|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 25, 2019 8:32:22 GMT -6
Uhhhhh that's up to you to send the planes with the correct kind of ordinance from the carrier. Once it's in flight a plane can't say "oops, this KE I'm seeing will be hard to hit with the torpedo I'm carrying so I'm going to magically switch it with a bomb". Just fly it from your carrier with bombs instead. As for "target selection", I do think the AI already attacks biggest ships first. Of course doesn't mean they always do, but there's the fact that pilots often misidentified ships during real attacks and did runs on low value ships next to literally invaluable assets (during Pearl Harbor you'll be surprised how much ordinance the Japanese dropped on USS Utah, which was worthless, instead of dropping it on battleship row, for instance) so having your squadrons going for the wrong kind of ship is part of the "experience", so to speak  . To be clear, what I'm suggesting is not "TB spots KE, looks around for bigger target, doesn't see it, casts Lvl 3 Remote Rearm and switches to bombs" but simply "TBs carrying torpedoes will not attack targets they identify as smaller than XX."
And yes, the AI does seem to try and target bigger ships (it's definitely not perfect, but this is fine: if I send a sortie against a group of 3 DD, 2 CA, and 1 CV, I do expect some planes to make runs at each of those ships.) The game already appears to handle misidentifications, so if I set the torp limit to BC/BB/CV and my squadron spots a CA they think looks awfully battle-ish, they should try and sink her.
The scenario I have an issue with is when your sortie runs into something tiny on its way to the target and decides to blow it out of the water. THAT seems like one where your pilots ought to know better. (And, for that matter, if they get to the target and there's nothing there, or only a destroyer, same deal.)
Really it's less "I don't want to see anything smaller than XX with an aircraft torpedo hole in it" so much as "I don't want to see torpedo bombers making an attack run unless there's something bigger than XX in the area." As you say, fog of war and all. I have no issue with any of that. But very few pilots came back to the ol' Kido Butai bragging about how they were on their way to the navy base but they saw this police boat so they blew it up instead, and I can't imagine they'd have had long careers if they had. There's a difference between hitting the wrong battleship-shaped object in the middle of a major naval installation, and turning back early because there was this coast guard cutter and it was just SO JUICY, sir, SO JUICY AND IT NEEDED MY TORP LOVE.
This. Fought a battle last night where I had two modern BBs hard-pressed, sent a couple dozen TB to hopefully bail them out, and they stop halfway to the designated target areas to kill coastal crap. If you make it to the target area, and all you see is a KE, fine, shoot the KE. But when you're halfway there and I start getting attack messages, you're doing it wrong. Fly to the target area I specified, see the nice juicy un-escorted battlecruiser that's right there, and shoot that one. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 25, 2019 11:01:02 GMT -6
This is problem I reported and in my first playthrough I did not sink any enemy carriers by planes as they have almost always attacked some surface force in between.
Make true carrier battle almost impossible.
With the fact that both forces are quite close and quite often near land it is easy and most effective to send surface fleet after enemy carrier group and set supporting carrier force CAP to max.
|
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Jun 25, 2019 12:20:47 GMT -6
While I have no problem with this particular change in the game, I feel like I have to point out that this is an excellent example of what might happen when on one side we push for the realism-card, while at the other end we still have some very, very notable game-specific, or dare I say even "gamey" mechanics at place. The tables start to tilt. Sometimes, to achieve more realistic results, we might even have to take a step back towards "arcade" elements, if the overall balance shifts towards the more plausible side that way. It's somewhat similar to what can happen at scientific modeling, where you might think that taking more stuff more precisely into account will improve the results, but due to a number of factors (for example amplifying "noise" and errors coming in the system that way) can actually decrease the accuracy of the model.
...just lamenting, nothing concrete. Just yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 25, 2019 13:18:03 GMT -6
"While I have no problem with this particular change in the game, I feel like I have to point out that this is an excellent example of what might happen when on one side we push for the realism-card, while at the other end we still have some very, very notable game-specific, or dare I say even "gamey" mechanics at place."
And what might happen?. That your TBs attack the wrong target?. Again, that's a thing that happened more commonly than what you'd think. Sure, the "KE scenario" or similar is not one that would actually happen IRL, but your that TBs might end up going for the wrong formation thinking that the line of DDs with a lead CL they just happened to fly close by is actually a BB with some cruisers around is not far fetched at all from what could happen in an actual battle.
Meanwhile on the other side we have situations where a force with a couple CVLs can completely disgrace a full battleline of enemy ships, just by keeping it's range and throwing a relentless series of consecutive TB attacks. As soon as your bombers land, you're ready to load them with fishes and send them in their merry way again. Time, after time, nonstop.
That's far more "Gamey" and "arcadeish" than a game grounded in reality like this one deserves. If anything because it completely screws over the carrier/battleship interbalance far too early, to the point that it can be argued that with enough carriers and being careful enough, since the late 20s a battleline's real worth was actually next to nil when compared to a fleet with a similar number of carriers. I can attest this first-hand, for I've tried it myself, ditching my whole battlefleet as soon as I had dive bombers unlocked in favor of an all-carrier force, and have massacred battlelines of a dozen or more enemy warships without them even being able to even sneeze my general direction. All you have to do is to move away and keep your distance, is a guaranteed win. The only ships I lost in that savegame were because of mines or submarines, yet my list of capital ship kills was outrageous.
Aircraft being dominant is not completely incorrect, mind you, but only after a certain date and once certain sizes of warships are involved in certain numbers. Two shitty CVL conversions massacring a battleline in 1927 is a scenario that should never happen and could never realistically happen IRL: CV torpedo storage was tremendously limited at the time. Once those were gone, no more torpedo attacks could be done.
Yet having your couple 16 TB carrying CVLs anihilating the whole enemy fleet at will was perfectly possible in game , tilting the usefulness of CVs FAR avobe that of BBs, FAR too early for a game with the purpose and intent of this one. The changeover and fix was needed, and desperately so if I might add (and this comes from someone who loves using his carriers, go figure)
|
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jun 25, 2019 13:28:23 GMT -6
We will be looking at adjusting the AI &/or employing some other method(s) to alleviate this issue - of course keep in mind that a small degree of 'dumping stuff on the first viable target' is not unrealistic based on history, but I do agree it should not be to such a degree as that which the game currently does.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Jun 25, 2019 13:44:18 GMT -6
I repeat: "I have no problem with this particular change in the game", at the same time I pointed out a phenomenon that is present in this game as well, and the fact that automatically implementing stuff that in themselves are realistic might not automatically mean a step towards a more plausible overall picture.
If I will have a problem with an update, I will explicitely say "I have a problem with this update".
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 25, 2019 13:56:07 GMT -6
We will be looking at adjusting the AI &/or employing some other method(s) to alleviate this issue - of course keep in mind that a small degree of 'dumping stuff on the first viable target' is not unrealistic based on history, but I do agree it should not be to such a degree as that which the game currently does. Thanks! Thanks William.
Some dumping stuff on the first viable target are completely normal and quite expected (this is type of thing RTW1 and 2 really shines) but a strike of 300 aicrafts to target enemy carrier force and than have reports that about 80 % of them bomb battleship divisions about half distance to target and looking at remaining 2 squadron which continue to designated target and see how they are masacred by carriers CAP is painful.
It is not difficult to adapt by focusing on sinking battleline by airplanes and send surface force to deal with carrier force but it feels quite weird.
note: It is experience with my first playthrough by UK through 3 wars with larger carrier forces on both sides. It feels same in opposite way. Only once happen to me that one of my carriers were really jeopardized by air attack hit by 5 torpedoes. But on all remaining battles 1-2 small bombs hitting my carrier was miracle and my carrier force operated quite often near several large land airbases. Situation of my surface fleet was quite opposite as most of the attack target them ignoring my carriers. Most of battles were in Baltic again Russia and Germany or east coast of USA against USA.
|
|
corgi
New Member
Posts: 43 
|
Post by corgi on Jun 25, 2019 14:29:34 GMT -6
What akosjaccik described is a really common problem with any kind of simulation. Adding something new to the simulation doesn't necessarily make it more accurate, because for every new thing you add there are a lot more interactions between things that you have to deal with. A simulation isn't the same as reality. Even if you know that XXX thing is more important in your simulation than in reality, and in reality XXX is limited for YYY reason, it's not a given that including YYY in your simulation will correct it. There are still a lot of good reasons to make changes like limiting the number of torpedoes on a carrier, but in wargames like this you see a lot of people asking to implement things just because they happened in real life, and it's not a given that adding something real to a simulation will make the simulation more real as a whole. We will be looking at adjusting the AI &/or employing some other method(s) to alleviate this issue - of course keep in mind that a small degree of 'dumping stuff on the first viable target' is not unrealistic based on history, but I do agree it should not be to such a degree as that which the game currently does. Thanks! Do you have any plans to adjust how planes (and ships for that matter) treat sinking ships? I don't find it as annoying when my planes go after one obsolete destroyer they spotted on their way to bomb the battle line as when they put 16 torpedoes and 30 bombs in a battleship that my battleships sank two hours ago and sailed past. |
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 25, 2019 16:13:10 GMT -6
I pointed out a phenomenon that is present in this game as well, and the fact that automatically implementing stuff that in themselves are realistic might not automatically mean a step towards a more plausible overall picture.
And that was the point what I discussing. I don't know about another instances of changes in the game, but THIS change means, automatically, a step towards a more plausible overall picture. Because having a flight of TBs going for a KE might be quite implausible in the grand scheme of things, but having constant waves of TBs coming in and out from the same CV shuttling torpedoes to drope them time and time again on enemy ships, and punching WAY above what they should as a result, was a FAR less plausible thing. This change, standalone, with no change to the AI plane attack logic (which as we have seen, is in the works anyway), is a step in the right direction and steers gameplay towards more believable scenarios. Hence your whole post about your concerns about "what will happen if we push things towards realism without adressing others", is moot in my opinion: not only we've been told that AI attack logic is being looked at, but even if it wasn't, this change the only thing that will happen after this change is a far more credible game where CVs don't get ungodly powerful far too early. Which can only be good for the game. |
|
|
|
Post by hoffmads on Jun 25, 2019 16:14:58 GMT -6
What akosjaccik described is a really common problem with any kind of simulation. Adding something new to the simulation doesn't necessarily make it more accurate, because for every new thing you add there are a lot more interactions between things that you have to deal with. A simulation isn't the same as reality. Even if you know that XXX thing is more important in your simulation than in reality, and in reality XXX is limited for YYY reason, it's not a given that including YYY in your simulation will correct it. There are still a lot of good reasons to make changes like limiting the number of torpedoes on a carrier, but in wargames like this you see a lot of people asking to implement things just because they happened in real life, and it's not a given that adding something real to a simulation will make the simulation more real as a whole. We will be looking at adjusting the AI &/or employing some other method(s) to alleviate this issue - of course keep in mind that a small degree of 'dumping stuff on the first viable target' is not unrealistic based on history, but I do agree it should not be to such a degree as that which the game currently does. Thanks! Do you have any plans to adjust how planes (and ships for that matter) treat sinking ships? I don't find it as annoying when my planes go after one obsolete destroyer they spotted on their way to bomb the battle line as when they put 16 torpedoes and 30 bombs in a battleship that my battleships sank two hours ago and sailed past. Planes smothering ships which are fairly clearly sinking is definitely an issue. Some dumping of ordnance on sinking ships is realistic, but the other day, playing as Japan against the Soviets, I had a strike of perhaps 120 aircraft hit an enemy CVL of 10,000 tons with literally the same amount of bombs and torpedoes as were used to sink Yamato and Musashi - something on the order of 21 bombs and 19 torpedoes. I think she took something like a dozen torpedo hits in four minutes. The kicker was that she was already smashed and sinking from a run-in with three 16" gunned battleships at point-blank range, and had to already be smoking and settling in the water. I have to think a fair number of the pilots would have looked for other targets, which were in the area. |
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 25, 2019 16:20:32 GMT -6
Planes smothering ships which are fairly clearly sinking is definitely an issue. Some dumping of ordnance on sinking ships is realistic, but the other day, playing as Japan against the Soviets, I had a strike of perhaps 120 aircraft hit an enemy CVL of 10,000 tons with literally the same amount of bombs and torpedoes as were used to sink Yamato and Musashi - something on the order of 21 bombs and 19 torpedoes. I think she took something like a dozen torpedo hits in four minutes. The kicker was that she was already smashed and sinking from a run-in with three 16" gunned battleships at point-blank range, and had to already be smoking and settling in the water. I have to think a fair number of the pilots would have looked for other targets, which were in the area. Shoho went down after being hit by 13 bombs and 7 torpedoes. She was a 12000 ton CVL. And the only reason she didn't get hit by more was because there simply weren't more planes around to drop stuff on her. And Shoho wasn't travelling alone either. Granted, I do think the AI is FAR overzealous in kicking the dead horse (particularily so with gunfire), and the AI engagement logic may be also flawed in that sense. But while agreeing that a look is necessary in that department, I don't necessarily thing it's as outrageous as you seem to think . |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Jun 25, 2019 16:45:30 GMT -6
Will TBs switch to bombs automatically when out of torps? I believe that is the case, but Fredrik W would need to confirm that to be certain. They do not, and have to be stood down and rearmed as well |
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Jun 25, 2019 17:04:48 GMT -6
The new restrictions on the number of torpedoes allowed is actually still quite generous.
Even with the new restriction RTW2 potentially allows many more torpedoes than were carried historically. Most carriers carried around 30 to 50 torpedoes, with different numbers for different classes, but seldom many more than that. Typically a carrier would be equipped to carry enough for about 2.5 loads per torpedo bomber and of course this number had to be determined while designing the ship. This in turn had a major impact on the number of TBs that could be effectively carried at any time on the ship. RTW2 allows much more flexibility by varying the number of torpedoes based on the number of TBs on board.
Even with the new restriction, in RTW2 you can easily carry 3 times that number or more by simply placing 60 or more TBs on your carrier. Its not completely realistic but serves a useful function to restrict the number of torpedo attacks beyond the "To infinity" we have been allowed up to now.
Another historical consideration that carrier commanders had to deal with, that is not present in RTW2, is that battles were not necessarily limited in length and could carry over through several days. Commanders had to be sure that some of their valuable torpedoes were available for potential actions on day two or beyond. This could be quite an issue when the carrier was on an extended cruise away from ready resupply such as occurred in the Japanese Indian Ocean raid and probably accounts for why the cruisers Dorsetshire and Cornwall were sunk entirely through dive bombing attacks (despite what Wikipedia says, no TBs were involved in this attack). The Americans suffered torpedo shortages when they were operating in the South Pacific, especially early in 1942. If I recall correctly, following the Coral Sea battle the Yorktown had just 7 torpedoes in storage. This is a consideration we can safely ignore in RTW2.
The restriction does place more urgency on the need to prevent squadrons from attacking the first available target. With limited numbers of these lethal weapons available we don't want them being wasted on frivolous attacks on sinking ships or random ships along the path to the target. Sure these types of attacks occurred historically but they typically occurred only after the actual target could not be located _and_ the strike was running short of fuel.
|
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jun 25, 2019 17:05:45 GMT -6
Yeah, on reflection I like this change more than I did at first. I would still love to see something akin to the ammo doctrine options, though, to avoid those "dumped all my ordnance on TR Merchant 0 and KE Patrol Boat-class" moments. Just something simple like "Torpedo Bombers will launch against _____ and larger" would do the trick. What, you don't love it when your DDs spend all their torpedoes aiming for an enemy DD?! I'd love it. At least they fired the blasted things. Friendly ship in line of fire my pink flabby behind... |
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Jun 25, 2019 17:11:44 GMT -6
Planes smothering ships which are fairly clearly sinking is definitely an issue. Some dumping of ordnance on sinking ships is realistic, but the other day, playing as Japan against the Soviets, I had a strike of perhaps 120 aircraft hit an enemy CVL of 10,000 tons with literally the same amount of bombs and torpedoes as were used to sink Yamato and Musashi - something on the order of 21 bombs and 19 torpedoes. I think she took something like a dozen torpedo hits in four minutes. The kicker was that she was already smashed and sinking from a run-in with three 16" gunned battleships at point-blank range, and had to already be smoking and settling in the water. I have to think a fair number of the pilots would have looked for other targets, which were in the area. Shoho went down after being hit by 13 bombs and 7 torpedoes. She was a 12000 ton CVL. And the only reason she didn't get hit by more was because there simply weren't more planes around to drop stuff on her. And Shoho wasn't travelling alone either. Granted, I do think the AI is FAR overzealous in kicking the dead horse (particularily so with gunfire), and the AI engagement logic may be also flawed in that sense. But while agreeing that a look is necessary in that department, I don't necessarily thing it's as outrageous as you seem to think . But you also have to remember that the Shoho was the object of the strike, not some derelict the strike found burning along the way to the target location. Overkilling the target, especially if it's a carrier or capital ship seems acceptable to me. Some early attacks seem reasonable but it seems to me that there should be around an 80% chance of a strike flying to the target location before executing a strike even if there are available targets along the way. |
|
.
