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, 4, 5  >
 
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: 833

PostPosted: Sun 2 Sep - 05:39 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

Larsenjp. From historical engagements that I have read, if the Japanese spotted enemy forced before they spotted them, they usually fired their torpedos first in order to get a surprised hit.  If big guns fire first then enemy ships will turn and make it more difficult to hit with torpedoes. But I also have read battle reports where the Japanese fired torpedoes after engagment has begun.   After combat had begun, both sides have been know to fire torpedoes not so much in hoping to sink ships but to break up enemy formation, thus reducing their combat effectiveness. 


On a separate note.  I think the most frustrating issues I’ve had with surface combat is having a TF with BBs and/or CA be defeated by a TF with only DDs and TRS. This MUST be fixed. It should be programmed that if a TRS TF with only DDs as escorts engage a enemy TF with CAs or BBs cannot win any engagement. They always retreat.


Back to top
Publicité






PostPosted: Sun 2 Sep - 05:39 (2018)    Post subject: Publicité

PublicitéSupprimer les publicités ?
Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Sun 2 Sep - 05:50 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

Bladerunner wrote:
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 ?)
 


Yes this is very true because players are only playing for points.  However in a campaign, I think players will play much more conservative when they realize if they let all their ships get shot up or sunk that they won’t be available in later scenarios. 


Perhaps you can change the fight to the last ship mentality by placing penalties on the player if they continue to use heavily damaged ships.  Example if a players ship damage is reduce to half value but still keeps the ship on the front lines and that ship is damaged or sunk in a later battle.  That player LOSES victory points.  This would encourage the player to withdraw damaged ships in order to keep from loosing victory points in later battles.  Just a thought.  Another option is just automatically force a ship to retreat after it has lossed more than half its value. 


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 579

PostPosted: Sun 2 Sep - 11:19 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

Sightreader wrote:
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.


Actually 4 or rather 5 major surface engagements, which is quite a lot considering the time frame:
- battle of Savo Island: night of 8-9/08/42
- battle of Cape Esperance: night of 11-12/10/42
- battles of Guadalcanal: nights of 12-13/11/42 and 14-15/11/42; in the second battle, the US detached BBs South Dakota and Washington from the Enterprise screen because they had a lot of damaged ships from previous engagement that had to withdraw
- battle of Tassafaronga: night of 30/11/42

All the battles occurred at night, because the Japanese were reluctant to risk their ships at day around Guadalcanal (because of US air power) and because they were looking for night fighting. And they were right since, after Tassafaronga which was an heavy US defeat like Savo Island (1 heavy cruiser sunk, 3 heavily damaged against 1 Japanese destroyer sunk at Tassafaronga, 3 heavy cruisers sunk and 1 heavily damaged finally scuttled against 3 cruisers slightly damaged at Savo), the US were left only with 4 operational heavy cruisers for the whole Pacific area (plus some light cruisers)...


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 579

PostPosted: Sun 2 Sep - 11:42 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

USS Archerfish wrote:
Larsenjp. From historical engagements that I have read, if the Japanese spotted enemy forced before they spotted them, they usually fired their torpedos first in order to get a surprised hit.  If big guns fire first then enemy ships will turn and make it more difficult to hit with torpedoes. But I also have read battle reports where the Japanese fired torpedoes after engagement has begun. After combat had begun, both sides have been know to fire torpedoes not so much in hoping to sink ships but to break up enemy formation, thus reducing their combat effectiveness. 


Yes, that's correct. With the fact that US torpedoes were completely ineffective (i think none of them ever hit or you can count them on one's hand fingers) while Japanese torpedoes were very effective.


USS Archerfish wrote:
On a separate note.  I think the most frustrating issues I’ve had with surface combat is having a TF with BBs and/or CA be defeated by a TF with only DDs and TRS. This MUST be fixed. It should be programmed that if a TRS TF with only DDs as escorts engage a enemy TF with CAs or BBs cannot win any engagement. They always retreat.


Yes, i think this is due to the game's mechanics. I understand that the attacking TF tries to force the defending TF to retreat. If it doesn't manage to, then the system considers it is defeated ans has to withdraw.
It happened to me also and of course this is not very realistic. I think that if we introduce some simple rules about screening like the ones i proposed above (my 2 cents of course, it can be different) then the TRS will be engaged and the attacking cruisers/DDs TF cannot be defeated. Any way, this has to be fixed.


Back to top
Sightreader


Offline

Joined: 09 Aug 2016
Posts: 28
Localisation: USA

PostPosted: Sun 2 Sep - 15:02 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

larsenjp wrote:
Sightreader wrote:
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.



Actually 4 or rather 5 major surface engagements, which is quite a lot considering the time frame:
- battle of Savo Island: night of 8-9/08/42
- battle of Cape Esperance: night of 11-12/10/42
- battles of Guadalcanal: nights of 12-13/11/42 and 14-15/11/42; in the second battle, the US detached BBs South Dakota and Washington from the Enterprise screen because they had a lot of damaged ships from previous engagement that had to withdraw
- battle of Tassafaronga: night of 30/11/42


That’s what I thought: I think there might have actually been more surface engagements than carrier engagements due to the bizarre day/night imbalance after Savo, although it’s been years (maybe decades) since I’ve read about this stuff.

Regarding phased surface engagements - especially at night - spotting/identification/surprise seems to be a dominant factor in battle. I wonder: was the lack of orderly, Atlantic Ocean or Java Sea-style surface engagements (both sides detect each other first and maneuver before opening fire) necessarily impossible when both sides have carrier forces?

Good point on the long lance torpedos, by the way - they can launch an attack without revealing the attacking ships, thus preserving surprise.


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 579

PostPosted: Sun 2 Sep - 19:44 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

Sightreader wrote:
That’s what I thought: I think there might have actually been more surface engagements than carrier engagements due to the bizarre day/night imbalance after Savo, although it’s been years (maybe decades) since I’ve read about this stuff.


Out of the 4 major carriers engagements that took place in 1942, two were around Guadalcanal: Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz, (the 2 others being Coral Sea and Midway). After that, they were no more carriers engagement till 1944 simply because the two opponents had no carriers any more (typically the US) or no more crews (typically the Japanese).
During the Guadalcanal campaign, the Americans lost in the vicinity of Guadalcanal 2 carriers to Japanese submarine: the Wasp that was sunk and the Saratoga that was out of service for several months. They were left with only the Enterprise that was damaged. They could not really do much...


Back to top
currymutton
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 27 May 2016
Posts: 723

PostPosted: Thu 6 Sep - 08:44 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

The thing is, we hare weeks-long campaign condense into mere 3 days, and heck, there is no plane replacement rule (cough cough cough cough), what should it suppose to happen when a player runs out of planes? Pull all the surface force since surface engagement is "ahistorical"?


I suppose in most case, TF, CV and other important ships are in the centre of a TF, surrounded by other ships protecting them.  I suppose any opposing force would logically target the precious ships more likely than not.


Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,315
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Thu 6 Sep - 17:06 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

Look at the battle of SamarA few US DD manager to fiercely attack superior Japanese surface forces which were able to able only to sunk one CVE
Attacking ships cannot really ignore escorting ships


Back to top
currymutton
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 27 May 2016
Posts: 723

PostPosted: Thu 6 Sep - 18:35 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

I mean in the game, sire.  The fires shot at "captial ships"  are way out of proportion...  Razz

Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Sun 9 Sep - 22:00 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

currymutton wrote:
I mean in the game, sire.  The fires shot at "captial ships"  are way out of proportion...  Razz


What I think Curry is saying is if you have a BB or CA in a TF against only CLs and DD, the BBs and CAs will be able to fire at least several volleys before the DDs can even get in range to fire torpedos.  The game doesn’t really seem to reflect this.  


Sinking of the HMS Glorious (Also known as the Battle of Denmark Straits) is a example of what one would normally expect to happen.  The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau early in the battle scored hit on the Glorious. (However, the whole thing could have been avoided if she had scouts flying and planes ready on deck but that’s another story.). The DDs Acasta and Ardent first laid smoke and the Ardent made a torpedo run. The Acasta did the same later in the battle, scoring a torpedo hit on the Scharnhorst.  The battle ended in the loss of all 3 British warships. 


Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,315
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Sun 9 Sep - 22:25 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

IJN torpedoes had an impressive range and which were also quite stealth in the water leaving almost no wake
Also naval battles were always a lot of surprise, as both sides may sail close to each other without knowing. The slot is also a place where ships may hide and ambush an encountered enemy fleet
Of course BB had the advantage of the range but only if the fight at long range


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 579

PostPosted: Sun 9 Sep - 22:45 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

Yes i agree with this but note that all the surface battles around Guadalcanal took place at night, a major factor favoring the Japanese since they were specially trained for this type of combat. Furthermore, night just cancelled the advantage the US had with the first surface radars, since these devices were just not accurate enough in this configuration (i.e. with a lot of islands around whose echoes could lure the devices); as a consequence, US captains very often decided to wait for visual identification before opening fire and that proved to be fatal since the Japanese lookouts were much better than their US counterparts.

Regarding the battle of Denmark Straits, it took place during daylight and, logically, the British destroyers were no match for the German cruisers. But if you look at what happened in the Far North, during surface battles against Allied convoys bound to Russia, you can see that some very inferior escort forces managed to fight and repel very superior attacking surface forces thanks to poor weather and corresponding bad visibility.


Back to top
Sightreader


Offline

Joined: 09 Aug 2016
Posts: 28
Localisation: USA

PostPosted: Sun 9 Sep - 23:17 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

With the game being carrier focused, will the presence of airpower on both sides change the nature of surface combat we’re likely to see?  It sounds like, at least in the Slot, a good model for surprise will be very important. If surprise is going to be important, the results could be very unpredictable... will players feel any level of agency when the results are highly lopsided?

Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Mon 10 Sep - 05:43 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

I think there are valid points on both side.  The only issue I really have with combat is when a TF of TRS & DDs defeat a TF of BBs and CAs. 


Out of curiosity BR, are there different combat tables for Day, night, bad weather or is it all one chart?


Anyway, my primary request for surface fleets is better control of movement and when to attack and when not to attack. 


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 579

PostPosted: Mon 10 Sep - 22:21 (2018)    Post subject: Next Priority Surface Ships Reply with quote

I think there is no real difference of point of view.

I agree with Archerfish regarding the necessity to correct some outcomes that are really totally unrealistic, just like a TF with TRS/DDs defeating a TF with CA/BB.

After that, the war in the Pacific in 1942 clearly showed the preeminence of planes over guns and that's why there were almost no surface battles in the Guadalcanal campaign except at night when the US forces were surprised or could not avoid it. Actually, the story of Guadalcanal is simple: at day, the US dominated the waters around the island thanks to their planes while at night the Japanese dominated the same waters thanks to their guns. Not taking into account light forces like PT boats and submarines... that was the balance around the Slot.

Aside from the unrealistic results we already discussed, what i find disturbing in the game is this tendency to have many surface engagements at daylight between forces that battle till almost total annihilation. I think we should think about a mechanism to prevent this.


Back to top
Contenu Sponsorisé






PostPosted: Today at 10:59 (2019)    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, 4, 5  >
Page 2 of 5

 
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