some tweaking

Post by tigercub »

ORIGINAL: Dili

The question here is why the BB commander want to fight at 3kyd. He shouldn't.
But in this battle he is forced to because of weather I think the Game is closing the Range of the battles down to much but i do not know all the details of how they systems work. The ships don`t even try to fire by Radar or so it looks.
Yes the BB commander should be backing off he is the one with the Radar and the knowledge of the Japs and the japs are in the dark.


tiger!
Image
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life
User avatar
Iridium
Posts: 932
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:50 pm
Location: Jersey

RE: Surface combat - still needs some tweaking

Post by Iridium »

From the actions I've been seeing, surface groups need 1.5 x Capital Ships = DD escorts. It's a lack of screening I'd guess, maybe if someone did a thorough test for taskforces with varied screens to see if it makes a substantial difference or not...
Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.
Image
"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Surface combat - still needs some tweaking

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: Dili
The question here is why the BB commander want to fight at 3kyd. He shouldn't.


He is there to engage and sink the enemy..., and if he has to close to 3,000 yards to sight and shoot at that enemy, then he will. What the game totally fails to deal with correctly (and Matapan displayed quite well) is that 3,000 yards is virtually "point blank" and "bore sight" range for a BB's armament! By the time the second or third salvo landed (1-1.5 minutes), it's target should be "toast". Confusion, chaos, and dumb luck might save the target (ala San Francisco at 1st Guadalcanal), but in this instance Oi would have had a very tough time even getting her torpedoes in the water before being blown out of it! All those "long lances" on her deck make immediate "critical damage" almost inevitable... This is not the kind of fight or range she was designed for.

User avatar
tigercub
Posts: 2026
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 12:25 pm
Location: brisbane oz

RE: Surface combat - still needs some tweaking

Post by tigercub »

I for one would like very few if at all battles that get to this range it just does not fit with WW2 naval battles,IT did happen but very few and far between and thats the way i would like to keep it.

Tiger!
Image
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life
spence
Posts: 5421
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: Surface combat - still needs some tweaking

Post by spence »

Haruna took 2 torpedoes and some shell hits and a DD took a torpedo and sank. One Brit DD took one hit. Period. How can Japanese in 1941, when they were supposed to be well-trained in night fighting, with beaucoup advantages, and not waste the two Brits?

A lot of the RN had actual surface combat experience in 1941: not just the Kabuki wet dreams of the IJN Hgh Command.
John Lansford
Posts: 2664
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am

RE: Surface combat - still needs some tweaking

Post by John Lansford »

Here's is a nighttime battle between my reinforced ABDA TF (PoW joined up) vs a BB TF.  Note the visibility:

Night Time Surface Combat, near Kuching at 58,88, Range 1,000 Yards
 
Japanese aircraft
      no flights
 
Japanese aircraft losses
No Japanese losses
 
Japanese Ships
      BB Yamashiro, Shell hits 31, and is sunk
      CL Natori, Shell hits 9,  on fire,  heavy damage
      DD Fumizuki, Shell hits 15, and is sunk
      DD Nagatsuki
      DD Harukaze, Shell hits 2,  on fire
 
Allied Ships
      BB Prince of Wales, Shell hits 14, Torpedo hits 1
      CL Java
      CL De Ruyter
      CL Tromp
      CL Danae, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
      DD Vampire
      DD Banckert
      DD Van Nes, Shell hits 1
      DD Witte de With
      DD Evertsen
      DD Kortenaer
      DD Piet Hein, Shell hits 4,  heavy fires
 
 
 
Reduced sighting due to 0% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions and 0% moonlight: 1,000 yards
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 12,000 yards
Range closes to 6,000 yards...
Range closes to 1,000 yards...
Lacomble, E.E.B. crosses the 'T'
BB Yamashiro engages BB Prince of Wales at 1,000 yards
CL Natori engages CL Danae at 1,000 yards
BB Prince of Wales engages DD Nagatsuki at 1,000 yards
DD Fumizuki sunk by BB Prince of Wales at 1,000 yards
Range increases to 2,000 yards
BB Yamashiro engages BB Prince of Wales at 2,000 yards
CL Natori engages BB Prince of Wales at 2,000 yards
DD Harukaze engages BB Prince of Wales at 2,000 yards
BB Prince of Wales engages DD Nagatsuki at 2,000 yards
DD Harukaze engages DD Vampire at 2,000 yards
BB Yamashiro engages BB Prince of Wales at 2,000 yards
CL Natori engages BB Prince of Wales at 2,000 yards
DD Harukaze engages DD Vampire at 2,000 yards
BB Yamashiro engages CL De Ruyter at 2,000 yards
DD Harukaze engages DD Van Nes at 2,000 yards
Obata, Chozaemon orders Japanese TF to disengage
BB Yamashiro engages BB Prince of Wales at 2,000 yards
CL Natori engages BB Prince of Wales at 2,000 yards
DD Piet Hein engages DD Harukaze at 2,000 yards
DD Nagatsuki engages DD Banckert at 2,000 yards
DD Vampire engages DD Nagatsuki at 2,000 yards
BB Yamashiro sunk by BB Prince of Wales at 2,000 yards
DD Harukaze engages DD Piet Hein at 2,000 yards
DD Piet Hein engages DD Harukaze at 2,000 yards
DD Nagatsuki engages DD Van Nes at 2,000 yards
BB Prince of Wales engages CL Natori at 2,000 yards
DD Piet Hein engages DD Harukaze at 2,000 yards
DD Nagatsuki engages DD Piet Hein at 2,000 yards
DD Nagatsuki engages DD Piet Hein at 2,000 yards
DD Banckert engages DD Harukaze at 2,000 yards
Task forces break off...

PoW and Danae both took a Long Lance torpedo, but PoW is headed home while Danae sank during the fight.  About 80% of the shellhits came from PoW; the rest from her escorting DD's.  IIRC the cruisers didn't even get in the fight (although they did some damage to other TF's after this one was over).
medicff
Posts: 710
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 10:53 pm
Location: WPB, Florida

RE: Surface combat - still needs some tweaking

Post by medicff »

I see that BB are given limited opportunity and as I said in first post my showing (both sides) are taking many shots at close range and have very limited shots (if any) on target vs other ships abilities.

A little more tweaking should do it. At this point all we are seeing are early war engagements anyone have results with later war, radar influenced?

John Lansford
Posts: 2664
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am

RE: Surface combat - still needs some tweaking

Post by John Lansford »

In the battle I just posted, the majority of hits from PoW on Yamashiro were AA guns.  I would estimate that no more than a dozen 14" shells hit Yamashiro; the rest were 2lb and 20mm AA guns.  Of the hits PoW took herself, all were from secondary weapons (127mm and similar sized), or light AA weapons.  No main gun hits were made by Yamashiro even though she fired first.  PoW also managed one 14" hit on Harukaze (hull) and a couple on Natori (superstructure) but every other hit was from destroyer or secondary guns.

I would still like to see all light AA guns be restricted to firing only at small craft (PT, TB, PB, etc) and aircraft.  Battleships should not be firing their AA guns at anything in a fight like the one I just posted.
Xxzard
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:18 pm
Location: Arizona

RE: Surface combat - still needs some tweaking

Post by Xxzard »

Recently had a USN surface force, with Houston, Boise, and Marblehead, sink CVL's Zuiho and Ryujo at Jolo Is. This was probably to be expected, and I felt it was reasonable, simply a bad choice of deployment for the Japanese TF.

On the other hand, I also had a 2 CL Brit force sink the CA Maya, and the Maya failed to return fire at all. Japanese ships surprised, conditions were 0% moonlight, but surprisingly to me, the 6 in guns on the cruisers easily penetrated the armor on the CA. It could have something to do with the 1000-2000 m range.

These results don't seem too absurd to me, though from the trends I have seen, the Allies usually seem to get the better of the Japanese.
Image
DarkestHour
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:56 am

RE: Surface combat - still needs some tweaking

Post by DarkestHour »

IJN is easily defeating allied TFs in my game. Eg. 2CA,2DD jap vs CA Houston,2CL,9DD they sink Houston 2DD,1CL(Boise). 1BB,1CA,2DD can do the same. If the IJN encounters a number of smaller allied TFs the damage is worse. Only jap weakly or undefended landing forces are getting trounced.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Surface combat - still needs some tweaking

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

I'm no expert in WW2 naval gunnery, but 7000 to 2000 yards sounds like "bumper to bumper" when it comes to the main guns of a battleship. I would think the low angle fire control system would play a big role in accuracy.

Also this engagement took place at night. 7000 yards is appx 4 miles. The maximum stated visibility is 8000 yards.

Hard to say...


Not really, if they are old BBs and old treaty crusiers in confined waters then 2-7000 range is too close. The older fire control systems and slow turrets had a hard time tracking close fast targets. The Americans concluded (after the fact) that they had no business fighting in the slot during the Guadacanal campaign.

Now the POW and Repulse might be another factor as I suspect (but don't know fer sure) that they had better systems. They certainly had more experience and actually had decent radar and knew what to do with it. So, who knows.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
Dili
Posts: 4742
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Surface combat - still needs some tweaking

Post by Dili »

Confusion, chaos, and dumb luck might save the target (ala San Francisco at 1st Guadalcanal), but in this instance Oi would have had a very tough time even getting her torpedoes in the water before being blown out of it! All those "long lances" on her deck make immediate "critical damage" almost inevitable... This is not the kind of fight or range she was designed for.

From reading above, Oi had the Torpedos in water before being engaged by Colorado. Japanese doesn't seem have been surprised in that combat.

A lot of the RN had actual surface combat experience in 1941: not just the Kabuki wet dreams of the IJN Hgh Command.

The fact that one side has more experience doesn't means that sometimes things can't go bad.

Using only one or two samples to pass an opinion when there is nothing special and are inside variability values.

I am more worried by inconcistencies in Fighting like a BB not reacting or firing at long range, no firing from secundaries, but fire by AA guns etc.
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: Surface combat - still needs some tweaking

Post by EUBanana »

One for the JFBs...

--------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Rabaul at 106,125, Range 12,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
DD Asashio
DD Michishio
DD Arashio
DD Umikaze
xAKL Eishin Maru, Shell hits 2

Allied Ships
PT-111
PT-114, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
PT-115, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
PT-120, Shell hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
PT-121, Shell hits 6, and is sunk
PT-122, Shell hits 1
PT-128
PT-142, Shell hits 2, and is sunk
PT-143, Shell hits 1, and is sunk



Allied Ships Reported to be Approaching!
Japanese TF suspends unloading operations and begins to get underway
Reduced sighting due to 71% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions and 71% moonlight: 12,000 yards
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 12,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 12,000 yards
DD Umikaze engages PT-143 at 12,000 yards
DD Asashio engages PT-121 at 12,000 yards
DD Arashio engages PT-120 at 12,000 yards
DD Arashio engages PT-115 at 12,000 yards
PT-114 sunk by DD Arashio at 12,000 yards
DD Umikaze engages PT-111 at 12,000 yards
Range closes to 10,000 yards
DD Arashio engages PT-128 at 10,000 yards
DD Umikaze engages PT-120 at 10,000 yards
DD Asashio engages PT-115 at 10,000 yards
DD Arashio engages PT-111 at 10,000 yards
Range closes to 8,000 yards
DD Arashio engages PT-142 at 8,000 yards
DD Umikaze engages PT-128 at 8,000 yards
DD Umikaze engages PT-122 at 8,000 yards
DD Arashio engages PT-120 at 8,000 yards
DD Arashio engages PT-115 at 8,000 yards
DD Arashio engages PT-111 at 8,000 yards
Range closes to 7,000 yards
DD Umikaze engages PT-143 at 7,000 yards
DD Umikaze engages PT-128 at 7,000 yards
DD Arashio engages PT-120 at 7,000 yards
DD Umikaze engages PT-115 at 7,000 yards
DD Umikaze engages PT-111 at 7,000 yards
Range closes to 4,000 yards
PT-143 engages DD Arashio at 4,000 yards
PT-128 engages DD Michishio at 4,000 yards
DD Asashio engages PT-122 at 4,000 yards
PT-120 engages DD Arashio at 4,000 yards
PT-115 engages DD Michishio at 4,000 yards
DD Asashio engages PT-111 at 4,000 yards
Range closes to 2,000 yards
DD Umikaze engages PT-143 at 2,000 yards
DD Michishio engages PT-128 at 2,000 yards
PT-121 sunk by DD Asashio at 2,000 yards
DD Arashio engages PT-120 at 2,000 yards
DD Asashio engages PT-111 at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 3,000 yards
DD Arashio engages PT-142 at 3,000 yards
DD Michishio engages PT-143 at 3,000 yards
DD Asashio engages PT-120 at 3,000 yards
DD Michishio engages PT-111 at 3,000 yards
Range closes to 2,000 yards
PT-142 engages DD Umikaze at 2,000 yards
PT-143 sunk by DD Arashio at 2,000 yards
DD Umikaze engages PT-122 at 2,000 yards
PT-120 engages xAKL Eishin Maru at 2,000 yards
PT-115 sunk by DD Asashio at 2,000 yards
DD Umikaze engages PT-111 at 2,000 yards
PT-142 engages DD Michishio at 2,000 yards
DD Arashio engages PT-142 at 2,000 yards
DD Umikaze engages PT-122 at 2,000 yards
DD Asashio engages PT-120 at 2,000 yards
PT-111 engages xAKL Eishin Maru at 2,000 yards
DD Umikaze engages PT-122 at 2,000 yards
DD Michishio engages PT-122 at 2,000 yards
PT-142 sunk by DD Asashio at 2,000 yards
DD Umikaze engages PT-111 at 2,000 yards
Wescott, R.F. orders Allied TF to disengage
DD Umikaze engages PT-111 at 2,000 yards
DD Michishio engages PT-122 at 2,000 yards
DD Asashio engages PT-120 at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 8,000 yards
DD Arashio engages PT-128 at 8,000 yards
DD Arashio engages PT-122 at 8,000 yards
DD Michishio engages PT-120 at 8,000 yards
DD Michishio engages PT-111 at 8,000 yards
Task forces break off...


My poor PT boats crash the party where unloading is going on at night - and get the slap.
Image
User avatar
pompack
Posts: 2585
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 1:44 am
Location: University Park, Texas

RE: Surface combat - still needs some tweaking

Post by pompack »

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 7,000 yards
Range closes to 2,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 2,000 yards
Range closes to 1,000 yards...
Totoh, M. crosses the 'T'

Something kinda funky about this.  Allies spot the Japanese 6,000 yards before engagement opens, but form up so that the Japs will have every advantage when it occurs?   That just isn't right....


Mike:

First, I think that this was an addition added at the beta patch: something like if US radar detects first in 1942 there is a chance (large) that they will close to visual range "just to make sure"

Second, recall Friday the Thirteenth (Third Savo aka First Guadalcanal). IIRC, Helena detected the Japanese at 12k+ yards but Callaghan (in not only his first battle but nearly his first squadron command) was flying his flag in a different CA (San Francisco) which had the older radar. He either didn't hear the first reports from Helena (or didn't believe them) and continued on in a (more or less) straight line until his lead DD almost collided with the Japanese DD screen.

Until the CIC was invented, installed in some major units, the tracking procedures worked out, and the senior officiers trained in what radar could do this was not an uncommone result. Of course after that it took a while to educate the operators and especially the senior officiers into what radar could not do (ref The Battle of the Pips).


Also, until there was come confidence that all ships could track all other ships (CIC and SG radar again), the US always used a single column formation that was primarily aimed at reducing Blue-on-Blue encounters. If everyone followed in the wake of the ship ahead, then anyone seen off to the side was an enemy (unless of course the line kinked a bit or a ship dropped out of line due to damage, e.g. Atlanta at First Guadalcanal)

Just an aside here, the one thing I have not seen is any naval fratricide in these battles. At least a third of the Solomons battles had examples of one side or the other firing on their own ships.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”