|
Post by phoenix on Jan 12, 2014 14:19:39 GMT -6
I just finished Tsushima, playing as Russians, and I thought my goal was to get 6 battleships past the red dot that appears on the map (on the way to Vladivostok) when you click on the objective description. Is that not right? In the pic you can see the routes of the battleships in circles 1 and 2. There are 2 battleships in circle 1 and 4 in circle 2. There's another four on the way to the red dot, but time ran out. So, I think I have sailed 6 battleships through the red dot. Yet the objective comes up as failed. Can anyone explain? Many thanks. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Jan 12, 2014 14:23:37 GMT -6
All six had to reach the objective together. Is that what happened?
|
|
|
Post by phoenix on Jan 12, 2014 14:40:53 GMT -6
ah. no. my strategy was to split the fleet up and take 3 different routes. I just ran it again from the last save and I got the objective points by sailing them all through roughly at the same time (from different directions), but, it was still marked up as a Japanese major victory. I would have thought it was a Russian victory. I sailed home 10 battleships, lost only 2, plus all the fleet train, various Cls and DDs. They were the price we had to pay..... Ok, a Japanese victory in the sense that they sank a lot of shipping, but they failed their major objectives too, and Russia has a fleet still, safe in Valdivostok. The course of history will be different. Is it intentional that I should lose so emphatically when I achieved so much???
|
|
|
Post by phoenix on Jan 12, 2014 14:48:54 GMT -6
The end screen looks like this. Surely I won? Against the overwhelming verdict of history I brought all the battleships home save 1.... Instead, I face a courts martial for losing a load of little boats....
Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by phoenix on Jan 12, 2014 14:59:03 GMT -6
And the gunnery? Does this sound right? I can't help thinking that these ships deserved to sink. They fired, between them, 1,189 rounds, to score....wait for it...12 HITS!!!!! The Navarin did well, but everyone else wasn't worth having on the books, except to use as decoys, which was what happened, in fact...
Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Jan 12, 2014 15:13:45 GMT -6
And the gunnery? Does this sound right? I can't help thinking that these ships deserved to sink. They fired, between them, 1,189 rounds, to score....wait for it...12 HITS!!!!! The Navarin did well, but everyone else wasn't worth having on the books, except to use as decoys, which was what happened, in fact...
Is this using stock SAI-RJW v1.61? All victory conditions in any game are subjective and to a degree artificial. You lost 15-ships and sank a destroyer. Your fleet arrived in disarray and it looks as though a number of the technical specialists that were on your auxiliaries were lost. That is the sort of spin that the Japanese could put on the narrative anyway. On the other hand, if you say that you won, that's fine too but you did fail to meet the necessary victory conditions set out by the scenario. You may consider that the Admiralty is displeased that you sacrificed your fleet train. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by phoenix on Jan 12, 2014 15:16:15 GMT -6
'Alex's' mod. You think it affects it?
|
|
|
Post by phoenix on Jan 12, 2014 15:22:41 GMT -6
The Admiralty wouldn't be displeased if they had the benefit of hindsight, as I do.
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Jan 12, 2014 15:27:36 GMT -6
Probably; the scenarios were designed using the stock values so no observations regarding how the game play may vary is offered when using modified data. Many of the ship design values contain compromises to facilitate certain historically reasonable results when the game is played out. It is therefore reasonable to presume that changing those values without changing the scenario parameters may yield different results.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by cleveland on Jan 13, 2014 10:19:44 GMT -6
Victory points are essentially doubled for ship losses (you lose the points and the AI gains the same amount). Failure to complete an objective doesn't result in the AI losing that amount so there's no doubling bonus (at least I don't think there is) so the design decision = ship losses are huge.
|
|
|
Post by phoenix on Jan 13, 2014 13:43:58 GMT -6
I see. I'll just have to take my own historical view of my achievements, I think.....
|
|
|
Post by phoenix on Jan 16, 2014 3:21:20 GMT -6
Well I don't think the abysmal gunnery had much to do with Alex's mod. I just ran Operational Tsuchima - the same scenario - in its stock form (patched to the current patch) and the gunnery was if anything worse. I did sink a Japanese battleship, but with a torpedo, not guns. If you look at the gunnery ratings of the sunk Russian battleships (those that were heavily engaged), can anyone on the dev team confirm that this is working as planned? I mean is gunnery this awful how it's meant to be?
Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jan 16, 2014 11:33:29 GMT -6
Well I don't think the abysmal gunnery had much to do with Alex's mod. I just ran Operational Tsuchima - the same scenario - in its stock form (patched to the current patch) and the gunnery was if anything worse. I did sink a Japanese battleship, but with a torpedo, not guns. If you look at the gunnery ratings of the sunk Russian battleships (those that were heavily engaged), can anyone on the dev team confirm that this is working as planned? I mean is gunnery this awful how it's meant to be?
I entered your data into a spreadsheet, and out of 5617 rounds fired you achieved 68 hits, or a 1.21% hit rate. For comparison are the hit rates from a couple of the larger RJW battles that I could quickly find data for on the web:
Battle of Yellow Sea (Both Sides): 1.7 %
Battle of Tsushima (Russian Side): 0.91 %
The hit rate for individual battles in SAI-RJW can vary a good deal depending upon the circumstances of the battle; visibility, average engagement range, maneuvers, and a host of other factors. One has to take into account the circumstances of the battle, so without knowing that for your battle in some detail, frankly I cannot say if your 1.21% rate is "too low" or "too high". However, I will note that your hit rate falls between the above two values, and so it appears to not be outside the bounds of reasonable probability for the era and typical conditions encountered.
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Jan 16, 2014 13:02:56 GMT -6
As William pointed out this is working as designed and the gross results appear to fall into the probability curve provided by the historic statistical data that we have.
You do not provide the Japanese numbers or provide any information of the ranges involved so this makes it impossible to take the tiny sample provided by the single game that you played and extract any solid analysis from it however. The chart demonstrates that the Japanese achieved many more hits with Shikishima and Mikasa shooting well but without range data for the hits no definite conclusions should be drawn from the statistics provided.
During this period there was no position keepers or relative motion calculators. There was no way to timely apply the vital variables of rate of change for range and bearing to accurately predict target location at time of impact. There were no corrections for atmospheric conditions and probably none for charge temperature. Once the range had opened to the point where the target travelled a distance further than its apparent length during the time of flight of the salvo, the hit probability (PH) fell off sharply.
At Yellow Sea virtually all long-range hits were when the two fleets were sailing parallel and so the rates of change for bearing and range were minimized and still the PH was <0.02 and this included the two relatively short-ranged gunnery actions at the beginning and end of the battle.
At Tsushima the Japanese achieved their greatest effect when they closed the range to <6000 yds whereas the Russian's shot well at long range (although still with an overall PH <0.01) but were rapidly rendered more or less combat ineffective for a variety of reasons relatively early in the fight.
The period was very much technically transitional as the guns could shoot effectively at far greater ranges than the fire-control equipment was able to place effective fall of shot on a target, particularly one moving in two dimensions relative to the firing platform. This accounts for the low PH and is why ship-borne armour was generally effective. Close the range to ~4-5000 yds and you should see more effective hits, a higher PH and more losses. This is why the Japanese tended to fight in parallel lines at long range until the Russian firepower was disrupted and then use their superior fleet speed to close to killing distances.
If you do not believe that SAI-RJW produces historically reasonable results, that is certainly up to you.
|
|
|
Post by phoenix on Jan 16, 2014 13:21:00 GMT -6
Thanks so much for the responses, randomizer and williammiller. That's more helpful than I expected. You could have just said - 'yes, it's working as intended, this is historically accurate' and I would have been happy, as, obviously, next to you two I would know virtually nothing about the historical performance of these guns. All I was querying was whether it was working as intended, not, indeed, criticising. My surprise is, then, a surprise at the historical position. I'm amazed at what naval warfare of the period consisted in - an enormous, prodigious waste of munitions, it seems. Amazing. That's a great thing about a game like this - that you learn about the actual history - so, again, many thanks for the replies and the full and helpful information. It's a great game and I continue to enjoy it very much.
|
|