Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Seriously, Savo only happened once. Why does it continuously repeat itself in this game?

I'm playing the AI, and most of you know by now that the Japanese AI will send a 2 bb task force to Pearl every once in a while. I scout it at least two turns before it attacks because it waits a day at the perfect range to make a speed run in during the night. I have subs in it's path, and a tailor made surface force to meet it. NC and 10 old bb's with 4 CA's to round it out. Hand picked captains and TF commander. (I've had this scenario at least 6 times in the several starts I've done since release) I don't bother to put in DD's, because they're just free VP's to the Japanese. (This fight takes place in port, where SS's are not a factor.)

Every time it's two BB's vs 8-10 BB's. The Japanese start out with penetrating hits each round and the American BB's machine gun stuff. It's friggin frustrating. 10 BB's and only two of them react in a given round while Hiei puts 6 penetrating hits ino Arizona, two into Oklahoma and one into NC in ONE round. Average end result of these 6 or so encounters is slight damage to two Japanese BB's (generally finished via carrier attacks over the following week), 1-2 sunk supporting Japanese ships, and generally one sunk American BB and 2-3 moderately damaged BB's.

WTF? It happens every time. Why does this game represent allied naval forces to be complete retards in so many encounters? I'm sure it's mostly due to low ship experience on the allied side, despite an awesome crew rotation program used by the Americans. I've got tons of ships who've had many small encounters and their exp is still in the 50-70 range, irl they'd be in the 90's)

There are several issues here, some of them are AE related and some are SAIEW.

01 - Heavy guns don't shoot much.
Unfortunately, this is a SAIEW issue. On the WITP forum especially we've seen unit testing by folks like Tom Hunter showing that BBs don't shoot their heavy guns much. Apparently the routine prefers to shoot the smaller guns, but again, this is SAIEW. The solution I've been using for several years, is to group the heavier ships into smaller groups, like 2s or 4s and avoid putting more than 4 BB in one TF. Also, TF sizes of 8 to 12 seem to be more optimal, in general, than maximizing at 25.

02 - Surprise
This is an AE issue and I think this was probably caused by our more complete implementation of Allied radar. In the initial release, Allied TFs were getting surprise most of the time, even at night, even in 1941 and early 1942. So patch 01 attempts to tone this down. Patch 02 will have further adjustments in this area as we attempt to tweak the surprise probabilities to "get it right".

03 - Oahu Coastal Defenses.
If the Oahu Coastal Defenses are not responding to Bombardment attacks on Pearl Harbor, I think we'd like to see a save of that, saves can be attached to posts in the technical support sub-forum above. I did test, several times, Japanese task forces trying to duel with the guns of Manilla and every time I tried it, the Japanese TF was 100% sunk, whether it included a few light craft or a pile of BBs, totally destroyed everytime, and I think in the game, the Oahu guns should be more powerful. In WITP, Coastal guns some times would fire and sometimes not, but in AE we did try to improve the probability that the guns would fire and as I said, in my testing at Manilla this seems to be working the way we wanted it to.

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

01 - Heavy guns don't shoot much.
Unfortunately, this is a SAIEW issue. On the WITP forum especially we've seen unit testing by folks like Tom Hunter showing that BBs don't shoot their heavy guns much. Apparently the routine prefers to shoot the smaller guns, but again, this is SAIEW. The solution I've been using for several years, is to group the heavier ships into smaller groups, like 2s or 4s and avoid putting more than 4 BB in one TF. Also, TF sizes of 8 to 12 seem to be more optimal, in general, than maximizing at 25. Is there no way to modify the selection of weapons based on potential damage to the target? The system seems to favor "rate-of fire" when selecting weapons to shoot. Obviously an Iowa's 20mm guns will put out more rounds than anything else she carries in a given period of time, but if the target is a ship they won't do much damage (and if it's an armored warship they will accomplish very little). Couldn't the code be modified to favor her 5" guns against unarmored ships, and her 16" guns against armored targets? It seems to me (admittedly totally devoid of programming knowledge) that this would produce a more accurate and satisfying result.


02 - Surprise
This is an AE issue and I think this was probably caused by our more complete implementation of Allied radar. In the initial release, Allied TFs were getting surprise most of the time, even at night, even in 1941 and early 1942. So patch 01 attempts to tone this down. Patch 02 will have further adjustments in this area as we attempt to tweak the surprise probabilities to "get it right". EXCELLENT!

03 - Oahu Coastal Defenses.
If the Oahu Coastal Defenses are not responding to Bombardment attacks on Pearl Harbor, I think we'd like to see a save of that, saves can be attached to posts in the technical support sub-forum above. I did test, several times, Japanese task forces trying to duel with the guns of Manilla and every time I tried it, the Japanese TF was 100% sunk, whether it included a few light craft or a pile of BBs, totally destroyed everytime, and I think in the game, the Oahu guns should be more powerful. In WITP, Coastal guns some times would fire and sometimes not, but in AE we did try to improve the probability that the guns would fire and as I said, in my testing at Manilla this seems to be working the way we wanted it to. I think Corregadore is a poor choice for comparison for this type of discussion because of the "narrow straits" modifier. Hope several folks will send you their Oahu results to get a better look at this situation.

SAIEW?  Sorry acronym confounded ...

Same as it ever was.

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

SAIEW?  Sorry acronym confounded ...

S=Same
A=As
I=It
E=Ever
W=Was

We've been using 'round these parts for a couple of years, especially with regard to AE, when we want to say that some attribute of the game has not been changed since stock, day 01. (July 4th, 2004).

ORIGINAL: John Lansford
Two of the 16" guns at Pearl Harbor were built for the army, and outranged any naval gun in any navy.  IIRC they had a 42 mile range.  They were installed at Pearl Harbor in an area that commanded the entire south and western shores of Oahu, and could even reach the northwest shore.  Numerous fire control stations could feed them data on a target from over the horizon, and in at least one exercise hit the target with the first shot.  When I was on Oahu several years ago I picked up a book on Pearl Harbor fortifications and it discussed the evolution of the port defenses.

Not only were there fixed gun positions, there were fortified positions for the 155mm mobile CD guns, 8" railway guns, searchlights, shore controlled minefields and smaller gun positions covering the minefields.  Even the northern coast had sufficient positions to deter any landing where the strong waves would allow it.

Range and stuff for a big naval rifle was a function of elevation. Big on-board rifle turrets couldn’t depress the breech far enough to get max ballistic range, and I don’t think they really wanted to. Believe the navy guys wanted some horizontal vector component to the terminal trajectory.

A CD gun could depress the breech (if the emplacement was designed to do so) and achieve max range for the tube parameters (i.e., shoot at 38-42 up). But the ballistic trajectory at the target would be almost entirely vertical (i.e., deck hits only) and have not too much of a velocity component above ‘g - terminal’.

It’s like the difference between a hard single and a long outfield fly – if the pitcher is in the way of it, a hard single might smack his nose through the back of his head, but a long outfield fly would drop into the fielder’s glove without even a sound. Thus ballistics.

Basically, the longer the range, the softer the result. And you would need a pretty tall drink of water, indeed, to go shot calling at 42 miles. The atmospherics over a 42 mile trajectory, alone, would put a hit probability somewhere in the winning the CA lottery range. But who's counting, anyway. [;)]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

01 - Heavy guns don't shoot much.
Unfortunately, this is a SAIEW issue. On the WITP forum especially we've seen unit testing by folks like Tom Hunter showing that BBs don't shoot their heavy guns much. Apparently the routine prefers to shoot the smaller guns, but again, this is SAIEW. The solution I've been using for several years, is to group the heavier ships into smaller groups, like 2s or 4s and avoid putting more than 4 BB in one TF. Also, TF sizes of 8 to 12 seem to be more optimal, in general, than maximizing at 25.

The obvious question is: what are the prospects of overhauling the routine?

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: John Lansford
Two of the 16" guns at Pearl Harbor were built for the army, and outranged any naval gun in any navy. IIRC they had a 42 mile range. They were installed at Pearl Harbor in an area that commanded the entire south and western shores of Oahu, and could even reach the northwest shore. Numerous fire control stations could feed them data on a target from over the horizon, and in at least one exercise hit the target with the first shot. When I was on Oahu several years ago I picked up a book on Pearl Harbor fortifications and it discussed the evolution of the port defenses.

Not only were there fixed gun positions, there were fortified positions for the 155mm mobile CD guns, 8" railway guns, searchlights, shore controlled minefields and smaller gun positions covering the minefields. Even the northern coast had sufficient positions to deter any landing where the strong waves would allow it.

Range and stuff for a big naval rifle was a function of elevation. Big on-board rifle turrets couldn’t depress the breech far enough to get max ballistic range, and I don’t think they really wanted to. Believe the navy guys wanted some horizontal vector component to the terminal trajectory.

A CD gun could depress the breech (if the emplacement was designed to do so) and achieve max range for the tube parameters (i.e., shoot at 38-42 up). But the ballistic trajectory at the target would be almost entirely vertical (i.e., deck hits only) and have not too much of a velocity component above ‘g - terminal’.

It’s like the difference between a hard single and a long outfield fly – if the pitcher is in the way of it, a hard single might smack his nose through the back of his head, but a long outfield fly would drop into the fielder’s glove without even a sound. Thus ballistics.

Basically, the longer the range, the softer the result. And you would need a pretty tall drink of water, indeed, to go shot calling at 42 miles. The atmospherics over a 42 mile trajectory, alone, would put a hit probability somewhere in the winning the CA lottery range. But who's counting, anyway. [;)]

You sure about this John? Falling objects accelerate at 32 feet per second per second (minus air resistance). And an AP shell weighing over a ton doesn't meet much air resistance. Add in that decks have much less armor than belts, and the results should be quite effective. Certainly the 12" CD Mortars with which these installations were studded depended on falling from high altitude to achieve penetration, as did AP bombs from Aircraft.

And I think you underestimate the accuracy of such installations. The solidly fixed and surveyed gun positions, coupled with tables worked up in advance for all local tide and atmospheric conditions, and the accuracy of range-finding from multiple spotting positions miles apart meant that the shells could be dropped almost EXACTLY where they were aimed. True, at 25kts a target is going to move anything up to 2000 feet before the shell lands..., but a BB can't change direction like a PT boat, so even that "correction" could be worked out in the plotting room with a good deal of accuracy.

Well as is often the case - the set of people who think this would be easy is completely disjoint with respect to the set of people who are responsible for changing the code - net/net - we decided at the beginning of the project not to mess with surface combat - and expect for tweaking the surprise aspect - which was driven by our data implementation of radar - we are trying to stick to that. Trying to change surface combat would definitely be opening a large Pandora's box.

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Well as is often the case - the set of people who think this would be easy is completely disjoint with respect to the set of people who are responsible for changing the code - net/net - we decided at the beginning of the project not to mess with surface combat - and expect for tweaking the surprise aspect - which was driven by our data implementation of radar - we are trying to stick to that. Trying to change surface combat would definitely be opening a large Pandora's box.

OK..., that answers the question. And in a form that us "programming illiterate" folks can understand. Still annoying in some of the wierd combat results it produces..., but at least know we know why. Maybe next re-design...[;)]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Well as is often the case - the set of people who think this would be easy is completely disjoint with respect to the set of people who are responsible for changing the code - net/net - we decided at the beginning of the project not to mess with surface combat - and expect for tweaking the surprise aspect - which was driven by our data implementation of radar - we are trying to stick to that. Trying to change surface combat would definitely be opening a large Pandora's box.

Huh? I asked an open question about the prospects of doing so. I did not imply anything would be easy.

I was referring to Mike's earlier query.
[:)]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
You sure about this John? Falling objects accelerate at 32 feet per second per second (minus air resistance). And an AP shell weighing over a ton doesn't meet much air resistance. Add in that decks have much less armor than belts, and the results should be quite effective. Certainly the 12" CD Mortars with which these installations were studded depended on falling from high altitude to achieve penetration, as did AP bombs from Aircraft.

Yes, I think so. I did the advanced course at Sill. Got a reasonable idea about trajectories.

And I think you underestimate the accuracy of such installations. The solidly fixed and surveyed gun positions, coupled with tables worked up in advance for all local tide and atmospheric conditions, and the accuracy of range-finding from multiple spotting positions miles apart meant that the shells could be dropped almost EXACTLY where they were aimed. True, at 25kts a target is going to move anything up to 2000 feet before the shell lands..., but a BB can't change direction like a PT boat, so even that "correction" could be worked out in the plotting room with a good deal of accuracy.

Never said a word about accuracy. Don't have a clue about accuracy. And anyone who has accuracy v range measurements as a function of damage v initial angle, are invited to play.

Aww shucks...this almost looked like a BORKED post!

Wish the fracus would die down so those will stand out more...Stand by! [:D]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I was referring to Mike's earlier query.
[:)]

"in reply to" me threw me off!

Had me wondering "What did I do? What did I do?"
[8D]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Yes, I think so. I did the advanced course at Sill. Got a reasonable idea about trajectories.

Works for me!

Just to clear up things a bit, the examples I'm seeing don't have one-off situations like surprise and crossing the T. It's just a straight up slug fest with 10 bb's vs 2. No surprise, no bombardment, no CD's. Surface vs surface.

I don't see Japanese ships having a tendency to not fire their main guns. Quite the opposite. I see their heavy ships fire multiple penetrating hits per round on multiple targets. (sometimes)

I do see a tendency for Allied (US in particular) heavy ships to fire small caliber, and a huge tendency of the majority of Allied ships to not even act in any given round, or the entire combat. I have seen good results from my British force in the Indian ocean. But, they have exp in the 70's from dozens of small actions.

I feel like I'm playing with a bunch of Utah's vs the Savo Is IJN force. The IJN lost many battles, even some in Winter of 42. And especially after Spring 43.....

The main gun not firing much is one issue, which I can't help with. That's a programmer thing and I know it's not something that is fixed by changing one number on one line of code. At least I know its part of the problem.

I also think there's a big problem with ship experience. I have a feeling that's why most of my ships don't act. I feel it's a-historic, though. Japanese ships starting in the 70 range (with no prior naval battle experience, except training) and allies start in the 40's? (I don't know every ship's experience at 12/41)

1: The British had tons of actual fighting experience, the only navy in the Pacific on 12/41.
2: The US had the best crew rotation program of any navy. That's why Johnston et al could whip the sh@t out of the IJN main force off Samar without having any prior surface experience.
3: Japan tended to keep a crew together through the life of the ship. (I think. I know they did in regards to air groups)
4: Most ships would be lucky to have one surface encounter during the war (I know some had many, but hundreds had none) How can the US ships get experience fast enough to get results like the real life battles during the Leyte invasion?

5: I can fix any issue I feel is bad regarding exp with the editor, so I'm not asking for a fix on this. Just venting.

According to numerous sources, PreWar the IJN training was far superior in gunnery.  The IJN trained with live shots in all weather conditions in movement.  They did the same for spotting and there was a lot of peer acknowldegment of good spotters (source: Jap Destroyer Captain).  USN target contests were typically only held on good weather days against stationary or nearly so targets.  The reason for the USN policy was that low gunnery scores could cripple an officers career in the peacetime Navy.  There was a bar to reach and the only way to achieve it was through those methods.
 
Absolutely true the USN caught up, but the battles of Aug 42 - OCT 42 do a good job of illustrating the early capability differences.  USN took a lot of surface actions on the chin.  I think correctly, and this is apparently the baseline the devs used.
 
In the game, you will likely have FAR more battles than IRL.  Gamers notorriously are far more risky than IRL.  Something about shrapnel hurts IRL and there is no re-load last save.  Even PBEM player take far more risk with their assets than IRL, so the action tends to go faster.  This lends itself to be an advantage to the IJN as the USN experience gains for NEW crews is time based (representing the tours and the exp guys going back and teaching).
 
Bottom line is, not sure there is anything better you can do.

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

According to numerous sources, PreWar the IJN training was far superior in gunnery.  The IJN trained with live shots in all weather conditions in movement.  They did the same for spotting and there was a lot of peer acknowldegment of good spotters (source: Jap Destroyer Captain).  USN target contests were typically only held on good weather days against stationary or nearly so targets.  The reason for the USN policy was that low gunnery scores could cripple an officers career in the peacetime Navy.  There was a bar to reach and the only way to achieve it was through those methods.

Absolutely true the USN caught up, but the battles of Aug 42 - OCT 42 do a good job of illustrating the early capability differences.  USN took a lot of surface actions on the chin.  I think correctly, and this is apparently the baseline the devs used.

In the game, you will likely have FAR more battles than IRL.  Gamers notorriously are far more risky than IRL.  Something about shrapnel hurts IRL and there is no re-load last save.  Even PBEM player take far more risk with their assets than IRL, so the action tends to go faster.  This lends itself to be an advantage to the IJN as the USN experience gains for NEW crews is time based (representing the tours and the exp guys going back and teaching).

Bottom line is, not sure there is anything better you can do.

I do think that the IJN ship experience should be greater than the US on 12/41. Their training was more intense prior to the war. But...

The Royal navy (and Australian) had actual fighting experience. No ship should have more exp than some or all of the Royal navy ships.
Do IJN ships that come as new built reinforcements have higher starting exp than Allied ships? My point of the US having a crew rotation program would suggest that new construction for the US should be higher than new construction for any other navy. (unless other navies employed the tactic of putting experienced personnel on new ships as well.)
I really think that after one battle, a surviving ship should gain a fair amount of exp. I think that only ships that participate in a battle gain exp, and then not enough. It takes forever for ships to get up to a decent level, and that requires many fights.

Personally, I think day and night exp should go up one each day until something like 50/50, then stay there. Only combat can increase it past that amount. And, combats (whether the ship acted or not) should increase each ship by at least 10.

I'm just tired of seeing ships consistently act only as a target, even when they've been in 3+ fights. Really, after 3 surface engagements, what ship would not be in the 80 range of exp?

and, speaking of gunnery.... USS Washington landed 9 main caliber (and 40 small caliber) hits on Kirishima in the space of 10 minutes. And, yeah, she had no prior fighting experience.

In fact, I don't think any US BB took a scratch from a Japanese surface combatant, except So Dak, and that's because she went blind due to a design flaw. Japan lost every BB surface fight they took part in. (First Guadalcanal was a slight win, but they still lost one of their two BB's that took part.)

In spite of all their practice in bad weather the historical record holds nothing at all to suggest great shooting in actual combat by IJN BBs. IIRC they fought in 4 surface actions. None of them could be considered an IJN victory.