Surface Combat Sux

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: William Amos

Im sort of glad I dropped out of this thread on page three.

Hey, is that a transport burning after being singled out and pummeled in your pick?[:D] Check firing....check firing!

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Lets face it. There were a few people who were telling us the game design was wrong before they even had it on their machines. It is the "Boy who cried Wolf" syndrome.
Go back to when you first arrived at Matrix and read your own posts.
I am used to hearing it from you. When someone else has a problem and you arrive to take over the complaint I then have to spend a great deal of time and effort to let other people know that what "YOU" are posting is not the problem.


"It may take four or five years, but I'll prove Mr Frag and Mogami dead wrong by the time I'm done. " Zoomie1980 4-23-04

LOL! I usually don't get involved until you or some other WitP "legend" begins to dig their heels in and stick their head in the sand. It is CLEAR that there was a valid problem with the AutoVictory stuff. Clear people had a problem with upgrade paths. Clear people had a problem with research as it connected to upgrades. Clear the Allied ASW was a problem. Clear there is a problem with daytime surface combat as it pertains to unescorted transports.

And it is clear you or some other tester has denied, at some point, that none of those were problems and nothing more than the "game functioning as designed". And then, when the posters finally convince the developers that it is indeed a problem, you guys throw your hands up and either threated to "take your ball and go home", or simply claim "I don't really care one way or the other and never did..." Rich!


And I've been at Matrix as long as anyone. I've been here under at least a dozen different Monikers over the years. This is just my latest one.

Boy, you sound a little bit like me.

Basically what you say is truth, except you didn't bother to list a dozen or so problems with UV which I'm not sure yet are still with WitP or not. But you sure have the basic drift of it. [:D]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Oliver Heindorf

hey Zoomie, as I am on this forum from time to time, I am more than amused about your posts. not only in this thread but the entire 3 months would have been sooooooooooo boring here without your posts.

not only you have achived to insult the entire beta testers for nothing that you could have done better, you managed even that the whole readers here are mainly against your kind how you critzie the whole game.

if the game would be as bad as you describe, why dont you just leave and let us alone.

in another thread, you posted that rarly any games will last longer than 3 months on your HDD. WHEN IS THIS FREAKING DATE PLEASE.

go over and play arcade games. [&o]

[8|]

I doubt if "the whole readers here" (whatever or whomever that wants to refer to) is/are against anyone necessarily. The majority of the readers in this forum (whoever they might be) hardly post at all but just . . . read.

If you don't like what Zoomie or someone else posts, that's fine, but leave it be unless you have something intelligent to add. At least Zoomie tries to get something which is wrong right, or at least made better. What I read from you is 1) purely negative for its own sake, 2) engages in exaggeration and 3) heads toward the assinine. In fact, what I read from you labors under other bad traiits as well, but I don't wish to beat a dead horse. [:(]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, For anyone without time to read this entire monster. Here is the complete history of Beta opposition to finding cure for this problem.
Page 2 Nik "It's on list"
Frag proposed fix
Page 3 Mogami begins to investage problem (it's on list) In very first post top of page three says there might be problem
Page 7 Bottom Frag explain problem
Page 8 Mogami explains scatter. (since we think this is culprit)
Mogami says "scatter is too effective"
Mogami says "every spotted ship should be sunk" (providing of couse ammo and other thing allow)
Page 9 Mogami says "Don't care what changes made will test to see they work
page 10 Zoomie1980 appears for first time

Why do you folks always take such a black and white stance on EVERYTHING? 1 in 20 ships taking 95% of the hits is completely assinine no matter how you look at it, leadership, experience, anything. History does not in any way validate that. But that does not mean all 20 take 5%. That's just as assinine as the former! It is perfectly logical, say for the lead/first-encountered ship to take 50-60% maybe 65-70% at night, with #2 taking another 25% or so, with the rest scattered about, maybe half the other taking at least one or two hits with maybe 8-10 escaping completely unhit.

It is a matter of DEGREE. There are some aspects of this game that are in the EXTREME and that's what most people get worked up about.

I've been gone for a couple days and I've misssed much of this thread. Has thought been given yet (by the developers) to not displaying ships on screen which haven't been actually spotted? As you agreed yourself that would have to help the situation at least perceptually.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Mogami

No, Joel..., it isn't . Geometric impossibility. One side is closing at 30KTs, the other is
scattering at 10 kts. No matter what directional vector the "scattering forces" chose,
the relative distance BETWEEN the two continues to close. The best "escape vector"
would be directly away from the attacking force..., and it's still going to decrease by
20 knots every hour. Any other vector and the decrease becomes even greater. Now
if you carry it out to multiple hours eventually the fleeing units that chose vectors
that lead away from the attackers base course WILL start opening the range---but dur-
ing the actual period when most combat will take place (30-90 minutes) none of the
potential "escapees" is gaining an inch. The range keeps closing rapidly.

Hi, Your keeping the transports together they are not scattering in the same direction.
A 30kt TF that begins 20k from a 10kt ship will close to 6200 yards but all the other ships will have went 6200 yards in other directions. If there are 2 ships at start and they turn 90 degrees from each other. You will be 6200 yards from the one you chase and 6200 yards plus the angle between where you began and where the 2nd ship is when you reach 6200 yards from the target. If there are 20+ targets many of them will be out of sight before you finish with many. Once you deal with the first you choose a new target and pursue. This of course will result in opening of range with majorty of other targets. If you go left 30k chasing ships that turn left you now have to come back 30k before you even start chasing a ship that went right at start. While you traveled 60k (30k out and 30k back) they have traveled 15k on their own. (so when you turn around before starting back that 30k they are long out of sight. ) Now you have to search in ever expanding box and hope you spot a ship to chase.


Let me explain it this way. When spotted the center of the transport formation is 20k away.
By the time you get to 6200 yards of this location every transport is 6200 yards from the old center. Ships that were 100 yards apart when you spoted them are now 12k apart.

All this assumes the surface force commander reacts perfectly.

WRONG, MOGAMI. Sorry, but look at the facts. IF the attacker spotted the target at
30,000 yards, and can cover that distance in X minutes; while the defender can only
cover 10,000 yards in the same amount of time; then no matter what direction the
defender flees, he can only be 10,000 yards from where he started when the attacker
arrives at that point. That's a minimum closure of 20,000 yards in x minutes before
(even in theory) the range can BEGIN to expand.

Given realities, when the attacker sees that the defender is "defenseless", the attacking
TF will spread out to "cut the corners" on the defenders "scattering vectors" decreasing
the range even more.. Your theory holds true over an extended period of time, but not
during the critical period of the actual engagement.

Of course you're absolutely right, Mike. The best (first) simulation to demonstrate this sort of interrelational motion RT was GNBNA--Action Stations! earlier also gave a good (though not RT) course in the subject. I'm surprised there's any resistance to this. And by Joel, no less. Afterall, SSI published the former title. [:D]

[Tankerace]

Hey, I loved teh GNB series. I still have my copies of 2-4. 5 sucked though, they didn't even try on the graphics.

[Tristanjohn]

I never got beyond the first title. It was good for its time. Too bad the way its "sequel" was handled a few years ago. That one could have been a big winner.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

I never got beyond the first title. It was good for its time. Too bad the way its "sequel" was handled a few years ago. That one could have been a big winner.

Fighting Steel?[:(]

[Tankerace]

Wait, are we talking GNB2: Guadalcanal, or the sequal to the series, Fighting Steel?

I thought GNB2 was great, GNB3 Fury in the Pacific ok, and GNB4 Burning Steel(since I never had GNBNA) pretty cool.

I loved Fighting Steel. Hell, I still play it. The AI kinda sucked, and ships are too easy to sink, but it is still one of those game close to my heart.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Of course you're absolutely right, Mike. The best (first) simulation to demonstrate this sort of interrelational motion RT was GNBNA--Action Stations! earlier also gave a good (though not RT) course in the subject. I'm surprised there's any resistance to this. And by Joel, no less. Afterall, SSI published the former title. [:D]

I'm right quite often, John..., but being right doesn't always carry the weight one would
hope for or expect in this forum. Still, it's nice to see someone notices once in a while.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

I never got beyond the first title. It was good for its time. Too bad the way its "sequel" was handled a few years ago. That one could have been a big winner.

Fighting Steel?[:(]

Yeah. Nothing but problems, that one, and then of course it got the big ax. Now, even after years of third-party support it still isn't much and never will be. Huge disappointment. But that's what happens when a wargame is designed to also appeal to the Atari set. Whatever were they thinking?

Hey Joooooel! Are yoiu listening? [:(]

(muttermutter)

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Of course you're absolutely right, Mike. The best (first) simulation to demonstrate this sort of interrelational motion RT was GNBNA--Action Stations! earlier also gave a good (though not RT) course in the subject. I'm surprised there's any resistance to this. And by Joel, no less. Afterall, SSI published the former title. [:D]

I'm right quite often, John..., but being right doesn't always carry the weight one would
hope for or expect in this forum. Still, it's nice to see someone notices once in a while.

Well, it isn't so much a mater of how often one person or the other is right but rather how often those with blinders on cannot or will not (or for all I know according to the edicts of management shall not) admit error. With the case in point it's an easy error to make up front, anyone could. But. After someone (you in this case) corrects the forum with a couple of excellent illustrative examples one might suppose those in error would then bow to reality and just get on with it. But noooooooooooooooo, that isn't what we get, is it?

I find that a telling dynamic.

Oh well, onward and upward!

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Wait, are we talking GNB2: Guadalcanal, or the sequal to the series, Fighting Steel?

I thought GNB2 was great, GNB3 Fury in the Pacific ok, and GNB4 Burning Steel(since I never had GNBNA) pretty cool.

I loved Fighting Steel. Hell, I still play it. The AI kinda sucked, and ships are too easy to sink, but it is still one of those game close to my heart.

I'm more or less in your camp, except for me the AI is utterly hopeless. I sill wonder if Zimm might not one day get back into it, but I sort of doubt that now. A shame.

[steveh11Matrix]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Wait, are we talking GNB2: Guadalcanal, or the sequal to the series, Fighting Steel?

I thought GNB2 was great, GNB3 Fury in the Pacific ok, and GNB4 Burning Steel(since I never had GNBNA) pretty cool.

I loved Fighting Steel. Hell, I still play it. The AI kinda sucked, and ships are too easy to sink, but it is still one of those game close to my heart.

I'm more or less in your camp, except for me the AI is utterly hopeless. I sill wonder if Zimm might not one day get back into it, but I sort of doubt that now. A shame.

You guys should be looking at http://www.navalwarfare.org/~content/fs.html, the updates to Fighting Steel. Currently at v9.5, updated 22-May-2004. They've also got a campaign/operation game going.

I played an earlier version of this, and can confirm that it's much improved. Can't say the ai will be any better, but hey, if you already own Fighting Steel, this is a free upgrade! (The best price! [;)] )

Steve.

[mogami]

Hi, I had a thought today. I would look forward with great interest to AAR written by Zoomie1980 and TJ from PBEM game played between them.

Would one post a good result and claim it his planning or proof the game was broken
would the other then say it was his planning or agree it was proof the game was broken.

In any case if they played more then 6 months the AAR would likely find a place in the Hall of Fame.

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I had a thought today. I would look forward with great interest to AAR written by Zoomie1980 and TJ from PBEM game played between them.

Would one post a good result and claim it his planning or proof the game was broken
would the other then say it was his planning or agree it was proof the game was broken.

In any case if they played more then 6 months the AAR would likely find a place in the Hall of Fame.

[:D]

[strawbuk]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Wow, a contentious thread without one single ZOOMIE post!

Regardless of what Mogami has seen in his AAR's, it seems his results are almost always different than what almost every casual player is getting. I don't know why, but it certainly seems that way. It is CLEAR that we have a large number of players who seeing the same general result from major surface engagements, i.e. one or two ships sucking up almost ALL the fire, even in daylight engagements.

Wondered where you had gone - was missing the programming speak....
Have we seen this? Only AARs seen posted argue that surface combat is 'ok'. Not saying anyone pushing it but rest is assertion, without saves, reruns and direct copy AAR. Me? I see a mix of results (playing vs AI) some make me cheer some make me cringe.

(just catching up after two weeks out..)

[m10bob]

I just raided Rabaul with 3 BB's and 4 CA's and several DD's as screen...Going in,I encountered 3 seperate groups od AK's,AG's,a couple DD's,etc..At no time did my ships fire at all targets,and generally they only sunk 1 ship per encounter..To make matters worse,the slower moving enemy *somehow* was able to slip away,even when damaged.(?)..
My ships were not low on ammo,nor fuel,and never even took a hit,but have retired(against my wishes)..NEEDS TO BE FIXED,PLEASE.....

[mogami]

Hi, Did you bombard? Day? Night? TF do not retire against your wishes without a reason. They have to be forced into changing "do not retire" to retire.

Send The the file before the turn if you have it to mogami69bsa@aol.com (Or the turn after so I can at least look at the TF status.)

[Rob322]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I just raided Rabaul with 3 BB's and 4 CA's and several DD's as screen...Going in,I encountered 3 seperate groups od AK's,AG's,a couple DD's,etc..At no time did my ships fire at all targets,and generally they only sunk 1 ship per encounter..To make matters worse,the slower moving enemy *somehow* was able to slip away,even when damaged.(?)..
My ships were not low on ammo,nor fuel,and never even took a hit,but have retired(against my wishes)..NEEDS TO BE FIXED,PLEASE.....

Were they set up as a Bombardment TF? My understanding is that ships on such a mission will not spend much ammo on enemy ships they encounter as they're saving it for the bombardment mission you assigned them to. Thus, they won't shoot very much or usually at very many ships.