View Full Version : About TACTIC
sea knight
29 Aug 06, 18:25
i find this is a field where a lot of opinions should emerge, i' ll start over whit something that a first glace should be quite illogical, the battleship has really a lot of armor on the hull, expecially in the bealt that is nearly impenetrable; but the deck is quite weak, so at long range the bulletds crashes with a pretty steeply angle and, provided they hit the ship) they should penetrate it easily then other part of the ship.
On the other side from close range a lot of shot wll hit the hull, but except the case that there is another battleship, they will make a lot of beautiful explosion, but with little consecuence because they tend to not penetrate the armor.
If we assure these statment right the best tactic to attac a Battleship should be to keep the distance betreen 3-4 kilometers and fire from a side of the line in front of the battleship, pheraps this would permit to more but weaker ships to sink a Battlecruiser, the miss shots would be compensate with the more shots even because being in a T the Battleship could count on only a big gun while evrey ship will have 2
So the statment more close more damage could be false
Bullethead
29 Aug 06, 20:10
My observations....
The way the damage model works, to sink a ship requires 2 things: enough water coming in, and sufficient damage to the propulsion (which is what determines pumping capacity) that the pumps can deal with it. This is very hard to achieve with gunfire alone, at least when 1 armored ship is being shot at by another similar ship of about the same age, because the armor (even in PCs) protects both buoyance and the main parts of the propulsion. But you have to do both or the ship won't sink directly.
The way around this problem is to start big fires. The object of having a big fire is that it occupies much of the crew and kills the rest. This takes away crewmen from non-fire damage control, apparently including pumping, plus it damages propulsion which is the same as damaging the pumps, so that eventually, when the fire is big enough, the flooding will exceed the pumping and water starts to accumulate. Once enough accumulates, the ship will sink. However, it will probably require 20 minutes or more to go under, because there really aren't that many big holes in the hull.
The way to start a big fire is to put lots and lots of hits on the ship, because each hit has a chance of adding to the fire level. All these hits do other nice things for you, such as killing crewmen (less pumpers/firemen), damaging propulsion a little (apparently stack and uptake hits outside the armored areas), and knocking out guns. The fire also knocks out guns even in its early stages. So even if you don't really NEED to sink the ship, you can quickly take it out of action by starting good fires in it. But if you do want to sink the ship, just remember that it takes a LOT of hits to get a big enough fire to lead to sinking.
It seems to me that unless you're closer than about 2000 yards, you don't have much chance of getting through a similar ship's armor. You need to get through the armor to do much direct flooding and propulsion damage, and you also hit more often at close range. OTOH, the closer you are, the fewer waterline hits you get, or so it seems to me, decreasing the advantage of penetrating the armor except in terms of individual gun mounts, especially turrets. However, this is a good range for starting fires because you hit so often. Of course, the other guy can hit you just as easily, so be careful :).
From about 2000-5000 yards, you don't hit as often but still often enough to do real damage if you have ammo and time to spare. You also seem to get more waterline hits at these ranges. However, armor seems pretty good at stopping shells at these ranges, so you're less likely to penetrate if you do get a waterline hit. Also, because you're not hitting as often, the crew has more time to deal with any fires started by 1 hit before the next hit arrives. This makes it much harder to start big fires.
Ranges of 5k-10k yards seem almost completely useless to me. You shells are too slow to get through the side and are not steep enough yet to get through the deck. Plus you hardly ever get a hit anyway. So I think firing at these ranges is a complete waste of ammo. Beyond about 10kyds, however, it looks like you start getting plunging fire deck penetrations, which can be quite devastating. Problem is, you're very unlikely to hit at this range, so this is a bad gamble. You risk wasting all your ammo on the long-shot hope of 1 killer hit, but usually you won't get it.
So in summary, it seems to me that gunfire mostly sinks ships by setting them completely afire. The best way to do that is to be at 2000 yards or less, preferably after the target has already lost most of its guns. If you're not interested in sinking the ship but just want to disable it, 2000-5000 might be a better choice, especially if you've got a numerical advantage, because you're less at risk. Beyond that, it's a total crapshoot. I normally don't waste my ammo at such ranges unless I don't see a need to conserve it.
In the campaign, the only ships the Russians want to sink are IJN maru merchants (not auxiliary cruisers named "xxx Maru"). These don't shoot back so feel free to close right in and hammer them. The close you are, the more often you hit, so the less ammo you use per maru, and the more marus you can kill per cruise. I've found the most efficient strategy is to hold fire until within 1000 yards and then circle the maru at 15 knots, slowing down as it slows to stay about 50% faster than it. For anything else you meet, you either don't fire at all (neutrals) or you run like Hell, firing as little as possible.
OTOH, the Japanese want to kill all the Russian ships, especially the cruisers. The best way to do this is to close right in to 2000 yards or less and give them all you've got. You'll get hammered too, and will probably lose more fights than you win in terms of absolute damage done. OTOH, any significant damage to a cruiser translates into merchants saved, and the IJN has enough throw-away ships to lose many cruiser engagements and still win the war.
saddletank
30 Aug 06, 05:48
OTOH, the closer you are, the fewer waterline hits you get, or so it seems to me, decreasing the advantage of penetrating the armor except in terms of individual gun mounts, especially turrets. However, this is a good range for starting fires because you hit so often. Of course, the other guy can hit you just as easily, so be careful :).
I think point blank fire (under a mile) does give you a lot of waterline hits. I had one spectacularly successful cruise with Varyag and she sank 4 Marus in 3 days and each time I closed up very close alongside and watched shots hitting. Great big clusters of 4 and 5 hits repeatedly slammed into the target very very low on the hull side. When the target sank the area amidships low down was one big mass of black spots.
Your commenst about fires are spot on Bullethead but fires are hard to judge tactically as I don't think the fires in the game produce enough smoke. Photos from WWI of ships with serious fires show the ship hidden behind a huge pall of smoke and clearly in trouble while in DG you hardly notice the smoke from fires over the funnel smoke. The only clear indicator is speed dropping off and an orange or red status dot.
Given that the 'killing range' is really under the 3500m bracket ship and unit handling in battle is of vital importance. It's necessary to watch the enemy speed and make sure yours is sufficient so he can't surprise you with a sudden manouver. You don't necessarily have to be faster than him but you do need to control your units movements carefully. You also must keep units together and organised. Decide which enemy units are the priority targets and kill them, don't keep switching targets when a new juicy one shows itself. I never manually steer to avoid torpedoes, the AI seems to be better at that than me, particularly spotting them.
I have found TBs to be almost useless in anything than a flat calm. Rough seas do mess up their speed big time to the point where the older ones are slower than the average cruiser so useless in battle and they just get in the way. Send them off home. But decent modern ones (the 27+ knot ones with bigger than 57mm guns) can be useful but husband them in a safe place on your disengaged side and use them in large groups of 4 or so to finish off cripples - attacking ships that still bite back is asking for dead TBs.
If you are committed to combat and things go wrong there's little you can do to extricate yourself so one of the most important decisions right at the start when you have time to withdraw is to decide if this battle needs to be fought or not.
Once in a battle I got message that BB Cesarevic has sunk, I was stunned as when I checked in few minute before damage was very light. There were cruisers 3-4 km distant and battleships 5-7 km distant.
After battle I checked game log and there was that Cesarevic was hit by single 305 mm shell and three 203 mm shells (plus several 152 mm hits). So apparently you can have lucky shot from distance.
Torpedoes are a very nice way to finish off a ship. The russian 14" torps are a bit anemic tho so you need 2-4 for a cripple to sink with a reasonable speed.
Your destroyers (and bigger, faster TB's) are also very good ships if you know how to use them. They can be exceptionally handy for the IJN for hunting down russian cruisers.
The trick here is to send atleast two squadrons, one on each side, just outside or at the edge of the gun range of the cruiser(s) running away and then charge them from the front. Keep your eye out for enemy maneuvers, they like to make a sharp turn when the destroyers are about a mile out. Be prepared to turn your destroyers with them.
Almos a direct head on is a good way to approach as long as you can as this is the sector where the enemy firepower is most limited. When the enemy turns try to turn so that you'll intercept him at a range less than 300m.
His turn will slow him down, trying to evade your torpedoes will throw him into dissaray and if you get a hit, he'll slow down. The best chances to obtain a hit are ofcourse when you attack from two different sides at once. Takes a bit of skill and luck to pull off, but a few hits are guaranteed then.
Your destroyers will get shot up ofcourse, but a destroyer or five for a cruiser crippled is a fair trade imho.
DO NOT turn back around and try to make another torpedo run, you will lose your destroyers that way. If you failed to obtain a hit or slow the enemy down then tough luck, try again next time, but trying to make a torpedo run from the rear, with a 4-5 kt speed difference is suicide.
Ofcourse if you are desperate you can try and block his course with one of your destroyers, with some luck he'll ram your little ship and that will put a stop to his movement for quite a while.
If I can bother I'll put up a savegame and a small guide how to run down enemy ships with your own when the speed difference is too small and when you have destroyers at hand
Bullethead
30 Aug 06, 14:06
I think point blank fire (under a mile) does give you a lot of waterline hits. I had one spectacularly successful cruise with Varyag and she sank 4 Marus in 3 days and each time I closed up very close alongside and watched shots hitting. Great big clusters of 4 and 5 hits repeatedly slammed into the target very very low on the hull side. When the target sank the area amidships low down was one big mass of black spots.
Your guncrews must be better than mine :). Mine usually hit well above water when I'm very close. OTOH, the shells are going down and on unarmored targets like marus, they often go through the ship and out the other side lower down. Thus, I often get waterline holes on the far side more than the near side. But I was mostly talking about killing armored ships where you don't usually see through-and-through shots.
Your commenst about fires are spot on Bullethead but fires are hard to judge tactically as I don't think the fires in the game produce enough smoke. Photos from WWI of ships with serious fires show the ship hidden behind a huge pall of smoke and clearly in trouble while in DG you hardly notice the smoke from fires over the funnel smoke. The only clear indicator is speed dropping off and an orange or red status dot.
Yeah, this is something that bugs me, too. I can understand why there's not much smoke, because smoke eats FPS like candy. However, it would be nice if at least the flame graphics were more exposed. It looks to me like on many ships, the fire graphic is totally inside the ship and unseen--you just see a little trickle of smoke coming from the side of the hull. Other times, you just see an occasional flicker as the animation pokes a corner of the graphic through the hull. If the fire graphics all got moved outside the hull, even if they still didn't smoke much, it would be a lot more helpful in judging fire intensity.
Bullethead
30 Aug 06, 14:31
Torpedoes are a very nice way to finish off a ship. The russian 14" torps are a bit anemic tho so you need 2-4 for a cripple to sink with a reasonable speed.
Nice advice on torpedo attack tactics. I'll chip in with some defense ideas...
As String says, the best place to launch torps is from off the target's bow, because torps have a higher closing speed and a better angle, so are very hard to dodge. Therefore, the #1 defense goal is to not let enemy torpedocraft get in front of you.
The worst place to launch from is off the target's quarters. The torps take longer to reach the target, giving more time and room to dodge them. So the #2 goal of defense is to keep the enemy torpedocraft abaft your beam. This has the further advantage of reducing the reducing speed of the torpedocraft, giving you more time to kill them before they reach launch position.
The #3 goal of torpedo defense is to minimize the disruption of your formation that can result even if all the torps miss. Disruption mostly happens because when ships are "formed" in a line, those behind always follow those ahead. So say the 1st ship dodges, then the 2nd and 3rd follow it. Then the 2nd ship has to dodge itself, and this drags the 3rd ship even further out of position.
The way to avoid this is to NOT have your ships in line formation when the attack comes. At some point prior to the enemy torpedo launch, you should give your division a "all ships turn immediately" order of just a couple of points off your desired course. Now your ships will be on a line of bearing of about 160-200^ off the flagship and none of them will follow each other's dodges. This keeps all ships in a loose formation in the right order and mostly pointing the right direction, and it's easy to get them back in line after the attack with another "all ships turn immediately" back the other way.
The overall battle situation constrains how much freedom of maneuver you have. If you're in a fleet action and the enemy is trying to extricate his out-gunned heavy units by throwing his DDs at you, then you don't want to make major course changes or you'll lose ground on your main targets. OTOH, if you've stumbled into the Takeshiki TB Horde with your Vlad ACs in the dark, then anything goes in the interests of plain survival. Still, the best bet is to maneuver, "turn immediately" moves, to put the enemy on your quarter, where he's got a long, slow approach and most of your guns will bear on him. You want to be careful how you do it, however, because you want to give each ship in the division a clear line of fire or you'll end up with a lot of "friendly" fire damage.
As regards range, my advice would be:
6000 yards
Hold fire and save ammo, unless your guns fire very slowly anyway.
The AI will open fire but generally with little effect
3600 yards
Good hits can be scored from this range with 8" and 6" guns. Consider this range if fighting against an opponent with lots of medium\light guns (e.g. Gromobobi has 20 useful 203mm and 152mm guns and 52 other guns at this range, whereas Adzuma has 16 useful heavy guns and just 20 other guns).
1800 yards
Good hits can be scored with medium guns. So for example Gromoboi might use 68 guns to 36 for Adzuma (all guns between 203mm and 47mm).
Fast cruisers should also use this range for engaging destroyers and torpedo boats, since the smallest guns will struggle, torpedos are out of range and yet heavy and medium weight guns are accurate.
1200 yards or less
This is where torpedos come into play. Battleships and armoured cruisers should be opening the range from here.
100 yards or less
This is where torpedos have insufficient range to arm themselves. If a battlefleet must pass a sinking destroyer, then the place to do it is less than 100 yards from the destroyer. Use gunfire when approaching the destroyer, then make sure the destroyer isn't being targeted as friendly ships pass by.
For the user of torpedos:
- Protected cruisers are good torpedo users, being reasonably fast and agile. These ships are better protected against light locally controlled guns, plus they can launch torpedos at longer ranges. [I've seen destroyers being torpedoed by cruisers that kept the range over 1000 yards].
- Heading straight torward an enemy ship can prevent the launch of torpedos from excessive distance.
- The ideal target for a torpedo is slow moving and also being engaged by another major warship.
- If torpedos are centrally controlled, then approaching a victim with another distant target selected will prevent the torpedos from being launched too early.
To avoid torpedos:
- See my advice on range. No torpedo will hit at 1500 yards.
- Defeat a torpedo attack before the torpedos are launched. If destoyers close in and before torpedos are fired, firstly immediatly turn away (as Bullethead noted). Even a turn by a 30 degrees will cause great difficulty for the attacker. Plus a small turn like this can easily be reversed.
- As a second step, if the attacker is small, target it with centrally controlled weapons. Knocking out a destroyer's torpedo mounts is fairly easy, so each target should be hit a few times, even if already in sinking condition. Any torpedos fired by your ships will also wreck an enemy attack.
- travel fast; torpedos are slow and struggle against fast targets.
- if torpedos are launched, there is a fair chance that only one ship will be targeted. Let that ship evade and if the remaining ships have good firepower, put them back on course by forming those ships into a new division.
btw. regarding Adzumo and Yakumo,
these are some nasty buggers.
Yesterday they (plus 6 DDs and two PCs) were constantly following my Vlad Force (Gromoboi, Rossiya and Ruyrik) and I decided to do a "what if" fight I saved at the beginnig of the battle, being almost sure I would reload it and running away), as I value my Vlad cruisers too high to risk them really. So I turned towards them, only Yakumo and Azumo in range. These ships for sure can take some beating. Though they suffered serious damage with loosing many guns below 203mm, they did the same favor to my cruisers. Especially the 203mm turrets seem to be very well armoured compared to the Russian AC.
So I came to the conclusion I already was expecting before:
Don´t attack these two ships, if your force isn`t overwhelming. Their armour is on the same level as some BBs and it needs more than the Vlad force to defeat them without risking serious damage on the own cruisers. I won`t take them on with less than 4 AC or 3 AC and minimum one BB (to take the beating).
Z.
edit: can someone fill me in, how many metres one yard is? I`m just back from Volleyball training and too tired to use google. TIA. Good night!
saddletank
30 Aug 06, 18:14
A metre is about 1 yard 3 inches. To all intents and purposes I consider m and yds to be interchangeable in this era. Funny why Norm chose to go with metric when imperial measures were surely in more common usage in 1904?
Sheik Yerbouti
31 Aug 06, 06:25
A metre is about 1 yard 3 inches. To all intents and purposes I consider m and yds to be interchangeable in this era. Funny why Norm chose to go with metric when imperial measures were surely in more common usage in 1904?
Maybe it is because the game was made in 2006? ;)
WallysWorld
31 Aug 06, 11:07
A metre is about 1 yard 3 inches. To all intents and purposes I consider m and yds to be interchangeable in this era. Funny why Norm chose to go with metric when imperial measures were surely in more common usage in 1904?
I agree.
I was used to using yards for gun ranges and now have to get used to the metric system in DG.
And for gun sizes, my own personal choice would have been to use the imperial system instead of the metric system. I find it a little difficult to think of 304mm guns as 12 inchers and 75mm guns as 3 inchers.
saddletank
31 Aug 06, 11:29
304mm = 12 inch gun
254mm = 10 inch
203mm = 8 inch
152mm = 6 inch
120mm = 4.7inch
76mm = 3 inch
57mm = 6pdr QF
47mm = 2pdr QF
37mm = 1 1/2 pdr QF
There. Now isn't that so much easier?
WallysWorld
31 Aug 06, 11:45
LOL
Canada's been on the metric system since the late 1970's and I'm still getting the measurements wrong.
Much easier to read the gun sizes in inches than in millimetres IMHO.
Saddletank, thanks for the list.
Bullethead
31 Aug 06, 17:52
FWIW, the Japanese Navy used Imperial measures until after WW1, so that's what they were using in the RJW. I have no idea what the Russians used (I think they had their own system at home back then), but I also think their designations for naval stuff went with whatever system was used by whoever made their various imported weapons. IOW, I think they carried things on the books back then in a mix of metric and Imperial.
Now I have a question: what's the diameter of a 12pdr? I'm pretty sure it's not 3" (76mm), because IIRC the 17pdr ATG of WW2 was 77mm. However, the IJN DDs in DG have 76mm guns, whereas in real life they had 12pdrs.
saddletank
31 Aug 06, 19:22
The WWI British 18pdr field gun was a 75mm, aka 3". I know the US 3" A/T gun of WW2 was a 76mm but various nations used slightly different nomenclature. The equivalent Russian field piece was the 76.2mm... The 12pdr must have been about 2 1/2 inches bore. Will dig into me library...
(edit) this looks hopeful but still no bore given for the 12pdr. This page classes the British 4 inch as a 102mm (I think we think of this more commonly in modern and WW2 terms as the famous 105mm). Of course you could have more than one shell weight for any given bore. An AP round will weight more than a caseshot round to give an extreme example. Assuming the 1890 era 12pdrs fired common shell where does that take us?
Sorry, very late here, need sleeeeeeep... back tomorrow... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Bullethead
31 Aug 06, 23:52
Of course you could have more than one shell weight for any given bore. An AP round will weight more than a caseshot round to give an extreme example. Assuming the 1890 era 12pdrs fired common shell where does that take us?
IIRC, the "pounder" designations were based on solid iron roundshot, a holdover from the days of sail. So, to determine the bore diameter, you need to know the weight of iron per unit volume. With that, you can determine the volume of an iron sphere of that weight. Then solve the spherical volume equation for the radius and double that gives the bore diameter.
I have killed WAY too many braincells. I used to know both the density of iron and the formula for the volume of a sphere, but now I hardly remember how many drinks I've had tonight ;).
The 12pdr naval gun was a 3" (76.2mm) weapon
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_3-40_mk1.htm
saddletank
01 Sep 06, 05:04
OK, thanks. So on land a 75mm was an 18pdr and at sea it was a 12pdr. Both being 3" guns :)
IIRC many of these designations were "wrong" on purpose, to avoid having several weapons with the same official calibre or designation, which might increase the risk of getting ammunition mixed up.
Just for info
British
-12-pdr [3"/40 (7.62 cm)] 12cwt QF Marks I, II and V
Projectile wt was 12.9lbs
Japanese versions of 12pdr
-3"/40 (7.62 cm) Elswick Pattern N and Vickers Mark Z
-3"/40 (7.62 cm) 41st Year Type
-8 cm/40 (3") 41st Year Type
Projectile wt was 12.5lbs
See -> http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_3-40_mk1.htm
British
-12-pdr [3"/50 (7.62 cm)] 18cwt QF Mark I
Projectile wt was 12.5lbs
See -> http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_3-50_mk1.htm
good info site on Naval Weapons .. :smoke:http://www.navweaps.com/
IIRC the British Army WWI 18pdr's projectile wt was actually approx 18.5Ibs
postscript:- Dontcha love the internet :)
Bullethead
03 Sep 06, 12:29
Much obliged for the info, CJ.
This thread is very usefull and helped me a lot. jsut wanna say thanks to all who gave their tips here.:)
btw. regarding Adzumo and Yakumo,
these are some nasty buggers.
Yesterday they (plus 6 DDs and two PCs) were constantly following my Vlad Force (Gromoboi, Rossiya and Ruyrik) and I decided to do a "what if" fight I saved at the beginnig of the battle, being almost sure I would reload it and running away), as I value my Vlad cruisers too high to risk them really. So I turned towards them, only Yakumo and Azumo in range. These ships for sure can take some beating. Though they suffered serious damage with loosing many guns below 203mm, they did the same favor to my cruisers. Especially the 203mm turrets seem to be very well armoured compared to the Russian AC.
So I came to the conclusion I already was expecting before:
Donīt attack these two ships, if your force isn`t overwhelming. Their armour is on the same level as some BBs and it needs more than the Vlad force to defeat them without risking serious damage on the own cruisers. I won`t take them on with less than 4 AC or 3 AC and minimum one BB (to take the beating).
Z.
edit: can someone fill me in, how many metres one yard is? I`m just back from Volleyball training and too tired to use google. TIA. Good night!
I found that if you will split your force up into two lines and then attack them on both sides and crossing the T with one of them while you fight these two you can beat them. When you do this it seems to over whelm theer guns and in fireing broad sides right into there ship with torpeedos it will sink them. But remember you cannot take them on the normal way by running a line by them, as they will win.
sea knight
15 Sep 06, 16:27
I encountered this situation in the computer generated battle, i think that
203 guns are a bit weak to penetrate the armor of the BB' s.
Tried the long shot to penetrate the bridge but with no good resault.
What do you think to be the best approch in this situation?
Bullethead
15 Sep 06, 18:02
What do you think to be the best approch in this situation? (IJN ACs vs. IRN BBs)
In my limited experience with this situation, it's mostly been mutual destruction.
The IJN ACs can smother the IRN BBs with a torrent of 8" and 6" hits, thanks to the IJN guns usually having a higher rate of fire. These hits won't penetrate heavy armor unless at suicidally close range, but they will take out Russian 2ndary guns no problem and will start serious fires, which will eventually take out the heavy guns and destroy the BB.
OTOH, the Russian BBs can keep lobbing the occasional 12" shells at the ACs, not to mention whatever 6" survive the IJN bombardment long enough to matter. 12" hits on ACs sometimes pass through without doing much damage, but most times they wreak havoc. And the Russian 6" shells do the same thing to the AC as the AC's 6" do to the BB, although not as fast.
The usual result in my battles of an IJN AC going toe-to-toe with a Russian BB is that both ships are rendered combat-ineffective due to disabled guns and serious fires. Sometimes luck can swing the duel either way, so 1 dies and the other lives with little damage. The AC might quickly turn the BB into a non-shooting inferno that will sink eventually, or the BB might quickly blow the AC out of the water with the 1st few 12" hits.
To me, the best way to employ the IJN ACs is in a major fleet action. Let the Russian BBs get fixated on hammering the IJN BBs, then move the ACs up to rake the IRN BBs unopposed. Just remember that the IJN ACs only have about 45 minutes of 8" ammo, so even if they live they won't be much use for the rest of the battle.
saddletank
15 Sep 06, 18:43
I just fought a monumental battle against 2nd Pacific Sqn in which I lost 3 ACs and very nearly a 4th. The Kasuga blew up after only 5 minutes in action against the 4 Borodinos so you do need to watch out for those Russian 305mms. As Bullet says, the 8 Japanese ACs vs the 4 Borodinos + Oryel is pretty much a MAD situation (Mutually Assured Destruction).
The immersion in this game is such that I am now (since the US brokered it's peace negotiations and both sides accepted) avoiding battles as the war is effectively over (we've won :) ) and further bloodshed is both pointless and actually distasteful to me. :upset: :cry:
sea knight
27 Sep 06, 13:13
I had searched the net for something about the doctrine of the era, but i found only about the crossing of the T in wikipedia.
I think would be of intrest for all a organic description with the different point of view that emerged trought those times
sea knight
01 Oct 06, 18:05
usacac.army.mil/cac/milreview/download/English/NovDec04/zemetis.pdf
I' ve found this
btw. regarding Adzumo and Yakumo,
these are some nasty buggers.
Yesterday they (plus 6 DDs and two PCs) were constantly following my Vlad Force (Gromoboi, Rossiya and Ruyrik) and I decided to do a "what if" fight I saved at the beginnig of the battle, being almost sure I would reload it and running away), as I value my Vlad cruisers too high to risk them really. So I turned towards them, only Yakumo and Azumo in range. These ships for sure can take some beating. Though they suffered serious damage with loosing many guns below 203mm, they did the same favor to my cruisers. Especially the 203mm turrets seem to be very well armoured compared to the Russian AC.
So I came to the conclusion I already was expecting before:
Donīt attack these two ships, if your force isn`t overwhelming. Their armour is on the same level as some BBs and it needs more than the Vlad force to defeat them without risking serious damage on the own cruisers. I won`t take them on with less than 4 AC or 3 AC and minimum one BB (to take the beating).
Z.
edit: can someone fill me in, how many metres one yard is? I`m just back from Volleyball training and too tired to use google. TIA. Good night!
Hi,
I'm new to this forum - and I just started reading posts, I wanted to add to what you said above.
In a campaign game I faced those two ACs with the entire Vladivostok Cruiser Force last night. The net result was (after a twilight battle fought at very close range - and twisting and turning like a aerial dogfight) after two hours I only had a heavily damaged Gromoboi left - and the Adzumo and Yakumo both only suffered light damage. They seemed to be absolutely invulnerable to point blank 8" L45 fire. I was disappointed to say the least - that I could not damage them at all.
B
Hi,
I'm new to this forum - and I just started reading posts, I wanted to add to what you said above.
In a campaign game I faced those two ACs with the entire Vladivostok Cruiser Force last night. The net result was (after a twilight battle fought at very close range - and twisting and turning like a aerial dogfight) after two hours I only had a heavily damaged Gromoboi left - and the Adzumo and Yakumo both only suffered light damage. They seemed to be absolutely invulnerable to point blank 8" L45 fire. I was disappointed to say the least - that I could not damage them at all.
B
I had exactly the same situation some time ago. My four Vladivostok cruisers against Adzuma and Yakumo. In close range combat they were unbeatable. I reloaded a save game and tried a different approach. I managed to cross their T and then suddenly turned all my ships away from them directly into the setting sun at a range of about 3000m. After that they hardly ever scored a hit while I was able to sink them. I´m currently trying to draw a picture of my tactic, since I lack the words to explain it. I´ll edit this post when I´m done.
Edit: Here is the picture.
http://www.hardwired.de/il2/tactic.jpg
I found this tactic quite useful in several battles. The Japanese gunners seem to have problems hitting ships which are moving directly away from them, especially when they face the setting (or rising) sun.
I had exactly the same situation some time ago. My four Vladivostok cruisers against Adzuma and Yakumo. In close range combat they were unbeatable. I reloaded a save game and tried a different approach. I managed to cross their T and then suddenly turned all my ships away from them directly into the setting sun at a range of about 3000m. After that they hardly ever scored a hit while I was able to sink them. Iīm currently trying to draw a picture of my tactic, since I lack the words to explain it. Iīll edit this post when Iīm done.
Really!!?? :surprise: I have a lot to learn - looking forward to your maneuver posting.
This only works when your own ships are not slower than the enemy, because you have to keep the distance between both fleets constant. After some time the enemy leading ship will become damaged and slow down, so you have to slow down yourself and when another enemy ship takes lead you must increase speed again.
This only works when your own ships are not slower than the enemy, because you have to keep the distance between both fleets constant. After some time the enemy leading ship will become damaged and slow down, so you have to slow down yourself and when another enemy ship takes lead you must increase speed again.
Makes sense.
by the way - nice illustration above :cool:
Another nice thing about this tactic is that, if you think one of your ship (e.g Ryurik) has taken too many hits and needs a rest you just decrease the speed of another one (e.g Rossiya) until Rossiya is closest to the enemy. Then they will fire on Rossiya and Ryurik has time for repairs (ok this is some kind of AI exploit...).
Btw right now Iīm not quite sure if the 3000m I mentioned above are the ideal distance (this battle was about 4 weeks ago and I donīt remember it correctly).
by the way - nice illustration above
Thanks :) , but you can find much better illustrations in the "After action reports" - section of this forum (well, maybe after the link gets repaired).
sea knight
13 Oct 06, 21:34
When two effect overlys it is REALLY difficult to know the "weight" of them over the final result, i think to remember that was a statment that sun did not affect targeting, but was a lot of patches above, so pheaps (i hope) this has been introduced later, i' d really like to know
When two effect overlys it is REALLY difficult to know the "weight" of them over the final result
Thatīs right, I donīt really know why they had such difficulties in hitting my ships. Only after a while I noticed I was heading directly into the sun (I had not planned this, it was a mere coincidence) so I thought this might be the reason. Iīd like to know too if the sun affects accuracy. This battle happened with version 1.016 (or so I think, there was a version 1.016, right?:confused:).
sea knight
19 Oct 06, 19:00
Some tips for the two missions Liau ti shang and Burbakov surprise, i tried them over and over, whatched the computer in autoplay but i still feel i need something, i don' t know how to eplain
Some tips for the two missions Liau ti shang and Burbakov surprise, i tried them over and over, whatched the computer in autoplay but i still feel i need something, i don' t know how to eplain
My experiences:
"Bubnov's Surprise"
My main gripe with this scenario is that the Japanese will go from totally asleep to accurate gunfire in an instant. By the time the Japanese reach action stations the Russians must have fled, else the instant accuracy of the Japanese will wreck the Russian destroyers.
As the Japanese, there is not a lot that can be done at first since the ships are not at action stations. Once action stations are reached, let the cruisers target the nearest enemy, then go to maximum speed. Turn away from any contacts since they are likely to be within torpedo range. Likely outcome: both cruisers minor damage, 3 destroyers sunk.
As the Russians, send your destroyers towards a point ahead of the Japanese whilst holding fire. Next run alongside the Japanese cruisers to launch torpedos, targetting sepcific ships. Finally, flee as soon as possible. This maximises the advantage of the Japanese being caught unaware, without risking the Russian destroyers more than absolutely necessary. Do not stay around for the Japanese to wake up, otherwise their accuracy at short range will devastate you destroyers. Likely outcome: both cruisers moderate damage, 1 destroyer moderate damage.
Trying to resume the battle as safer for the Japanese than for the Russians, since the Japanese can be confident that most Russian torpedos will have been expended within the first few minutes and reloads will take 30 minutes.
"Liau-ti-shan"
I've only tried this once as the Japanese and got a draw.
sea knight
22 Oct 06, 07:23
Thx very much for the replay, i tried it and in fact my error was to use the second DDivision when the Jap Cruiser woke up with obvious result.
There is an other thing i am not sure about... if detection probability increse with speed, more speed would require more power, so more coal and so more smoke, does anyone know it this is modeled in the game?
sea knight
28 Oct 06, 19:36
I have noticed that the computer usually uses pure pursuit to intercept instead of taking a lead pursuit
From my limited experince in this beautiful game i always try to keep in mind this rule: minimize the distance from all your ship to one targeted enemy ship while maximizing distance with the others (non targeted)
Generally this implies attacking the first or the last ship in the column, generally the first ship is stronger while the las is weaker
I find pure pursuit more consistent with this theory (one particular case of this approch is the crossing of the T)
In many situation i noticed that the pure pursuit used by the computer gave me more problems than the case he would have applied the lead puruit
sea knight
04 Nov 06, 15:13
anyway aside the crossing of the T which other approches were in use at that time?
sea knight
03 Mar 07, 19:09
I have just read something about an alpha shaped manuver used by Togo because it was too early to cut the T, i imagine because had they closed fom that direction the russian should had been able to cross the japanese T insted, but it is just my opinion
THX in anticipation
I have just read something about an alpha shaped manuver used by Togo because it was too early to cut the T, i imagine because had they closed fom that direction the russian should had been able to cross the japanese T insted, but it is just my opinion
THX in anticipation
He should have been able to do just that, Cross the T. If he had the outcome may not have been the way it was.
In reading about this , a lot of people wonderd why he did not do just that. Also the Japanese had another type of shells, they did not penatrate as deep as the type used by the Russians, and that caused massive damage to the ship and it's parts and guns on the top deck.
But you are right in thinking what you have.
Probably this has already been discussed. I ran into 6 destroyers, an aux. cruiser and a PC yesterday near Assan Bassin (or whatever it is called). My four modern Japanese PCs chased them and sank most of them. The reason was that the AI, I think correctly, tried to hide between the coastal island and hug the coast to remain undetected.
However, when it became clear that I was tracking them, they kept up this tactic, eventhough this meant I could catch up with them much easier. After all, I could set a straight line course to where they were heading, while the AI ships kept changing course to hug the coast. However, what did the AI in, is that it didn't read the map and sailed into a bay. All that needed to happen was to seal it off, cross the enemy's T, sink the PC and the aux.
I think I've read this behaviour before. I guess the AI needs to be able to
1) Change strategy when fleeing if the first strategy doesn't work
2) Read maps and avoid dead-ends.
In the end I would have sunk these ships anyways as the aux. cruiser was holding the rest up and my ships were faster. Which makes for a third point
3) AI needs to be able to cut its losses and run. Now the AI lost 6 ships, amongst it one of its better raiders. Had the AI decided to give up on the aux. cruiser, then the other 9 ships would have left intact.
Has anyone managed to win this - playing as the IJN ? I can't seem to do much better than a defeat (the word "humiliating"still rings in my ears )
Has anyone managed to win this - playing as the IJN ? I can't seem to do much better than a defeat (the word "humiliating"still rings in my ears )
I have not tried the Japanese side yet, I am still fighting on the side of the Russians.
I managed to win as the IJN. I didn't do as good as the real IJN, but it was enough to defeat Russia. The keys to victory are:
1) Patrol agressively
2) Focus on your objective: the large battleships will not come out, so focus on the cruisers & destroyer patrols
3) Keep the Russians either bottled up or defeat them in small battles
4) When the 2nd squadron comes into play, it suffices to attack the fast cruiser force and sink it. The battleships are not relevant as the AI will not use them on its Maru hunting patrols.
No - I'm not talking about the campaign (I have played both sides - doing better as the Russans) ... I decided to play some of the historical battles - Find the "Yellow Sea"as the IJN to be particularly difficult ....trying to stop IRN from escaping see's me lose a lot of ships ...... tied all sorts of tactics- but to no avail ....
Game A/I seems to favour itself a lot (imho)
cheers
Suicide destroyer attack with the cover of the cruiser group help to slow then down.
Then you can play on innitiative as long as you want.
I had already tried this (and variations of the same ) ended up losing most of destroyers & torpedo boats , a couple of cruisers & 2 BB's , sank most of IRN BB's & P.C's - but still a humiliating defeat (was most upset that Yakumo went early to two long range hits - twice)....tried to take Russians piecemeal -werker first , no good either (couldn'tcatch BB's) ...tried everything against strongest etc....no good either ......
Best I could do was a draw. Without the 2nd division the Japanese don't have their usual superiority. The nice thing about Yellow Sea is the Russians maintain a southerly course which lets you set up some nice broadside-to-broadside action.
sea knight
16 Jan 08, 09:30
In a computer generated battle happend to me that a badly damaged japan BB detatched from its formation and crossed my line, to be blown into pieces by the secondary guns of my line.
I have seen this other time, is this a sort of tactic?
To sacrify a ship alredy in bad shape to disrupt the formation?
In a computer generated battle happend to me that a badly damaged japan BB detatched from its formation and crossed my line, to be blown into pieces by the secondary guns of my line.
I have seen this other time, is this a sort of tactic?
To sacrify a ship alredy in bad shape to disrupt the formation?
That's what "Retvizan" did during the battle of the Yellow Sea.
I have seen it too - battered "Mikasa" charged at my line and put a torpedo in "Tsesarevitch" :-D
If only the AI accepted battle at longer ranges... but it is getting better with each coming patch
Well, with the Japanese I can understand suicide tactics. They have a proven track record :-)
In a computer generated battle happend to me that a badly damaged japan BB detatched from its formation and crossed my line, to be blown into pieces by the secondary guns of my line.
I have seen this other time, is this a sort of tactic?
To sacrify a ship alredy in bad shape to disrupt the formation?
I do not see this as abnormal, the Japanese where famous for doing a last attack with knowing that there outcome will be the worst.
This was just about a given for a last ditch charge to save face.
Yeah, but the Russians doing it as well may be a different matter.
Double Whisky
25 Sep 08, 10:45
Yeah, but the Russians doing it as well may be a different matter.
Retvizan charging Japanese line saved not a face but the whole Russian PA fleet, and the charge was not suicidal, as battleship survived even 23 hits of 12 inch and 8 inch guns without too much of a damage.
Of course such a charge in DG would be suicidal - the game just do not believe in armour :D
Retvizan charging Japanese line saved not a face but the whole Russian PA fleet, and the charge was not suicidal
According to captain's memoirs Retvisan while straddled was hit only once during this charge.
Double Whisky
26 Sep 08, 18:36
According to captain's memoirs Retvisan while straddled was hit only once during this charge.
Ididn't read Captain Szczesnowicz memoires. The number of hits given is for the whole battle, and I just assumed that most of them battleship received during the charge and attempt to ram Mikasa.
BTW - single unhappy hit story reminds me rather the fate of Tsesarevitch in the same battle.
Ididn't read Captain Szczesnowicz memoires.
I can send it to you if you're interested and can read Russian (I'm reading "Okrety Wojenne" with little or no problem, our languages are pretty similar). :)
The number of hits given is for the whole battle, and I just assumed that most of them battleship received during the charge and attempt to ram Mikasa.
It seems Japanese had poor accuracy firing on targets which rapidly change distance or direction. This was observed during the battle near Port Arthur 27 of January/9th of February 1904 as well.
BTW - single unhappy hit story reminds me rather the fate of Tsesarevitch in the same battle.
This was "unhappy hit" for Captain himself - 6" (?) burst on the fore turret roof sending splinters into conning tower and wounding him.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.