Matrix Games Forums

This game has tremendous potential! But any "Pacific War" game must stress naval combat authenticity.
I don't question your ground and air values but the naval combat values for the ships are too general. For example:
The Nagato (class) BB had 8X16.2" main guns; the Ise and Fuso classes had 14X14"; and the (upgraded BC) Kongo class
had 8X14" guns, but was much faster ~30 versus ~24 knots flank speeds. Most USN BBs had 14X14" but some only 10
guns. they had 3 BBs with 8X16". USN BBs had slower flank speeds ~21 knots. Most BB/BC capital ships had secondary
batteries that could out gun most destroyers. Also most IJN heavy cruisers had 10X8" while most USN CA 9. The IJN
light cruisers were significantly weaker(more like large destroyers) with 7X5.5" versus US CL w/10-12X6".
Next is the CVs: Most fleet CVs carried around 60 to 70+ aircraft. Standard allocation to early USN carriers was
27 fighters, 18 scout bombers, 18 dive bombers, and 15 torpedo bombers. IJN usually assigned 3 squadrons of 21-24
A/C consisting of 1 each fighter, dive bomber, and torpedo bomber. Even though most of the fleet carriers could
load more A/C they used the "spare" hanger area for repair "parts". A "universal" rule of thumb was 1 spare A/C
"space" for every 6 active A/C. For example: IJN Shokaku 84 max A/C /7= 12(X6)= 72 active = 3 sqdn of 24 with 12
repair spaces.

I am only speculating on this from what I have read in the forums, but you may see alterations in naval unit capabilities with the upcoming DLC, Kriegsmarine.

I hope so! The naval combat resolution needs to be just as sophisticated as the ground combat. I can help if they want advice/assistance.

Wow! No sooner said and you come out with Kriegsmarine (naval improvements) that fix a lot of my concerns.
Keep plugging.

Another suggestion for future game improvements:
Allow Capital ships to use their Secondary Batteries in their "nonphasing" turn to engage smaller (DD and Crusiers) who attack then.
Every pre-WWII BB had Secondary (and Tertiary/Dual Purpose) Batteries for self defense. The secondary batteries were usually of light crusier(CL) caliber. For example: the Nagato Class had 10X5.5" on both port and starboard sides; the Ise 7ea side; the Fuso had 8X6" and the Kongo Class 7ea. Even Germany's Schliesien and Schleswig-Holstein had 7X6.7" on both sides. As can be seen, these side batteries were formidable.

Why do naval ships not defend themselves like ground units? Especially when they took no actions during their phasing turn?
I think they should at least use their secondary batteries, or even primary batteries when Dual Purpose?

For real nerds who can stand CGA graphics (just kidding), NWS Warship Combat: Navies at War is the best simulation out there. But not everyone would consider it as much fun as OOB.

ORIGINAL: AceDuceTrey

Why do naval ships not defend themselves like ground units? Especially when they took no actions during their phasing turn?
I think they should at least use their secondary batteries, or even primary batteries when Dual Purpose?

They did in the early OOB-days, but it was changed at some point.
Maybe because a single defending ship would fire back in all directions at all attackers. Not realistic.
There would have to be some limitations; DDs only returning fire at the first attacker, ships with main/sec guns could fire at the first two attackers, maybe with reduced efficicency if they fired in their own turn etc.

You should start a naval discussion over at the Slitherine forum. The main OOB discussions are happening over there.
Slitherine