Surface Combat

[juliet7bravo]

Well, Paul...that pretty much answers that. I apologize for wasting your time.

[HMSWarspite]

I think the idea of causing bombardments to cost op points would be a good one, and could reduce the issue here, without much change to the engine. The AI might trip over it, but I cannot evaluate this risk. Do surface actions cost OPs? Because this would be another item of contention. Bombardments ought to take from say 15mins to 1.5 hrs maybe, (20 - 120 ops say), maybe biased to commander ratings. Surface actions would be much more random, or generated from the way the battle develops. If no one evades, it would be very short (i.e. the TF isn't deflected from it's course), an evading TF could lose several hrs worth of OPs.

I am really struggling on the interception debate. Against humans, intercepting carriers is not necessarily easy, because despite having react off set a lot of the time, I move TFs every turn, usually at least 4 hexes. This lessens the risk of sub ambushes, surface TF intercepts etc. You could argue that this is yet more details to attend to, but if I only do one thing in a turn, it's nurse maid the carriers!

The abstraction that you only get an intercept chance at the end of the turn really doesn't bother me. Carriers have the reach to usually get close enough to surface groups not to matter. OK - you cannot patrol choke points as a barrier patrol, unless that is also the enemy objective. Is this really an issue? You still have a 1 in 4 or 5 chance of getting the correct hex (for an average TF cruise speed). In a heavy LBA environment, I always prefer to keep my TF under my LBA, not out on a limb in the Slot. If I saw a TF on barrier patrol, the first thing I would do is home any subs nearby on to it, so stay there more than a few days, and you'll get your interception all right!

I appreciate that some pepple want to postion the 'outer picket, inner picket, close defence' explicitly, but as has been said, the game isn't that detailed. Do we get the correct end result - that is the question.
Now, if there were situations where significant TFs sat in hexes next door to a hex where the enemy swanned in, bombarded, and left, and you couldn't stop them, that would be different, however, I don't think that is what's happening here.

Maybe I have come up with a style of play that meshes with the game mechanics, so I don't see the full frustration. I must admit, the first few times the AI did the old PM bombardment shuffle, I was a little frustrated. However, subs, mines, and building up the supply and AF state soon sort that out. The computer lost all interest when I damaged 3 BB and sank 1 - it can be countered. You pretty much have to bombard a AF every night to keep it out if action. Miss once, and any cripples get trounced.

I think we have to accept the game UV is, and not complain about the one it isn't. Now, I have a MUCH bigger worry on the information system (as I keep mentioning). The amount of routine clicking, and work to rotate air units on rest/training, the fiddle to find which subs are out or torps, those are issues that I think need attention, especially for WitP.

Sorry for going on - look upon it as my 2p worth, but with double bonus extra sale thrown in!:)

[elmo3]

Originally posted by Dunedain

...snip...

Just because something didn't commonly happen historically,
doesn't mean it couldn't have.

...snip...

-- tongue-in-cheek mode on --

Ok then, I declare UV to be a complete failure because the phases of the Moon are not programmed into it. The Moon's phases could have had a major impact on night spotting and night combat. I have no empirical or anecdotal data to support that they ever did but it might have so it must be in the game. It is irrelevant if it creates unhistorical results by adding it since it will be cool for my opponent and me to plan all our operations around this one factor. If we want to do that it is our business. All work on WitP must cease until this is included in UV. Of course we'll also need a Moon pulldown menu so we can properly plan our night operations. Please have Gary drop everything for this. Thanks.

-- removing tongue from cheek --

Nothing personal. I just find is increasingly humorous that people keep wanting something that was not only uncommon, but that esentially never happened in 500+ days of the camapign regardless of it's unhistorical implications.

[Didz]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber
You aren't going to get "The same old Pacwar" either.

Gary has made his design intent quite clear. 60nm hexes, the same basic mechanics as UV. More geared probably to 7 day rather than 1 day turns.

I'm really disheartened by this news as I've been waiting for WiTP for what seems like years (and probably is) only to find that it isn't going to be the sort of game I expected it to be.

As stated in my very first post. I think the issues I have with this game eminate from the fact the ground scale of 30 miles per hex is not balanced by a minimum turn duration of 1 day per turn.

It creates too many issues over movement and detection and gives the game the look and feel of a tactical game.

60 miles per hex ought to improve this considerably but not if the minimum turn duration is also going to be increases to one week.

This only doubles the ground scale whilst increasing the timescale by a massive 700%.

So instead of jumping 27 hexes a turn as they do in UV those IJN BB units will be able to warp 96 hexes (over 5,000 miles) a turn in WiTP.

Ouch!

[Didz]

Originally posted by elmo3


-- tongue-in-cheek mode on --

Ok then, I declare UV to be a complete failure because the phases of the Moon are not programmed into it. The Moon's phases could have had a major impact on night spotting and night combat. I have no empirical or anecdotal data to support that they ever did but it might have so it must be in the game. It is irrelevant if it creates unhistorical results by adding it since it will be cool for my opponent and me to plan all our operations around this one factor. If we want to do that it is our business. All work on WitP must cease until this is included in UV. Of course we'll also need a Moon pulldown menu so we can properly plan our night operations. Please have Gary drop everything for this. Thanks.

-- removing tongue from cheek --

Yes! I think this sums up the difference between Boardgamers and Wargamers beautifully.

As dunedain points out, Wargamers are primarily concerned with what might have happened had the commanders made different decisions on the day. They therefore expect the systems they use to model the basic physical attributes of the units and environment so that any distraction from the historical script will still produce a believable result.

However, Boargamers tend to buy games that recreate specific historical events and focus mainly on how well the game reproduces the historical results in an abstract form.

In boargame terms it doesn't matter if TF's are able to perform actions which would not be possible in the real campaign as long as the overall effect produced is in keeping with their original script. Whereas, wargamer would argue that if a TF couldn't do that in the real battle it shouldn't be allowed to do it in the game.

We can go round this loop for ever and never agree, its a fundamental difference in approach I have run into again and again.

[Didz]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber

You are free to dislike it, but the vast majority like the current balance of detail and abstraction.

Actually, last time I checked the poll

30% of your customer base said they weren't happy with the current balance of turn duration to ground scale.

70% satisfaction doesn't satisfy the 80:20 rule and can't be really be described as a 'vast majority'.

[David Heath]

Well the intel you got is not 100% correct.

WITP is going to be 60 miles a hex and 1 to 7 days. We are looking into the interception changes but it maybe a little while before they get into the game.

David

[Mark W Carver]

Originally posted by Didz

Actually, last time I checked the poll

30% of your customer base said they weren't happy with the current balance of turn duration to ground scale.

70% satisfaction doesn't satisfy the 80:20 rule and can't be really be described as a 'vast majority'.

...where did the 80:20 rule come from? 70:30 sure does seem like a 'vast majority' to me.

[Didz]

Originally posted by Mark W Carver

...where did the 80:20 rule come from? 70:30 sure does seem like a 'vast majority' to me.

Not sure where the 80:20 rule originated exactly but it was probably part of one of the popular quality methodologies.

It has become sort of an industry standard basically it says that if you have acheived 80% of what you hoped to acheive then pumping further resources into the venture in the hope of making up the 20% deficiency is probably going to be a waste of effort based on the law of dimishing returns.

As for 30% of Matrix customers being an insignificant minority, well I guess thats up to matrix. If 30% of my customers weren't happy I'd be pretty worried.

[Mark W Carver]

Originally posted by Didz

As for 30% of Matrix customers being an insignificant minority, well I guess thats up to matrix. If 30% of my customers weren't happy I'd be pretty worried.

But than again, that is 30% of the 72 people who has responded to a poll on Matrix's UV forum website.

The 70:30 could actually be 80:20 or 90:10 or even 60:40 or 50:50 of ALL actual owners of UV. No way to tell, unless Matrix sends out a mailing to it's owners and receives a reply back from 100% of the owners of UV. A small sampling found on this website is not scientific.

[Spooky]

Originally posted by Didz


Actually, last time I checked the poll

30% of your customer base said they weren't happy with the current balance of turn duration to ground scale.

70% satisfaction doesn't satisfy the 80:20 rule and can't be really be described as a 'vast majority'.

BTW, please take a look at the "rate UV" poll. It is more like 95% of the people are satisfied by the game :p

[Dunedain]

I'm sure overall satisfaction with UV is quite high, but that
doesn't mean there aren't things that need fixed.

For example, the naval gunnery modeling had some flaws in it
which produced very inaccurate results. But now in the latest patch
version it's been reported that these flaws have been corrected, and
it's made a huge improvement to surface combat.

By the way, a big thanks to Gary and the folks at 2x3 and Matrix for
fixing that gunnery problem!

[Hartmann]

Yeah, the more I play, the more I think that the actual surface battles are what need tweaking most. I rarely have a surface battle where I think: "this is more or less what I expected". Instead, I almost always go !!

Over time, I have posted some of those strange outcomes, but the most strange was when, recently, some 4 AKs and an AP managed to set several of my CAs on fire with their 3 inch guns, while my 15 ship TF all fired on one AK which didn't even sink until after the battle ...

At the moment, I almost solely rely on air warfare.

Hartmann

[strollen]

Originally posted by Hartmann
Yeah, the more I play, the more I think that the actual surface battles are what need tweaking most. I rarely have a surface battle where I think: "this is more or less what I expected". Instead, I almost always go !!

Over time, I have posted some of those strange outcomes, but the most strange was when, recently, some 4 AKs and an AP managed to set several of my CAs on fire with their 3 inch guns, while my 15 ship TF all fired on one AK which didn't even sink until after the battle ...

At the moment, I almost solely rely on air warfare.

Hartmann

Ok, I guess I won't bitch about the lone AK sinking 2 of 8 PT boats. Those .5" Browning getting belt hits and causing critical damage are pretty funny. Personally, I find about 1/2 the time the results are pretty much what expected, 1/4 of time the results are unlikely, and 1/4 of the time, I shake my head.

[Didz]

Originally posted by David Heath
Well the intel you got is not 100% correct.

WITP is going to be 60 miles a hex and 1 to 7 days. We are looking into the interception changes but it maybe a little while before they get into the game.

David

Whew! Thank goodness for that. That should improve things no end.

[bradfordkay]

The present situation of the bombardment TFs ending one day 10-12 hexes away and then sailing in that whole distance, bombarding, and then sailing the whole distance back away before being sighted is the biggest weakness of the whole game, IMO. Since 10 hexes is 300 miles (or 10 hours at 30 knots), these TFs are travelling 600 to 720 nautical miles in the twelve hours of darkness, which is a physical impossibility for ships of WW2 vintage (actually, it's still impossible for large warships today). To do so would mean that the ships have a flank speed of 60 knots!

I have regularily seen a bombardment TF consisting of the Kongo class battlecruisers end the previous day in the China Strait (60 nm E of Gili Gili - I misquoted the distance in a post on a similar subject), sail in that night and return to the China Strait before being spotted - and this with a US 3CV TF patrolling just 120 nm south of the New Guinea shore about halfway between Gili Gili and Port Moresby. I cannot see the actual number of hexes involved at this moment, but I can guarantee that half of the time those ships were moving they were moving in daylight and so there should have been the possibility of an air strike from my CVs.

My preference would be to have the ship movement broken into two phases, night and day movement. The day movement should occur AFTER the morning air phase. This would end the problem of ships virtually travelling all their daily distance under the cover of darkness. I have no idea if the game code could support such a change but I think that doing so would greatly enhance the feel of the game. Instead of having the program check for contact in each and every hex a unit passes through, it need only be done twice a day (as opposed to the once a day we are seeing now).

[brisd]

From the patch list that David Heath posted, all the rough edges will be smoothed and I think the game will be ready for human vs human. I am like the current turn scale and the way surface combat is resolved. I have had TF's in adjacent hexes on patrol react into a hex and engage the enemy. The Tokyo Express was a historical fact and the game recreates its effectiveness. This is an operational game not a tactical one and that's what I want.

Paul Vebber's posts in defense of the game are right on and I especially like to hear that WITP is on tract to be a worthy successor to PACWAR. The idea of playing 4 years of WITP using 1 day turns is riduculous. There is a reason PacWar remains a classic 10 years later - it worked, in scale and results. I trust the team that made that game can do better with WITP. So Matrix and 2by3 - I know you have to listen to all the critics but for me IGNORE works great!

[Didz]

Originally posted by brisd
The Tokyo Express was a historical fact and the game recreates its effectiveness.

I afraid this is a 'red herring'.

The Tokyo Express is NOT a valid historical example of a bombardment mission consisting of major BB's coverng 720 miles of ocean in 12 hours bombarding a base with a fully developed air umbrella and escaping undetected. In fact it does more to support the argument that such a mission would NOT be viable in the real world.

For following reasons:

1. The Tokyo Express was a covert supply and reinforcement mission NOT a bombardment mission.
2. The largest single force involved consisted of 12 destroyers that managed to land 6,000 troops in a single night although normal night time operations were much smaller and involved no more than one or two DD's landing 900 men at a time.
3. The Japanese had air superiority over the slot for the entire duration that these landings were taking place. They were suspended in late October when it was realised there was no way to get larger forces through.
4. The only US air cover over Guadacanal was being provided by a partially constructed airbase at Henderson Field. Nimitz having withdrawn all CV's from the area. On the 16 October the US only had 34 planes available at Henderson Field (9 F4F4; 11 SBD; 7 P39 & 7 P400. Hardly a deterant for naval operations.
5. The engineers at Henderson Field did not start laying Bomber strips until December 42 and so the base could not launch effective naval strikes.
6. During the day the airfield was under air attack from Rabaul and when not providing CAP the defending planes were flying Ground Support against the Japanese beachhead and so were not in a position to spot the approach of the next landing force which could assemble in its staging area's relatively close-by without risk of detection. They certainly didn't sail 720 miles overnight to get there.
   [/list=1]
   
   I would also add the following extracts from
   
   http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-M-Guadalcanal.html
   
   On 12 October the American positions were subjected to a two-hour air attack by four waves of enemy bombers under fighter escort. At sunset the next day, a heavy bombardment of the perimeter and the airfield was begun by land-based artillery situated far up the coast. The effect of the bombardment was to deny the use of the airfield for the time being, and all air activity during that period was carried out from the newly completed fighter strip.
   
   Later the same night, a strong attack was made upon the American positions. The battleships Kongo and Haruna, screened by light cruiser Isuzu and eight destroyers, rained a continuous fire upon the airfield and the fighter strip for a period of 80 minutes.13 Flares from observation and spotting planes illuminated the area, and the fire was accurate.
   [Note: Henerson Field was neutralised, if only temporarily before the bombardment mission went in but it only had 34 planes including 11 SBD's on it anyway]
   
   ....Late October:... The growth in numbers and in effectiveness of our aviation on Henderson Field, together with the growing size and aggressiveness of the Navy's surface task groups, had forced the Japanese to resort to an inadequate and unsatisfactory system of supply and reinforcements for their troops on Guadalcanal.
   
   By the end of October, it had been decided to abandon, for the moment, attempts to send down troops and materiel by destroyer in hurried trips by night, for it had been learned that by such methods it was impossible to transport the tanks and heavy artillery that were badly needed on the island.
   
   [The Japanese therefore realised they needed to push a proper convoy through]
   
   Information received from the coastwatcher in the Buin-Faisi area served notice of the collecting at that point of a group of combat and transport vessels of imposing size--on 10 November there had been visible to him no less than 61 ships, including six cruisers, 33 destroyers, 17 transports, one large cargo liner, and smaller craft.76 Almost coincidentally with the arrival of this news came warning of an air strike, which was delivered on the morning of 11 November in two waves. Again on 12 November there was a heavy air raid on the shipping in the area, during which 30 of the 31 attacking enemy planes were shot
   
   When, on 12 November, enemy ships had first been seen approaching the island by search planes, it had been discovered that in addition to the combat craft, a group of supply ships and transports was also in motion in the same direction. On 14 November, at about 0830, these ships were seen again, once more on the move toward Guadalcanal. A short time later they were taken under a preliminary and not to successful attack by two search-planes from the Enterprise, recently repaired and operating to the south of Guadalcanal.
   
   [Note: The convoy is detected en-route]
   
   Aircraft from the Enterprise had been landed on Henderson Field in order to allow the parent ships to retire beyond danger of air attack. In spite of difficulties arising from lack of equipment on the field, they took an active part in the subsequent action.
   
   [Note: And attacked from the LBA]
   
   The main attack against the approaching transports began at 1300 when 40 Marine Corps planes from Henderson Field found the enemy force in the vicinity of the Russell Islands. The ensuing action was a slaughter. Planes were armed and fueled at the field for the relatively short run to the scene of the engagement, released their bomb-loads, and returned for new supplies. By 1500 planes from the Enterprise were making similar sorties, as were Army planes stationed on the field and B-17's from bases outside the island area.
   
   [Note: That this is in daylight operation]
   
   By nightfall the transports had been cut to pieces. The Japanese escort craft had left the scene early in the engagement and left the transports to their own devices. There was no air cover, and the only limitations upon the possibility of annihilating the force were those of time--(the attacks continued until nightfall)--and the fact, as stated before, that mud and lack of equipment on the field slowed up rearming of planes.
   
   When the engagement was broken off for the night, seven ships--Shinanogawa, Nako, Nagara, Sado, Canberra, Brisbane, and Arizona--had been sunk outright or were burning and dead in the water. During the night the remaining four, Yamazuki, Yamaura, Kinugawa, and Hirogawa, nevertheless stood in to Guadalcanal, preceded by the reinforced remnants of the covering force which had been turned back on 13 November. In the meanwhile, however, a comparable American group (the battleships Washington and South Dakota, and four destroyers) had arrived on the scene, and once more there was a heavy surface engagement.
   
   I hope this will finally lay to rest the suggestion that the 'Tokyo Express' in some way justifies the current procedure for conducting Bombardment Missions in UV. None of the IJN ships involved sailed 720 miles in a single night and no undetected Bombardment Missions were made on Henderson Field whilst the airbase was operational.

[HMSWarspite]

Originally posted by Didz


I afraid this is a 'red herring'.

The Tokyo Express is NOT a valid historical example of a bombardment mission consisting of major BB's coverng 720 miles of ocean in 12 hours bombarding a base with a fully developed air umbrella and escaping undetected.
[SNIP]

Information received from the coastwatcher in the Buin-Faisi area served notice of the collecting at that point of a group of combat and transport vessels of imposing size--on 10 November there had been visible to him no less than 61 ships, including six cruisers, 33 destroyers, 17 transports, one large cargo liner, and smaller craft.76 Almost coincidentally with the arrival of this news came warning of an air strike, which was delivered on the morning of 11 November in two waves. Again on 12 November there was a heavy air raid on the shipping in the area, during which 30 of the 31 attacking enemy planes were shot

When, on 12 November, enemy ships had first been seen approaching the island by search planes, it had been discovered that in addition to the combat craft, a group of supply ships and transports was also in motion in the same direction. On 14 November, at about 0830, these ships were seen again, once more on the move toward Guadalcanal. A short time later they were taken under a preliminary and not to successful attack by two search-planes from the Enterprise, recently repaired and operating to the south of Guadalcanal.

[Note: The convoy is detected en-route]

Aircraft from the Enterprise had been landed on Henderson Field in order to allow the parent ships to retire beyond danger of air attack. In spite of difficulties arising from lack of equipment on the field, they took an active part in the subsequent action.

[Note: And attacked from the LBA]

The main attack against the approaching transports began at 1300 when 40 Marine Corps planes from Henderson Field found the enemy force in the vicinity of the Russell Islands. The ensuing action was a slaughter. Planes were armed and fueled at the field for the relatively short run to the scene of the engagement, released their bomb-loads, and returned for new supplies. By 1500 planes from the Enterprise were making similar sorties, as were Army planes stationed on the field and B-17's from bases outside the island area.

[Note: That this is in daylight operation]

By nightfall the transports had been cut to pieces. The Japanese escort craft had left the scene early in the engagement and left the transports to their own devices. There was no air cover, and the only limitations upon the possibility of annihilating the force were those of time--(the attacks continued until nightfall)--and the fact, as stated before, that mud and lack of equipment on the field slowed up rearming of planes.
[SNIP]
I hope this will finally lay to rest the suggestion that the 'Tokyo Express' in some way justifies the current procedure for conducting Bombardment Missions in UV. None of the IJN ships involved sailed 720 miles in a single night and no undetected Bombardment Missions were made on Henderson Field whilst the airbase was operational.

Whilst I appreciate the issue here, you do yourself no favours by citing a transport mission (not 30kts, unless the Japanese have uprated a few ships whilst I wasn't looking;)), to show that a 30kts bombardment force couldn't work!
BTW the bombardment force isn't moving 600-720 miles in a single night. It is covering that distance (in effect) in the time from near dusk (too late to launch and recover a strike on the TF at the current range), all night, and then late enough in the morning to launch search planes, locate the enemy, launch a strike, and fly to the TF. This is more like 16-18 hrs, although this is still a little fast. We have to look at the effects not the detailed mechanics here.
Also BTW - let's all have a debate about the effect of 'winter' and 'summer'. Lunga is 10deg south of the equator. That means the length of the night must vary by several minutes. Omigod - major hole in the game:rolleyes:

How's about we deem this issue well and truely registered with Matrix. I have yet to see their reply, and we have to accept that what ever is done will HAVE to be a small tweak to the system, not a major re-write. Lets stop asking for continuous search/interception checks, etc. (or at least do it in the WitP thread, where there IS a chance for change.) If Matrix 'knee-jerked' a response in the way some people have been suggesting, several other things will be even more broken. To give an example, swapping the daylight air and naval phases, to give LBA a chance to catch bombardments actually means that as dawn breaks, a full strike miraculously appears over the ships (in effect), with no searching delays, and no flight time (i.e. they took off in the dark, knowing where the target is!). I suspect that might be worse than the current issue. These bombardment forces CAN be countered, use surface TF (esp PT), mines, subs, etc. You will get the cripples in air strkes the next morning, and the AI isn't suicidal.

I would like to know if giving bombardments an OP point cost is a practical fix though?

[Didz]

Originally posted by elmo3
Now if you're talking about intercepting a TF on the high seas then please see my post on page 4 of this thread where I ask for real life examples from this campaign of it happening. So far there has been one marginal example, first Savo Island. Nobody else has come forward with another.

Not sure when this debate became limited to TF interception on the high seas. My understanding is that a TF will not interdict another in any hex other than the destination hex whether that hex is in open ocean, beach, or a narrow passage between two islands.

Given that lookout visibility range is about 9 miles (an 18 mile radius), that some ships are equipt with radar and that others were equipt with seaplanes I don't see why it would be so difficult for a TF to spot another one passing through the same 30 mile stretch if ocean.