Surface Combat Sux

[Mr.Frag]

Would be nice if that had anything to do with it [:D]

[freeboy]

If we change the surface combat rutines, maybe we could add tf scatter, merchies would scattere, sailing in a convoy is hard work, let alone in a battle

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Montrose

It's perfectly simple, and FWIW I'll post it once again....

Drop Detection Levels As The Targetting Determinant!

ALL of your surface combat problems will stop completely when this single sensible step is done. EVERY SINGLE ONE!

You are persistant! [:D]

[Tankerace]

My main gripe with the system is not so much this, but how the TFs break off. Look at my AARs for the initial tests of the WPO mod.

The TFs sight each other at 26,000 yards.
The TFs Open Fire at 21,000 yards.
The range eventually dwindles to 8,000 yards.

All that is good, and historical. But suddenly you see (Task forces break off).
In real life, unless both sides made smoke, the fleets would continue ito fire, while OPENING the range. Only after a second combat round at say 21,000 yards should the TFs actually break off. But ceasing fire at 8,000 is just plain unhistorical.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

My main gripe with the system is not so much this, but how the TFs break off. Look at my AARs for the initial tests of the WPO mod.

The TFs sight each other at 26,000 yards.
The TFs Open Fire at 21,000 yards.
The range eventually dwindles to 8,000 yards.

All that is good, and historical. But suddenly you see (Task forces break off).
In real life, unless both sides made smoke, the fleets would continue ito fire, while OPENING the range. Only after a second combat round at say 21,000 yards should the TFs actually break off. But ceasing fire at 8,000 is just plain unhistorical.

It would help if there was some form of cause and effect relationship tied into the range and engage/disengage determinations. How many times do we see a small TF re engage a superior TF simply because it has no other option available?

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Rob322
If so then this, too, has been changed from [pb]UV[/b]. Used to be bombardment TFs (at least of the IJN variety) cleaned house all over the sea, then proceeded to wreak havoc on their land targets as well.

Perhaps that's why it was changed... Ships generally carry only enough ammo for a
one hour engagement shooting all-out. A TF laoded with bombardment ammunition and
with a schedule to keep in unloading it can't go chasing off after eveything it runs
across en route. You'll get your bombardment, and you'll pick up a few "strays" if you
should come across any..., but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I agree, Mike, though the BTF ought to as its priority go after any surface ships it runs across first. Assuming ammo to spare, then it could revert to its original bombardment mission.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn



Perhaps that's why it was changed... Ships generally carry only enough ammo for a
one hour engagement shooting all-out. A TF laoded with bombardment ammunition and
with a schedule to keep in unloading it can't go chasing off after eveything it runs
across en route. You'll get your bombardment, and you'll pick up a few "strays" if you
should come across any..., but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I agree, Mike, though the BTF ought to as its priority go after any surface ships it runs across first. Assuming ammo to spare, then it could revert to its original bombardment mission.

It depends. With a primary load-out of HE ammo (for the bombardment) there are
some constraints on what you can go "haring after". Plus, the bombardment could
be crucial in the combat at the hex that's to be bombarded. How'd you like to be a
Marine headed ashore on "Godforsaken Island" and be told the pre-landing bombard-
ment was cancelled because "Admiral Numbnuts" had decided it was more important
to chace down some empty transports. Things like that get Admirals "Fragged"...

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

We, as users/players have no idea concerning the implementation details of the program, nor should we really care. All we have are the results that seem out of whack. While it's always nice to have someone post the implementation details as an explaination of why something might be happenning a certain way, it's not really our job to then start battering away at those details. All we have to go on are the aggregate results.

In this thread we have a boiled down issue that involves surface combat TF's engaging totally unescorted transport TF's in daylight where only one transport takes 90+% of all shell hits. We've even see posters further boil that down to the surface combat TF's need to be "mixed" for that to happen (i.e. 2CL 6DD) as all DD TF's deliver the scatter pattern most expect for some reason...

Now WHY that happens or what is done, specifically to fix it, is of no concern to me. That's the developer's problem to deal with. All I'm interested in are the results. Of course, if people are actually seeing one of these engagements in the first place it generally means the guy owning the unescorted transport TF is likely playing poorly (as in the AI....).

Since I am ignorant as to how this is programmed, it might appear that the problem resides with just unescorted merchant ships, but it reality it could be much more involved. Perhaps all surface combat is skewed, but it is just most noticeable when unescorted convoys are intercepted.

The programmers know (Inshala) how this is all implemented and can determine what needs a tweek. [:)]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl



I agree, Mike, though the BTF ought to as its priority go after any surface ships it runs across first. Assuming ammo to spare, then it could revert to its original bombardment mission.

It depends. With a primary load-out of HE ammo (for the bombardment) there are
some constraints on what you can go "haring after". Plus, the bombardment could
be crucial in the combat at the hex that's to be bombarded. How'd you like to be a
Marine headed ashore on "Godforsaken Island" and be told the pre-landing bombard-
ment was cancelled because "Admiral Numbnuts" had decided it was more important
to chace down some empty transports. Things like that get Admirals "Fragged"...

AP/HE load-outs fall outside the scope of this simulation's ability (desire, if you will) to detail. Also, in the same vein how would you like to be that marine thinking, "You mean Numbnuts is going to pound ground over there while my ship gets blown out of the water over here?"

Having said that, I'd love to see such detail as you suggest. But then I'd love to see more finely-grained articulation with regard to TF assignments (i.e. TGs and such within TFs replete with hierarchal orders sets), yet I know perfectly well that that just isn't on the cards.

Let's face it. The game is presented at a time scale (twelve-hour pulses) which is not properly supported in many areas by rules and dynamics--hell, they ought to also have kept the UV map scale while they were at it--and the result of this dubious mix must be, at the least, inconsistent play here and there. And isn't that just what we see?

Sometimes it's necessary to wink and get on with it. I'll tell you one thing more. I'd hate to be some Grigsby out there trying to satisfy me. [:D]