Matrix Games Forums

I would like to suggest that individual ship experience levels are a) given too much weight and b) rise too rapidly.

a) Although ship training and experience were no doubt important factors in why the Japanese did very well during many of the night engagements of 1942, I think it was more a matter of doctrine that caused the US to suffer at many points. Even with experienced ships' crews, US doctrine was a major problem that kept even these ships from realizing their full potential. Keeping the DD's tied to the cruisers, and relying on gun fire attacks were ideas held on into late 1943 and led to less than spectacular results. Once US doctrine changed they were able to exploit their supperior radar to its fullest as at Cape Augusta.

I would like to see a "fleet experience" variable introduced that reflects the evolution of naval doctrine over time. This way, even ships that had not yet seen battle could benefit from the experience of others.

b) Although the US experience level starts out in the 40's, after just one battle it rises into the 60's, which is only a little less than the Japanese. Without the influence of a fleet experience variable, this means that the US can have ships equivalent in ability, and ussually superior because of their SG radar, after just one battle. This doesn't seem right. I would say, if the current experience gain remains the same, then there should be an offsetting "fleet experience" variable introduced, or if that is not done, then the experience gain from any one battle be reduced by at least half.

Cap

I dont neccessarily agree that US doctorine was the problem. Relying on gunfire tactics seem prudent to me when you consider just how abysmal US torps were. Letting DDs off on there own, getting in the way, would have caused more problems than it was worth, when armed with such an inferior weapon.

As it was US pre-war doctorine proved correct for all the wrong reasons.

The idea of fleet experience has been discussed in the development forums, but I'm not sure whether or not it will make it into the game.

Currently there has been a lot of discussion behind the scenes, but the consensus seems to be that naval combat is "good enough" and that in the main, players are happy withit.

IT was disscussed that some of these issues could be taken "public" to gauge the vox populi so I will put up a poll to voice your opinion.

Dont often disagree with Cap but in my playing experiences so far i've seen the exact opposite in regards to the effect of EXP in the game, particularily surface combat (and some air as well)

Even with great levels of EXP disparity between an IJN and USN surface TF, it is rare for the IJN unit to outshoot the USN one. Torpedoes usually salvage the situation but not always as hitting with the weapon is difficult, especially as ranges open (or start at longer range)

Still suspect radar is muddling things though i have no "Area 51" data to present.....only my observations of many a UV battle.

Dont feel a "fleet EXP" rating is needed (when considering the coding headaches it would cause.) I agree partially with Cap in that EXP in the game sometimes jumps too high too fast. As far as surface ships are concerned I dont see the jump in exp from below 50 to above 50 or 60 as being out of wack...depending on the type of battle waged. The problem i do see however is that the EXP jump is not as conditional as it should be. For example, I think it is the ultimate "game-ism" to boost up bomber groups EXP levels by constantly bombing the same small helpless ground target and then using that boost to go out and slaughter moving ships. As such i think EXP jumps from small unopposed ground attacks should be very small (same as with fighter sweeps)

A similar rule could be applied to surface ship EXP ratings. Maybe a simple check on the type and size of the battle before doling out EXP points post battle. Also, while EXP jumps should be fairly high for below fully trained units just as it is for air units (<50) , the EXP jump should taper off as units attempt to gain higher levels of proficiency.

One additional suggestion. Should Leader EXP ratings remain static? or have a chance to increase with experience as well? (or is it already in place?...hvn't noticed it)

If we're going to truly micromanage things then we need the ability to assign ships into divisions and then divisions into task groups and task groups into task forces and task forces into fleets. Ships weren't assigned individually they were placed into divisions which trained together and so on and so on and so on.

Example:
Assign Portland, Astoria, Chester, Vincennes to Cru DIv 1
Assign CruDiv1 to TG 38.6
Assign TG 38.6 to TF 38
Assign TF 38 to 3rd Fleet