WWII Battles ?

[scottb613]

Hi Folks,

Anyone ever set up any WWII battles - while they might not be perfect - it seems we have much of the hardware available... I did a quick test last night - just the Kongo against an Iowa - I played the Iowa... I had three turrets to use - where the AI Kongo could only use the front two due to the orientation - the Kongo was steaming into my broadside at about 15 NM... Surprise - the Kongo knocked me out of action fairly quickly by knocking out my main guns - then took a bit longer to sink me... I'm a little skeptical that this would be a realistic result - but - I guess they said that about the Bismarck vs Hood battle too...

Regards,
Scott

[ExNusquam]

The problem with the current "Mk1 Eyeball" sensor is almost always 100% accurate with range estimations, which in the case of IJN vs. USN engagements, negates the primary advantage the US had (Accurate rangefinders).

[scottb613]

Hi Joseph,

Thanks for responding... That makes sense...

The more I thought about it - It would really take some work to faithfully recreate WWII battles - you wouldn't have this global view of all your forces - you would have to dispatch your forces on a mission - they would vanish for a while only returning later with the results... While Command might make a good basis for WWII warfare - it would have to be seriously modified...

Appreciate your input - just learning the ropes as I go... I don't know if anyone else played TF1942 back in the day - but - I'd like to see something like that brought up to current standards - with less actually aiming guns - more from the "Command" perspective...

Regards,
Scott

[warshipbuilder]

While Command might make a good basis for WWII warfare - it would have to be seriously modified...

Dare to dream Scott, dare to dream

I don't know if anyone else played TF1942 back in the day

Whoa, there is a blast from the past!

[scottb613]

LOL - thanks...

Regards,
Scott

[StellarRat]

ORIGINAL: scottb613

The more I thought about it - It would really take some work to faithfully recreate WWII battles - you wouldn't have this global view of all your forces - you would have to dispatch your forces on a mission - they would vanish for a while only returning later with the results...

I don't believe this is true. They had radios and an excellent system of navigation and mapping in WW II. Sure, the reports wouldn't come as quickly, but they knew where everyone was 99% of the time. They also had radar by mid-war.

[cwemyss]

ORIGINAL: StellarRat
I don't believe this is true. They had radios and an excellent system of navigation and mapping in WW II. Sure, the reports wouldn't come as quickly, but they knew where everyone was 99% of the time. They also had radar by mid-war.

That's not even true today, let alone in the days before satellites, gps, and networked comms. If everyone knew where everyone was, Midway, Coal Sea, Leyte Gulf (ESPECIALLY Leyte) have very different outcomes.

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: cwemyss

ORIGINAL: StellarRat
I don't believe this is true. They had radios and an excellent system of navigation and mapping in WW II. Sure, the reports wouldn't come as quickly, but they knew where everyone was 99% of the time. They also had radar by mid-war.

That's not even true today, let alone in the days before satellites, gps, and networked comms. If everyone knew where everyone was, Midway, Coal Sea, Leyte Gulf (ESPECIALLY Leyte) have very different outcomes.

More like 1% of the time, the remaining 99% was spent looking and hoping you'd find something before they find you.

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

The problem with the current "Mk1 Eyeball" sensor is almost always 100% accurate with range estimations, which in the case of IJN vs. USN engagements, negates the primary advantage the US had (Accurate rangefinders).

The Japanese optics were far superior to the US. That plus night time tactics and there Long Lance 24" torpedo gave them a tactical edge at night time, not so much during the day but still better. It's debateable that the US ever fully caught up as most of the major surface engagement were in 1942, for the rest of the war the a/c held sway. The last significant surface battles occurred during the Leyte campaign but by then the Japanese were vastly outnumbered in both ships and, more importantly a/c. This forced them into desperate attempts to close with the 'enemy' but the outcome was only ever going to be one sided unless of course lady luck shined on them as it did the US at Midway.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: warshipbuilder

While Command might make a good basis for WWII warfare - it would have to be seriously modified...

Dare to dream Scott, dare to dream

I don't know if anyone else played TF1942 back in the day

Whoa, there is a blast from the past!

Great Naval Battles...anyone? [8D]

[Gunner98]

Great Naval Battles...anyone?

Oh yeah! Spent plenty of time on that one, was a pre-cursor to WITP for me. Great game.

B

[warshipbuilder]

Ahhh, trippin' down memory lane, Great Naval Battles of the North Atlantic, damn I loved that game!

[Gunner98]

My time on Great Naval Battles was in the South Pacific, I don't think I played the North Atlantic release.

This reminded me of a paper and cardboard game from the 70's, not sure but I think the title was 'The Battle of the North Atlantic'. The game was fantastic in scope and idea but had to be the most unplayable game I have ever attempted [:D]. Similar to 'War in the Pacific, and WITP-AE', it had every single ship and A/C squadron - but unlike WITP - they were cardboard not electrons! The main focus was building convoys and escorting them - and as one ASW guy famously said - 'ASW is like watching paint dry'.

Anyone remember that one?[:D]

[StellarRat]

ORIGINAL: Chris H

ORIGINAL: cwemyss

ORIGINAL: StellarRat
I don't believe this is true. They had radios and an excellent system of navigation and mappin

More like 1% of the time, the remaining 99% was spent looking and hoping you'd find something in WW II. Sure, the reports wouldn't come as quickly, but they knew where everyone was 99% of the time. They also had radar by mid-war.

That's not even true today, let alone in the days before satellites, gps, and networked comms. If everyone knew where everyone was, Midway, Coal Sea, Leyte Gulf (ESPECIALLY Leyte) have very different outcomes.
g before they find you.

OK, hold on. I meant each side knew where their OWN ships were! Sorry I wasn't more clear. Obviously, they didn't know where the enemy was 99% of the time! I think if you look at context of the original post you'll understand my meaning. He said roughly, "send your ships off and not hear from them for a while". Why wouldn't you know what your own ships are doing and where they are? Yes, there are some radio silence situations, etc... but I think you be well aware of your own positions most of the time. If for no other reason then estimating location based on the battle plan until radio silence was broken.

[FlyingBear]

OK, hold on. I meant each side knew where their OWN ships were!

Look at the battle of Cape Esperance; even the Wikipedia article has enough text to make the point. Admiral Scott, the officer in tactical command, had only the vaguest idea of where his own ships were or what his own flagship was firing at.

That is the level of "fog of war" a WWII simulation with a scale and scope similar to Command needs to be able to replicate. The fully connected, zero latency, sensor fusion "NTDS + Link11" style action Command simulates is a decent approximation, from the 1960s onwards, of enough situations to make Command interesting. For WWII simulation a very different level of communications modeling is needed in my view.

[StellarRat]

ORIGINAL: FlyingBear

OK, hold on. I meant each side knew where their OWN ships were!

Look at the battle of Cape Esperance; even the Wikipedia article has enough text to make the point. Admiral Scott, the officer in tactical command, had only the vaguest idea of where his own ships were or what his own flagship was firing at.

That is the level of "fog of war" a WWII simulation with a scale and scope similar to Command needs to be able to replicate. The fully connected, zero latency, sensor fusion "NTDS + Link11" style action Command simulates is a decent approximation, from the 1960s onwards, of enough situations to make Command interesting. For WWII simulation a very different level of communications modeling is needed in my view.

Yes, but removing the player from the loop tends to make games not very fun. You have to know where you're units are to issue commands to them. Even the best game AI can make mistakes and if you can't actually take control of your units and the AI does something less than optimal (in your mind) it tends to just be an exercise in frustration. True command level games where you only receive the same info as a "real" commander tend to be "un-fun" even if that is the most realistic sim. Remember, games are supposed to be fun, while pure simulations may not be.

[warshipbuilder]

The main focus was building convoys and escorting them - and as one ASW guy famously said - 'ASW is like watching paint dry'.

That pretty much sums up GNBNA. Every once in a while the computer would send the big boys out in to the Atlantic, so you had to round up some task forces to deal with them Otherwise it was pretty much making sure you had enough healthy destroyers for convoy escorts and healthy cruisers for patrol areas. I know it sounds boring, but I just loved all the micro-management of my forces.

The other neat thing about it was once you got in to a gunfight, you could control the guns and select the targets for all the ships. There was also a damage control feature, that was fun. You had to put out fires and control flooding. The game was probably more interesting from the German side, you were heavily outnumbered and you HAD to stop the convoys. Good fun indeed.

[Randomizer]

All five of the GNB series run fine in DOSBox and I have current campaigns going in GNBNA and GNB2 Guadalcanal 1942-43. Leaving aside the graphics, the actual gameplay has seldom been bettered even if the AI leaves much to be desired at times and in many situations.

Beware in GNBNA though; there is a bug where damaged AI ships may cease to accumulate damage regardless of how often they're subsequently hit. The only work-around I have found is to break off the current action and re-engage at another time. Of course if the AI can avoid detection again and get home you have missed your opportunity. This bug appears to have been squashed in the later titles.

GNB4 Burning Steel is subjectively the worst of the lot since selecting the Baltic map takes the prospective scenario designer to the Black Sea (well the western half anyway) and it probably has the least effective AI of the series.

GNB5 The Rise of the Dreadnoughts seems to have been shoved out the door as an afterthought, which is too bad.

That said, in their day they were state of the art and many of their better features never made it into later games that attempted to cover WW2 surface warfare.

In my opinion CMANO is poorly suited to recreating WW2 as is for a variety of reasons. I hope that the Team does not expend time or resources in this direction that could be better spent addressing some of the planned features and modern-day/Cold War issues that have been identified so far.

-C

[Gunner98]

In my opinion CMANO is poorly suited to recreating WW2 as is for a variety of reasons. I hope that the Team does not expend time or resources in this direction that could be better spent addressing some of the planned features and modern-day/Cold War issues that have been identified so far.

Agree 100%, 1942 has been 'done' [;)], 2022 hasn’t. CMANO is getting better every patch and it is focused on modern (it’s in the name [8D]) systems, tactics and capabilities.

A fantastic WW2 sim is War in the Pacific - Admiral’s edition - granted it’s not for the light of heart, nor can you play quick and digestible scenarios ( I think the shortest is about 3 months long). But is has amazing depth, fantastic support and quite a decent game engine.

B

[StellarRat]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

A fantastic WW2 sim is War in the Pacific - Admiral’s edition - granted it’s not for the light of heart, nor can you play quick and digestible scenarios ( I think the shortest is about 3 months long). But is has amazing depth, fantastic support and quite a decent game engine.

B

But War in the Pacific doesn't have a lot of tactical depth.