Distant Guns 1.5 Now On Sale!

[Bullethead]

Originally Posted by alexsmith

So what should I expect from armor value of Asama - seven - comparing to armor level of Bayan - six? Especially when six IJN light cruisers having nothing but 6" burned Bayan to dust in minutes! Assume you use some other hidden data not displayed in ship's information - but how am I supposed to play having not such data and no ability to compare ships' values???

Don't forget that the IJN was using shimose shells that had a noteworthy incendiary effect. Also, the Russian ships often had more flammable stuff exposed to enemy fire. Thus, shipboard fires are usually more of a problem for the Russians than the IJN.

As to the actual armor values used in game calculations, put the mouse over a ship and hit "I" to bring up the Ship Information Screen. This shows the armor values for the belt, hull, deck, and conning tower. Then mouse over one of the green/yellow/red dots on the ship's picture to see the armor value for that particular weapon, as well as the weapon's stats.

The armor for a weapon only affects that weapon. The conning tower armor only affects the conning tower. The belt armor runs the length of the ship, and it may be domed so as to add to the belt armor (this is shown on the info screen if applicable for a given ship). The belt and hull armor values require some explaining, as follows:

Belt Armor:

• Vertical Extent: From a bit below the waterline to a point 1/3 of the way up from the waterline to the upper deck.
• Horizontal Extent: 1/2 the length of the ship centered amidships, so that there's 1/4 of the ship's length ahead of the belt and 1/4 aft of it.

Hull Armor:

• At bow and stern: Runs from the end of the ship to the edge of the belt at the same height. IOW, this represents the thinner belt armor at the bow and stern.
• Amidships: The hull armor also represents the upper belt. The area this covers is the same length as the belt armor and also centered amidships. It runs from the upper belt edge up to a point 2/3 of the way between the waterline and the upper deck.

The armor value shown on the telescope popup is a result of averaging all these numbers (including weapon armor), weighting not only the thickness but the extent covered, and the type of armor itself (steel, Harvey, Krupp, etc.).

As I said, this average number is NOT used in game calculations, it's just there as a sort of quick reference. It can be misleading if a ship has a very thick belt but no other armor, because such a ship might have a high average armor value but still be extremely vulnerable because most of it isn't armored much or at all. This was, in fact, a fairly common armor layout in this era, for ships built before Harvey and Krupp armor was invented. They had to have truly massive belts, which weighed so much they couldn't have armor elsewhere, and these thick belts didn't provide any more protection than thinner belts of more advanced armor types.

You named your RND engine "Dark God", didn't you?

No, I just use the term "Dark Gods" as "bad luck".

But that's exactly what I'm talking about! Concerning about quite realistic requires that battle is based most upon random events - as were in real those times! But it's a game killer! To avoid "Dark Gods" I should save and load - and thus all the above stuff doesn't matter: armor, hit locations, fires - only random is! That's pitty...

Most wargames are very deterministic. If the range is X and the conditions are Y, then gun Z always has such-and-such a chance to hit, and will always penetrate so much armor. As a result, most wargamers have been raised since birth to expect all games to work that way.

Or course, it isn't like that at all in real life. There's actually huge scope for human error and mechanical malfunctions, little if any control over hit location, and even then the shell might be a dud, or might do unexpectedly large amounts of damage. All that sort of thing is modeled in our games. As a result, individual battles fought under the same conditions can vary a lot in their results. In any given battle, any individual ship can perform better or worse than its historical basis. However, over the long run, the results of many trials will average out at the historically realistic level.

This all makes our games more realistic--they are simulations, not just games. Battles are dangerous, unpredictable things and you might take painful losses even if you go in with the much stronger force. This approach appeals to many people, but not others. Sorry you don't seem to like it.

So, I gonna make a complete research - thank's to you included Scenario Editor in 1.5 I gonna create a few scenarios to make comparable results and collect statistics...

You'll have to run any test you create many, many times to arrive at a meaningful result. I'm talking dozens of times. Without a large enough sample, your result will be skewed by outliers.

Could you please tell me your opinion - what two of Russian BB and Japan ships are closest in battle value? If I put up for example Tsesarevitch vs Asama - should it be "fair" accourding to their techs?

I don't think in those terms so have never given this subject any thought. Instead, I just put my forces into what I think are their most effective arrangements, pick my fights carefully, and use skillful tactics to keep things in my favor as much as possible.

When I play the Russians in the campaign, I actually try to avoid battle as much as possible. After all, killing IJN warships doesn't contribute directly to victory and takes ships away from the vital task of stopping merchants. I avoid Togo completely until 2PacRon arrives and in the meantime just use 1PacRon for nocturnal sorties against the blockade at Port Arthur so my cruisers can get in and out easier. I use the Vlad ACs to lead the IJN on a wild goose chase, which makes life easier for my PCs in the Sea of Japan.

However, over in the Gamesquad forum, there's a guy named "Double Whisky" who is an expert at fighting fleet actions as the Russians. He's posted a number of AARs of glorious victories in the Yellow Sea and Tsushima Straits. You might want to read some of that.

[alexsmith]

Originally Posted by Bullethead

No, I just use the term "Dark Gods" as "bad luck".

This explains everything! I probably just cursed...

Sorry you don't seem to like it.

This is a problem! If I wouldn't like it - I wouldn't write here

When I play the Russians in the campaign, I actually try to avoid battle as much as possible.

This is another problem: to accomplish campaing goal for both side is almost too easy - and too boring This isn't your fault - it's historic condition. Playing for Russian you may only hunt down transports running away from battle - playing for Japanese - destroy Russian cruisers and rest until the end. This is not worth a game At least - this is not worth a $50 I've payed. DG is a battle simulator - what is interesting in avoiding all battles then? If there would be a land fighting - this would be reasonable But in naval simulator the only fun from game is to engage enemy at sea! Doubt it? But in Russian campaing it's a bit complex - unless you found fun killing dozens of DD and TB. There are not too many possibilities for Russians to engage in comparable situation untill second fleet arrives - at the end of game. As for IJN - most of the campaing you also must look at rolling clocks - and wait till PA falls at least...

Actually what I really want to say - the game requires DIFFICULTY lever! At "Novice level" it's quite more easy to hit and destroy enemy, at "Expert level "- it's a trick to survive. Mean level matches historic conditions - like now does. Without it you only may play campaing game no more than couple of times - then it become clear that there is almost only one real strategy for every side - and it's quite boring... Playing again and again the same(!) situation - knowning that there is always only one possible successive way...

However, over in the Gamesquad forum, there's a guy named "Double Whisky" who is an expert at fighting fleet actions as the Russians. He's posted a number of AARs of glorious victories in the Yellow Sea and Tsushima Straits. You might want to read some of that.

I will surely! Appreciate.

[Bullethead]

Originally Posted by alexsmith

This is another problem: to accomplish campaing goal for both side is almost too easy - and too boring This isn't your fault - it's historic condition. Playing for Russian you may only hunt down transports running away from battle - playing for Japanese - destroy Russian cruisers and rest until the end. This is not worth a game At least - this is not worth a $50 I've payed. DG is a battle simulator - what is interesting in avoiding all battles then?

This is a matter of individual taste and the play style that results from this taste.

All naval campaigns based on a realistic situation (except perhaps the US in late WW2) share a common factor: decisive battles are really decisive. Prewar fleets can't be replaced and there will be few, if any, major units as reinforcements for the duration. Thus, no matter how long the campaign might last, there's only ever going to be 1 or maybe 2 really large battles. After that, 1 or both fleets are dead and there's not much else to do.

In real life, most admirals knew this and also that nothing is ever certain in war. As a result, there have been very few naval battles compared to land battles, and few of them have really been decisive or involved more than a fraction of the total fleet. The risk of the Dark Gods favoring the other side is large enough to impose caution unless the odds are overwhelmingly in one's favor, because there's no Plan B if the fleet is destroyed.

This is why naval campaigns don't appeal to everybody. Some folks like this aspect and enjoy the stress of knowing things can go terribly wrong whenever they accept battle. They agonize over such decisions and spend a lot of time and effort, using kleinkrieg strategy, trying to achieve conditions where they can force a decisive battle on favorable terms. This is the sort of person naval campaigns are made for. Other folks just want action, so they rush off to battle on day 1, then complain that they've run out of enemies to fight. They therefore tend not to like naval campaigns. This is the sort of person that scenario editors are made for.

The realistic and uncertain battle simulation in DG can be used by both types of person. On the campaign side of things, it's necessary to make battles dangerous and unpredictable, so that the players must confront the true risks of accepting battle. On the tactical side of things, it makes for cool battles.

[alexsmith]

It's a big pleasure to talk to you but you probably don't understand what I'm saying This is probably because my English is poor - I just can't express what I mean...

I just want to say that if trying to just win campaing - for example for Russian Empire - it's absolutely unnecesary to fight at all! Catch transports and run away - and you win! This is maybe good for the first time, but what is a point to play game that way? Who of naval gamers you mentioned like the game without naval battles? One or two, large or small - it doesn't matter. When I finish one campaing with just one or two battles - I'm not supposed to throw a game out - I want to try again! Find different circumstances, different strategy, achive better results. But at this point one may realise that playing DG over and over again make almost no difference to gameplay! Russians can't fight with major IJN forces until second fleet arrives, Japanese can't catch Russian's until they lost PA - that's it! No chance Russian's can beat Togo, no chance Togo can beat united Russian fleet.

If the game had something to slightly tune chances for both sides - it would make a gameplay much more unpredictable!

We all know what happened in real - Russia has lost. That's real, that's history. What we trying to prove in simulation - would Russia win if some circumstances were slightly different? What could happen if Varyag could escape to PA? What if first Japanese DDs attack was more/less resultative?

But why shouldn't we go futher? What would happen if Russia's guns would have the same rate of fire as Japanese had? It's not real - but what if it would? We know - most Japanese ships were better than Russian - modern, better armored. But what if we slightly change those factors?

Or on the other hand - what if I became so experienced player that I beat computer with no troubles at all. Would I be tough the same if I make Japanese ships even more powerfull?

That's the point - allow player to slightly change balance for sides - as you did with gunnery accuracy/damage. This would create not just one game but many different games! Thanks for your attention

[Bullethead]

Originally Posted by alexsmith

But at this point one may realise that playing DG over and over again make almost no difference to gameplay! Russians can't fight with major IJN forces until second fleet arrives, Japanese can't catch Russian's until they lost PA - that's it! No chance Russian's can beat Togo, no chance Togo can beat united Russian fleet.

This isn't true.

As the Russians, it's perfectly possible to destroy or at least maim Togo with 1PacRon. Double Whisky over at Gamesquad does this a lot. Once he thinks he's weakened the Port Arthur blockade sufficiently, he goes on a Togo hunt with 1PacRon and the Vlad cruisers, and usually not only ruins Togo but isn't hurt that badly himself. He explains how he does this in detail in several threads. Besides, if he loses the battle, he's got another chance with 2PacRon against a weakened Togo.

From his POV, this is an acceptable risk because he knows how to cause and fight the battle to his advantage. He isn't looking for mutual destruction but a decisive win while preserving the bulk of his force. He considers that removing Togo makes life easier for his cruisers.

I prefer not to do things this because I see it as riskier than he does. So I'm content to wait until 2PacRon shows up, just using 1PacRon to weaken the blockade and trying to keep the IJN from mining the Port Arthur area too much. I think I have better odds with 2 fleets than one, so why not wait? But I also consider my limited use of 1PacRon as making life easier for my cruisers.

It's quite possible to win the game either way, just as it is to win the game without using 1PacRon at all. However, both of the above strategies are less risky than keeping 1PacRon in port. You can't count on your cruisers always getting through the blockade either way, and they sometimes run into Togo at night and get blown to bits before they can escape. If those things happen early in the game, which is quite possible, you're not going to win without using 1PacRon. And 1PacRon can't do anything until Togo is dead.

So, you have several options. It all comes down to what you want to do. There's nothing stopping you from seeking battle with just 1PacRon, just like there's nothing forcing you to take them to sea. You don't have to do the same thing over and over.

Now, as the Japanese, it's also possible to lure 1PacRon out of Porth Arthur and kill them. You just have to be sneaky about it because they won't come out unless they think they have a chance to win. If you show up at their doorstep with the whole IJN, they'll stay in bed. Thus, you have to lure them into a trap with a weak, but still important force, dragging them too far from home to escape before the IJN BBs catch up with them. It's a good idea to do this as soon as possible, so you have the most time to repair before 2PacRon shows up.

[alexsmith]

Thanks a lot for your comments - but you didn't say a word about difficulty settings - what you think about that?

[Bullethead]

Originally Posted by alexsmith

Thanks a lot for your comments - but you didn't say a word about difficulty settings - what you think about that?

I think that would be very hard to implement and that few people would appreciate the effort. But it's not my call, so if you feel strongly about it, send in a suggestion and try to talk my boss into it .

[alexsmith]

Originally Posted by Bullethead

I think that would be very hard to implement and that few people would appreciate the effort. But it's not my call, so if you feel strongly about it, send in a suggestion and try to talk my boss into it .

I will certanly! As for another suggestions too. Just tell where to send

You say computer does not cheat? I DON'T BELIEVE YOU!

Having the same situation - 7 BBs + 3 AC against 4 Japanese AC - about 40 minutes of battles from 4km - all Japanese ships are still light. But when I just FOR A MINUTE let them fire at my cruisers - 2 of them are MODERATE at the moment! And only two(!) hits at the enemy from my cruisers for the same time in the comparetive conditions!

Computer sometimes hits my ships with major guns three times per second! I only see occasional hits of enemy. They not just fire faster - they hit much more frequently! At the moment I feel nothing but angry - no pleasure from such cheating at all...

[Bullethead]

Originally Posted by alexsmith

You say computer does not cheat? I DON'T BELIEVE YOU!

Well, that's your opinion. But the computer doesn't cheat. Sometimes, the Dark Gods just hate you. That's what makes battle risky.

[alexsmith]

Originally Posted by Bullethead

Well, that's your opinion. But the computer doesn't cheat. Sometimes, the Dark Gods just hate you. That's what makes battle risky.

Well if you would add hits at computer managed ships in the game log - it would be more fair! We could just compare two numbers. Of course if there would be no cheating with log

If "Dark Gods" hate me definitely more than a computer - then it is cheeting! That's what I'm talking about

I don't say it is impossible to win against a computer. I just say that to avoid so called "Dark Gods" I'm forced to load too often. I know a few men, for example, who were playing UFO and did load every time they miss a single shot! In DG I also can load after each time my ship's hited - and I probably win - even most impossible battle! But that's not good...

[alexsmith]

Ok, we all now know - Dark Gods hate me! Personally.

But that what's another person wrote at one forum concerning DG (I'll try to translate):

Did anybody try to catch Nissin with Kasuga? I ...ed up to kick them! I caught them with Tsesarevitch, VladCR, Askold and Novik - about 3 hours I tried to beat them! They have no damages at all! Russian ships don't throw torpedoes from 600m, Japanese do. At the end they are OK, mine are moderate. WHAT TO DO?