End Score Opinion

[Beercat]

Originally I wasn't very happy with the scoring system in the game. After all, one should get points for scuppering the Mikasa with destroyers right?
Instead I started playing differently than I play other games. In most games I would saveload until a battle was flawless. Recently I played a Russian Campaign and ended with -78, but no saveloads and all of my 18 knot BBs undamaged and sitting in Pt Arthur. Not only was it way more satisfying than my -3xx saveload Russian Campaign, I was so proud of my 3 weeks of realtime management and look at "my fleet". Who cares about the score except to keep track of material.
If I could only find a good prize agent.
Thoughts?

Beercat

[Bullethead]

I agree with you. It's much more satisfying to take what you get from the fortunes of war and just do the best you can. That way, there's more pride in the results, whatever they end up being.

I myself never replay any battles. I save at the end of every battle rather than rely on the daily autosave. That way, if there's a problem, I can start at the end of the last battle rather than having to refight any that happened since the last autosave, which I thus might do differently with the benefit of hindsight.

I never save at the beginning of a battle but just play it out and accept the results, which I think adds greatly to the suspense because there's no chance of a mulligan :). There's more immersion that way. I feel it when I lose a valuable ship and I worry about them all during the fight. Plus, I enjoy the challenge of having to live with results that sometimes ain't favorable :).

[Beercat]

The torpedoes are such a wild card. I never feel safe in any battle anymore.
I should save after all battles, I've had to replay several stern chases after crashes and relying on autosave.
Speaking of playing with what you are dealt, I was using my 16 knot BBs as raiders out of Vlad due to necessity once. The 18 knot BBs stayed in Pt Arthur to keep Togo weary. Who says don't split your BBs?

[Bullethead]

The torpedoes are such a wild card. I never feel safe in any battle anymore.

What really gets me is sometimes having to order ships I've come to know and like to certain death in order to save more important ships. I always write down who did what in every battle, so I usually know the previous exploits of any given ship off the top of my head. And then it's their turn in the barrel. I think, "Damn, I know those guys in Vinoslivi. 2 weeks ago, they saved my ass from a night TB ambush. I had the skipper over for dinner aboard my flagship and gave vodka to all the men. I'll never be able to live with myself now." :hurt:

Speaking of playing with what you are dealt, I was using my 16 knot BBs as raiders out of Vlad due to necessity once. The 18 knot BBs stayed in Pt Arthur to keep Togo weary. Who says don't split your BBs?

That's a dangerous game. My PA BBs don't venture beyond Wei-Hai-Wei in most cases. And they only do this at night when Togo's known to be far away and there are some valuable IJN blockading ships they can maybe smash.

[Beercat]

I generally form TFs based upon speed. I also try to play the CIC with different personalities from one campaign to the next.
As far as splitting the BBs, this CIC felt that the 16 knot BBs were obsolete and therefore expendable. They snuck out of PA right after the attack and before Togo was organized and made it to Vlad with no problems. Then the 20 knot ACs were held as a reserve. Togo did not follow as he still had the 4 18 knot BBs in PA to worry about, and if he did they would have been unleashed.
The Vlad BBs did all of their raiding on the east side of Japan, not in the Sea of Japan. Always kept them going forward, and never went through the same straits twice in one mission. Sometimes working it clockwise and other times counter-clockwise(showing my age;)). Eventually they sank all the PCs and ACs in those waters and I lost no capital ships until the 2nd squadron arrived and I started looking for Togo.

[Rhetor]

Togo did not follow as he still had the 4 18 knot BBs in PA to worry about, and if he did they would have been unleashed.


I have to check whether the operational AI would care to send Togo's 6 BB 6 AC squadron to the Sea of Japan or elsewhere, if all my battleships went there.

[Beercat]

Hey Rhetor,
What would your methodology be for that? I baulk at giving it a try in the middle of a campaign. I don't mind:lier: losing a campaign due to strategic decisions, but to risk losing to test the AI is beyond me.

[Bullethead]

I generally form TFs based upon speed.

Same here. For instance, the 1st thing I do as the Russians after Port Arthur is to reorganize the DDs into squadrons based on speed. 2 of 27 knots and 1 of 26 knots. There's 1 DD that can do 28 knots that I put in with a 27-knot squadron. Then there's Lt. Burakov, which I normally keep tied to the dock the whole war because her speed is WAY unrealistically high. I keep the 26-knotters with the BBs and use the 27-knotters more aggressively.

I also try to play the CIC with different personalities from one campaign to the next.

I guess my Russian CinCs change when I hear good ideas, such as the following:

As far as splitting the BBs, this CIC felt that the 16 knot BBs were obsolete and therefore expendable. They snuck out of PA right after the attack and before Togo was organized and made it to Vlad with no problems. ... The Vlad BBs did all of their raiding on the east side of Japan, not in the Sea of Japan. Always kept them going forward, and never went through the same straits twice in one mission.

That's something I've never tried. I'll have to do that next time. OTOH, I've decided I like using the PA BBs to smack down the non-Togo blockading forces to help the PCs get in and out. And usually after the PA attack all I've got serviceable are the 16-knot and 10" BBs. All the 18-knot BBs with 12" guns are dead or in the shop for months. It's definitely worth the effort to smash the Chitose group and "night fishing" expeditions near PA by the 2nd line BBs can do this (although it takes a while). So if I send the 16-knotters to Vlad, all I'll have is the 10" BBs and they can't dish out enough punishment in the short time usually available to kill the Chitose group in a reasonable number of attempts.

OTOH, 16-knot BBs would be the big kids on the block around Japan, as long as Togo stayed at Assan Basin. Crushing all the TBs, PCs, and ACs around Japan has its uses, too :D.

As to using the same straits, after the 1st sortie of Lyena (which goes out between Hokkaido and Honshu), everybody I send east of Japan comes and goes through La Perouse after giving northern Japan a wide berth. Sure, this shortens my time on station, but I think it balances out. East of Japan, you see tons of neutrals but almost never a maru, which are the things that really count. So I normally keep my ACs and several PCs in the Sea of Japan, where they can get marus and attact the attention of the IJN, which they can out-run or out-fight. I leave the east coast of Japan to the auxiliary cruisers which can't do either, and hope my larger presence in the Sea of Japan keeps them from getting into trouble.

[Rhetor]

Hey Rhetor,
What would your methodology be for that? I baulk at giving it a try in the middle of a campaign. I don't mind:lier: losing a campaign due to strategic decisions, but to risk losing to test the AI is beyond me.

I would only try to check whether the AI reacts to my actions at all, or it only has some preset orders and executes them regardless of my actions.

I am considering the latter option because I cannot understand why the AI keeps sending the "Chin En" group and all the ACs and PCs on the Japan sea against my clearly superior forces in almost every campaign I play.

It would be much more natural for it to do just as Togo did - send most of the ACs to hunt for the Vladivostok force, and keep a tight blockade on my Port Artur force. As it is now, I have usually no problems with dispatching all the cruisers on the Japan Sea, thus allowing my forces from Vladivostok to hunt for Japanese shipping almost unmolested. I have also no problems with sinking almost everything near Port Artur save Togo's "über-squadron".

[Beercat]

Same here. For instance, the 1st thing I do as the Russians after Port Arthur is to reorganize the DDs into squadrons based on speed. 2 of 27 knots and 1 of 26 knots. There's 1 DD that can do 28 knots that I put in with a 27-knot squadron. Then there's Lt. Burakov, which I normally keep tied to the dock the whole war because her speed is WAY unrealistically high. I keep the 26-knotters with the BBs and use the 27-knotters more aggressively.

I agree with your organizing the DDs on speed, I wish this could be a keystroke. I stopped putting the DDs with the BBs though. The AI can look at one DD and ascertain the strength of the TF. That defeats the point of the screen in bad weather, you can never press the attack unless you have the speed advantage. I would rather let the BBs make first contact and then decide.


I guess my Russian CinCs change when I hear good ideas, such as the following:


Thank you, I just got tired of my 18 knot BBs in a TF with the 16 knot BBs and having the AI run from the stronger force, then having the 18s pursue and being overwhelmed while the 16s were hull down. I had to change.


That's something I've never tried. I'll have to do that next time. OTOH, I've decided I like using the PA BBs to smack down the non-Togo blockading forces to help the PCs get in and out. And usually after the PA attack all I've got serviceable are the 16-knot and 10" BBs. All the 18-knot BBs with 12" guns are dead or in the shop for months. It's definitely worth the effort to smash the Chitose group and "night fishing" expeditions near PA by the 2nd line BBs can do this (although it takes a while). So if I send the 16-knotters to Vlad, all I'll have is the 10" BBs and they can't dish out enough punishment in the short time usually available to kill the Chitose group in a reasonable number of attempts.


Your logic is sound, except the 18 knotters can make repeated night fishing expeditions and run for PA as soon as they make contact. Avoid the 400mm fish and sink one Chitose TF member a month and you will be fine. The Chitose group big guns on the PCs can only fire from the single turret once every like 9 minutes. Also the 16 knotters have pulled the Chitose group to the Sea of Japan in my experience.


OTOH, 16-knot BBs would be the big kids on the block around Japan, as long as Togo stayed at Assan Basin. Crushing all the TBs, PCs, and ACs around Japan has its uses, too :D.


You might be surprised how useful it is.

As to using the same straits, after the 1st sortie of Lyena (which goes out between Hokkaido and Honshu), everybody I send east of Japan comes and goes through La Perouse after giving northern Japan a wide berth. Sure, this shortens my time on station, but I think it balances out. East of Japan, you see tons of neutrals but almost never a maru, which are the things that really count. So I normally keep my ACs and several PCs in the Sea of Japan, where they can get marus and attact the attention of the IJN, which they can out-run or out-fight. I leave the east coast of Japan to the auxiliary cruisers which can't do either, and hope my larger presence in the Sea of Japan keeps them from getting into trouble.

Sure, but 7 neutrals a month, 14 months, lose only several capital ships. It also clears out Tshushima(sp) straits.

Anyway, I hope you realize I don't criticize your strategy. I'm just aggressive strategically while very conservative tactically. If that makes sense. Sorry for the delay I've changed jobs recently and haven't even loaded DG recently. However that is all to change. Happy Fourth.

Beercat.

[Bullethead]

I stopped putting the DDs with the BBs though. The AI can look at one DD and ascertain the strength of the TF. That defeats the point of the screen in bad weather, you can never press the attack unless you have the speed advantage. I would rather let the BBs make first contact and then decide.

Depending on what you meet, it might not be your decision, especially if your ships are almost certaintainly going to be the slowest things in the fight. So I like having DDs, even just a single 1 on each flank. If it lives long enough, my BBs will have disappeared and the battle will end when the DD dies. It's like having life insurance when you're doing something risky and might run into something overwhelming :).

OTOH, the Germans and Brits seem to have followed your approach in WW1 when the lights went out. At Jutland, they put their DDs far away from their capital ships, apparently so the big should could shoot any DD they saw at night without hesitation. Of course, it was the other way around when the sun was up. Then, they were deathly afraid of subs so kept the DDs close as ASW screens. Funny how they thought subs were more of a threat in daylight, when it seems in both wars they did most of their damage at night.

Thank you, I just got tired of my 18 knot BBs in a TF with the 16 knot BBs and having the AI run from the stronger force, then having the 18s pursue and being overwhelmed while the 16s were hull down. I had to change.

I've never had much problem with this. If the sun's up, the 18-knotters can see Togo when he's well out of range and he can't close the range. He follows them and the 16-knotters get away clean, especially because they're already far away to begin with.

OTOH, if things really go to Hell, the worst case is I lose all my PA BBs. In which case, let them all go down together, dealing out as much punishment as possible to make like easier for 2PacRon :).

Sure, but 7 neutrals a month, 14 months, lose only several capital ships. It also clears out Tshushima(sp) straits.

Well, the alternative is to make things easy for your PCs by keeping Wei-Hai-Wei to Dalny area clear with the PA BBs. Then the PCs raise Hell off the Korean coast where all marus have to go eventually, and the IJA never advances. This tends to keep Togo occupied. Meanwhile, the weak PCs like Novik and Boyarin, along with the ACs, keep the mobile IJN forces chasing around the Sea of Japan while picking off a fair number of neutrals. This, in turn, keeps the east coast of Japan clear for Angara and Lyena, who really score on the neutrals. This strategy works most of the time. OTOH, it sounds a lot more complicated than just killing everything you can and being done with it ;).

Anyway, I hope you realize I don't criticize your strategy. I'm just aggressive strategically while very conservative tactically. If that makes sense.

I tend to be the other way around. I approach every battle as Raggnorok(?). If my guys are going to die, they'll take as many baddies with them as they can. But I try really hard not to put them in that position ;).

[PJJ]

I approach every battle as Raggnorok(?).

Ragnarök.

Carry on. :D

[JebUSMC]

Same here. For instance, the 1st thing I do as the Russians after Port Arthur is to reorganize the DDs into squadrons based on speed. 2 of 27 knots and 1 of 26 knots. There's 1 DD that can do 28 knots that I put in with a 27-knot squadron. Then there's Lt. Burakov, which I normally keep tied to the dock the whole war because her speed is WAY unrealistically high. I keep the 26-knotters with the BBs and use the 27-knotters more aggressively.


Actually, while slightly high, the speed for Lt. Burakov is very close. This ship made 33.6 kts during the war and could run rings around most other Russian destroyers. It had three sister ships. HMS Taku, SMS Taku, and the French destroyer Takou. These were the former Chinese Hai Lung class ships. Hai Lung (HMS Taku) was credited with 35.2 knots during trials according to the 1898 Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute Volume XXIV. Try using her as a fast raider along the Western Korean coast. At least until she runs into the Japanese battlefleet at night.

[Bullethead]

Actually, while slightly high, the speed for Lt. Burakov is very close. This ship made 33.6 kts during the war and could run rings around most other Russian destroyers. It had three sister ships. HMS Taku, SMS Taku, and the French destroyer Takou. These were the former Chinese Hai Lung class ships. Hai Lung (HMS Taku) was credited with 35.2 knots during trials according to the 1898 Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute Volume XXIV. Try using her as a fast raider along the Western Korean coast. At least until she runs into the Japanese battlefleet at night.

I beg to differ. While these speeds were indeed published, they weren't even close to right. You have to remember that back in those days, published DD speeds, which were from trials, were absolutely worthless in terms of knowing the ship's speed in service. This is because 1) the trials were run under extremely unrealistic conditions to produce the highest possible speed, and 2) even these bogus trials speeds were exaggerated routinely by both the designer/builder and the government concerned to scare potential enemies and to drum up export orders. Lt. Burakov is one of the more extreme examples of this.

Here's a quote from The First Destroyers, by David Lyon. This is the same guy who wrote the section on Brit DDs in Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1860-1905, and is based on primary documentation still available in the Brit NMM. Also note that pretty much all the DDs in the RJW game were designed by Brits and some were built in the UK, so there is extensive primary documentation on them, or their Brit clones, as well. Keep this in mind when reading Conway's, which has widely different stats for the same ships under different country headings, because they were written by different people. Anyway....

In the journal Engineering of 27 January 1899 there was a report of the destroyers building in Germany for China reaching very high speeds on trial. Schichau reported the attainment of 35.2 knots with the trial load of complete armament plus 25 tons coal. With bunkers full (67 tons coal) the claim was that they had steamed at 33.6 knots for "several hours" and with 67 tons coal but with natural draft between 30 and 31 knots were claimed. However, 6000ihp and 280 tons displacement were incompatible with a speed of 35 knots.

Although these figures were quite rightly doubted, there was considerable intertest in finding out what the performance of these vessels actually was. This was made possible when all four of these destroyers were captured from the Chinese during the Boxer Rebellion ... One of them was taken into the Royal Navy under the name Taku and was thenceforward available for close examination and comparison (see Admiralty Covers 128A/255, 128B/255c).

Trials at Hong Kong (when she was noted to actually displace 305 tons light, 344 full load) found her speed to be significantly below that claimed by the builders ... Five years later, the Commander-in-Chief, China, reported that "Taku's present structure is only suitable for speeds up to approximately 24 knots, in smooth water, and that if continuous steaming at higher speeds is required it will be necessary to strengthen the hull, though this action will again increase her weight and draught." (see Admiralty Cover 128B/145)

Anyway, given her power and displacement, there's no way Lt. Burakov could have made over 30 knots. And given her lower freeboard than the other DDs, she wouldn't have been as fast as they were in the same sea state. Except for a few other Russian DDs of German and French make, all the others on both sides were Brit, direct clones of Brit ships in service with the RN. And for these, there's extensive documentation that regardless of how fast they went on their bogus trial runs, they couldn't get much over 26-28 knots in service condition. So a speed of 24 knots for Lt. Burakov under the same conditions is probably correct. Especially if she wasn't strong enough to go faster anyway.

[JebUSMC]

Good point. I can agree with that. I have to get that book! That brings up another question. How long could any of these ships maintain top speed? Back on topic, is it possible to get + signs while playing as the Russians?

[Bullethead]

Good point. I can agree with that. I have to get that book! That brings up another question. How long could any of these ships maintain top speed?

If by "any of these ships" you mean RJW-vintage DDs (actually TBDs), then the answer is "not very long at all". There were 3 limiting factors: machinery fragility, stoker endurance, and coal supply.

No reciprocating steam engine of the time could run at full power for more than a few hours without taking damage that at best would limit speed and at worst would totally break the motor. But this is talking about the sturdy guts of BBs and such. TB/TBD/DD engines were like racecar engines today--fragile, lightweight things that pushed existing technology to and a bit beyond its practical limits. So these ships broke down quicker, more often, and more severely.

These little ships also had very limited stoker endurance. While there's a definite man-killing limit to how long somebody can shovel coal into a hot boiler, bigger ships had lots of stokers so they could spell each other even at full power. Even if "taking a break" meant swapping a position at the firebox to humping coal from a distant bunker to the boiler. Better than standing in front of the fire the whole time :). IOW, they had considerably more guys aboard than were required to feed all the boilers at once. The little ships, however, only had enough stokers to provide crusing power over 2 or 3 watches, which was just barely enough to run all the boilers full blast at once if all hands were at battle stations. So once the stokers got overheated, there was nobody to relieve them.

The other problem was coal supply. None of these ships carried that much, and consumption increases exponentially with power generated. While these ships wouldn't (usually) burn all their coal in an hour, they burned up everything within easy reach that fast. The rest of the coal was further from the boilers so the rate of supply fell drastically once the stokers had to start walking further (because they didn't have dozens of guys dumping coal at their feet like in BBs).

Here's a quote from Admiralty Cover 128A, Enclosure at folio 257, as reported in The First Destroyers. It concerns the trials of the very 1st TBD/DD ever made, HMS Havock. This was a "26-knotter" but wasn't really any different from the "27-knotters" and "30-knotters" that came later and fought in the RJW.

Broadly speaking, she can, within three hours, catch any Torpedo Boat that she sights, but that should be the limit of her spurt.

Remember, all the limitations noted above apply with even more force to TBs than TBDs, because they were smaller. So their machinery was even more fragile, they had even fewer stokers and even less coal within easy reach. Plus, being smaller, they couldn't go as fast in the same sea state unless it was dead calm and smooth. So probably both sides would have to heave to and catch their breath several times during this chase.

Back on topic, is it possible to get + signs while playing as the Russians?

Do you mean in the victory level text at the top of the campaign screen? Oh yes, that's extremely possible. After the 1st week, I usually maintain 1 or 2 +s in the "Russian Victory" category. However, the arrival of a single maru in Chemulpo can take away a whole + sign.

[Daedalus]

Good Ideas, I have not thought of splitting up the BB's .
I am getting ready to start a new game so I am going to give these ideas a run and see how I fair with them.
I also have not been taking on the Japanese in the Sea of Japan with my CA's , I mostly run East and West along the North Coast and take them on.
I'll post my outcomes on this as soon as I can.