Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal Forum Index

Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal


 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Next Priority Surface Ships
Goto page: 1, 2, 3  >
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal Forum Index -> Topics -> New Features
Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 729

PostPosted: Sun 26 Aug - 19:50 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

I would like to see fixing surface ship movements and the Surface Engagment be the next priority. 


I’m sure everyone here has experience out TFs attacking when we didn’t want it to or attacking the wrong hex when several enemy TFs are next to your TF or Your trying to get your TF to a particular hex but it attacks everything in its path. It’s quite frustrating. I have a few suggestion that I think will fix that. 


Here is what I would like to see changed and fixed.


1.  Whenever a BB, CA, or DD detaches from a TF with a TRS or CV, I would like its Surface Engagement change to 1:1.  As it is now, it’s default is Never when detaching. This has created a lot of problems. 


2. In the Surface Engagement section I would like you to add “Defend”. This means the TF will not leave the hex until attacked or given a new move order.


3.  In the Surface Engagement section I would like you to add “Destination”.  This means the TF destination is Priority.  I will not engage enemy TF until it has reached its destination hex.


4.  (Bonus) Eventually I would like to see “Way Points” or “Plotting” introduce.  This means I can set up a TF to move to multiple hex for movement. 


I this the first 3 are a must.  The 4th one would be a great enhancement. 


Back to top
Publicité






PostPosted: Sun 26 Aug - 19:50 (2018)    Post subject: Publicité

PublicitéSupprimer les publicités ?
Back to top
currymutton
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 27 May 2016
Posts: 689

PostPosted: Tue 28 Aug - 09:08 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

Another problem is that the BB and BC with (much) bigger guns do not translate into any form of advantage. Bigger guns have longer range and, not to mention, pack with a much bigger punch.


I still want to tone down the torpedo surprise, in light of sub


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 729

PostPosted: Tue 28 Aug - 09:29 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

currymutton wrote:
Another problem is that the BB and BC with (much) bigger guns do not translate into any form of advantage. Bigger guns have longer range and, not to mention, pack with a much bigger punch.


I still want to tone down the torpedo surprise, in light of sub


Yes that needs to be addressed to


Back to top
currymutton
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 27 May 2016
Posts: 689

PostPosted: Wed 29 Aug - 10:54 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

The thing bugging me most is the inability to kill TRS with guns.  TRS is never the first target choice during surface engagements and rarely get more than 1 shell hits.  Also, even when a TRS got hit, it did very little damage, if at all.  TRS is not manoeuvrable, it does not have thick armour for protection, and it is big!  My point is illustrated in both WW1 and WW2 U-boat handbooks.  It was mentioned the best practice was to torpedo the vessel first in order to slow down / disable first, then surfaced and finished it off with a deck gun. FYI, the deck gun on the commonly found on U-boat during WW2 was a wimpy 3.5" gun  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_SK_C/35_naval_gun


And (may be inappropriate), the LSL Sir Galahad was sunk by 2-3 bomb hits from Skyhawk during the Falkland War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Sir_Galahad_(1966)


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 729

PostPosted: Wed 29 Aug - 13:10 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

currymutton wrote:
The thing bugging me most is the inability to kill TRS with guns.  TRS is never the first target choice during surface engagements and rarely get more than 1 shell hits.  Also, even when a TRS got hit, it did very little damage, if at all.  TRS is not manoeuvrable, it does not have thick armour for protection, and it is big!  My point is illustrated in both WW1 and WW2 U-boat handbooks.  It was mentioned the best practice was to torpedo the vessel first in order to slow down / disable first, then surfaced and finished it off with a deck gun. FYI, the deck gun on the commonly found on U-boat during WW2 was a wimpy 3.5" gun  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_SK_C/35_naval_gun


And (may be inappropriate), the LSL Sir Galahad was sunk by 2-3 bomb hits from Skyhawk during the Falkland War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Sir_Galahad_(1966)


Yes I agree.  The same thing applies to CV too.


I’ve also had battles where a TF of TRS and DDs were able to defeat at TF with BBs and CAs! Impossible!


Going back to the guns I think the surface battles should be down in 3 phases. First the BB gets to fire and damage applied, then the CAs, then the DD.  This will make the larger ships more potent. 


Back to top
currymutton
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 27 May 2016
Posts: 689

PostPosted: Wed 29 Aug - 15:33 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

 
Quote:
 Going back to the guns I think the surface battles should be down in 3 phases. First, the BB gets to fire and damage applied, then the CAs, then the DD.  This will make the larger ships more potent. 






(cough) 4 phases

1. Torpedo surprise attack, for IJN only, I think it is not historical for US to enjoy this advantage.
2. BB guns attack (each main turret is 8x damage, each secondary turret is 4x damage). No special rule for super BB like Yamato
3. CA guns attack (each main turret is 4x damage, each secondary turret is 2x damage)
4. CL guns attack (each main turret is 2x damage) and DD (1x damage)

Apply the same targeting priority rule as per air strike.


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 729

PostPosted: Wed 29 Aug - 22:05 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

currymutton wrote:
 
Quote:
 Going back to the guns I think the surface battles should be down in 3 phases. First, the BB gets to fire and damage applied, then the CAs, then the DD.  This will make the larger ships more potent. 








(cough) 4 phases

1. Torpedo surprise attack, for IJN only, I think it is not historical for US to enjoy this advantage.
2. BB guns attack (each main turret is 8x damage, each secondary turret is 4x damage). No special rule for super BB like Yamato
3. CA guns attack (each main turret is 4x damage, each secondary turret is 2x damage)
4. CL guns attack (each main turret is 2x damage) and DD (1x damage)

Apply the same targeting priority rule as per air strike.


That’s a good solution. But clarify what you mean on the torpedos. You mean the US shouldn’t be able to do surprise attacks on the IJN? In general I  can agree with that during daylight but weather condition could still allow the US to move in to torpedo range before being spotted. That said, I think it is a rare opportunity for the US.  As for at night I think the US should be able to due surprised torpedo attack primarily because dark nights and hazy\overcast weather can easily allow the US to move into torpedo range before being spotted.  But I will agree that the Japanese have the advantage of surprise torpedo attacks because they trained for It especially at night.


But to be honest I think the current game mechanics are working well. As it is now I feel that IJN surprise torpedo occur much more frequently than it does for the US. I think it’s about a 3 to 1 ratio in the IJN favor.  Plus when the US does get to do a surprise torpedo launch they usually do poorly.  Primarily because of the poor performance of the Mk-13 but also because they didn’t train as much. I think the game reflects this fairly well. But to make it more historical, I would be opposed to ban the US from doing surprise torpedo shots during the day.


However, one thing I noticed is that the game doesn’t allow the US to use torpedos during combat. The Japanese clearly used their range advantage to get the first but the US did use torpedos during combat. If the US is not allowed to use surprise attack then I think they should be able to fire torpedos during combat.  In the game mechanics this can be done after gun fire.  Of course the chances for scoring a hit should be reduce due to combat conditions. 


 As for torpedo damage I agree with you that the IJN torpedos are still a bit too deadly. They need to be reduced a little more.  


Back to top
Sightreader


Offline

Joined: 09 Aug 2016
Posts: 28
Localisation: USA

PostPosted: Thu 30 Aug - 08:44 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

currymutton wrote:
1. Torpedo surprise attack, for IJN only, I think it is not historical for US to enjoy this advantage.
2. BB guns attack (each main turret is 8x damage, each secondary turret is 4x damage). No special rule for super BB like Yamato
3. CA guns attack (each main turret is 4x damage, each secondary turret is 2x damage)
4. CL guns attack (each main turret is 2x damage) and DD (1x damage)

Apply the same targeting priority rule as per air strike.







Hey guys!


I’m not sure what the full intention here is, but I do think a phased approach of resolving surface combat based on progressively decreasing engagement range would be the best approach, provided there’s a probability of skipping a range proportional to sighting (and target identification) conditions. In other words, you start from the greatest range and go down to the shortest, with more weapons brought to bear at each level. 


Consider a 1942 night action, for instance: poor detection conditions means you’d almost always skip the BB-only range and move straight to IJN torpedo range. If Japanese spotting at torpedo range is bungled, then the first shots in anger might be all the way down at the CA, DD or even US torpedo range. Even at the shortest range, BB guns can still engage.


Accounting for weapon potency based on ship formations and how the effectively different kinds of weapons fire at various ranges is a completely different discussion, of course.


Back to top
currymutton
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 27 May 2016
Posts: 689

PostPosted: Thu 30 Aug - 10:01 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

Okay, I agree with you regarding the torpedo ambush.I don't know about the use of torpedo in the regular combat situation.


Also, should there be the ambush by guns also? i.e. Only the attacking party gets to fire first and the damage is resolved before the actual gunfire trade begins.


Range is one factor, but the big guns gain more than just shooting first, they also pack a much bigger punch -- such shell can put through thicker armour, also the bigger payload means a hit causes much more damage. One well-placed hit by 15-inch shell can easily take out a DD or even CL. My suggestion leaves the protection part out of consideration, which is another thing I am still considering. It may not be the best, but I suggest everybody tries the game Atlantic Fleet for a taste of WW2 naval gunnery.  It is not horribly accurate but I am sure you can get a taste of how fearful big guns could be back in the days.


Back to top
Sightreader


Offline

Joined: 09 Aug 2016
Posts: 28
Localisation: USA

PostPosted: Thu 30 Aug - 15:11 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

currymutton wrote:
Okay, I agree with you regarding the torpedo ambush.I don't know about the use of torpedo in the regular combat situation.
Also, should there be the ambush by guns also? i.e. Only the attacking party gets to fire first and the damage is resolved before the actual gunfire trade begins.


Definitely a feature in those “Tokyo Express” night actions! I’m surprised there weren’t more cases of entire lines decimated by friendly fire (think of that Japanese admiral dying thinking the US ambush was friendly fire).
currymutton wrote:
Range is one factor, but the big guns gain more than just shooting first, they also pack a much bigger punch -- such shell can put through thicker armour, also the bigger payload means a hit causes much more damage. One well-placed hit by 15-inch shell can easily take out a DD or even CL. My suggestion leaves the protection part out of consideration, which is another thing I am still considering. It may not be the best, but I suggest everybody tries the game Atlantic Fleet for a taste of WW2 naval gunnery.  It is not horribly accurate but I am sure you can get a taste of how fearful big guns could be back in the days.


Certainly figure you’d open up with everything once identification is ascertained - big guns, torpedos, whatever. The Japanese big guns did have a issue getting caught with bombardment shells when surface engagements initiated.


Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,134
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Sat 1 Sep - 08:22 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

A little word on how surface battle works


Each ship fires a numberof times equals to her surface factor. To be simple these equals to the bigger caliber onboard
The likely target of each shot is given in the advanced help section. Escort ships are screening CV and TRS that is why they are absorbing most of the damage


BB has the following advantages
- more fire
- huge danage control
- huge life
- smaller ship has negative modifier when firing at them


Giving first strike ability could be i teresting and not difficult to code


Using secondary batteries is more tricky although more realist


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 406

PostPosted: Sat 1 Sep - 14:50 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

My feeling is that we may improve some points about the way surface battle are processed in the game in order to get it more realistic.

At night, battle surfaces were generally at close range and everybody could fire at everybody. With a big advantage to the Japanese whose crews were specially trained for night combat. So in the case of night combat, i would stay with the following procedure:
- determine surprise for the Japanese to launch torpedoes and possibly fire guns (at Savo, they achieved surprise and managed to fire at the Us ships before the latter could react); than the US may fire guns (and possibly part of torpedoes)
- if no surprise, simultaneous torpedoes and guns fire of all ships regardless of caliber and range, assuming all calibers can fire

At day, i think little surprise can be achieved and range may play a role. Especially, in the case of torpedoes, they should be fired after the big guns fire, since DDs have to be close enough to fire (except the Japanese that may fire torpedoes at long range). So i would say the following sequence:
- guns fire by BBs if any
- guns fire by CAs (and possibly secondary guns from BBs) and Japanese torpedoes fire (simultaneously)
- guns fire by CLs/DDs (and possibly secondary guns from CAs) and US torpedoes fire (simultaneously)
I think the sequence could change depending on weather conditions (e.g. in case of very bad conditions, revert to night sequence above).

Regarding screening, i think it is fine and very historical but i think it could be improved especially by respect to the number of ships.
For instance, i already attacked a Japanese TF with only 2 or 3 DDs escorting TRS while mine had at least 10 CAs/CLs/DDS and my ships could not fire a single shot at the TRS... I think this would possible possible at night because of confusions but i do not think it should be possible at day.
So i would propose to introduce a simple rule: at night, the escort can "screen" four times its number (e.g if they are 2 DDs they can "screen" 8 enemy ships and prevent them to go through and attack the TRS or CV), at day only twice (possibly three times if the weather is bad). The remaining ships may pass through the screen and attack the TRS (or possibly CVs). Actually 4 times, 3 times etc. would be parameters to be tuned.

Additionally, i think one very disturbing thing is about damaged, especially very badly damaged ships, managing to evade surface battle. I think it should be very difficult for slow ships, included damaged ships, to evade a surface attack (of course depending on the weather conditions plus night/day conditions). But it should be impossible for crippled ships whose propulsion is destroyed to evade battle.

Finally, just one remark: surface battles were actually quite rare (only 3 main surface engagements during all the Guadalcanal campaign) while they are quite current in CB4G (typically several main engagements per game). Maybe we may think about it. Generally, i think the relative importance of big guns (especially Japanese) is a bit overestimated in the game by respect to air power. But i recognize this is something very difficult to tune.


Last edited by larsenjp on Sat 1 Sep - 22:51 (2018); edited 2 times in total
Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,134
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Sat 1 Sep - 20:50 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

larsenjp wrote:


Finally, just one remark: surface battles were actually quite rare (only 3 main surface engagements during all the Guadalcanal campaign) while they are quite current in CB4G (typically several main engagements per game). Maybe we may think about it. Generally, i think the relative importance of big guns (especially Japanese) is a bit overestimated in the game by respect to air power. But i recognize this is something very difficult to tune.


Exactly.
Thi sis probably the key point here
Players tends to fight subbornly to the last ship resulting in terrible losses for both sides. People are more conservative when to comes to CVs
This spoils somehow any hope to make a campaign game


Some mechanism of mandatory retreat should be found when admirals are facing severe losses or air threat (morale ? fuel ? ammo ?)
 


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 406

PostPosted: Sat 1 Sep - 23:08 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

Bladerunner wrote:
Exactly.
Thi sis probably the key point here
Players tends to fight subbornly to the last ship resulting in terrible losses for both sides. People are more conservative when to comes to CVs
This spoils somehow any hope to make a campaign game


Some mechanism of mandatory retreat should be found when admirals are facing severe losses or air threat (morale ? fuel ? ammo ?)
 


I think managing fuel and ammo should be mandatory for campaign game. This could be even interesting in the case of stand-alone battle in order to limit operations and unrealistic all-out attacks. But it will be probably not enough.

I think morale should be very interesting. It is obvious that air power had an effect on the sailors morale. Being under repeated air attacks made them less motivated for surface attack (cf. Leyte but this was in 1944...).

Another point is that, historically, after a surface battle, a lot of ships were damaged. And generally admirals did not take risks and ordered them to withdraw for repair. In CB4G, such ships may remain in the vicinity and engage again and again till almost total annihilation on both sides. I think we can imagine such damaged ships forced to withdraw with some escort, maybe like the "black TF" that are created when TRS withdraw after having unloaded successfully their carry.


Back to top
Sightreader


Offline

Joined: 09 Aug 2016
Posts: 28
Localisation: USA

PostPosted: Sat 1 Sep - 23:27 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

larsenjp wrote:
Finally, just one remark: surface battles were actually quite rare (only 3 main surface engagements during all the Guadalcanal campaign) while they are quite current in CB4G (typically several main engagements per game). 


Hmm... although there were only 3 major naval surface engagements, were there that many more naval carrier engagements? Wasn’t it just 3 or 4? I can’t remember. 


Anyway, it felt like most of the naval action was actually Guadalcanal aircraft attacking Japanese ships, although perhaps I’m mistaken...

currymutton wrote:
The thing bugging me most is the inability to kill TRS with guns.  TRS is never the first target choice during surface engagements and rarely get more than 1 shell hits.  


By the way, what are the historical instances where transports actually got engaged by surface ships? I can’t seem to remember... did it happen at Dieppe?


Back to top
Contenu Sponsorisé






PostPosted: Today at 01:15 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal Forum Index -> Topics -> New Features All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page: 1, 2, 3  >
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  

Index | Administration Panel | Create own nforum | Free support forum | Free forums directory | Report a violation | Conditions générales d'utilisation
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group