Midway's cloud cover wrong?

Carriers At War is Strategic Studies Group famed simulation of Fleet Carrier Air and Naval Operations in the Pacific from 1941 - 1945.

Moderators: Gregor_SSG, alexs

Post Reply
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

Midway's cloud cover wrong?

Post by decaro »

I'm only 1/4 the way thru Shattered Sword and I found another apparent descrepancy between it and CaW's recreation of the historic Midway scenario. In additon to Nagumo having too many Zeros -- see my previous post -- I have found another problem w/cloud cover.

Re SS: Nagumo was coming out of a wx front that continued to follow the kido butai down from the NW, pushing scattered clouds into the area between Naguomo and Spruance, which made scouting difficult (esp. for the IJN as it was further hampered by the fact that most of its capital ship recon floatplanesplanes were actually spotters for naval artillery).

But in CaW, the only cloud cover between these two fleets is to the north and south of the Allies historical position; I have successfully used the clouds to the south to screen my launchs vs the KB if it doesn't steam NE and out of my range.

So if you're wondering why Spruance had better luck than you in this scenario, at least you know why; CaW's historical Midway scenario needs some fine-tuning for a more historical outcome.
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
Gregor_SSG
Posts: 681
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 9:22 am
Contact:

RE: Midway's cloud cover wrong?

Post by Gregor_SSG »

In Carriers at War, we don't try to reproduce the exact weather of the historical battle but rather the general weather conditions of the time. If we reproduced the exact weather, then it would play out the same way every time, which I don't think would be desirable, as it would lead to stereotyped behaviour by both sides and decrease replayability.

Gregor

Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
See http://www.ssg.com.au and http://www.ssg.com.au/forums/
for info and free scenarios.
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: Midway's cloud cover wrong?

Post by decaro »

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG
In Carriers at War, we don't try to reproduce the exact weather of the historical battle but rather the general weather conditions of the time. If we reproduced the exact weather, then it would play out the same way every time, which I don't think would be desirable, as it would lead to stereotyped behaviour by both sides and decrease replayability.
Gregor

Yes, I understand your rationale, and it makes sense to ensure some replayability. But the "general weather conditions of the time" just aren't there; historically, the IJN fleets have just emerged from a squall, yet in the dozen or more times that I have played this scenario (from either side), there never seems to be a single cloud, i.e., a storm, behind the Japanese fleets.

There is some random cloud movement/patterns to the north and south of Midway, but I have never encountered it along the East/West axis where it really belongs; random wx along this axis will help mask the opposing CV TGs to some degree and make spotting more diffficult, as it was historically. It was also ensure replayability where it counts.

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
Post Reply

Return to “Carriers At War”