Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

OK...here is one:

Night battle off Tassafaronga:

Japs have only 8 DD's, no radar, Takanami, Oyashio, Kuroshio, Kagero, Makinami, Naganami, Kawakaze, and Suzukaze. Even worse, the Japs had no torpedo reloads as they were on a fast transport mission to Lunga.

Allies have the heavy cruisers USS Minneapolis, New Orleans, Pensacola, and Northampton, the light cruiser Honolulu, and four destroyers (Fletcher, Drayton, Maury, and Perkins)...plus radar advantage. Good bye Jap DD's, right?

Nope. The Japs lose one DD, the Allies lose Northampton and the other three CA's are beat up bad..Pensacola was out of the war for 11 mos.

Ridiculous

We all know real life is bugged though [:-]

Still, it's not as broken as AE... Shame on those developers, SHAME![8|][:'(]

OMG, force Z was the killer in WITP and is still the killer in AE.

it seems that risking a SF battle against this force is suicidal for japanese. instead of that, putting 40-50 bettys and 20-30 zeros on naval attack/eskort from saigon should solve the problem.

I'm reading about chaos, oddball results, unpredictable outcomes, nonsensical events...sounds like historic warfare to me!

ORIGINAL: jazman

AE Player: This PT-Boat TF is now the ultimate power in the universe.

Erik Rutins: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a Japanese surface force at night is insignificant next to the power of developer patching.

I know its from the last page, but that's truely funny [:D]

My combat results using the POW and Repulse, WITH a destroyer division escort against a air combat FT was quite different then the results quoted here. I was lucky to even hit one CV once...I think people are getting too excited over the results. I lived with the result and took my knocks. The screening function works very well, its clear some under the hood mechanics, like weather, spotting, initative in firing, leadership play a part. I had one IJN DD shoot up three of my DD, and damage a CL that run into the CVL tf that heads to Java sea early on. I quite frankly had to salute the captian and crew of that vessel, it repelled my attack, protected the CVL, and beat the snot out of me.

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

This is quite funny. When WitP came out, people were appalled that most of the ships in for example Transport TF could escape, since attackers usually concentrated on couple of ships. People demanded change.

OK, now it is different in AE and whole TFs can be easily wiped out by Surface Combat TF. And people demand change.

[:D]

ORIGINAL: Sheytan

My combat results using the POW and Repulse, WITH a destroyer division escort against a air combat FT was quite different then the results quoted here. I was lucky to even hit one CV once...I think people are getting too excited over the results. I lived with the result and took my knocks. The screening function works very well, its clear some under the hood mechanics, like weather, spotting, initative in firing, leadership play a part. I had one IJN DD shoot up three of my DD, and damage a CL that run into the CVL tf that heads to Java sea early on. I quite frankly had to salute the captian and crew of that vessel, it repelled my attack, protected the CVL, and beat the snot out of me.

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

This is quite funny. When WitP came out, people were appalled that most of the ships in for example Transport TF could escape, since attackers usually concentrated on couple of ships. People demanded change.

OK, now it is different in AE and whole TFs can be easily wiped out by Surface Combat TF. And people demand change.

[:D]

Same here. And IJN AI has so far given me some surface combat and vise versa. Some AI gunnery kills:

And some more:

Whenever I see the gun sizes I automatically add " rather than cm to the end of those numbers. Makes for some interesting reading on planet Zebedee until I readjust.

"Someone's shooting subs with a 12" gun? Good gunnery that. Eh? What ship carries a 12" gun?" [:o]

Come to dark side, metric system is for you too! [:D]

The Japs got that in 1917.

What surprised me in the above battles is less the hits than the ranges and the fact that some admirals fail to flee on right time behind their protecting destroyers or by using their highest speed. Night fights have short range fire, less precise but more destructive and after a declared fire onboard you become the easy prey, everybody shoots at you, so carnage is possible. BUT the risk being equaly shared admiral don't like to play loto with their battle fleet so most often combat should be refused I think. And if the chances of disaster are not equaly shared then the less confortable side should break fight immediatly either. Not waiting these unbelievable short ranges, decreased constantly, like... knight fighting ! In tournament, to death and for the princess. Mutual anihilation is useless without good opperational reasons. If you charge a convoy and encounter strong opposition then OK, let's break off early and go away, reporting a pretty good escort or nearby strong TF - and prepare AA guns, you have just been added in the list of priority contacts to sink by the air.
 
Moreover during night it is in principle more easy to break the fight, especialy if DD can help in front line since enemy big guns are really afraid of torpedoes and have no interested at all in night fighting. How stupid or unlucky are all these commanders ?! We can imagine that missing some commanding random test can be impossible due to bonus for extreme urgency - a doctrinal mandatory, no option or the second takes command !
 
What I've seen is far more reasonable, and I managed to explain to myself the epic or common encounters. However it seems to me that surface combats are too frequent, each time two TF share an hex then the engagement opportunity starts and most often battle occurs - and if a side refuses it is repulsed and can not cross the hex, even by night. Maybe the repetition with too high probability of battle implies these large numbers of fights and mistakes of commanders letting DD rush on their big guys.
 
But in day surface combat how the hell it is possible to let a few CL approach a four carriers TF without sending them to the bottom from the air ? Maybe if battle fleets are left stationnary in open sea or occupy dangerous coastal hexes... so an outlying behavior just resulted in an outlying outcome. But in open sea the probability of encounter in very narrow, the CV TF commander should have react to maintain the distance. And in case of contact. I agree with the proposal about a third line of easily escaping ships and would prefer that only ships in both first lines should be able to close each other (DD, few cruisers, escorts), unless all sunk, the other lines are no more made of knights but of princesses... hard to conquier.
 
In corollary to my main points - the commander judging mistakes and too many encounters - is the observation that nothing allows the player to influence the "attitude" of a surface TF. Since now these combats are so well described and so important, maybe we can ask for attitudes like:
- "avoid night fight",
- "engage convoy only",
- "sweep equal size TF",
- "protect followed TF"
and then toggle the reaction radius that can be used while interacting under the doctrine in question. Just to help commanders not failing their critical dice rolls and take decisions according to the four stars admiral imposed doctrine/orders - support, jump into or flee in case of... So an escaping "attack convoy only" repulsed by a big escorting TF in "sweep equal size TF" is then pursued according to the inspiration/commanding tests/speed difference/radius and can even be engaged now or later... Certainly something like that is already taken into account by the routine tests each time hexes are shared - I like the routine but do not master it - however with "attitudes" we could at least more easily explain the breaking off or charge/carnage outcomes, having scout only or played knight tournaments by choice !... and lost the princess.
 
So in case the bloody model for determined engagement is the right one, and I believe so since guning looks good - but not always closing - then a wise doctrine for both sides could simply be to avoid sending fleets so obviously in front line or at least with safer orders, as IRL no ?
 
TZ

Dunno, feels a little off to me so far. Slanted towards the Allies. Has anyone posted any surface combat results where a Japanese force of equal or superior strength won the engagement?

I'm playing Japan vs AI for now and it hasn't happend for me yet. I've only played a few days into the GC and restarted many times. I would definately like to see some links that answer the question above.

Its August 4th 1942 in my game and looking at the sunk ships list I have put down 940 jap ships. (I have not opened the axis side to see if those numbers are real) To date I have lost a little over 400. It seems a bit over the top. It has me a little concerned the AI is too reckless. Add to that the AI thought it owned Rabaul and kept parking TF's there so my air crews could get target practice. Before I typed this, the Kaga decided to park at the north end of Java, the POW got some target practice that night. [;)]

I like many things about this game, but if this kill rate continues the war will be over in 43 due to the loss of the Japanese navy.

If the japanese air force would bomb the ports I hold in Java or Rabaul they never would have had the losses they did. Instead the concentrate on the airfields or trying to hit the TF's. As long as my ships can race out and nail the amphibs either on their way to a target or when they are landing I will continue to rack up the kills.

I just don't have these results. Mine are almost always even, even when I send in fast surface attack force. Poor Girffin took one too many for the team. An 8 incher right down the bow

Night Time Surface Combat, near Port Blair at 46,58, Range 1,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CA Atago, Shell hits 3
CA Mikuma, Shell hits 1
CL Tatsuta, Shell hits 2
DD Akikaze, Shell hits 3
DD Hokaze, Shell hits 14, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
DD Namikaze, Shell hits 4, heavy fires

Allied Ships
DD Isaac Sweers
DD Tjerk Hiddes, Shell hits 1
DD Griffin, Shell hits 13, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Hotspur



Low visibility due to Thunderstorms with 64% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Thunderstorms and 64% moonlight: 1,000 yards
Range closes to 2,000 yards...
Range closes to 1,000 yards...
Kruys, W.J. crosses the 'T'
DD Hotspur engages DD Namikaze at 1,000 yards
DD Griffin sunk by CA Atago at 1,000 yards
DD Namikaze engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 1,000 yards
DD Hokaze engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 1,000 yards
Range increases to 2,000 yards
CA Mikuma engages DD Hotspur at 2,000 yards
DD Tjerk Hiddes engages CA Atago at 2,000 yards
CL Tatsuta engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 2,000 yards
DD Isaac Sweers engages DD Namikaze at 2,000 yards
DD Akikaze engages DD Isaac Sweers at 2,000 yards
CA Mikuma engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 2,000 yards
CA Atago engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 2,000 yards
CL Tatsuta engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 2,000 yards
DD Tjerk Hiddes engages DD Namikaze at 2,000 yards
DD Hokaze sunk by DD Isaac Sweers at 2,000 yards
CA Mikuma engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 2,000 yards
CA Atago engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 2,000 yards
CL Tatsuta engages DD Isaac Sweers at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 3,000 yards
DD Hotspur engages DD Namikaze at 3,000 yards
DD Tjerk Hiddes engages DD Namikaze at 3,000 yards
DD Isaac Sweers engages DD Akikaze at 3,000 yards
DD Namikaze engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 3,000 yards
DD Akikaze engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 3,000 yards
Task forces break off...

ay Time Surface Combat, near Port Blair at 46,58, Range 1,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CA Atago, Shell hits 23, on fire
CA Mikuma, Shell hits 1
CL Tatsuta, Shell hits 5, on fire

Allied Ships
DD Isaac Sweers, Shell hits 12, and is sunk
DD Tjerk Hiddes
DD Hotspur, Shell hits 2, on fire



Low visibility due to Thunderstorms
Maximum visibility in Thunderstorms: 3,000 yards
Range closes to 19,000 yards...
Range closes to 13,000 yards...
Range closes to 7,000 yards...
Range closes to 1,000 yards...
CA Atago engages DD Hotspur at 1,000 yards
CA Atago engages DD Hotspur at 1,000 yards
DD Isaac Sweers sunk by CA Atago at 1,000 yards
Range increases to 2,000 yards
CA Atago engages DD Hotspur at 2,000 yards
CA Atago engages DD Hotspur at 2,000 yards
CL Tatsuta engages DD Hotspur at 2,000 yards
Ijuin, Matsuji orders Japanese TF to disengage
Range increases to 5,000 yards
CA Atago engages DD Hotspur at 5,000 yards
CL Tatsuta engages DD Hotspur at 5,000 yards
Range increases to 6,000 yards
CA Mikuma engages DD Hotspur at 6,000 yards
CA Atago engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 6,000 yards
CL Tatsuta engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 6,000 yards
Range increases to 8,000 yards
CA Mikuma engages DD Hotspur at 8,000 yards
CA Atago engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 8,000 yards
CL Tatsuta engages DD Hotspur at 8,000 yards
Range increases to 9,000 yards
CA Mikuma engages DD Hotspur at 9,000 yards
CA Mikuma engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 9,000 yards
Task forces break off...

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

I just don't have these results. Mine are almost always even, even when I send in fast surface attack force.

Well as you see, outgunned allied performed much better. They got twice as many hits than much stronger japanese.

I think surface combat have some issues. Definitely.

Performed much better? No, I sent in 36 knot DD's that crossed the T and they got blasted out of the water. Yeah they got a DD so what?

Atago is sailing around asking for more meat. It isn't that hurt.

The Atago also took a 500lber from a US bomber before I could get this shot.

You can't believe everything commanders state in reports. FOW



Those 4 dd's are over, 2 are needing half a year of repairs and 2 are sunk.

You just can't judge a whole game on a single combat scenario.

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

I just don't have these results. Mine are almost always even, even when I send in fast surface attack force.

Well as you see, outgunned allied performed much better. They got twice as many hits than much stronger japanese.

I think surface combat have some issues. Definitely.

And if you check the data, the destroyers' 4" main guns have twice the rate of fire than the cruisers' main weapons. In the first combat the Allies are also crossing the T so are only taking fire from the bow weapons of the IJN force.

It was a perfect fight for Fast Attack Destroyers, low visibility, crossed the T, unloaded everything.


But still lost. I didn't send in 4 destroyers of a certain type to lose, I really thought those fast bastages would put the pain on the Atago TF and they did a little but not like I would have wished they did. Or more like hoped they would have, I did it becaues I could expend the fast DD's. DD"s are given no credit for their ability sure they die but most did lots of damage before going under to ol Davey.

Ijuin, Matsuji orders Japanese TF to disengage


He was no fool aye? Maybe the American Torps were dudes but those Brits made a few good ones.