Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: Macclan5


In real life the USN production of 14 Essex class carriers

More than 14...

32 Essexs authorised

6 canceled before being laid down

26 built or commenced

2 scrapped on the slips when canceled at war's end

7 commissioned post war

17 commissioned during the war.

I think you are indeed correct although I don't have the numbers at my finger tips.

I "think" only 14 saw active combat in the Pacific before the surrender of Japan.

That's by memory mind you.

Hence I often quote the 14 that were sort of delivered for the fight so to speak.

But then what exactly is historical? Is it following in their footsteps or employing a like mind and acting within those parameters.

Is island/area one which was thought of at the time as important and worth the risk of loss; or are you entering into the fight looking to do some quick damage yet minimize you own risk/loss as was employed at that time.

Are you following practices of the time or using approaches they would not have, such as grouping carriers and operating them as a group rather than as separate entities as was done at this time. Using carriers as a group and not acting individually was not something the allied navy had considered until well into the war. This is what most likely led to the flight to nowhere at Midway rendering the Hornet pretty much a bystander in the key engagement. It is probably why the game engine has the allies encounter difficulty coordinating air attacks well into the game. If a coordinated attack was done at all, it would only be at a single carrier level or airfield level.

There is much that goes into being historical, much room for interpretation. Then the game engine to balance as well.

I tend to think in game play historically in the context of “from their mindset”, it tends to make for a lower aggression level than what you read on the forums. Although I do non-historical things like lots of pilot training, and in the type of plane they will be used in. (fighter training for fighter pilots). The game engine does not allow me to launch a series of uncoordinated attacks but that is by game design but I do try to put the game into a situation where possible where the engine will act in a more historical manner; this is mainly very early war.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Dan1977

RE: Historical vs. Playability/Enjoy ability: Besides the hindsight we possess & the fairly decent real time knowledge of the game's operations, there is another factor. As a single commander of all forces of all nationalities, it is a great advantage and clearly highlights the bonus of a "Unified Command" structure. Of course, during the real war that was not possible across the entirety of Asia/Pacific/CONUS. The issue is even more pronounced with the Japanese, where the Army & Navy rarely cooperated. I guess, to increase the game's difficulty & realism you would have to have separate commanders in the various Theaters. The Allied players would need to find a really arrogant a** (but competent) person to play the role of Commander SWPA.[:D]

It is hard to be humble when you are good.

He did try to keep Allied casualties to a minimum in a very difficult theatre of operations.

Dugout was good alright. He was a political general who was good at political maneuvering and public image management.


As a war time general he was good at obfuscating his decisions so that someone else could be blamed, good at just making something up out of whole cloth when his obfuscations failed. Good at living high on the hog whilst his men starved. Good at staying nice and safe, hiding, when an attack, or risk of, was underway. Good at claiming personal credit for other’s work. Good at giving himself medals that he did not deserve, even when it went literally against the requirements. Good at hesitation then blaming others for his lack of action. Good at disregarding orders then blaming someone else when it went bad.

He was a good peacetime/political general, the likes that usually quickly got replaced once the war broke out. However, he had strong political connections which may have protected him.

Although his inchon landing in Korea was good.

ORIGINAL: Ian R

3 US Torpedo hits in all of that, and the TBD's weren't even taking particularly heavy losses. Were you getting "hit, but no explosion" messages on the animation screen?

In day1 strikes all of them had torps, total failure! I believe 2 hits and those were duds. Switched to bombs later with better hit% [;)]

@Ranger Joe: There was no opportunity - I believe they took some months off for Sake and Geishes after PH not much seen from major carriers.
But the CVEs and CVLs were in the Java area depleting their air groups with mostly useless and costly attacks on land/army targets... even with only 20 Dutch fighters left for example you mostly get to the bombers and down lots of them.

I was also not seeking out to sink them, as others pointed out it makes the game more boring. This meeting was a pure coincidence[:)]

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

I do not think - in my limited experience - I have ever seen the IJN concentrate that many Carriers following Pearl Harbor.

None the less a tremendous victory.

In all likelihood 6 fleet carriers of the IJN gone if I counted correctly?

I would say 5 are gone for sure, and 1 probable. Except the AI teleported them out...

..however what is curious my sunk ship list say ZERO sunk. 2 appeared for 2 turns or so and then went away..

I forgot to report this funny incident in the same turn as day1 CV battle, note the location:

Day Time Surface Combat, near Lihue at 178,102, Range 2,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
SC Ch 25, Shell hits 16, and is sunk
MGB G-4, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-110, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-116, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-124, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-125, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-129, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-133, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-135, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-508, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-137, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-138, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-139, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-517, Shell hits 2, and is sunk
LB-1001, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-1005, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-1006, Shell hits 2, and is sunk
LB-5002, Shell hits 1, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CA Pensacola
CA Salt Lake City
DD McCall
DD Maury
DD Mahan
DD Cummings

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

I do not think - in my limited experience - I have ever seen the IJN concentrate that many Carriers following Pearl Harbor.

None the less a tremendous victory.

In all likelihood 6 fleet carriers of the IJN gone if I counted correctly?

I would say 5 are gone for sure, and 1 probable. Except the AI teleported them out...

..however what is curious my sunk ship list say ZERO sunk. 2 appeared for 2 turns or so and then went away..

I forgot to report this funny incident in the same turn as day1 CV battle, note the location:

Day Time Surface Combat, near Lihue at 178,102, Range 2,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
SC Ch 25, Shell hits 16, and is sunk
MGB G-4, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-110, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-116, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-124, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-125, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-129, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-133, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-135, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-508, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-137, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-138, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-139, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-517, Shell hits 2, and is sunk
LB-1001, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-1005, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LB-1006, Shell hits 2, and is sunk
LB-5002, Shell hits 1, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CA Pensacola
CA Salt Lake City
DD McCall
DD Maury
DD Mahan
DD Cummings

This is a regular occurrence in my Tier3 Ironman games. The AI takes Midway, Johnston, Hilo and Coal Harbor on the first turn. By April '42 I have liberated Hilo and Coal Harbor. I attribute the barge runs to the AI following its script to deliver supply to these far forward bases, often ignoring the fact that it no longer holds them.

It probably sent the supplies about 2 weeks ago before the base was liberated.

When a battle does not show a ship as sunk but heavy damage and there is no sound indicating a sinking, yet later the ship shows up in ships lost.

Is the ships lost table accurate for opposing player losses? Has someone played both sides and been able to confirm its accuracy?

ORIGINAL: RhinoDad

When a battle does not show a ship as sunk but heavy damage and there is no sound indicating a sinking, yet later the ship shows up in ships lost.

Is the ships lost table accurate for opposing player losses? Has someone played both sides and been able to confirm its accuracy?

It is subject to Fog Of War. Turn it off and you see the actual losses. That is why some players post on their AARs "Ships unsunk."

ORIGINAL: RhinoDad

When a battle does not show a ship as sunk but heavy damage and there is no sound indicating a sinking, yet later the ship shows up in ships lost.

Is the ships lost table accurate for opposing player losses? Has someone played both sides and been able to confirm its accuracy?

The list is not accurate immediately after a battle. For starters, any mine or torpedo hit is instantly reported as a sunk ship, no matter what size the ship is or how minor the damage might be (I have had some reported torpedo hits yield 0 damage - FOW hit). The AI also often mistakes which ship might have sunk - substituting e.g. CV Soryu for CV Shokaku. And although Japanese damage control is not as good as Allied, sometimes they can get a series of good die rolls and a ship with HF/HD will put out the fires and make it to a friendly port. Similarly, Allied ships you might expect to survive get a series of bad die rolls and sink the next day.

You can also look at Nav S messages about enemy formations breaking into small TFs with crippled ships and lightly damaged ships, and then seeing the small TFs have some of their number disappear from the list as they limp away.

So you need to look for clues. Sinking vessel sounds are one clue. Ground losses of aircraft are another - but aircraft that were flying when the ship was hit might land on another ship or a friendly base within range. And you need to watch the combat animation and read the damage messages:

- a 'critical damage' message is more serious than a 'severe damage' message.
- a 'fires on main deck' message is more serious than fire in the superstructure or on the bridge (the main deck is within the hull)
- a 'severe casualties to damage control' message means a drop in crew experience and affects the ability to do damage control
- a 'massive explosion' causes more damage than a mere 'explosion'
- on carriers, an 'ammunition explosion' is the equivalent of about 3 hits by 1000 lb bombs while a 'fuel storage explosion' is the equivalent of about 2 such bombs
- 'listing/counter flooding' means the ship will have additional minor flood damage from the counter flood efforts
- 'engine damage' messages usually only show up after the ship has already suffered heavy damage and indicate it is nearly finished. Certainly the ship will be slower afterward
- 'electrical system' and 'control tower' damage seems to indicate extra system damage, although there could be some engineering damage in there

The list is not exhaustive and all the interpretation is anecdotal from playing both sides and comparing what I saw with the actual damage on the ships.

The sunk ships list is updated when you see messages over a period of months, even a year, that the ship was not sunk but was sighted or sighted and engaged that turn. Or you can get the message that '(vessel type and name) is confirmed to be sunk' which usually occurs when the enemy's Ops Report 'admits the loss of (ship type and name)' . So until you get confirmation one way or another, you have to make your own judgement based on interpretation of the clues the game gives you.

@Hans and@Ian :

There was no base around PH which the AI took, not even Midway..

@ Sunk ship list:

Normally this list overstates sinkings, but here it totally goes in the different direction - have not seen this before. Also I believe the Allied list is generally a bit more acurate then the IJ one. Cause of better Allied intel.

These "UNSUNK" messages plus "ship sinks at sea" are probably among the most feared at least for me. In my PBM the list of (for example) Allied subs sunk is already quite short and then you get 2 of these "unsunk" gives one a bit frustration. Damn buggers [:D]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

@Hans and@Ian :

There was no base around PH which the AI took, not even Midway..

@ Sunk ship list:

Normally this list overstates sinkings, but here it totally goes in the different direction - have not seen this before. Also I believe the Allied list is generally a bit more acurate then the IJ one. Cause of better Allied intel.

These "UNSUNK" messages plus "ship sinks at sea" are probably among the most feared at least for me. In my PBM the list of (for example) Allied subs sunk is already quite short and then you get 2 of these "unsunk" gives one a bit frustration. Damn buggers [:D]

Subs sink all of the time. Heck, they are designed to sink. The hope, at least for the crews, is that they come back up so they can at least get out of them . . .

ORIGINAL: RhinoDad
sound indicating a sinking

There is a sound for that?

Never played with sound effects, might have to turn them on.

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: RhinoDad
sound indicating a sinking

There is a sound for that?

Never played with sound effects, might have to turn them on.

You get nice beach sounds, like waves hitting the sandy beach. Sometimes there is a party where it sounds like people are shouting and having fun. Other times, especially with subs, yu get the sound of a squeeky door opening . . .

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

@Hans and@Ian :

There was no base around PH which the AI took, not even Midway..

Sounds like Andymac/maybe Don Bowen plot device to make the allied player keep some ships around major ports to maintain surface control, without the IJN risking much.

Hint - When you play the ironman scenarios, you will need more than a couple of cruisers for this job.

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

@Hans and@Ian :

There was no base around PH which the AI took, not even Midway..

Sounds like Andymac/maybe Don Bowen plot device to make the allied player keep some ships around major ports to maintain surface control, without the IJN risking much.

Hint - When you play the ironman scenarios, you will need more than a couple of cruisers for this job.

+1

My carriers have spent the first 5 months of the war (between upgrades) avoiding the multiple KBs while hunting surface raiders.

The damn Jap AKAs have armored decks that 5" shells bounce off of at anything but point blank range, carry float plane fighters AND bombers, torpedoes and 6" guns and operate as surface raiders just like the AMCs that also carry bombers.

The Linda FP bomber pilots attack like they have 95 bombing skill.

I had a Pensacola and a couple of 4 pipers patrolling between Tongatapu/Suva/Pago-Pago, one of those Akagi-Qs sunk the whole Task Force [:@]

The Q-Ships in the Andymac ironman scenarios are evil. Anything without air cover is in serious danger. Even carriers have trouble with them. I had Enterprise launch a strike against one and it knocked down 5 SBDs with AA on top of the ones its floatplane fighters nailed.

You also have to watch out for 4-ship SAGs running into your harbors. I had one shoot up Sydney harbor and another try to do the same to Pearl. Luckily, that one ran into a few Brooklyns with a good DD screen and got chewed up.

I've also had the LB/SC convoys try to land at bases they no longer owned. One of them tried to land at Pearl and got blasted to kingdom come by some of the old USN BBs.

When playing andy mac scen ANY task force sort of at least one CV for air cover is suitable for annihilation...

muhahahaha