Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path

 
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 >> Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path - 2/12/2019 1:21:08 AM   
Technopiper

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 2/11/2019
Status: offline
Hi everyone, my first post. In Coral Sea my carrier TF crossed path with enemy carrier TF: they ended up switching positions with each other during the span of a turn. That doesn't seem realistic to me. Carriers don't sail right into each other, that's not how they fight. In one game two carrier TFs even engaged each other in surface battle. No damage as both quickly disengaged. The problem seems to be the WEGO system. I suspect it would be less apparent in waters less confined than the Coral Sea. Not a complaint as I understand every simulation has limitations, and I enjoy the game so far. What's your take? Do you have similar experience?
Post #: 1
RE: Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path - 2/12/2019 1:32:26 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 13320
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
No, CVs don't deliberately try to engage in surface combat, but it can happen, especially at night. Lots of variables, commander aggressiveness and how good his info was. At the battle of the Coral Sea, Japanese airplanes were trying (at night) to land on the Yorktown. If that can happen, what can't?

(in reply to Technopiper)
Post #: 2
RE: Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path - 2/12/2019 1:33:34 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 13320
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
I'm probably thinking of Santa Cruz and the Enterprise.

< Message edited by geofflambert -- 2/12/2019 1:34:04 AM >

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 3
RE: Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path - 2/12/2019 1:33:59 AM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 18518
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: online
I've been playing the game (and predecessors) for 17 years now and have only rarely had carrier TFs bump into one another. As far as I recall, every instance in which a clash occurred made perfect sense. On the scale of minor irritations with the game model, ranked from 1 to 10, this is a 0. :)

(in reply to Technopiper)
Post #: 4
RE: Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path - 2/12/2019 1:37:36 AM   
jdsrae


Posts: 263
Joined: 3/1/2010
From: The Land Downunder
Status: offline
It could happen if both task forces have insufficient search aircraft up so no detection level as the game calls it.
With no DL neither would launch attack strikes.
That means they could end up in the same hex and only see each other for the first time with binos or radar at night.
Set more % of DB and TB planes to search and see if that helps

_____________________________

Follow the Sapper

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 5
RE: Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path - 2/12/2019 1:50:15 AM   
Technopiper

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 2/11/2019
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I'm probably thinking of Santa Cruz and the Enterprise.

Oh you are correct, it was Coral Sea. Still, I think carrier TF, once spotting an enemy TF, would steer the other way rather than carrying on with its currently assigned plot.

< Message edited by Technopiper -- 2/12/2019 1:51:23 AM >

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 6
RE: Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path - 2/12/2019 3:10:30 AM   
Fishbed


Posts: 1752
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: online
It is most probable in real life that in case of some sort of detection level (even limited, such as TF11/17's the night before the last engagement at Coral Sea) talks about detaching a surface TF would be made. Unfortunately as you say, more than the WEGO system I'd fault (if I can say so) the timespan of each turn. In real life carrier battles don't get fought with orders that are 24 hours-old. But it would be harsh and unfair, indeed, to expect the computer to react to everything on its own and detach surface TFs by itself. The system can't always please the player, or more often run the risk of displeasing him/her

_____________________________


(in reply to Technopiper)
Post #: 7
RE: Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path - 2/12/2019 3:41:44 AM   
Technopiper

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 2/11/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alain-James

It is most probable in real life that in case of some sort of detection level (even limited, such as TF11/17's the night before the last engagement at Coral Sea) talks about detaching a surface TF would be made. Unfortunately as you say, more than the WEGO system I'd fault (if I can say so) the timespan of each turn. In real life carrier battles don't get fought with orders that are 24 hours-old. But it would be harsh and unfair, indeed, to expect the computer to react to everything on its own and detach surface TFs by itself. The system can't always please the player, or more often run the risk of displeasing him/her

Good points. WitP is a strategic wargame with a tactical aspect. One day per turn is very fine grain for strategy games, yet it struggles with the tactical department. I also play Carriers at War which is strictly operational/tactical, and has 5-minute turns. To think of it, "realtime" really implies WEGO with finely chopped up turns. ;-)

(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 8
RE: Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path - 2/12/2019 6:52:14 AM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2557
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
Well, in RL Coral Sea two CV TFs did come within 70nm of each other. Without detecting each other. So. Not so unrealistic.

(in reply to Technopiper)
Post #: 9
RE: Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path - 2/12/2019 8:49:05 AM   
obvert


Posts: 12732
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Technopiper

Hi everyone, my first post. In Coral Sea my carrier TF crossed path with enemy carrier TF: they ended up switching positions with each other during the span of a turn. That doesn't seem realistic to me. Carriers don't sail right into each other, that's not how they fight. In one game two carrier TFs even engaged each other in surface battle. No damage as both quickly disengaged. The problem seems to be the WEGO system. I suspect it would be less apparent in waters less confined than the Coral Sea. Not a complaint as I understand every simulation has limitations, and I enjoy the game so far. What's your take? Do you have similar experience?



All other comments get at the main points.

If asking about these situations in future it wold be best to include more data. You don't state anything about naval search, the previous day's knowledge of DL for either side, where there were accompanying surface TFs (which any good player will have with his CVs at all times) and whether there was a CV air strike the following turn.

AE is complex, and some thing don't work as in RL due to the abstraction, one day turns and most importantly, player ability to make decisions that would not have been made in history due to knowledge of historical outcomes.

So to get the best help in future, give a bit more detail.

_____________________________


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

(in reply to Technopiper)
Post #: 10
RE: Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path - 2/12/2019 9:15:52 AM   
Technopiper

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 2/11/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phoenix100

Well, in RL Coral Sea two CV TFs did come within 70nm of each other. Without detecting each other. So. Not so unrealistic.

Ah but actually brushing shoulders and swapping positions without an emergency response. That's pretty unrealistic.

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 11
RE: Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path - 2/12/2019 9:29:21 AM   
Technopiper

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 2/11/2019
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
All other comments get at the main points.

If asking about these situations in future it wold be best to include more data. You don't state anything about naval search, the previous day's knowledge of DL for either side, where there were accompanying surface TFs (which any good player will have with his CVs at all times) and whether there was a CV air strike the following turn.

AE is complex, and some thing don't work as in RL due to the abstraction, one day turns and most importantly, player ability to make decisions that would not have been made in history due to knowledge of historical outcomes.

So to get the best help in future, give a bit more detail.

Not exactly asking for help, neither a complaint. Just an observation. But since you asked: I have all my dive bombers from both carriers at 30% naval search, arcs pointing at the enemy TF, which I've already discovered the previous day. Message also showed that I was spotted by his aircraft.

Naval search planes are only a fraction of the problem. Historically, carrier task forces have destroyer screen spread way ahead of the carriers themselves. As Alain-James pointed out, the "realistic" respond would probably be the detachment of surface forces to engage, while the carriers would try to put distance between. He was also right in saying that the problem lies as much with the turn length as the WEGO system.

Again I realize this is a game and, as such, has limitations. Carriers at War probably do a better job portraying carrier movements (5-min turns vs 1-day turns) but that game doesn't have a strategic aspect.

Edit: Correction. I searched with torpedo bombers. Was playing the Japanese. Won the first game as the Allied in Coral Sea, think I'll try the Japanese side as well. Yorktown sunk and Lexington severely damaged. Shokaku and Zuikaku took light damages. Port Moresby taken. Shocked to hear Orphan Ann. :-)

< Message edited by Technopiper -- 2/12/2019 9:39:09 AM >

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 12
RE: Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path - 2/12/2019 12:48:18 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 12736
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: online
Carrier forces with aggressive commanders tend to react toward enemy carrier forces. Your previous detection on both sides would set up mutual reaction and the bump into each other in the night.

Going past each other is not so surprising if you imagine the forces actually brushing by each other with one force south of the other (assuming an E-W course). The hex is 40nm wide and visibility at night is only 12,000 yards in maximum moonlight. Weather effects can also play a part in just how close the forces get before they see each other.

What is great about it all is that nearly anything can happen - like a crime thriller movie - so you get the suspense that keeps the game from being a bore. Here's to FOW and chance!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Technopiper)
Post #: 13
RE: Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path - 2/12/2019 12:52:19 PM   
MakeeLearn


Posts: 3331
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline
Could have been stormy weather.

_____________________________


There is no such thing as truth in the perceptible universe: every idea when analyzed is found to contain a contradiction.
Aleister Crowley




(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 14
RE: Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path - 2/12/2019 1:20:08 PM   
MakeeLearn


Posts: 3331
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline

Avoidance is a tactical strategy.

_____________________________


There is no such thing as truth in the perceptible universe: every idea when analyzed is found to contain a contradiction.
Aleister Crowley




(in reply to MakeeLearn)
Post #: 15
RE: Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path - 2/12/2019 1:39:54 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 6221
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Technopiper


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phoenix100

Well, in RL Coral Sea two CV TFs did come within 70nm of each other. Without detecting each other. So. Not so unrealistic.

Ah but actually brushing shoulders and swapping positions without an emergency response. That's pretty unrealistic.


Not at all. A few degree variance in course, at 20 knots, and there you go. The 2 sides got real close at Midway, too. And that was open ocean, not an enclosed sea.

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to Technopiper)
Post #: 16
RE: Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path - 2/12/2019 3:43:15 PM   
tarkalak

 

Posts: 270
Joined: 6/26/2017
From: Bulgaria
Status: offline
I had a night intercept between both carrier TFs in the Wake scenario. They traded 2-3 shots and then evaded each other.

_____________________________

I do not know what is scarier: that I do understand nothing of this demonic script or that I am starting to see the demons that it evokes.

Me, studying for a PHD entry exam in Applied Mathematics.

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 17
RE: Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path - 2/12/2019 5:03:49 PM   
Macclan5


Posts: 861
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius


quote:

ORIGINAL: Technopiper


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phoenix100

Well, in RL Coral Sea two CV TFs did come within 70nm of each other. Without detecting each other. So. Not so unrealistic.

Ah but actually brushing shoulders and swapping positions without an emergency response. That's pretty unrealistic.


Not at all. A few degree variance in course, at 20 knots, and there you go. The 2 sides got real close at Midway, too. And that was open ocean, not an enclosed sea.



+1 Lecevius

Each hex is what 60 nautical miles ? (Just a number from memory off the top of my head - point of illustration only)

Some 78 miles ?

As pointed out in the real battle of Coral Sea Carrier TFs missed one another on 70nmi.

Further - historical precedent - both commanders debated (seriously debated) during the night whether to 'send in the gun boats' for Night combat but instead altered course and avoided combat.

Two TFs in the same hex - withdrawing based upon variables - aggressiveness - original destination - fuel - local weather including cloud cover which can differ within a hex in theory - etc is NOT a game issue

This is a gamer perception issue.

No where in the manual does it say ships entering same hex automatically 'visually sights' the other.

< Message edited by Macclan5 -- 2/12/2019 5:04:52 PM >


_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 18
RE: Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path - 2/12/2019 5:31:09 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 12736
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: online
The hexes in the prior game WITP were 60 miles across. WITP-AE uses 40NM hexes. That is why the land hexes are 46 statute miles.
A navy guy on this forum pointed out that on a clear day the horizon from the conning tower of a sub is about 11NM. Make it a bit more for surface ships but then the haze of evaporating water becomes a factor at the horizon (in most of the game area). So there is plenty of room for TFs to miss each other at night, or just brush close by or stumble directly into each other à la Guadalcanal.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Macclan5)
Post #: 19
RE: Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path - 2/13/2019 2:00:02 PM   
Macclan5


Posts: 861
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

The hexes in the prior game WITP were 60 miles across. WITP-AE uses 40NM hexes. That is why the land hexes are 46 statute miles.
A navy guy on this forum pointed out that on a clear day the horizon from the conning tower of a sub is about 11NM. Make it a bit more for surface ships but then the haze of evaporating water becomes a factor at the horizon (in most of the game area). So there is plenty of room for TFs to miss each other at night, or just brush close by or stumble directly into each other à la Guadalcanal.


Thanks BBF

I knew I had it 'not correct' but couldn't recall specifically.

But to your point - "same idea"

The other real life example of course is Battle of Santa Cruz - Enterprise and Hornet (or Wasp?) as I recall.

Not specifically 2 task forces bumping into each other but "Grey Ghost" ducked into a 'local rain squall" where as Hornet (or Wasp?) bore the full onslaught of the IJN carrier alpha strike.

They were operating well within 40nmi of each other - one survives to fight another day - the other doesn't.

All of which to say is " the game is still a representation and imperfect " but the core issue is 'it could happen' in real life and this is not a game engine or mechanics issue.





_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 20
RE: Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path - 2/13/2019 5:58:46 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 5666
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: online
quote:

Enterprise and Hornet


Hornet IIRC, Enterprise got hit later.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Macclan5)
Post #: 21
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Newbie comment - Carriers crossing path Page: [1]
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

0.152