|
Dilema
Jan 28, 2014 15:23:41 GMT -6
Post by dickturpin on Jan 28, 2014 15:23:41 GMT -6
I have just started a Japanese campaign.
I turn 2, I sortied with the bulk of the battlefleet to carry out a bombardment mission and demonstrate in front of Port Arthur. I expanded the mission to include the laying of a minefield. After probing the defences (from a distance) I decided to await nightfall but my cruisers did sight at least 1 battleship raising steam in the harbour. Whilst the minefield was laid without incident, a significant clash occurred in the darkness.
The flagship Mikasa spotted a large ship in the darkness which turned out to be Petropavlosk. A gun duel broke out and the retreating Russian appeared to get the worst of it. The Destroyers had been ordered to attack and Inadzuma launched 2 torpedoes, at least 1 hit and the Russian erupted with a massive explosion. The van of the line encountered Russian destroyers and in a dramatic clash 2 were sunk by gunfire and Hatsuse rammed and sank a third.
Whilst Mikasa had only received 3 hits, one had caused damage at the waterline and had suffered some flooding. As a precaution, the bombardment mission was cancelled, speed was reduced to 8 knots and the fleet headed for home.
Meanwhile, reports had been received of a Russian attack on Maizuru. Izumo and Azuma were hastily readied and sent to investigate. On nearing the port, they encountered the Bogatyr and Gromoboi. A running battle developed; Azuma had developed engine trouble and was struggling to keep up. She also suffered a fire and was left behind. However, as it appeared that the Russians were holding there own and would probably escape, Bogatyr suffered damage and began to circle out of control. By the time her streering problems were resolved, the Japanese cruisers were upon her and she was smashed to pieces with close range gunfire.
These battles were classics in my mind and thoroughly enjoyable. However, I discovered that Rurik and Rossiya had both been lost to the shore batteries.
I believe that shore batteries are much improved in RJW S&I and are far more realistic. I also believe that the A.I. is very good in S&I. However, does losing 2 major warships to shore batteries represent reasonable behaviour?
Should I abandon the campaign and start again (to give the AI another chance)? This will result in the battles fought being lost.
Should I continue the campaign and treat the AI's loss of the cruisers as a reasonable mistake?
|
|
|
Dilema
Jan 28, 2014 16:13:51 GMT -6
Post by randomizer on Jan 28, 2014 16:13:51 GMT -6
Sounds like a successful turn! Without details it is difficult to know exactly what happened. In the see-saw battle between ship and fort, at the time of the RJW the fort was probably ascendant (or at least perceived as such by the naval leadership of the day) and Adm Togo certainly came off worse in the daytime engagement with the forts on the morning of 9 February 1904 off Port Arthur. Thereafter he kept his battleships at long-range when engaging the fixed defences so clearly he thought that they could inflict decisive damage. Likewise, also in February 1904, VAdm Kamimura broke off a bombardment of Vladivostok when a 9" battery there found the range of his armoured cruisers.
These sorts of disasters do not happen often but I would not consider it an implausible or even unlikely outcome.
Your call. I would not start again but mostly because I do not like do-overs on principle. Damage to the Vladivostok cruiser squadron probably makes your job easier but hopefully it still won't be too easy.
Again, your call. I would not even consider it a mistake, rather a high-risk operation that went wrong. Happens all the time in war.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Dilema
Jan 28, 2014 19:40:15 GMT -6
Post by cleveland on Jan 28, 2014 19:40:15 GMT -6
I raised the same point in my Baltic AAR thread where a German light cruiser allowed itself to get hit 30 plus times and sunk by a shore battery. I can't tell you the exact circumstances because it happened outside of my sight but it seemed odd. However, I'm on turn 31 right now and that's the only time it's happened. Not sure if an AI pathing issue got the cruiser stuck or if it was just the fortunes of war. I'm going with the latter unless I see this happen routinely. (two on the same turn, in your case, seems odd though)
|
|
|
Dilema
Jan 29, 2014 0:16:25 GMT -6
Post by randomizer on Jan 29, 2014 0:16:25 GMT -6
Without the details it's pretty difficult to determine if what you're seeing makes sense or not.
AI missions use similar, randomly determined mission profiles; Aggressive, Normal, Cautious and Withdraw as are used in scenarios that go a long way to determining how the AI behaves under fire. While an aggressive profile is hardly suicidal, it does tend to cause the AI to bore in or try and force an issue to a conclusion. Don't forget that the AI suffers from fog-of-war as does the Player and so it may have mis-identified the forts and closed to lethal range before getting badly hit but that is merely one of a vast number of possible explanations.
Were there any critical hits that prevented escape?
Was there any catastrophic damage? Armoured cruisers often have problems digesting 9" shells and there is one of these batteries at Maizuru.
Is the consensus that the forts are too strong?
Lacking specifics as to what exactly occurred I see nothing in the above narratives that appears to be unreasonable but will look at the issue some more.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Dilema
Jan 29, 2014 2:01:22 GMT -6
Post by phoenix on Jan 29, 2014 2:01:22 GMT -6
Did it actually happen? I mean was there a battle that - had the player known of it - he could have observed in real time? Or is this just one of the abstracted processes you get at the end of a scenario, like ships bumping into each other or subs being lost?
|
|
|
Dilema
Jan 29, 2014 6:00:37 GMT -6
Post by randomizer on Jan 29, 2014 6:00:37 GMT -6
Did it actually happen? I mean was there a battle that - had the player known of it - he could have observed in real time? Or is this just one of the abstracted processes you get at the end of a scenario, like ships bumping into each other or subs being lost? I would certainly say that it happened. AI vs. AI combat in SAI or SAI-RJW is not merely abstracted even if it may be invisible to the Player in real time. The messages generated in the Log as the action runs its course are due to interaction between AI controlled forces. The port at Maizuru is particularly tricky as there is little room for bombarding ships to manoeuvre or engage with their "A" arcs for any significant period of time. This may prove advantageous to the shore batteries. If no Player controlled assets are within visual range, the action cannot be observed as it occurs and so the specifics can only be assumed after the fact based on the game log and the ship's logs of the action participants that can be accessed in the Statistics screen at the scenario conclusion. An examination of the track charts at the end of the scenario may also provide clues into what actually happened. The mechanism is completely different from the end scenario attrition due to darkness, collisions, mines, groundings and training accidents.
|
|
|
Dilema
Jan 29, 2014 11:07:19 GMT -6
Post by phoenix on Jan 29, 2014 11:07:19 GMT -6
Thanks Christopher. Fascinating. It 'actually' takes place, but out of sight of anyone and no one can ever actually witness it...I feel a Berkelian turn coming on....
I understand, I think, that the mechanism could be different to the more abstract attrition mechanism, but does the AI actually go through ALL the computations, in 'real time', for all these unobserved ships and batteries? Amazing. I like that.
|
|
|
Dilema
Jan 29, 2014 11:44:43 GMT -6
Post by Fredrik W on Jan 29, 2014 11:44:43 GMT -6
Yes it does. As Christopher says, just look at the ships log and you will see every hit and everything else logged during these battles.
I will agree that there are occasions when the AI is a little careless in engaging shore batteries, but I have tweaked this a little for the next update.
|
|
|
Dilema
Jan 29, 2014 15:38:49 GMT -6
Post by dickturpin on Jan 29, 2014 15:38:49 GMT -6
My view on the strength of forts is that they are not too strong and are a significant improvement on the rather wimpy ones that were in the early original S & I. There is an existing 9" gun battery from this period on Portland which is still in good condition. It is not especially large nor conspicuous from the sea. There is also significant quantities of concrete and earth protecting it and underground tunnels. Accounts that I have read suggest that shooting at land targets was difficult as large quantities of smoke and dust were thrown up by the bombardment which conceal the target.
Hopefully Fredrik's tweak to the AI will improve things.
I have seen other naval games (not made by NWS) in which the AI will wipe out its entire fleet so this example is not really a case of poor AI; probably just careless as per Fredrik's post.
Thanks for the comments; I have decided to proceed with the campaign and treat the Russian loss as an overzealous commander. I have just tried a bombardment mission on Port Arthur and failed the mission due to using most of my ammunition through keeping the range long; I am probably an over cautious commander!!!
|
|