AA fire

[Owl]

Do supporting ships in a taskforce assist in AA defense? In other words if I were to swap around the ships in the Midway scenario - put the ships escorting the carriers actually IN the CV group would the AA defense be improved?
In some cases ships that were historically not a seporate group and did lend AA support to high value units (carriers usually) appear to be escort or screen groups in CAW. In general, unless an enemy surface fleet is threatening I'd rather have the screen and escorts with my CV's, helping to defend them vs air attack.

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: Owl

Do supporting ships in a taskforce assist in AA defense? In other words if I were to swap around the ships in the Midway scenario - put the ships escorting the carriers actually IN the CV group would the AA defense be improved?
In some cases ships that were historically not a seporate group and did lend AA support to high value units (carriers usually) appear to be escort or screen groups in CAW. In general, unless an enemy surface fleet is threatening I'd rather have the screen and escorts with my CV's, helping to defend them vs air attack.

Ships in a TG can assist a ship under attack with AA fire. First, the ship under attack always gets to fire at its attackers. Then, other ships have a chance to support, starting with any CLAAs in the TG. Ships add their AA fire in turn, until one ship fails the chance to add fire. So an unlucky ship could be all on its own, and a lucky one could get the whole TG blazing away at its attackers, with most somewhere in between.

Gregor

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

Ships in a TG can assist a ship under attack with AA fire. First, the ship under attack always gets to fire at its attackers. Then, other ships have a chance to support, starting with any CLAAs in the TG. Ships add their AA fire in turn, until one ship fails the chance to add fire. So an unlucky ship could be all on its own, and a lucky one could get the whole TG blazing away at its attackers, with most somewhere in between.

Gregor

Takers, anyone?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Troutie_SSG]

I though I might add some comments to the question of AA fire in CAW.
Whenever a ship comes under attack from aircraft, here's a summary of what happens.
The ship under under attack always contributes its AA values to its own defense.
Heavy AA attacks high and medium level bombers, and has a chance to attack dive bombers prior to them starting their dive.
Light AA attacks medium and low level bombers, including torpedo bombers, and has a chance to attack dive bombers while they are executing their dive.
As far as other ships making an AA contribution, here is the procedure. All ships in the target's TG, and any TG in the same hex with an escort order, are pooled then put in a queue, CLAA types first, then by displacement. The first ship in the queue is tested against it's TG's admin value and it's own AA fire control, among other things and if it passes the test, its AA values are added to the defense and the next ship in the queue is tested. This process continues until a ship fails the test. Once a failure has occured, that's the end of the matter.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Troutie_SSG

I though I might add some comments to the question of AA fire in CAW.
Whenever a ship comes under attack from aircraft, here's a summary of what happens.
The ship under under attack always contributes its AA values to its own defense.
Heavy AA attacks high and medium level bombers, and has a chance to attack dive bombers prior to them starting their dive.
Light AA attacks medium and low level bombers, including torpedo bombers, and has a chance to attack dive bombers while they are executing their dive.
As far as other ships making an AA contribution, here is the procedure. All ships in the target's TG, and any TG in the same hex with an escort order, are pooled then put in a queue, CLAA types first, then by displacement. The first ship in the queue is tested against it's TG's admin value and it's own AA fire control, among other things and if it passes the test, its AA values are added to the defense and the next ship in the queue is tested. This process continues until a ship fails the test. Once a failure has occured, that's the end of the matter.

Thanks for your comments, Ian.

It's the nature of computer games that they have a sort of "Wizard of Oz" quality about them, of a mysterious fella behind a curtain manipulating all sorts of levers and switches which generate this result or that, the mechanics of which are largely unknown to the folks who play the game. It's terrific to have someone "in the know" stop by and attempt to illuminate some of the inner workings of a game as complex as the likes of Carriers at War.

With the above in mind, I have a question about anti-aircraft fire and it's impact on aircraft casualties. Apart from raw data, the number of guns and the firepower that each projects, is there any difference, at all, between the way that the IJN and USN task groups are modeled?

Thanks again,

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[RyanCrierie]

ORIGINAL: Troutie_SSG

I though I might add some comments to the question of AA fire in CAW.
Whenever a ship comes under attack from aircraft, here's a summary of what happens.
The ship under under attack always contributes its AA values to its own defense.
Heavy AA attacks high and medium level bombers, and has a chance to attack dive bombers prior to them starting their dive.
Light AA attacks medium and low level bombers, including torpedo bombers, and has a chance to attack dive bombers while they are executing their dive.

What about 5/34" VT fuzed fire? When you combined that with radar fire control, you could effectively kill low level attackers far away from the ship. It's why the USN wanted the minimal gun size for postwar AA to be 3", as it was the smallest size capable of having a VT fuze.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: RyanCrierie

What about 5/34" VT fuzed fire? When you combined that with radar fire control, you could effectively kill low level attackers far away from the ship. It's why the USN wanted the minimal gun size for postwar AA to be 3", as it was the smallest size capable of having a VT fuze.

Hi RyanCrierie,

I can't answer for SSG, but that seems like something that could be (and probably is) handled by the system that Ian outlined above. It'd be a straight part of the anti-aircraft calculation process, "x" number of weapons times their firepower rating. Game-wise, it certainly appears that Allied AA increases in lethality as the scenario date advances.

Am I reading you wrong?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Owl]

So if only the ships in a particular TF get to apply AA fire - then in the Midway scenario the carrier TF should contain the (IIRC) screen force with 2 BB's, 2 CA's and some lighter ships.  Maybe it doesn't make that much difference, but in the actual battle these ships were directly in the CV formation with Nagumo's carriers. 
 
yeah I know... nit pick, nit pick.   In any case thanks for the info on the AA fire routines!!!

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: Owl

So if only the ships in a particular TF get to apply AA fire - then in the Midway scenario the carrier TF should contain the (IIRC) screen force with 2 BB's, 2 CA's and some lighter ships. Maybe it doesn't make that much difference, but in the actual battle these ships were directly in the CV formation with Nagumo's carriers.

yeah I know... nit pick, nit pick. In any case thanks for the info on the AA fire routines!!!

As Ian mentioned, ships in another TG in the same hex and with Escort orders are equally eligible to contribute to AA fire.


Gregor

[Owl]

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

ORIGINAL: Owl

So if only the ships in a particular TF get to apply AA fire - then in the Midway scenario the carrier TF should contain the (IIRC) screen force with 2 BB's, 2 CA's and some lighter ships. Maybe it doesn't make that much difference, but in the actual battle these ships were directly in the CV formation with Nagumo's carriers.

yeah I know... nit pick, nit pick. In any case thanks for the info on the AA fire routines!!!

As Ian mentioned, ships in another TG in the same hex and with Escort orders are equally eligible to contribute to AA fire.

Ah, my mistake - sorry did not catch that detail. Thanks!

Gregor

[Prince of Eckmühl]

No one responded to my question above:

With the above in mind, I have a question about anti-aircraft fire and it's impact on aircraft casualties. Apart from raw data, the number of guns and the firepower that each projects, is there any difference, at all, between the way that the IJN and USN task groups are modeled?

So, I'm going to assume that the modeling of anti-aircraft fire is handled the same way for both IJN and USN task groups. This is unfortunate, indeed. The two sides were fighting this aspect of the war completely differently in 1942.

The USN formed a ring of escorts around their carriers which were intended to augment it's AA defense. Ships like the Atlanta or North Carolina could make a meaningful contribution to the defense of an American carrier because they were close enough to do so.

This above simply wasn't true of the IJN.

While operating, their carriers and "escorting" ships were placed miles apart, with only a "plane guard" destroyer posted close its assigned vessel. Japanese carriers relied on their own anemic AA and evasive maneuver to evade bombs and torpedoes. There was no mutually supporting fire to benefit from.

IMO, this is simply another example of CaWs failure to deal with doctrinal issues associated with the 1942 battles, ones that hopelessly disadvantage the Allied player. Yes, it's a game, I realize. But, I can't enjoy playing against a friend, if the games are so relentlessly and remorselessly one-sided.

I purchased the game to play online, against human opponents. Between the obvious bugs in the game, of which I would appear to be the principal source of documentation, and the lack of play balance, there's really no point. It's simply unimaginable that a game that's been in development for close to twenty years could have shipped in the state that this one did.

There were many, many years between the purchase of my last SSG title, The Ardennes Offensive, and this one. I suspect that there will be many, many more before I purchase the next.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Gregor_SSG]

Well, I think you're making too big a deal about this. Especially early in the war, it didn't matter what your AA doctrine was, AA was simply not going to make a huge difference to the outcome of a strike. As the war progressed, both sides frantically added as much AA weaponry as possible and naturally got better at AA defence but it was never good enough to really guarantee protection.

We have to create a system that works for all periods of the war and if its not exactly and totally perfect for any one part then that's something that we can live with, especially as AA fire is just not that critical to the overall outcome of a strike. I certainly don't believe that its a factor which unduly affect the outcome of a multiplayer battle. Your decisions as admiral are simply much more critical.

Carriers at War is a historical wargame, and therefore its design will depend on a particular view of history. I make no apologies if our view and thw eight we give to various historical parameters is different to yours, because it would be astounding if they were the same. I would say that the CAW system is flexible enough such that if you want to embody your view in a scenario, then you can probably do so.

There will always be a tension between historical facts, as we see them, and multiplayer balance. We are trying to create a system that recreates historical events, not create an ahistorical level playing field.

Your crack about the game being twenty years in development cuts both ways you know. I've been doing this job for over 20 years myself, and I have seen almost every piece of customer feedback about CAW in that time. I can't recall a single one that damned the game because of it.

Gregor

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

I can't recall a single one that damned the game because of it.

Pardon me, but which "it" is it that you are referring to?

The game's instability?

The lack of play balance?

The instability in multiplayer?

The OOB inaccuracies?

The CAP bug?

The F-U bug?

The full-speed for damaged ships bug?

The scenario results bug?

The instant-arm, instant launch cycle for strike aircraft?

The total disregard for the historical research that's occurred since the game was conceived?

The absence of any discernable play-testing (play-test credits notwithstanding)?

Precisely, which "it" are you referring to, or must I research "it" and reveal the results to your customers like the rest of this stuff?


PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Troutie_SSG]

The routines which direct AA fire, and the casulaties it causes and its effect on bombing accuracy, were developed working backwards from after-action reports. The goal was to keep game effects within + or - of 50% of the historical record. I'm satisfied we do this from the 'large' number of games I've played.
Here at SSG we've always tried to put out the best game we can, in a timely manner. We are never going to satisfy everyone. Of course there are bugs in the game, for which I offer my apologies. They will be corrected in the forthcoming patch.
For what it's worth, I enjoy playing the game just as much now as I did in 1983 when I designed the original.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Troutie_SSG

They will be corrected in the forthcoming patch.

Thank you, for both the thought and the tone. Respect is an asset that's hard won. And it's one of those doors that swings both ways.

Case closed,

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[NimitsTexan]

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

Well, I think you're making too big a deal about this. Especially early in the war, it didn't matter what your AA doctrine was, AA was simply not going to make a huge difference to the outcome of a strike. As the war progressed, both sides frantically added as much AA weaponry as possible and naturally got better at AA defence but it was never good enough to really guarantee protection.

We have to create a system that works for all periods of the war and if its not exactly and totally perfect for any one part then that's something that we can live with, especially as AA fire is just not that critical to the overall outcome of a strike. I certainly don't believe that its a factor which unduly affect the outcome of a multiplayer battle. Your decisions as admiral are simply much more critical.

Carriers at War is a historical wargame, and therefore its design will depend on a particular view of history. I make no apologies if our view and thw eight we give to various historical parameters is different to yours, because it would be astounding if they were the same. I would say that the CAW system is flexible enough such that if you want to embody your view in a scenario, then you can probably do so.

There will always be a tension between historical facts, as we see them, and multiplayer balance. We are trying to create a system that recreates historical events, not create an ahistorical level playing field.

Your crack about the game being twenty years in development cuts both ways you know. I've been doing this job for over 20 years myself, and I have seen almost every piece of customer feedback about CAW in that time. I can't recall a single one that damned the game because of it.

Gregor

Simulating at least some of the doctrinal differences between IJN and USN is not that all that hard, nor is it that "interpretation-dependent." It is well documented that Kido Butai tended to use looser formations than the USN, particularly up to and through Midway, on the theory that manuever rather than firepower was the most effective AAA defense, and there is to my knowledge no study or account which actually demonstrates that American ships suffered more hits because of being constratined from manuvering by the formation. So some sort of date-based modifier reducing the effect of IJN escort AAA fire could easily be impletmented into the behind the scene routines.

And yes, simulating doctrinal differences between carrier fleets is important. CaW was originally made about 15 years ago when the understanding of IJN carrier ops was quite limited. Since then much has been written, and it stands to reason a customer might expext some of the results of new research to be implemented in the new release.

[thewood1]

I think the answer is in what level of abstraction is AAA fire at.  It seems to me that the sets a certain level of abstraction for AAA.  If you think IJN is too effective, lower it your database.  At the level of abstraction, it comes down to opinion.  Browbeating a developer for choosing a certain level of abstraction is lile yelling at a dog because he can't talk.  It just gets everyone pissed off and they stop listening.
 
The same can be said for  CAP.  USN fighter direction was infamously sucky, according to both Costello and the authors of Shattered Sword.  Bu in this gane, its abstracted to the point of a lot of opinion.
 
 

[Duck Doc]

I have little knowledge of the weapons capabilities & nitty-gritty tactical details of fleet combat in WW2. I bought CAW because I thought it would be an interesting combat simulator & hoped it might teach me a bit about carrier tactics. I admit I have only tinkered with the game some & I am trying to work my way through the scenarios learning as I go. However the 'fella behind a curtain' is giving me fits.

I can't find in the Manual or game details about how long it takes for aircraft to arm & fuel, take-off & reach assembly point, recover, etc. or how long it takes to prepare aircraft after they are landed/ recovered before they can be launched again? How can I be expected to be able to master tactics without knowing this kind of essential information? I need to be shown in more or less detail what is occuring with each air element as it goes about its task.

I understand aircraft on a mission will likely be out of communication for various reasons & I am not entitled to instantaneous supply of info on demand about their progress. In real life as a commander I wouldn't know about the status of a strike until aircraft from the strike had returned & I debriefed the pilots.

I realise I am not the brightest bulb in the chandelier & I have the attention span of a gnat but I am really struggling to learn this game. The tutorial shows how to use the interface & run the game well & the game is still a fantastic experience. A lot of talent & effort has been expended to produce it & I really don't like to complain because I know how hard it is to make a game like this. On the other hand I hope you can understand my dilemma. I may be alone in my observations but then again I may not be.

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

It's the nature of computer games that they have a sort of "Wizard of Oz" quality about them, of a mysterious fella behind a curtain manipulating all sorts of levers and switches which generate this result or that, the mechanics of which are largely unknown to the folks who play the game. It's terrific to have someone "in the know" stop by and attempt to illuminate some of the inner workings of a game as complex as the likes of Carriers at War.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Let's bump this one up for Dale H.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Rebel Yell]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

The game's instability?

The lack of play balance?

The instability in multiplayer?

The OOB inaccuracies?

The CAP bug?

The F-U bug?

The full-speed for damaged ships bug?

The scenario results bug?

The instant-arm, instant launch cycle for strike aircraft?

The total disregard for the historical research that's occurred since the game was conceived?


PoE (aka ivanmoe)

I want to love this game, but until these things are dealt with, its impossible. Really hope there will be a serious patch to address these issues.

I thank PoE very much for all of his work in documenting the things that are making many of us pull our hair out.