Surface Combat Resolution

[Ron Saueracker]

Well! I spoke too soon stating that I was happier with the revamped (?) surface combat routines. While it seemed that the "Kung Fu" issue (IJN vs Allied ships exchange fire shot for shot regardless of disparity in number of ships involved) was rectified, further review has proven otherwise. Unfortunately, the previous engagements from which I drew my positive determination were either fairly equal in both number of ships and ship class involved or were so lopsided that the issue was over before any Jackie Chan-esque resemblances became apparent.

I would post the combat reports of the battle but I have not figured out how yet, I'm pretty new to these new fangled typewriters (duh, huh, huh:rolleyes: ) So, in review...

Date: April, 1943 (Night Engagement)
Location: Munda (Jap/Nip base hex) LOL, yeah, I saw the thread.
IJN: 4 heavy cruisers (2 x Mogami; 2 x Myoko)
USN: 4 heavy cruisers (4 x New Orleans); 2 light cruisers (2 x Brooklyn); 8 destroyers (1 x Fletcher;1 x Porter; 5 x Late Benson/Gleaves; 1 x Bagley)
3 rounds of combat 8000 yds; 2 x 5000 yds
Ships that actually fired: IJN = 4 x CA vs USN = 3 x CA; 2 x CL; 3 x DD.
Result: IJN 1 x Myoko sunk; 1 x Myoko and 1 x Mogami heavily damaged; 1 x Mogami lightly damaged. USN 2 x New Orleans and 1 x Brooklyn sunk; 1 x New Orleans, 1 x Brooklyn, and 1 x Fletcher heavily damaged; all other ships no damage.

Hmmmm.....

I can't see how this is representative of a naval surface action. The volume of firepower was heavily in favour of the USN but was negated by the shot for shot, tit for tat, combat routine. The IJN 8" cruisers had a relative rate of fire of 3.5/1. It was like they had 8" chain guns. I don't want to hear how night engagements were undisciplined melees, or that the IJN was superior at night fighting(remember this is April 1943), or that some ships were in a separate TF or got lost or something... The combat routine is so abstract and simplistic that it is flawed. That simple.

If ships are in a TF, they are normally within 500 to 1500 yrds of each other, generally in line ahead but many times as separate divisions but still part of the overall TF. Before anyone jumps in, Savo Island was an exception, but I'll get to that in a bit. They are normally within some form of contact and or communication. It stands to reason that all the ships in a respective TF will engage and/or be engaged by the enemy, depending on the range, visibility, if in contact etc. Those that do not should be an exception, NOT a given. (ie. Scott's Eastern Force at Savo)

In the above example, how can one explain over 50% of the screening DDs (DDs usually made contact with enemy at night first) not taking any part in the battle and the CA failing to engage while it's sister cruisers were burning funeral pyres? (presumably it was not off on it's own wanking off like Crutchley's HMAS Australia, but Savo was an aboration and one can't presume that the TF Admiral would take his flagship to a cocktail party more than once...remember what happened to Admiral Byng)

What has to happen is that all ships in contact select one target and fire ONCE each (then repeat for the required number of fire cycles per round, changing targets occasionally to model a fluid battleground) so that numerical superiority and simultaneous fire is modelled. Accuracy, target selection, night fighting expertise and volume/rate of fire is a separate issue here (in case anyone wanted to bring up Tassafaronga or Kula Gulf). Not all ships need be in contact during any given round (to simulate they are too far away to engage initially or have been engaged and became separated from the tide of battle), but those that are should engage. To simulate the widely separate forces at Savo, those ships not in contact stay out of contact for that round, but become engaged during a later round. (once again simulating local numerical superiority eg. IJN routing Southern Force in first "round" then destroying the Northern Force in detail during a later "round"). Generally. if ships are initially out of contact, they at least should be part of a group to simulate a separate force. They should not be single ships for the most part but of course there were a few rare exceptions.

Considering that naval combat is of such importance to a game like this, I'm a bit surprised that naval combat is handled in such a simple and abstract manner. Other points to think about.

A: Players should be able to choose from a variety of formations for surface combat TFs (the formations having different combat characteristics and combat bonuses and penalties...to keep it simple a choice of two formations, line ahead with capital ships in the centre and destroyers in the van and rear, but all one formation OR divisional, with destroyers operating independently of the capital ships. Of course, in keeping with the operational spirit of UV, have the TF commanders have specific tactical characteristics. Cautious COs tend to choose line ahead, aggressive COs tend to choose divisional.

The benefits and drawbacks could be simple as well. All ships in line ahead would suffer from a detection modifier (they tend to be surprised as no scouting forces are utilized, unless of course they have radar and have a leader with a high night rating to utilize radar properly). Line ahead formations would also suffer a negative destroyer torpedo modifier, as they were tied to the capital ships and were not "free" to maneuver like a separate destroyer division could. The benefit of line ahead is that all ships are involved in each round as the ships are generally never out of contact and the odds of being fired on by friendly ships are reduced. The reverse is true for divisional. Of course, if the TF lacks capital ships and is only DDs or an IJN CL and DDs, this force would be treated as having divisional modifiers even though it's in line ahead.

B: More detection and gunfire modifiers needed. Searchlights (+ and -), starshells (+), smokescreens (-), floatplane illumination for IJN (+) and floatplane fire hazard Allied (if floatplanes left onboard), radar (+), IJN lookouts and radar detectors (+), flashless gunpowder (-) could all be part of an improved abstract combat resolution.

C: TF commander (apart from ship captains who also are senior officer afloat) should have a flagship designated so that the player knows why and when a CO died when his ship was hit and/or destroyed. TF should suffer a negative modifier or morale check for loss of TF commander. Right now, it's very rare to see a TF commander die unless all ships in a TF are destroyed. It's like he has a Star Trek transporter room or escape pods on each ship.:p

D: Ship damage. Less critical hits please, or at least don't say critical hit or massive damage if the hit is not in fact a critical blow. Despite FoW, if a ship's magazine detonates and the ship jack knifes, that's a critical hit, baby! Ships could take an amazing amount of damage and still survive. Right now, it appears to be either low tech text candy or that ships only get hit in their vitals. There are such things as chain lockers, mess decks, paint lockers etc. on ships. As well, ships seem to fire until they go under, torn flag flying, band playing despite the fall of shot and gore all around them. There has to be a point were a ship becomes "out of action" or crippled, where ship preservation becomes paramount. Ever see Peter Sellers in "The Party", when he plays the invincible trumpeter while filming Gunga Din in the opening scenes?

E: How is rate of fire handled, if at all? 5" 38s, 6" 47s, 8"50s etc all had a different rate of fire but I'm surprised to see no apparent difference between the number of hits an 8" cruiser gets than a 6" cruiser, or for that matter, a destroyer armed with 5"38s, a gun that could squeeze off up to 20 rounds/minute or a BB . Quite a difference between 20 rounds/minute and 2 to 3 for 8" guns and 6 to 10 per/minute for 6" guns. USN surface combat TFs were formed around 6" gunned Brooklyns and Clevelands after Tassaforonga because of their high rate of fire and the effective application of this "smothering" fire with radar control.

Like I said before. These are just ideas but this game is centred around naval combat as much as it is air and land. Naval combat therefore deserves the same consideration for revamping that other combat routines do. Given the level of detail in this game regarding weapons, OOBs, etc., it would be a shame if combat resolution was left wanting.

[Ron Saueracker]

How does one get the combat reports and map images etc from the game onto the forum threads? I'm kinda behind the times. I even pay for dinner, open doors for women, appreciate shaved armpits on women, think murderers and rapists should be hung after being raped, welfare bums should get a one off large payment and if the birdie don't fly....

[tanjman]

Ron,

After each turn do an alt-tab to get back to the desktop and open the SAVE folder in the UV folder. Inside you'll find a file called combatreport.txt, this is a text copy of the combat report. You can the copy it to another folder and do what ever you need to do with it.

I've got a folder inside SAVE for each game that I copy it to, then I rename it with that turns date.

I'm old fashioned too. Maybe more than you, I remember when women didn't shave thier pits.

[Ron Saueracker]

Thank ya!:D

[Supervisor]

As for the map images, use the "Print Screen" button on your keyboard. This will copy it into the clipboard. Then switch out and paste it into a paint program. Then save it to disk as a jpg (smaller than bmp).

[John Lansford]

I've seen these silly combat results take place as well, and am just as aggravated about them as everyone else. I had four US CA's, two CL's (a Brooklyn and an Atlanta) plus 5 DD's ambush two IJN CA's, a CL and a DD, and my force got its butt kicked. I lost three CA's, the Atlanta and a DD, while the IJN lost one CA. Hardly any of the DD's fired until they were being shot at, in fact. If the USN has radar and an aggressive commander (I was using Callaghan in the above battle), there's no way that ships would not get involved in the battle.

Also, why does every shell hit have to strike either the deck or belt armor? What about the superstructure? In the battle with Hiei, USS San Francisco was hit numerous times by the battleship, but they all hit her superstructure. Other than the "tower armor" hits, which are too often given the small size of these areas, there is no other superstructure hit. Even the hits that destroy secondary guns still go ahead and attempt to penetrate the deck or belt armor. There should be a large category of hits that strike the superstructure and do damage such as electrical, secondary weapons, radar, communications and bridge hits, but do not endanger the ship's ability to float or move.

Finally, either submarine torpedoes are too weak or merchant ships and destroyers are way too resistant to damage. I've seen cargo ships take two torpedoes and continue to float, same thing for destroyers. Very, very few merchant ships could take even one torpedo hit and stay afloat; they didn't have compartments or damage control crews like warships did. Destroyers were generally too small to take more than one torpedo, although some did manage to get back to port and survive. Tankers were a special case; they had lots of compartments and could counterflood to stay afloat after a torpedo hit, but cargo and transport ships should be in grave danger of sinking after just one torpedo hit. Right now this is not the case.

[WW2'er]

"Finally, either submarine torpedoes are too weak or merchant ships and destroyers are way too resistant to damage. I've seen cargo ships take two torpedoes and continue to float, same thing for destroyers. Very, very few merchant ships could take even one torpedo hit and stay afloat; they didn't have compartments or damage control crews like warships did. Destroyers were generally too small to take more than one torpedo, although some did manage to get back to port and survive. Tankers were a special case; they had lots of compartments and could counterflood to stay afloat after a torpedo hit, but cargo and transport ships should be in grave danger of sinking after just one torpedo hit. Right now this is not the case."

I agree and have thought this for awhile now. I urge you to change this Matrix Gurus.

Thanks!

[AlvinS]

After each turn do an alt-tab to get back to the desktop and open the SAVE folder in the UV folder. Inside you'll find a file called combatreport.txt, this is a text copy of the combat report. You can the copy it to another folder and do what ever you need to do with it.

If anyone is interested, I made an Excel spreadsheet with a macro that pulls the combat report text file into a column.

After each turn I alt-tab to the desktop, select my spreadsheet and press alt-r to pull the file over.

It inserts the most recent combat report into the far left column and pushes the older ones to the right. The top of the column shows the date so it is easy to go back to an earlier report.

The spreadsheet was created using office 2000, but should work with office 97.

If you want a copy of the file just email me. You can get my address from my profile.

[Rex Bellator]

That's a great post Ron, enjoyed reading it and am looking forward to Matrix's comments. Keep 'em coming

Aside from the actual system queries, can I also just throw in one specific Surface Combat problem into the mix as well. Long Lance torpedoes are horribly ineffective at the moment. They almost never hit even when large numbers of torp carrying ships are present. As the Japanese 'wonder weapon' it is almost useless and this badly handicaps the Japanese player in surface actions. Can we get this tweaked?

[Toro]

I'm with ya, Ron. Just last night, I had a major surface engagement at Lunga where I had one BB, three CAs, two CLs, and a smittering of DDs. The Japanese had five CAs. The BB only fired twice - just twice! - in three rounds, and only then after it had been fired upon. Because of that, three of my ships took a pasting, and two others were moderately damaged. That BB should have been unloading shells left and right.

[tanjman]

Guys,

I think that the problem here is the ships experience ratings. If you compare the typical USN & IJN DD, CL, CA or BB you'll notice that the IJN has an extreme advantage (>60%) in this area. I've noticed that any Allied ship with a Night Experience of less than (circa) 44 sucks, and most start in the 30's with the IJN is in the 60's to 80's (not all USN ships start with radar). Part of the problem could also be the size of the TF, I've found that 6-8 ships for Surface Combat and 8-10 for Bombarment works best.

BTW I don't know how many of you have been at sea (on a moonless or cloudy night) on a warship, but it is very dark out there! Then add keeping station without running lights (not used in wartime) and some of your lookouts, OODs and CO's get more worried about his ship being run over by a friendly CA or BB than the enemy.

For a good book (fiction) that has a good feel for night combat try Douglas Reeman's "A Prayer for the Ship". Its about RN coatal forces in the English Channel. For non fiction try "Little Ship, Big War" can't remember the athor but he was 1st LT on a Rudderow class DE in the Pacific and was at Okinawa and Leyte Gulf.

[Ron Saueracker]

I've read every book Douglas Reaman/Alexander Kent has written, except of course books under his third name, which I don't know.

Edward P. Mack has three (out of print) novels out dealing with his real life experiences in tincans.

Japanese Destroyer Captain by T. Hara is quite good as well.

Just purchased "South Pacific Destroyer" and "Tin Can Sailor" dealing with USS Maury and Sterett respectively.

Regarding experience ratings, they should affect the combat routines in favour of the higher rating. My point is that the routines are flawed.

[tanjman]

Ron,

Just reread your original post. I should of done this before writing my last post. I agree with most of the points you've raised. But I do think the size of your TF (too large) may have been part of the problem. I also think experince plays a greater role than the manual suggests. I do like your suggestions concerning TF formations and the others as well. There is always room for improvement, If not in UV hopefully in WitP.

As a comaprison of experience (I realize it was April of 43, but had these ships seen much action or had there experience levels increase greatly?) this is a compairison of four of the ships in your battle as of 1 May 42.

IJN N.Exp USN N.Exp
Mogami 76 New Orleans 35
Myoko 75 Nashville 44

Unless the New Orleans or Nashville (the most experienced of the Brooklyns) had seen action I don't think the experience levels would increase by more than 3 or 4 point in that time.

BTW Glad to see you're reading list is simular to mine. Though I think you meant VADM William P. Mack (this is the only tincan sailor I know of named Mack who is a writer) who wrote: South to Java, Pursuit of the Seawolf, Check Fire!, New Guinea, Straits of Messina and Normandy.

[Ron Saueracker]

right on that Mack.

TF was a little too large but I was bombarding Munda and nothing was there when ordered to go. (another problem is stealth groups, made so by the phase length). Transported from Rabaul to Munda.

I normally like 9 ships or so.