Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Sat Nov 09, 2002 1:26 am**

Okay, I'm the Japanese player in a PBEM game, sec 19. Early in the game I took all my available naval forces....something like four CA's, a CL and about 10 DD's.....and used it to protect a invasion fleet going to Giri Giri. It did'nt take long for the Americans to respond. So far, I've only recieved a couple more cruisers and some destroyers as reinforcements....the big stuff is'nt due for a while. I've fed in what I can, and I've had three naval clashes with the Americans so far.

In all three fights, I SHOULD have had the advantage.....more cruisers and destroyers, no surprise (or at least we saw each other at the same time), better torpeados, better night fighting skills, and a agreesive and good commander.

In all fights, though, the Americans have managled me. I know US ships had radar directed guns (accounting for more hits on me then me on him), better damage control efforts, and were better organized. Still, their torpeados were quite poor, they did'nt have experience with night combat, and the Japs had the heavier guns. But I've come away from all the fights licking my wounds and feeling like I got bushwacked.

In one fight, I lost the Mogami (a heavy CA) and a destroyer, while a couple other cruisers and destroyers suffered heavy damage, and all I could do on him was sink two destroyers and moderatly damage the Australia (another heavy CA). In another fight, I lost a destroyer and had another heavy CA so badly crippled I'm probaly going to send her home for only a few hits on their ships. And in the last, a American squadron of destroyers took out three of mine for only one of his.

Needless to say, I'm ticked off and scratching my head, wondering how the heck the Americans have gotten twice my ships. This does'nt seem historical at all. I can accept some changes were made to fit gameplay, but this really seems to be skewed. It does'nt help that my idiot ship capitans insist on spreading their fire and going after the DD's first while the Americans bash my cruisers.....why oh why can't we have a 'direct fire priorty' command?

What is going on here? Any reasoning, solutions, explantations, advice for future battles?

Posted: **Sat Nov 09, 2002 3:31 am**

Please refer to the following threads:

showthread.php?s=&threadid=26177

showthread.php?s=&threadid=26637

showthread.php?s=&threadid=26770

Posted: **Sat Nov 09, 2002 4:04 am**

Okay, I don't have time to read all of those now, but does anyone have any advice or suggestions?

It seems the combat results are really off.

And one was done in version 2.0, also.

Posted: **Sat Nov 09, 2002 11:32 am**

Yes....a minor one

USN 5/38 and 5/25 should have a max ROF for surface combat set from 20 to 15.

"Theoretical" ROF stats for the weapons;

5/25 : 15-20 RPM

5/38 : non-itegral hoists : 12-15 RPM
with integral hoists: 15-22 RPM

The problem with posted ROF stats is that they are almost always more theoretical than real. This is especially true for large caliber guns, admitedly less so for smaller weapons but still often true as these figures are usually achieved via statistical analysis or artifical test conditions.....combat conditions usually slows it considerably and/"or" the theortetical rate can only be sustained for a very short period before accidents, jams and mechanical failures begin to bite into your overall rate. (a USN test with a New Mexico class BB in the 30's comes to mind which bore this out.....ROF was less than half the expected outcome)

The battery of tests listed in the links above seemed to indicate that the spoiler in terms of properly judging how EXP and radar were truely affecting the battles seemed to be the large # of 5" hits USN TF's were scoring. This is where the "minor" part comes in.....since 5" weapons wont penetrate the primary armor of most cruisers, it isn't going to majorly affect things except possibly in the case of DD's.

I would suggest that the ROF be reduced to 15 which is the minimum max ROF figure for the more modern mountings and interim for the pedestal and non-integral 5" mounts. This would make the 2:1 ROF diff between IJN 5 inch weapons less severe but still leave the USN with an edge as their self contained ammo did allow for faster per rate firing overall vs the bag powder multi stage loadouts for the IJN 5inch, but not I feel a 2:1 edge. Certainly i never read in any battle of US destroyers or cruiser secondary batteries creating fire storms. I think the high rating was given to the 5/38 due to it's DP status in the game. The IJN weapon is rated at around 10.....but less when firing at high elevations. A game limitation it appears......only one rating slot was avail so to maximize AA potential, the max estimated rates were chosen......ok for AA ,but it impacts surface combat to a minor degree

A minor tweak but it might help produce better statistics in hit terms when married to EXP, radar, and other random factors. small caliber incendiary fire in general needs to have a far better chance of causing fire in any case. When not penetrating they do little which in close range night battles should not be always the case. Serious fires were started aboard the battleship Hiei mainly by 5-inch fire which riddled the unarmored portions of the tower superstructure

Posted: **Sat Nov 09, 2002 11:38 am**

Looking at the past threads, it does'nt seem like Matrix ever responded. Have they commented on the problems of the night combats?

I'll suggest to my PBEM partner that we make the change with the editor. Off course, we are in the game, but I'll trust his decision.

I did'nt have time to read everything in the past threads, though, but thanks for the summary.

Posted: **Sat Nov 09, 2002 11:43 am**

We have looked at this a lot in the past and have yet to find a smoking gun that would cause us to change something. We've had many combats posted by testers and players of UV, with incredibly varied results, so much so that no consistent problem was determined. You might check the commander you had assigned to the task force as this can make a difference. We've seen many cases of Japanese forces hitting with torpedoes and crushing Allied TF's. We'll continue to monitor player comments.

Posted: **Sat Nov 09, 2002 11:46 am**

When they dont respond right away, often it means that they are busy mulling it over and testing the system with and without the preposed tweaks.....all of which takes time. Not always, but it was certainly the case with the ongoing bomb issue, which took two patch periods before the first steps were taken.

I'm sure they're looking into it. The biggest culprit IMO based on the listed test thread links seems to be the effect of RADAR. While SG should be very effective, SC should be far less so, and i feel that *both* systems should have their effectiveness tied into an EXP check as it was just as often command/communication/human failure as much as technological glitches that sometimes made radar less effective than it theoretically should have been.

This check, especially for the TF leader, does not appear to be in place, judging by the results, many which took the EXP factor to extremes (such as giving one TF a EXP rating of 20 and the other (non radar) TF a rating of 90.

Posted: **Sat Nov 09, 2002 12:08 pm**

Thanks for the comments.

I had my highest overall insp and exp leader for my Japanese fleet, and he was rated as 'comptant' and not aggresive.

What really disturbed in all three fights, where there was no surprise, at just how many more American shells and torpeados were hitting my ships as opposed to his. I know the American ships had radar directed guns to help, but the torpeados were quite poor. Also, my experience ratings for night combats are twice as high as his.

I understand one combat going badly, but it seems very unhistorical that all three would, espeicly given the difficulty the Allies had at being able to match the Japanese skills at night combat.

It would help also if we could direct surface combat TF's a 'priorty ship' target. During my battles the Allies would concentrate 75% of their fire on my CA's, while 75% of MY fire went on their DD's instead of their CA's. That also really hurt.

Posted: **Sat Nov 09, 2002 7:49 pm**

Well I'm certainly with Matrix on this, most of my experience in this game admittedly has been with the USN , and to be honest the majority of surface combats I have had in my experience has certainly seen the IJN come out on top in the vast majority of cases, both against the AI and in my Pbem games.

Soulblazer, sorry if I sound like Im jumping on you here, but invariably in one kind or another you are suggesting prioritising targets for this and for that. Unfortunatly, UV I dont think was ever designed to give that kind of involvement to the player, moreover the player assigns his commands to his subordinates and leaves it to them to decide targets and whatever.

Yes it can be frustrating at times, but IMHO this is what really makes UV a great game. A game in which you have to let go, and trust your commanders to a certain extent.

Posted: **Sat Nov 09, 2002 11:33 pm**

Well, these are not the only bad combats to go my way. I'll stand by what I said in my last note.

And I don't mean the choice for us to pick single ships....I just wish I could assign a generic priorty target (and do the same for airgroups also). A small menu saying "Priorty Ship Type" or something. It would'nt always work, of course, but if we choose we wanted to go after transports in a mixed fleet, let's say, it just means to tell the aircrews or ships to try to go after them as much as possible.

It would help to solve that darn annoying, and my biggest complaint with this great game, problem of all my ships focusing fire on the WEAKEST ships instead of the STRONGEST one.

Posted: **Sat Nov 09, 2002 11:42 pm**

Here's an example in v2.0 - very disappointing

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 11/09/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Irau at 42,43

Japanese Ships
BB Mutsu, Shell hits 1
CL Sendai, Shell hits 1
CL Naka, Shell hits 2, on fire
CL Nagara
CL Kinu
DD Asakaze
DD Harukaze
DD Matsukaze
DD Oite
DD Yunagi

Allied Ships
BB Washington
CA Salt Lake City
CL Nashville
CL Boise
DD Grayson
DD Blue
DD Helm
DD Mugford
DD Jarvis
DD Cummings
DD Smith
DD Preston

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Irau at 42,43

Japanese Ships
BB Mutsu, Shell hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CL Sendai, Shell hits 1, on fire
CL Naka, on fire
CL Nagara
CL Kinu, Shell hits 2
DD Asakaze
DD Harukaze
DD Matsukaze
DD Oite
DD Yunagi

Allied Ships
BB Washington
CA Salt Lake City
CL Nashville
CL Boise
DD Grayson
DD Blue
DD Helm
DD Mugford
DD Jarvis
DD Cummings
DD Smith
DD Preston

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Irau at 42,43

Japanese Ships
DD Hibiki
DD Nagatsuki
DD Yukaze, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Hokaze, Shell hits 14, on fire, heavy damage
DD Tachikaze

Allied Ships
BB Washington
CA Salt Lake City
CL Nashville, Shell hits 1
CL Boise
DD Grayson
DD Blue
DD Helm
DD Mugford
DD Jarvis
DD Cummings
DD Smith
DD Preston

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And with those 3 shell hits the Mutsu has 90% sys, 34% float and approx. 20 fires. All were surprised - no crossing the T. IJN admiral 61/62.

Never saw this poor showing before 2.0:(

Posted: **Sun Nov 10, 2002 12:56 am**

Originally posted by SoulBlazer
Well, these are not the only bad combats to go my way. I'll stand by what I said in my last note.

And I don't mean the choice for us to pick single ships....I just wish I could assign a generic priorty target (and do the same for airgroups also). A small menu saying "Priorty Ship Type" or something. It would'nt always work, of course, but if we choose we wanted to go after transports in a mixed fleet, let's say, it just means to tell the aircrews or ships to try to go after them as much as possible.

It would help to solve that darn annoying, and my biggest complaint with this great game, problem of all my ships focusing fire on the WEAKEST ships instead of the STRONGEST one.

Night Time Surface Combat, near Nevea at 50,43

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo, Shell hits 1
BB Haruna
BB Hiei, Shell hits 5
BB Kirishima, Shell hits 2
CA Aoba, Shell hits 2, on fire
CA Kinugasa, Shell hits 4
CA Furutaka, Shell hits 6, on fire
CL Naka, Shell hits 3
CL Jintsu, Shell hits 2
DD Onami
DD Hayanami
DD Kiyonami, Shell hits 5, on fire

Allied Ships
BB North Carolina, Shell hits 1
BB Washington, Shell hits 3, on fire
CA Portland, Shell hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
CA New Orleans, Shell hits 3, on fire
CA Australia, Shell hits 4
CL Achillies, Shell hits 1
CL Hobart
DD Mustin, Shell hits 2
DD Henley, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Stack
DD Porter, Shell hits 1
DD Selfridge, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
DD Phelps

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Nevea at 50,43

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo
BB Haruna, Shell hits 2
BB Hiei
BB Kirishima, Shell hits 2
CA Aoba, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CA Kinugasa, Shell hits 1
CA Furutaka, Shell hits 4, on fire
CL Naka
CL Jintsu
DD Onami
DD Hayanami, Shell hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Kiyonami, on fire

Allied Ships
BB North Carolina, Shell hits 2
BB Washington, Shell hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CA Portland, Shell hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CA New Orleans, Shell hits 2, on fire
CA Australia, Shell hits 1
CL Achillies, Shell hits 3, on fire
CL Hobart
DD Mustin, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Henley, on fire, heavy damage
DD Stack, Shell hits 1
DD Porter
DD Selfridge, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Phelps

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Nevea at 50,43

Japanese Ships
SS I-1, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CA New Orleans, on fire
DD Phelps

This is Tanaka/Lee

As you can see its not always one way traffic ,also shows that fire is not always concentrted on the weaker ships.

What you dont see there is the fact that many of my hits on the IJN were not that significant as all the IJN ships dissapeared extremly rapidly into the night after battles end. On the other hand ,the Washington had sustained 90 plus system /flotation damage , later sunk turn after by sub (would have sunk anyway). My Ca's also heavily damaged.

Although not a crushing Victory for the IJN, it is still significant enough to see another side of the coin.

Posted: **Sun Nov 10, 2002 1:11 am**

I wonder how much fog of war plays a roll in this. For example, it is much easier to accurately count the number of shell and torpedo hits on your own ships than on an enemy force which has withdrawn into darkness.

Posted: **Sun Nov 10, 2002 1:32 am**

Originally posted by Snigbert
I wonder how much fog of war plays a roll in this. For example, it is much easier to accurately count the number of shell and torpedo hits on your own ships than on an enemy force which has withdrawn into darkness.

I know in my example (which is from a Pbem game) it plays an extremly significant part(and so it should); but I base my assumptions on 2 facts the speed of the enemy task force after the battle and subsequent sightings and engagements at later dates. An enemy Tf with badly damaged ships is either gonna go slower or its gonna split off into smaller tf's.

Posted: **Sun Nov 10, 2002 3:13 am**

Originally posted by Nikademus

I'm sure they're looking into it. The biggest culprit IMO based on the listed test thread links seems to be the effect of RADAR. While SG should be very effective, SC should be far less so, and i feel that *both* systems should have their effectiveness tied into an EXP check as it was just as often command/communication/human failure as much as technological glitches that sometimes made radar less effective than it theoretically should have been.

Nikademus,

As you know, I had thought that SC radar was being overrated as well. After running many tests, however, it would appear that this is not the case. A regression analysis of 120 test battles, 60 with SC radar and 60 without shows that SC radar is not having a statistically significant impact on the outcome of the battles.

In the case of SG radar, the impact is extreme: SG radar is worth a differential of 70 experience points. In other words, a IJN TF with an experience of 90, on average, should beat an USN TF with and experience of 20 and SG radar. Should the differential not be so extreme, however, the IJN can, on average, expect to lose.

Another point that has come out of testing is that the experience variable is not very highly rated. Over a test set of 180 battles, their was only a 43% correlation between greater experience and likelyhood of winning a battle. It is this low correlation, I believe, that is causing people to question to combat model. Were the correlation something on the order of 60% I think you would see a lot fewer people posting about their dissappointing experiences with the IJN.

Posted: **Sun Nov 10, 2002 5:41 am**

Greetings, Were these the first battles the allied ships involved in had fought. Japanese players counting on their higher experiance should beware that allied ships gain considerable experiance in every night battle. (the Japanese also gain but have less room to improve.) USN ships that survive a night engagement (regardless of outcome) gain on avg 20 points.
(By Sept 42 in PBEM as USN I always have ships with night experiance from 70-85. I usally have to wait for them to return from PH after that first battle)

Posted: **Sun Nov 10, 2002 5:43 am**

In my case, yes, they were. I know the fleets that clashed the first two times were the same fleets and the first time they ahd been in combat. I'll check with the Allied player, but I don't even think his ships had left port.

Posted: **Sun Nov 10, 2002 8:50 am**

Pawlock,

Was you example v2.0?

Posted: **Sun Nov 10, 2002 10:39 am**

Here's an example in v2.0 - very disappointing

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 11/09/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Irau at 42,43

Japanese Ships
BB Mutsu, Shell hits 1
CL Sendai, Shell hits 1
CL Naka, Shell hits 2, on fire
CL Nagara
CL Kinu
DD Asakaze
DD Harukaze
DD Matsukaze
DD Oite
DD Yunagi

Allied Ships
BB Washington
CA Salt Lake City
CL Nashville
CL Boise
DD Grayson
DD Blue
DD Helm
DD Mugford
DD Jarvis
DD Cummings
DD Smith
DD Preston

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Irau at 42,43

Japanese Ships
BB Mutsu, Shell hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CL Sendai, Shell hits 1, on fire
CL Naka, on fire
CL Nagara
CL Kinu, Shell hits 2
DD Asakaze
DD Harukaze
DD Matsukaze
DD Oite
DD Yunagi

Allied Ships
BB Washington
CA Salt Lake City
CL Nashville
CL Boise
DD Grayson
DD Blue
DD Helm
DD Mugford
DD Jarvis
DD Cummings
DD Smith
DD Preston

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Irau at 42,43

Japanese Ships
DD Hibiki
DD Nagatsuki
DD Yukaze, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Hokaze, Shell hits 14, on fire, heavy damage
DD Tachikaze

Allied Ships
BB Washington
CA Salt Lake City
CL Nashville, Shell hits 1
CL Boise
DD Grayson
DD Blue
DD Helm
DD Mugford
DD Jarvis
DD Cummings
DD Smith
DD Preston

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And with those 3 shell hits the Mutsu has 90% sys, 34% float and approx. 20 fires. All were surprised - no crossing the T. IJN admiral 61/62.

Never saw this poor showing before 2.

Question Sonny: What was the mission and starting system damage of the TF?

If they were on a bombardment mission, and had high sys damage (you have been using them boys pretty heavy), they would be outperformed. Ships with higher system damage going into combat become more suseptable to serious damage.

The USN leader was 59/74 cautious, and they all had night experience 73+(Salt Lake City is 80 at night

), and on a surface combat mission.

Also remember that FOW can mask damage that the enemy sustains that you do not necessarily see.

Overall, the surface actions in our PBEM match have varied, with each of us experiencing some successes and failures.

Agreed, I would expect the results to show more hits on the both sides. But if the bombardment group broke contact, and a cautious commander did not pursue, the results would be light.

Posted: **Mon Nov 11, 2002 3:07 am**

Originally posted by cap_and_gown

Nikademus,

As you know, I had thought that SC radar was being overrated as well. After running many tests, however, it would appear that this is not the case. A regression analysis of 120 test battles, 60 with SC radar and 60 without shows that SC radar is not having a statistically significant impact on the outcome of the battles.

In the case of SG radar, the impact is extreme: SG radar is worth a differential of 70 experience points. In other words, a IJN TF with an experience of 90, on average, should beat an USN TF with and experience of 20 and SG radar. Should the differential not be so extreme, however, the IJN can, on average, expect to lose.

I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification

Matrix Games Forums

Dissapointed in IJN Night Combat

Dissapointed in IJN Night Combat

Night Battles in PBEM games