Surface Combat Results

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
byron13
Posts: 1580
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2001 8:00 am

Surface Combat Results

Post by byron13 »

Playing the Allies against AI. January '43 I run the South Dakota, Maryland, West Virginia, 2 CAs, 1 CL and 3DDs into Timor. All fully updated with radar, but pretty low night experience in the 40s.
Ching is in command. Along comes the Kirishima, a CL, and 4 DDs. They are picked up at long range by the Allies but, due to rain, engagements being at 2000 yards.
Allies are cut up. South Dakota sinks and, as best I can tell never fired a shot, Maryland heavily damaged, and a CA sunk. Long lances did some damage, but the naval gunnery what decidedly in favor of Japanese.

Next night, the Japanese show up again. Spotted on radar and Allies cross the T. Two Japanese battleships not hit at all. West Virginia sunk. Only Japanese loss was the CL, which had a magazine explosion from hit by CA.

Why such bad results at night with radar. The Allied battleships basically did nothing though led well, with radar, and excellent leadership. Luck of the draw? Or was it primarily poor night experience?

I'm, uh, disappointed and am now leery about putting the BBs in any kind of surface engagement. thoughts?
Image
User avatar
Grfin Zeppelin
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Germany

RE: Surface Combat Results

Post by Grfin Zeppelin »

As a Japanese player I would clap my hands and be happy about these lucky results. In 1943 most of these engagements end with heavy damage to Japanese ships, if they win and against these ships its a big if.

Image
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26249
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Surface Combat Results

Post by witpqs »

- Bad TF composition. You mixed many ships with differing weapons ranges and ship speeds.

- Battleships at night are vulnerable to destroyers with torpedoes.

- Did your suriviving battleships even get to reload before the second battle? Perhaps they had very little main battery ammo.
mind_messing
Posts: 3393
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Surface Combat Results

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: byron13

Playing the Allies against AI. January '43 I run the South Dakota, Maryland, West Virginia, 2 CAs, 1 CL and 3DDs into Timor. All fully updated with radar, but pretty low night experience in the 40s.
Ching is in command. Along comes the Kirishima, a CL, and 4 DDs. They are picked up at long range by the Allies but, due to rain, engagements being at 2000 yards.
Allies are cut up. South Dakota sinks and, as best I can tell never fired a shot, Maryland heavily damaged, and a CA sunk. Long lances did some damage, but the naval gunnery what decidedly in favor of Japanese.

Next night, the Japanese show up again. Spotted on radar and Allies cross the T. Two Japanese battleships not hit at all. West Virginia sunk. Only Japanese loss was the CL, which had a magazine explosion from hit by CA.

Why such bad results at night with radar. The Allied battleships basically did nothing though led well, with radar, and excellent leadership. Luck of the draw? Or was it primarily poor night experience?

I'm, uh, disappointed and am now leery about putting the BBs in any kind of surface engagement. thoughts?

- Your task force was hampered by the slower Allied BB's. The Kirishima is a fast BB. That speed advantage probably led to your T being crossed.
- Night experiance. Big difference between IJN and USN in this respect.
- Ship and task force commanders? IJN commanders are generally decent across the board, but the occasional idiot can end up in command of a USN ship.
- TF composition. The CA's and CL were tied to the slow battleship line. Seperate them in to task forces of their own and they'll perform much better.
User avatar
byron13
Posts: 1580
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2001 8:00 am

RE: Surface Combat Results

Post by byron13 »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

- Bad TF composition. You mixed many ships with differing weapons ranges and ship speeds.

- Battleships at night are vulnerable to destroyers with torpedoes.

- Did your suriviving battleships even get to reload before the second battle? Perhaps they had very little main battery ammo.

1. What do you suggest? Wish I had more DDs for screening. But Timor was getting bombarded by BBs - so needed to respond with BBs, I think. I'm not sure what you're suggesting. DD only TFs and BB only TFs?
I assume the system is smart enough to let me screen capital ships with DDs. Why didn't ships open up at longer ranges with radar contacts?

2. Everything is vulnerable at night to Japanese torpedoes. But I don't get to choose what comes my way or when - though almost certainly it will be at night. Again, what do you do differently?

3. Definitely an issue. Had an AE a turn away trying to get there. Guess my greed to get in some surface action cost me on that one.
Image
User avatar
byron13
Posts: 1580
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2001 8:00 am

RE: Surface Combat Results

Post by byron13 »

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

- TF composition. The CA's and CL were tied to the slow battleship line. Seperate them in to task forces of their own and they'll perform much better.

What do you do? Have one follow the other? Which follows which?
Image
mind_messing
Posts: 3393
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Surface Combat Results

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: byron13

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

- TF composition. The CA's and CL were tied to the slow battleship line. Seperate them in to task forces of their own and they'll perform much better.

What do you do? Have one follow the other? Which follows which?

Crusiers first, then the battleships.

Nobody is ordered to "follow" anyone in terms of game orders. That's a recipe for disaster, as TF's tend to react all over the place and things fall apart easily.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Surface Combat Results

Post by wdolson »

Mixing fast and slow BBs is probably not a good idea. It takes away the speed advantage of the fast BBs because the entire Tf has to travel at the speed of the slowest ship.

In 1943, Allied surface search radar is not great. The later war surface search radar was much better and was integrated into the gun controllers by then.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
byron13
Posts: 1580
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2001 8:00 am

RE: Surface Combat Results

Post by byron13 »

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: byron13

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

- TF composition. The CA's and CL were tied to the slow battleship line. Seperate them in to task forces of their own and they'll perform much better.

What do you do? Have one follow the other? Which follows which?

Crusiers first, then the battleships.

Nobody is ordered to "follow" anyone in terms of game orders. That's a recipe for disaster, as TF's tend to react all over the place and things fall apart easily.

I'm talking about the follow TF function. is that what you're suggesting? Having BBs follow a lighter, faster tf at zero range?
Image
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9297
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Surface Combat Results

Post by Lokasenna »

You can try that. I'd just send them independently from the same origin point. Whichever is faster will get there first, which is usually how you want it anyway - your screening TFs are generally faster.


The golden rule, if you really want SC TF success, seems to be to match weapon ranges and speeds as much as possible in your TFs. Too many times I've seen mismatched TFs have ships that don't even fire a shot - as happened with your South Dakota, seemingly. Example - pairing Yamato and a CA. A lot of times, only one or the other will fire. For this reason, as Japan, I prefer to include only DDs and the occasional CL with my BBs. CAs go on their own.

As the Allies, I group by class. Brooklyns together, CAs together, etc. I try not to mix the two. For BBs, I group by weapon size and then speed. The 16" BBs go together, but I won't mix the 28-knot hulls with the 22-knot hulls. The 22-knotters will actually be reserved for civvy escort duty/landing forces. Only the fast ships get into SC TFs. Unless I'm Japan, it's early, and I need the big guns to sweep aside the dirty Allied dogs because I need that island.

All get DDs as escorts.
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Surface Combat Results

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

You can try that. I'd just send them independently from the same origin point. Whichever is faster will get there first, which is usually how you want it anyway - your screening TFs are generally faster.

This is advisable. Do not tie fast (combat) ships to slow ships (independent on whether in the same TF or due to TF follow command) if it is not an explicit requirement to successfully conclude the mission (e.g. for escort purposes).

That said, agree with all the above comments with focus on TF composition. Also, in general, the early war slow BBs are sitting ducks for a decend IJN battlegroup. South Dakota would probably have fared much better without them in the TF.

Image
alanschu
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:31 am

RE: Surface Combat Results

Post by alanschu »

That seems.... unfortunate... that that is actually the case.

I imagine the idea of sending the faster cruisers first is that the Japanese BB's would waste ammo on them?
Professor Chaos
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 5:49 pm

RE: Surface Combat Results

Post by Professor Chaos »

N00b butting in here -

Is there a guide somewhere relating TF composition to surface combat? E.g., is there any advantage (aside from ASW) to including DDs in a surface task force? Or, as in this case, cruisers in a battleship TF?


In occasional surface combat reports I have seen mentions of a ship "screened" by others, but in limited searching on the forum I can't find an explanation for what is going on there.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Surface Combat Results

Post by wdolson »

Ships that were not designed for surface combat will be protected from combat by escorts if there are enough escorts to do the job. This includes auxiliary, transports, merchant ships, and carriers. Basically the non-combatant turns tail and runs away as fast as it can while the escorts try to delay the enemy as much as possible.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Surface Combat Results

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: byron13

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: byron13




What do you do? Have one follow the other? Which follows which?

Crusiers first, then the battleships.

Nobody is ordered to "follow" anyone in terms of game orders. That's a recipe for disaster, as TF's tend to react all over the place and things fall apart easily.

I'm talking about the follow TF function. is that what you're suggesting? Having BBs follow a lighter, faster tf at zero range?

Night battles are especially difficult to master. Strange things with weather and other sighting factors alter the range of the battles often and can lead to results that magnify TF composition problems.

At night use small TFs. About 6 ships is ideal. For the Allies NEVER use old slow BBs at night unless they are bombarding a base and coming in after a faster TF or two meant to clear the way. So I'd make a TF with 2 fast BB and 4 DD for a surface combat TF. Or 2 CA/CL and 4 DD. Or 3 CL/ 3 DD. Try if possible to use similar or same ship type. Matching ship class works the best, but next best would be matching speed, gun type and ranges and upgrade status (radar and weapons).

As you play the Allies more you'll learn the old BBs are basically invaluable for amphib ops, but not so good for surface combat. Also good for bombarding bases, but not fighting through lots of ships to get there. If you know there are opposing SAGs in the area, send in CL/DD, or just DD and let them duke it out first. Sending waves works best, so 2-3 TFs that come in during the night, which wears down and expends more of the opposing ops points and ammo while some of your ships might meet them fresh and undamaged.

If you just want to cause havoc and are at a range where you know ships will only reach the target during the day, send 10 Fletchers and sit back to watch the fun. You get about 700 DDs as the Allies, and a Fletcher can handle everything smaller than an IJN CA by 43.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Surface Combat Results

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: alanschu

That seems.... unfortunate... that that is actually the case.

I imagine the idea of sending the faster cruisers first is that the Japanese BB's would waste ammo on them?

I did not imply this is the consequence. In the specific case of the OP it might have made sense to leave the slow BBs out alltogether, and accept battle with a mixed main body of South Dakota and the cruisers, and the destroyer escort.

Obviously there might be situations where a fast TF following a slow one is the best solution, more so if you do not have the luxury of leaving firepower behind. But you need to be aware that in this case the freedom of movement of the fast TF is compromised, which often leads to unwanted consequences in a hostile environment.

Also, the sequence of TFs arrival each with destination set to a certain hex is not tied to the relative speed in case they arrive in the same movement pulse. It partly depends on the TF# (IIRC) and partly is not influenced by the player. And last, sequence of arrival does not automatically translate into sequence of engagement. There many more factors involved.
Image
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Surface Combat Results

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: Professor Chaos

N00b butting in here -

Is there a guide somewhere relating TF composition to surface combat? E.g., is there any advantage (aside from ASW) to including DDs in a surface task force? Or, as in this case, cruisers in a battleship TF?


In occasional surface combat reports I have seen mentions of a ship "screened" by others, but in limited searching on the forum I can't find an explanation for what is going on there.

A DD protects ships in any TF, but in SAGs a DD also does ASW (as you mention) and gets off torpedo spreads that can do a lot of damage. If those are Allied DDs, especially Flectchers, they can mess up just about anything excepting maybe IJN CA/BB from 43 on. Their rate of fire, speed and armor is a potent combo. But don't slow them down with old BBs. As always it depends on what you expect to come up against. Early the Brit DDs have working torpedoes and can be tough paired with very good modern RN CA/CL.

I would not usually mix CA/CL into a SAG. For the Allies you simply don't need to do this as you have enough good ships of similar type to use. For the IJN I have mixed the fast 30 knot Kongos with CA. This seems to work well as they are not far apart in ranges or speed, and each can take a similar amount of punishment before slowing in battle.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Surface Combat Results

Post by crsutton »

You did not state the moonlight conditions. If the moonlight is below 50% then I would never send Allied BBs into a night fight with Japaneses ships before 1944. You are talking upgraded radar for early 1943. Allies radar was still not that good and it is reflected in the game. Don't put a lot of reliance on it. You will be amazed how much better it is in 1944.

Some basic rules that I follow. Most have already been covered by Obvert and other posters her.

1. I "never" send and old Allied BBs into a surface fight on purpose and never mix old BBs with new. Your entire TF is moving at the speed of the slowest ship and old Allied BBs are very slow.
2. I really do not like sending old treaty CAs into night fights until 1944. However, many times it just can't be avoided.
3. Best ships for a night action are modern DDs and CLs. Rate of fire matters. Quite frankly vs BBs you will note that the enemy BBs rarely fire at night if the range is close and you are using light ships. I don't really care about sinking Japanese BBs at night. I want to sink Japansese CAs, CLs and DDs. Strip them away and the BBs become very easy prey. This tactic works very well for me and in 1944 with radar and working torpedoes is just deadly.
4. Best TF size for a night fight is six to eight ships. Probably seven is ideal. Any more and you will notice that some ship do not even fire.
5. A good but cautious commander is not a bad idea for Allied TFs in the early stages of the war. A cautious commander will disengage if the battle gets too nasty. An aggressive commander might give you a disaster. My logic is that for the Allied ship with their amazingly low night exp., fighting and surviving a couple of night actions will dramatically boost their night exp levels-sometimes as much as 20 points. Get the exp levels up and you will start to win battles.

Play a full campaign and you will see the pattern. Allied surface ships get creamed in 1942, slowly become more than a match in 1943, and begin to totally dominate after 1944 when arriving ships get a big boost in exp. But make the most of your assets in 42 and 43. And keep the old BBs in port until you need them for invasion support and air defense. Fast BBs are for carrier escort in my game plan.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
jeffk3510
Posts: 4132
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:59 am
Location: Kansas

RE: Surface Combat Results

Post by jeffk3510 »

In Greyjoys original AAR against Rader, Nemo had some lengthy posts about TF composition and a lot of the guys here talk about the same thing.

I would have to go back through it, and I have it saved in a word document, but since then my SAG effectiveness has really increased by following these
guidelines. It is the bible of taskforce compositions IMO.

Identical ship classes, in smaller groups seems to work great for surface action.
Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Currently chasing three kids around the Midwest.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Surface Combat Results

Post by crsutton »

I am a little looser in that I never have seen much of a problem as long as the ships are similar in speed. I regularly mix CLs with CAs and do not see any problem. Don't give much thought to DDs except later on I do try to use Fletchers in groups. Ship type does not seem to matter as long as they are in range and and there are not too many of them, they will all shoot and fire torpedoes. That is all I really care about.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”