Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

USN-IJN Bug?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
U

unmerged(83952)

Recruit
Sep 14, 2007
7
0
Hello. I am confused in playing the USA.

It seems that the USN (United States Navy) has problems when encountering the IJN (Imperial Japanese Navy).

These problems include an evident inability of the USN to cause damage/losses on the IJN and IJN forces escaping.

It seems a tad wrong when I have overwhelming USN forces...including BBs and CVs...that encounter of an IJN single DD escorting a single TP with that force escaping. The same does not happen for my well escorted forces of TPs.

Moreover, in CV versus CV battles, for example, the USN force (having 7 CVs and other capital ships versus 2 CVs and non-capital ship compliment) don't seem to even reply to the IJN.

I can more give examples, but I guess if there is a problem others will be kind enough to have a helpful reply.
 
The Regent said:
Is "Pearl Harbor status" still in effect?
Click to expand...

Can't say. What is that?

Over a period of several games and after Japan declared war on the USA, this happens. By the way, it happens well after the original declaration of war.

I doubt that there would be a "Pearl Harbor" surprise after a year or more at war...as was the case seen in some instances.
 
Simon_Jester said:
Or perhaps the Pearl Harbor event isn't shutting off due to a bug?
Click to expand...
I think that may be the question he's asking. As for doctrinal comparison, in my 1941 UK game I was ahead of the IJN in naval doctrine research (I took screen shots as proof) and the Royal Navy, even with a 2:1 advantage in carriers in any particular battle, would typically do very little damage to IJN carrier fleets (or even non-carrier IJN fleets). It seems to be a problem specifically when using carriers against the IJN, or if the IJN fleet itself has carriers. If both fleets have no carriers then combat losses are as I would expect based on my experience facing other national navies (UK vs. Germany, UK vs. Italy, etc.).

Does the Pearl Harbor event affect the Japanese positively (so that it also affects battles with countries other than the US), or is it a negative modifier applied to the Americans? Regardless, I don't think it's the Pearl event because in my UK game I've been at war with Japan since Nov. '40 (it's currently late May '41), there's been no Pearl event, and I've been having imbalance problems facing the IJN since before the Japanese declared war on the US a few weeks after the UK declared war on Japan.
 
Doesn't naval surprise only affect the first hour of a battle? Surprise shouldn't be affecting combat results several hours into the battle, yet it seems to. Also, surprise should affect all units equally, yet I only see problems with my UK forces when carriers are involved (on either or both sides), not when it's with fleets containing no carriers. And the various people who've reported problems playing as the Americans (my own USA game is not yet far enough along for me to be at war with Japan) experience even more dramatic disparity between the combat effectiveness of US naval units and those of the IJN than I've experienced as the UK versus the IJN.
 
If you have a save game where this is occurring, it might be useful if you could upload it to Mantis, please. That way, we can have a look, and see if it appears to be a bug in our techs,etc, or if it appears that something has just gone odd in the game.

Tim
 
I'll see what I can do, Tim. BTW, it's not the particular game. It's repeatable game after game after game. Also, "dblwide" is not the first to report an issue regarding the IJN with CORE 0.3x. Someone else did several weeks ago, but I couldn't find the original posting. At the time I was playing as Germany so I couldn't contribute to the discussion. But now that I'm playing Allied nations I'm seeing the same IJN behaviors that others have been complaining about. I chimed in to this thread because I wanted to let you CORE guys know that the problem appears to be with Japan, because it's not just the USA that has problems, but the UK as well (though the USA seems to suffer far far worse at the hands of the IJN than does the UK).
 
Hi,

The really interesting thing is that it used to be JAP with the problem in the 0.25 release. At that point they couldn't do anything with their surface fleet. Interesting that it is the CV units in particular that seem so strong. May be the Positioning, though this is part of Independent CV, rather than JApanese Doctrine specifically. For info, which of the CV doctrines do you have completed and which does JAP have when the problems are noted? Anyone can answer this.

mm
 
Dec,

Can you, or any of the other CORE devs, please explain the HoI2 game mechanics of "ambush" and "surprise" as it relates to naval combat? The Japanese surprise event grants +30% to ambush and +40% to surprise, and it'd help very much to understand the underlying game mechanics of these two bonuses as it pertains to naval warfare (I understand how they work for land combat).

In my USA game, the Japanese declared war on me (and independently against the UK allies) a week ago (on 6 Nov 41). I've since had several USA vs. Jap battles, one of which was a major CV-vs-CV engagement. But I'd like to hold off on discussing what happened until I have a better understanding of the background for the battle(s). However, for the record, the USA in my game has superior CAGs ('42 vs. '40), and we have equal CV doctrines (I'm equal or ahead on all other naval doctrines).
 
Maybe it isn't that unrealistic, epic naval battles rarely accoured, keep in mind that both sides "generally", had to want a large engagement to accour for one to. Although I do agree it gets a bit out of hand sometimes, when you have a huge carrier fleet attack 1 transport, and the transport escapes with no damage.
 
And with MateDow out at sea he won't be able to answer for the next couple of weeks...
 
Thanks, Hagar and Dec, for at least replying. Regardless of my still being somewhat in the dark with respect to the mechanics of why some of the stuff that happens in IJN naval combats happens as it does, I think I can say that the IJN being invincible in CORE is a myth. In my first carrier-on-carrier engagement with them (as the USA), my TF was led by Halsey (skill 5 Grand Admiral), while the IJN's fleet was led by Yamamoto (also skill 5 GA). The IJN TFs (there were two caught in the same battle) were composed of: 5 CV, 2 BC, 6 CA, 6 CL, 5 DD, 1 SS, and 3 TP. Halsey's fleet had 9 carriers, 18 CA, 17 CL, and 10 DL. After 4 hours of battle 25 points of damage was inflicted to each fleet. Yes, the American fleet had twice the firepower of the IJN fleet (plus '42 US CAGs vs. '40 Jap CAGs, too), but I suppose the Surprise event bonuses that Japan has is balancing that out. (Though I wish I understood the mechanics of *how*.) In my several non-carrier battles my American forces have been mercilessly wiping out Jap DDs and TPs whenever encountered. After that first CV-on-CV battle I've since had several more engagements with Yamamoto's fleet (it had retreated into the harbor at Iwo Jimi and would sally forth from time to time to play with Halsey's blockading force), culminating in a day-long battle that was bloody on both sides, but that the Japs decisively lost:

By the time this battle was fought I'd already had 3 prior battles with this Jap fleet and I'd pulled out 4 of my 9 carriers and sent them to Guam for (minor) repairs. So I was actually more successful with half my carriers in this one battle than with twice the carriers in 3 previous battles combined (probably the result of having a lower stacking penalty due to my having removed about a quarter of the TF's ships for repairs). The Japs lost 4 capital ships, including a CV (plus the CV Kaga was seriously damaged, along with several other Jap CAs), while I only lost one CA (with several more seriously damaged).

Several days later, an American 77-DD TF ran into the other Jap carrier fleet (3 CVs and about two dozen escorts) and that battle was fought at close (DD gunnery) range. Needless to say, in spite of the Jap's having carriers, over six dozen tin cans is still a lot of guns and the Japs got mauled in that battle too, by far more than the (relatively) minor damage a few of my DDs took in return.

The preliminary conclusions I'm drawing from my various battles is that those folks having problems with the IJN may be suffering from one or more shortcomings: inferior task force leader, inferior CV doctrine tech, and most of all, inferior CAGs. Because in my own game, with equal CV doctrinal tech, better CAGs, and equally-skilled leaders, I'm not only holding my own against the vaunted IJN, I'm winning naval battle after naval battle.
 
Last edited:
Have played 3 games as the US, and can say that I have had similar experiences to ShadoWarrior - with most success coming from relatively small CV task forces. It seems that if you avoid the tempatation of producing the 'killer stack' then things go OK for the USN. I like it! Just roll in one stack after another instead :D. Probably more realistic as well.

Cheers,

M
 
I am resurrecting this thread because I believe I've discovered the source of the problem. The engine is not applying the C.O.R.E. naval stacking limit correctly, at least not in ARM. Instead, the penalty is 0.5. So a 52-ship stack gives a -25% penalty, and a 100-ship stack gives a -47% penalty. The USN loses to the IJN because it brings too many ships to the party. This is probably worse for a human player, since the AI will send its DDs on useless ASW missions.

I believe AI Italy may also be hurt by this, since with less sea areas to patrol they may end up having too may ships at a battle.

Note that when you set the naval stacking limit to zero, it cancels the stacking limit. Apparently numbers under 0.5 are out-of-range for the code.
 
Hi,

This is an interesting observation,though I'm not sure there is the "problem" that you think. There are two seperate modifiers for naval size. One is the basic command limit:

# Combat Modifier: Naval Exceeding Max Command Limit Mod
-0.25

The other is a modifer for total fleet size:

# Combat Modifier: Total Naval Overstacking Mod for each non-transport division above two.
-0.005 #-0.01, Set to CORE 0.22 value

So for a 52 ship fleet I get an expected "overstacking" penalty of 25%, while at 100 ships it should be 49%. So this looks to be working "properly" if I understand your post right.

OTOH, this may not be WAD. Matedow will have to confirm if the effect here is actually as desired.

mm
 
dec152000 said:
Hi,

# Combat Modifier: Total Naval Overstacking Mod for each non-transport division above two.
-0.005 #-0.01, Set to CORE 0.22 value

So for a 52 ship fleet I get an expected "overstacking" penalty of 25%, while at 100 ships it should be 49%. So this looks to be working "properly" if I understand your post right.
Click to expand...

You are correct, sir. I dropped the decimal point, not P-Dox. I'm officially embarassed now.

Nevertheless, the stacking penalty in CORE is almost twice the P-dox default -- with a Grand Admiral in Vanilla, you get a stacking penalty of 28% at max command. And single-ship destroyer fleets exacerbate this. The key point is that the AI tends to skimp on screens, which is actually the correct move. Adding destroyers to a fleet past the minimum screen value (plus a couple, I guess) only hurts you.

With the current stacking limits, I don't see much reason to ever exceed a Vice Admiral's command limit in a carrier battle. At least not until CVLs come back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back