Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Mountain InfantryPandora: Eclipse of Nashira Announced! Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great War
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: What can I do better?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: What can I do better? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: What can I do better? - 3/26/2013 7:53:23 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4005
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: V I Lenin


quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

IIRC it was Nemo who pointed out that sisters work better in surface combat, an ideal SurfTF would have BBs paired w/ their sister-ships, & all DDs of the same class & upgrade status.


I think technically not important the class, but having the same guns.

Other important thing often overlooked is speed of force as a whole; Fletcher DD capable of 38kts, old Japanese battleship only 24 or 25. In that situation destroyer-only force is much more capable to maneuver...Japanese destroyers are tied to battleships and cannot use their speed properly.

It is interesting. Allied destroyers are mostly suited to engage independently - cruisers mostly do 30-32kts while destroyers 35-38. So, they perform 'best' alone where they can take advantage. For Japanese cruisers are quite fast at 31-35kts while even fastest destroyers (except unique Shimakaze at 38 also) do mostly 33 and sometimes even less. So, Japanese do not suffer from operating with cruisers beyond what they would anyway from being relatively slower.


It is very important. If the ship classes have different speeds and mvr, it will have different results. Same class ships with same upgrades are very important. Go look at the end portion of GreyJoy's "The Power of Inexperience" and read up on the posts by Nemo about this.. they're incredible IMO

_____________________________

Follow our WiTPAE team PBEM game against bilbow and hartwig.modrow http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2965846&mpage=1&key=?

Follow my WITPAE PBEM game against Schanilec. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3495605

(in reply to V I Lenin)
Post #: 31
RE: What can I do better? - 3/26/2013 8:09:21 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7044
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
It is not too out of whack. In my long game with Viberpol, I don't think I really lost a surface fight as the Allies after 1944. Just too many good things happening to US ships. A few draws but basically if the Allied player uses modern ships, he will win most of the time.

One thing, I make it a policy "never" to use older BBs in night surface actions and really avoid it when I can with my moderns. Allied old BBs in 42 or 43 are just hopeless. I would suspect the same thing with the Japanese player using old BBs in 44.

An Allied after action review of the Guadalcanal campaign stated that BBs and treaty class cruisers should never be used in night actions because their turret rotation speed and rate of fire made them virtually useless in a night action when rapid course changes were needed.

Likewise daylight actions later in the war gave the Allies a great advantage due to modern fire control systems. Smoke and haze frequently limited visibility and Allied radar could exploit that.

I think the best plan for the Japanese player after mid 44 is to start training up kamikaze pilots. Not joking when I say this.....

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 32
RE: What can I do better? - 3/26/2013 11:20:24 PM   
obvert


Posts: 6818
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

It is not too out of whack. In my long game with Viberpol, I don't think I really lost a surface fight as the Allies after 1944. Just too many good things happening to US ships. A few draws but basically if the Allied player uses modern ships, he will win most of the time.

One thing, I make it a policy "never" to use older BBs in night surface actions and really avoid it when I can with my moderns. Allied old BBs in 42 or 43 are just hopeless. I would suspect the same thing with the Japanese player using old BBs in 44.

An Allied after action review of the Guadalcanal campaign stated that BBs and treaty class cruisers should never be used in night actions because their turret rotation speed and rate of fire made them virtually useless in a night action when rapid course changes were needed.

Likewise daylight actions later in the war gave the Allies a great advantage due to modern fire control systems. Smoke and haze frequently limited visibility and Allied radar could exploit that.

I think the best plan for the Japanese player after mid 44 is to start training up kamikaze pilots. Not joking when I say this.....


Sad, but I'm thinking after all of these great comments that you might have the best plan.




_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 33
RE: What can I do better? - 3/27/2013 3:48:00 AM   
DivePac88


Posts: 3115
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Somewhere in the South Pacific.
Status: offline
I see four main reasons strait-off for that outcome; Moonlight, Radar, Surprise, and Expedience.

_____________________________


When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time
You understand now, Why you came this way

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 34
RE: What can I do better? - 3/27/2013 8:10:56 AM   
obvert


Posts: 6818
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88

I see four main reasons strait-off for that outcome; Moonlight, Radar, Surprise, and Expedience.


What do you mean by expedience?

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to DivePac88)
Post #: 35
RE: What can I do better? - 3/27/2013 9:45:41 AM   
MrBlizzard


Posts: 166
Joined: 4/16/2012
From: Italia
Status: offline
I think it's a typo, crew expeRience

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 36
RE: What can I do better? - 3/27/2013 10:08:08 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 6975
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Nasty, Nasty DDs...




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to MrBlizzard)
Post #: 37
RE: What can I do better? - 3/27/2013 10:16:35 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 6975
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Japanese DD in first battle.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 38
RE: What can I do better? - 3/27/2013 11:18:50 AM   
obvert


Posts: 6818
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBlizzard

I think it's a typo, crew expeRience


Aha, that's probably it. Thanks!

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to MrBlizzard)
Post #: 39
RE: What can I do better? - 3/27/2013 11:33:57 AM   
obvert


Posts: 6818
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Japanese DD in first battle.


Yes, very jealous of the Fletchers.

About 2/3 of my Yugumos didn't convert (as well as a few of the Kagero, Shiratsuya and Hatsuhara classes) to losing the 2 x 12.7cm X turret for increased AA armament. Once I figured out this was happening and had a few battles with neutered Kageros and Yugumos, I stopped converting the rest of the Yugumos at least and a few of the others.

The one (and only one) DD that can almost stand up to a Fletcher (except for the radar firing control and rate of fire, which of course still means it is way behind) is the Shimakaze. At least on paper, as they were big and cumbersome and never perfected for further production after the first ship was made. Pretty good in game though.

I wonder if the Akizukis could be decent in a surface battle due to higher rate of fire of the 10cm guns? They're too valuable as KB escorts though, so I wouldn't put them into SCTFs now. I'll have to wait until I lose the KB to find out!




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by obvert -- 3/27/2013 11:36:12 AM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 40
RE: What can I do better? - 3/27/2013 12:32:46 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 6975
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
I also wonder about how much the speed difference effects combat here. 38 vs 32 may not seem like much, but we both have faced the faster Allied fighters in A2A and seen the results.

_____________________________


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 41
RE: What can I do better? - 3/27/2013 1:40:45 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8320
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I also wonder about how much the speed difference effects combat here. 38 vs 32 may not seem like much, but we both have faced the faster Allied fighters in A2A and seen the results.


A six-knot delta is a very BIG difference in torpedo evasion in the real world, especially in a twin-screwed ship that can twist. My feeling has always been that the surface combat agorithms use first MVR and then SPEED as very important ingoing variables. MVR is the main reason so many sub-launched torpedoes miss escorts IMO.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 42
RE: What can I do better? - 3/27/2013 6:49:23 PM   
obvert


Posts: 6818
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I also wonder about how much the speed difference effects combat here. 38 vs 32 may not seem like much, but we both have faced the faster Allied fighters in A2A and seen the results.


A six-knot delta is a very BIG difference in torpedo evasion in the real world, especially in a twin-screwed ship that can twist. My feeling has always been that the surface combat agorithms use first MVR and then SPEED as very important ingoing variables. MVR is the main reason so many sub-launched torpedoes miss escorts IMO.


Out of curiosity how does a twin-screw help maneuverability? Can power be pushed to each individually to turn faster? Just a novice in this area so I'd love to learn more.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 43
RE: What can I do better? - 3/27/2013 7:39:12 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4490
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: online
Just a wild guess here having just read a bit on force application.

But twin screws are obviously not set on the centerline (doh ) as a single screw ship. Don´t know the English word for it but having one of the screws off centered will help the ship turn faster as the force is applied differently. There is a scientific word for the phenomena that I don´t know!

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 44
RE: What can I do better? - 3/27/2013 7:43:14 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8320
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I also wonder about how much the speed difference effects combat here. 38 vs 32 may not seem like much, but we both have faced the faster Allied fighters in A2A and seen the results.


A six-knot delta is a very BIG difference in torpedo evasion in the real world, especially in a twin-screwed ship that can twist. My feeling has always been that the surface combat agorithms use first MVR and then SPEED as very important ingoing variables. MVR is the main reason so many sub-launched torpedoes miss escorts IMO.


Out of curiosity how does a twin-screw help maneuverability? Can power be pushed to each individually to turn faster? Just a novice in this area so I'd love to learn more.


Go full ahead on one and full astern on the other. You twist--fast. Or go less than full on either and you twist less fast. Twin-screwed ships are a lot easier to land at a pier because they can do this. Single-screwed ships need tugs to do the same thing.

It's hard in an engineering sense to go from all ahead whatever to a twist. You have to stop one shaft (some ships have/had clutches and some don't) quickly and reverse the throttles, which really puts stress on a drivetrain, but DDs were built to do it. They were the sports cars of the warship world.

Edit: yep, multi-screwed ships have port and starboard screws. In quad-screwed port and starboard are separate as well, in groups. Orders to the helm are either "All_______ (ahead, back) + an amount (Flank, Full, Standard, Two-thirds, One-third, Stop, Emergency (sometimes; not every ship had an Emergency bell order.) Or they are split orders: "Port Ahead Full, Starboard Back Two-thirds" for example. Keeps the lee helmsman and the throttlemen jumping. Conning officers know how their specific vessel will react to every bell, ahead and back. It's practiced and practiced and practiced.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 3/27/2013 7:50:00 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 45
RE: What can I do better? - 3/27/2013 8:05:13 PM   
catwhoorg


Posts: 636
Joined: 9/27/2012
From: Uk expat lving near Atlanta
Status: offline
Or for the landlubbers, imagine a tank (or tracked vehicle), going forwards on one track and back on the other.

Very fast twisting.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 46
RE: What can I do better? - 3/27/2013 8:20:53 PM   
obvert


Posts: 6818
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Out of curiosity how does a twin-screw help maneuverability? Can power be pushed to each individually to turn faster? Just a novice in this area so I'd love to learn more.


Go full ahead on one and full astern on the other. You twist--fast. Or go less than full on either and you twist less fast. Twin-screwed ships are a lot easier to land at a pier because they can do this. Single-screwed ships need tugs to do the same thing.

It's hard in an engineering sense to go from all ahead whatever to a twist. You have to stop one shaft (some ships have/had clutches and some don't) quickly and reverse the throttles, which really puts stress on a drivetrain, but DDs were built to do it. They were the sports cars of the warship world.

Edit: yep, multi-screwed ships have port and starboard screws. In quad-screwed port and starboard are separate as well, in groups. Orders to the helm are either "All_______ (ahead, back) + an amount (Flank, Full, Standard, Two-thirds, One-third, Stop, Emergency (sometimes; not every ship had an Emergency bell order.) Or they are split orders: "Port Ahead Full, Starboard Back Two-thirds" for example. Keeps the lee helmsman and the throttlemen jumping. Conning officers know how their specific vessel will react to every bell, ahead and back. It's practiced and practiced and practiced.


Wow. I've definitely seen what looked like that in ships pulling up to a dock, but I had no idea it could be used at near flank speed in he middle of battle to maneuver around torpedoes. In various films I've of course hear the split order for each screw but it somehow never clicked what was happening there.

Thanks!

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 47
RE: What can I do better? - 3/27/2013 8:44:39 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8320
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Wow. I've definitely seen what looked like that in ships pulling up to a dock, but I had no idea it could be used at near flank speed in he middle of battle to maneuver around torpedoes. In various films I've of course hear the split order for each screw but it somehow never clicked what was happening there.

Thanks!


Looking for a site which describes what happens down in Engineering when an order to reverse a shaft comes down. In looking I found this nice site wherein a former Fletcher-class helmsman describes some of the finer inner workings of standing helm on a WWII destroyer. It's a lot harder than in the movies!

http://destroyerhistory.org/destroyers/index.asp?r=6100&pid=6102

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 48
RE: What can I do better? - 3/27/2013 9:07:27 PM   
obvert


Posts: 6818
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online
Awesome article! Only half-way finished, but I'm hooked! Great find.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 49
RE: What can I do better? - 3/27/2013 9:16:03 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8320
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
If you liked that, you'll LOVE this:

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/destroyer/steam/index.htm

That's the operating manual for the propulsion plants for two classes of USN DDs: DD445 and DD692.

Neither of these classes used clutches to answer astern bells. They had separate astern turbines which took steam redirected from the main cruising or high-speed turbines, depending on current speed. Applying reverse thrust to first slow and then stop the shaft, then spin it the other way.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 50
RE: What can I do better? - 3/28/2013 12:58:00 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 3899
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
A twin screw is not that much of a help in maneuvering if one is already steaming ahead at 15-20 kts (a Standard Bell) since the time delay between ordering a backing bell on one shaft to actually getting the propellor turning in the opposite direction is upwards of a minute. Twisting with twin screws is great when compensating for wind or current when trying to moor the ship though. Its not that much of a distinction however but I have been the conning officer on two twin screw, steam-turbine powered ships (USCGC Duane and USCGC Bibb (327' Treasury Class) and have used the torque from opposing screws to moor the ship (one ahead and one astern) and to hold the bow into heavy seas to maintain a constant course (different speeds/turns on each shaft).

The most important of all things to remember was that whatever you ordered the engines to do was not going to begin to happen for roughly a minute after the order was issued if the order involved changing the direction of the engines. All Back Emergency from a Standard Bell Ahead (15kts) meant you were going to make 1/2 mile or so forward before you started moving backward. Man Overboard Drills involved this maneuver regularly but it made for a bit of a personal thrill when an iceberg suddenly emerged out of the fog dead ahead under the same circumstances (the surface search radar never "saw" it even when it was only a couple of hundred yards away).

(in reply to jeffk3510)
Post #: 51
RE: What can I do better? - 3/28/2013 2:06:29 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
It isn't about whether or not they are sister ships. It concerns whether or not their technical-tactical characteristics match. The two chief characteristics you have to watch out for are speed and weapons range. Ideally they should be identical or close to identical for whatever portion of your TF constitutes the main element ( the non-screening force ). Third would be manoeuvre and then last would be radar and those other characteristics which give a TF-wide bonus as well as an individual ship bonus.

So, while sister ships ( with the same upgrades ) are one way to ensure excellent co-ordination to limit yourself to TFs comprising only sister ships is to severely limit your ability to build extempore TFs. As ever you're better off just learning to look at the 2 ( or 3 ) technical-tactical characteristics which the algorithm favours. With a little practice it takes almost no time to match ships by speed and weapons range.

This same technical-tactical characteristic analysis mixed with a smidgeon of tactics around getting the enemy to dive on what you want in order to place themselves into a disadvantageous position rules the roost in aerial combat in the game also.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 52
RE: What can I do better? - 3/28/2013 2:08:25 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8320
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

A twin screw is not that much of a help in maneuvering if one is already steaming ahead at 15-20 kts (a Standard Bell) since the time delay between ordering a backing bell on one shaft to actually getting the propellor turning in the opposite direction is upwards of a minute. Twisting with twin screws is great when compensating for wind or current when trying to moor the ship though. Its not that much of a distinction however but I have been the conning officer on two twin screw, steam-turbine powered ships (USCGC Duane and USCGC Bibb (327' Treasury Class) and have used the torque from opposing screws to moor the ship (one ahead and one astern) and to hold the bow into heavy seas to maintain a constant course (different speeds/turns on each shaft).

The most important of all things to remember was that whatever you ordered the engines to do was not going to begin to happen for roughly a minute after the order was issued if the order involved changing the direction of the engines. All Back Emergency from a Standard Bell Ahead (15kts) meant you were going to make 1/2 mile or so forward before you started moving backward. Man Overboard Drills involved this maneuver regularly but it made for a bit of a personal thrill when an iceberg suddenly emerged out of the fog dead ahead under the same circumstances (the surface search radar never "saw" it even when it was only a couple of hundred yards away).



I agree that going to an astern bell is not instantaneous, but I would question the minute figure in a battleshort situation such as incoming torpedoes. Depending on the boiler status, number of torpedoes, range to torpedoes, etc. it would probably be better to go to flank and turn away, looking for them to comb own ship if at a full bell or higher. At a standard bell or slower a twist might be the only option. Or not, depending on range. I served on a nuke, but steam is steam and I know from conversations and observing the throttleman that there is a wide, wide band of what can be done that's different than what is done in peacetime steaming. I looked for wartime operating orders for torpedo evasion, but could not find anything.

As an alternative to a full twist, I'd think a semi-twist could be done by going to full or flank on the outboard side, and a one-third on the inboard side. Anything to get into a combing posture as fast as possible.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 53
RE: What can I do better? - 3/28/2013 3:22:30 AM   
jmalter

 

Posts: 1218
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline
let's just hope that the twist mostly affects the yaw, w/o too much roll!

thx also to Nemo for posting clarifications to my 'sisters-only' recommendation.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 54
RE: What can I do better? - 3/28/2013 8:32:53 AM   
obvert


Posts: 6818
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

It isn't about whether or not they are sister ships. It concerns whether or not their technical-tactical characteristics match. The two chief characteristics you have to watch out for are speed and weapons range. Ideally they should be identical or close to identical for whatever portion of your TF constitutes the main element ( the non-screening force ). Third would be manoeuvre and then last would be radar and those other characteristics which give a TF-wide bonus as well as an individual ship bonus.

So, while sister ships ( with the same upgrades ) are one way to ensure excellent co-ordination to limit yourself to TFs comprising only sister ships is to severely limit your ability to build extempore TFs. As ever you're better off just learning to look at the 2 ( or 3 ) technical-tactical characteristics which the algorithm favours. With a little practice it takes almost no time to match ships by speed and weapons range.

This same technical-tactical characteristic analysis mixed with a smidgeon of tactics around getting the enemy to dive on what you want in order to place themselves into a disadvantageous position rules the roost in aerial combat in the game also.


Out of the blue just in time! Thanks for the clarification. I remember several of the threads where you mentioned this and have tried to employ something similar since, even if it's not always possible to get it exactly right.

Not sure what you mean with the last part on aerial combat and the dive. Do you just mean that if you understand the way the game system works you can make planes dive on the group you want them to hit, thus making themselves vulnerable to the next planes you have coming in that will get a dive on them in turn?

Great to see you around!

< Message edited by obvert -- 3/28/2013 8:33:11 AM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 55
RE: What can I do better? - 3/28/2013 9:01:56 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4526
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Nemo, can only echo what obvert said, great to see you posting!

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 56
RE: What can I do better? - 3/28/2013 10:17:05 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6094
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

It isn't about whether or not they are sister ships. It concerns whether or not their technical-tactical characteristics match. The two chief characteristics you have to watch out for are speed and weapons range. Ideally they should be identical or close to identical for whatever portion of your TF constitutes the main element ( the non-screening force ). Third would be manoeuvre and then last would be radar and those other characteristics which give a TF-wide bonus as well as an individual ship bonus.

So, while sister ships ( with the same upgrades ) are one way to ensure excellent co-ordination to limit yourself to TFs comprising only sister ships is to severely limit your ability to build extempore TFs. As ever you're better off just learning to look at the 2 ( or 3 ) technical-tactical characteristics which the algorithm favours. With a little practice it takes almost no time to match ships by speed and weapons range.

This same technical-tactical characteristic analysis mixed with a smidgeon of tactics around getting the enemy to dive on what you want in order to place themselves into a disadvantageous position rules the roost in aerial combat in the game also.



Glad to see you're back Nemo!!!

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 57
RE: What can I do better? - 3/28/2013 2:26:33 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4005
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

It isn't about whether or not they are sister ships. It concerns whether or not their technical-tactical characteristics match. The two chief characteristics you have to watch out for are speed and weapons range. Ideally they should be identical or close to identical for whatever portion of your TF constitutes the main element ( the non-screening force ). Third would be manoeuvre and then last would be radar and those other characteristics which give a TF-wide bonus as well as an individual ship bonus.

So, while sister ships ( with the same upgrades ) are one way to ensure excellent co-ordination to limit yourself to TFs comprising only sister ships is to severely limit your ability to build extempore TFs. As ever you're better off just learning to look at the 2 ( or 3 ) technical-tactical characteristics which the algorithm favours. With a little practice it takes almost no time to match ships by speed and weapons range.

This same technical-tactical characteristic analysis mixed with a smidgeon of tactics around getting the enemy to dive on what you want in order to place themselves into a disadvantageous position rules the roost in aerial combat in the game also.



Glad to see you're back Nemo!!!

quote:

!!!

(in reply to Nemo121)
Report | Post #: 57


++++1

_____________________________

Follow our WiTPAE team PBEM game against bilbow and hartwig.modrow http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2965846&mpage=1&key=?

Follow my WITPAE PBEM game against Schanilec. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3495605

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 58
RE: What can I do better? - 3/28/2013 6:54:00 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2515
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Hi All,

After suffering another defeat to a US DD only surface group I'm left wondering what I can do to improve my chances. Or is this as good as it gets!


Well, I'm seeing similar results in my games, albeit not quite as bad. Fletchers are overpowered to the point, where Allied players do not need to seek the usual historical advantage of superior TF weight, and can rely on subpar naval strategy. I'm trying to avoid DD upgrades that reduce the number of guns, but unfortunately without them some classes DDs are stuck with no radar and completely inadequate AA/ASW armament. As the result, my destroyer forces is facing such attrition, that even with most things going my way, I cannot provide enough escorts to form balanced TFs by mid-1944.

But considering the systematic beatdown delivered by IJN to the Allied surface forces in my games before the mass introduction of Fletchers, well, no big deal. After the early game usually being Long Lancers' horror show I can't complain too much when my opponents get some relief.

< Message edited by FatR -- 3/28/2013 7:00:27 PM >


_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 59
RE: What can I do better? - 3/28/2013 7:27:43 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14513
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

It isn't about whether or not they are sister ships. It concerns whether or not their technical-tactical characteristics match. The two chief characteristics you have to watch out for are speed and weapons range. Ideally they should be identical or close to identical for whatever portion of your TF constitutes the main element ( the non-screening force ). Third would be manoeuvre and then last would be radar and those other characteristics which give a TF-wide bonus as well as an individual ship bonus.

So, while sister ships ( with the same upgrades ) are one way to ensure excellent co-ordination to limit yourself to TFs comprising only sister ships is to severely limit your ability to build extempore TFs. As ever you're better off just learning to look at the 2 ( or 3 ) technical-tactical characteristics which the algorithm favours. With a little practice it takes almost no time to match ships by speed and weapons range.

This same technical-tactical characteristic analysis mixed with a smidgeon of tactics around getting the enemy to dive on what you want in order to place themselves into a disadvantageous position rules the roost in aerial combat in the game also.

Welcome back!

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: What can I do better? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.109