Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2009 2:25 pm**

Only 70 US Destroyers were sunk by the Japanese in all of WWII, yet I just saw almost 10% of that number sink in one attack (AE, the real game AAR)? It seems either ships are too fragile or Japanese torpedoes are a wee bit over rated!!

US Ships Sunk
Source http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq82-1.htm

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2009 2:41 pm**

ORIGINAL: pad152

Only 70 US Destroyers were sunk by the Japanese in all of WWII, yet I just saw almost 10% of that number sink in one attack (AE, the real game AAR)? It seems either ships are too fragile or Japanese torpedoes are a wee bit over rated!!

Or Fog of War is on...

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2009 2:48 pm**

ORIGINAL: pad152

Only 70 US Destroyers were sunk by the Japanese in all of WWII, yet I just saw almost 10% of that number sink in one attack (AE, the real game AAR)? It seems either ships are too fragile or Japanese torpedoes are a wee bit over rated!!

US Ships Sunk
Source http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq82-1.htm

Bombing and shelling very rarely sank warships. The expected number of Japanese torpedoes to sink an American DD was 2, but that includes the later classes. The damaged length from a Long Lance was about 80 feet, with a flooded length of about 160 feet--about half the 341 foot LPP of early-war DDs--so you needed two to get enough flooding to sink them or to break their back.

Note that American destroyers were more resistant to torpedo damage than RN cruisers!

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2009 2:51 pm**

ORIGINAL: pad152

Only 70 US Destroyers were sunk by the Japanese in all of WWII, yet I just saw almost 10% of that number sink in one attack (AE, the real game AAR)? It seems either ships are too fragile or Japanese torpedoes are a wee bit over rated!!

US Ships Sunk
Source http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq82-1.htm

That may be true but the losses were not necessarily even over the entire war. Most were lost in two periods: 8/42-11/43 and in the first eight months of 1945. So this does not seem to be and odd result. Almost the entire ABDA Naval force was wiped out in a five day period

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2009 2:53 pm**

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: pad152

Only 70 US Destroyers were sunk by the Japanese in all of WWII, yet I just saw almost 10% of that number sink in one attack (AE, the real game AAR)? It seems either ships are too fragile or Japanese torpedoes are a wee bit over rated!!

Or Fog of War is on...

Or you aren't reading a history book and are playing a game "based" on history which means you can change the outcome depending on your strategy so you could well sink a lot more then just 70 US destroyers. I hate threads like this, if I wanted the game to play out "exactly" how the war did...I would read one of the 50 plus books on the Pacific War I have in my library.

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2009 3:11 pm**

pad152, please don't base a general assumption about the whole game on one PH attack which several people have already told you was extraordinary.

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2009 3:33 pm**

I hope most people on this board know what a "Bell Shaped" curve is and what it means. Sometimes results will end up in one of the two tails.

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2009 4:17 pm**

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Jones944
I'm not really sure why people are basing any opinions off of one combat result file. Are they trying to make the game developers wish they hadn't posted this AAR? If after 20 battles there is a discernable pattern then someone should say something, but after one attack? Wow.

Who's basing any opinions about anything, I'm simply discussing flak in the game. I posed a question (which is yet to be answered) and then replied to a question posed to me. I discussed the assumption the numbers weren't FOW, they very may well be FOW and my point is mute.

But if the numbers we see aren't FOW, then my point is a salient one. Or are you saying we shouldn't critique the game at all until after release? Kind of a tall order for a bunch of guys sitting around drooling as we await the release.

Jim

People will say and critique what they want, this being the internet and all. My point is simply that basing any opinion off of one data point is specious at best. Guys sitting around drooling are known for their speciousness, though, I'll grant you that. [:D]

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2009 4:49 pm**

ORIGINAL: Jones944
People will say and critique what they want, this being the internet and all. My point is simply that basing any opinion off of one data point is specious at best. Guys sitting around drooling are known for their speciousness, though, I'll grant you that. [:D]

Now you understand. You work with what they give you, and if all they give you is one data point, you'll be slobbering all over it until they give you your second data point to slobber over. [:D]

Jim

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2009 5:13 pm**

Based on my experience, ships are not too fragile in AE.

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2009 5:39 pm**

I'd rather have more fragile ships, as long as the silly WITP uber Betty/Allied 4E bomber hit rates have been drastically reduced!

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2009 5:43 pm**

ORIGINAL: Miller

I'd rather have more fragile ships, as long as the silly WITP uber Betty/Allied 4E bomber hit rates have been drastically reduced!

Agreed.

The AE team previously covered how the effect of hits has been increased while the % of hits has been greatly reduced, bringing the relationships more in line with reality. [:)]

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2009 7:10 pm**

ORIGINAL: rroberson

Or you aren't reading a history book and are playing a game "based" on history which means you can change the outcome depending on your strategy so you could well sink a lot more then just 70 US destroyers. I hate threads like this, if I wanted the game to play out "exactly" how the war did...I would read one of the 50 plus books on the Pacific War I have in my library.

To each their own, I find the exact opposite and enjoy seeing threads like this. I would argue that it isn't really "based" on history if you end up getting incredibly unrealistic results. I don't mind "what-ifs" and don't want an exact simulation, however those "what-ifs" need to be in a historically realistic context for me.

The same discussions are happening about COG:EE. In a current pbem, playing as France I took 63k casualties one turn, during a conservative seige. This amounts to a Borodino, which was the bloodiest action of the Russian campaign.

I am in the realism camp, with possibilities of "what-ifs" such as what if the Prussians didn't show up at Waterloo. That is a what-if I can stomach. A what-if that crosses the line and seems silly is what if Borodino was fought every day for a month and take the resulting casualties.

Bottom line... I agree with the OP if it is indeed the case. Even if it isn't and it is due to FoW, it is still a good point to bring up.

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2009 7:17 pm**

Maybe you need to consider the fact that this game has been worked on for several years, by some of the best-informed, sharpest minds on this forum, and that maybe, just maybe, they've got a good grasp of naval history and know what they're doing.

Notice I say "they", not "we"... I get seasick on a wet pavement, and know diddly-squat about naval history.

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2009 7:28 pm**

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Maybe you need to consider the fact that this game has been worked on for several years, by some of the best-informed, sharpest minds on this forum, and that maybe, just maybe, they've got a good grasp of naval history and know what they're doing.

Notice I say "they", not "we"... I get seasick on a wet pavement, and know diddly-squat about naval history.

I'm not saying that they aren't. I was arguing against the philosophy that realism is somehow bad in wargaming. The OP brought up a good point and gets lambasted for it. Are the developers above listening to feedback? or?

Seems like noone can critique or give feedback on a Matrix game without offending someone. [8|]

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2009 7:30 pm**

<sigh...> We are not above "listening to feedback", but you're not being fair in your criticism, by making a sweeping generalization based on a single combat result. That's a knee-jerk response on your part, rather than a considered critique.

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2009 7:49 pm**

Seems like I should re-post this here:

Extrapolating anything from one combat report, especially with FOW, is pretty futile. But, I totally understand why everything is scrutinized and why all the questions are asked. You guys only have these results to go on and curiosity and anticipation are very high.

With that said, I always thought that the surprise attacks on December 7th actually were not typical attacks, in that they had several bonuses/penalties applied for the Japanese and Allies that don't apply on other turns (as long as Surprise is on). I don't think that has changed in AE, so I would be particularly cautious about extrapolating from a Dec. 7th surprise attack to make any assumptions about the game.

I can say for sure though that the last replay of the PH attack that I did this morning 2 BBs were lost and more Japanese planes were shot down. My sense is that the median is about 4 BBs lost, but I've seen just about every possible result. I have no idea what the average flak losses at PH are in AE, haven't really tried to keep track of that, though I know others on the team have spent a lot of time over development fine tuning many parts of the design for historical results, including flak losses.

I encourage you all to ask questions, but I also encourage you _not_ to jump to conclusions.

Regards,

- Erik

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2009 8:54 pm**

Hello Iron Warrior and rroberson,
 
The "Realism vs. Playability" debate is part of every game designer's world. 
 
WITP has done a grand job of creating a game with a realistic "feel" to it, and it is obviously being played like crazy.  It manages to do that even with all of the necessary concessions to making a game work.  We moan about Betties with endless supplies of torps.  We groan at the simplified land combat.  We marvel at the imperfections of "logistics in the pacific".  We grumble about "uber-cap" and "land death stars" and the high speed of construction or ship loading, etc.  Yet... I can't stay away from this great game, and I won't until AE comes along and trumps it.
 
WITP succeeds on the realism scale because of the "feel" and because most things that do happen in the game might have happpened in the war, had other choices been made, or had the element of luck shifted.
 
I want a game that lets me see what I can do when I am "in command".  The realism has to be good enough to be believable in a make-believe situation.   WITP does that, and I expect AE will, too.

Posted: **Fri May 15, 2009 12:13 am**

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Seems like I should re-post this here:

Extrapolating anything from one combat report, especially with FOW, is pretty futile. But, I totally understand why everything is scrutinized and why all the questions are asked. You guys only have these results to go on and curiosity and anticipation are very high.

With that said, I always thought that the surprise attacks on December 7th actually were not typical attacks, in that they had several bonuses/penalties applied for the Japanese and Allies that don't apply on other turns (as long as Surprise is on). I don't think that has changed in AE, so I would be particularly cautious about extrapolating from a Dec. 7th surprise attack to make any assumptions about the game.

I can say for sure though that the last replay of the PH attack that I did this morning 2 BBs were lost and more Japanese planes were shot down. My sense is that the median is about 4 BBs lost, but I've seen just about every possible result. I have no idea what the average flak losses at PH are in AE, haven't really tried to keep track of that, though I know others on the team have spent a lot of time over development fine tuning many parts of the design for historical results, including flak losses.

I encourage you all to ask questions, but I also encourage you _not_ to jump to conclusions.

Regards,

- Erik

This is one of the VERY few places of WITP where I might be considered an expert, given how I replayed that first turn so often. The flak losses for PH were VERY accurate, almost every time, but where it differed greatly was that about 80% of the time, there was not a single US BB sank. The torpedo bombers were very reluctant to use torps. It sounds as though your results are suggesting that has been fixed. However, I will caution, for what little I had of playing, um, the bad guys, that the results when playing the AI, seemed to change quite a bit, so that if you played the bad guys your BB's sank a lot more in that attack than if you played the good guys

.

Posted: **Fri May 15, 2009 1:21 am**

I'm not saying that they aren't. I was arguing against the philosophy that realism is somehow bad in wargaming. The OP brought up a good point and gets lambasted for it. Are the developers above listening to feedback? or?

The question is what variability you do believe is realistic? If Japanese pilots were a bit more competent or had just more luck why this shouldn't happen? While the odds should be in Historical result i don't know why this shouldn't happen . Remember that is just enough that a torpedo/bomb hits in another place in a ship to change from some damage to an eventual catastrophic one.

Matrix Games Forums

Ships too Fragile in AE???

Ships too Fragile in AE???

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???