Invasion TF

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Invasion TF

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Invasion TF

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Invasion TF - 7/29/2007 4:59:38 AM

baldbrother

Posts: 306
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline

When planning to invade an enemy held Island, what steps do you need to take to ensure the TF arrives at night...and can you combine a landing with a naval bombardment? Thanks.

Post #: 1

RE: Invasion TF - 7/29/2007 5:07:13 AM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

Set their destination to be a hex adjacent to the target, then when they arrive there give them the order to move to the target.

And no, the closest you can come to combining the landing with a bombardment is to have a Bombardment TF in the hex. But they will still perform their functions at different times in the turn processing.

*waits for people to claim ships in the transport TF will bombard, excuse me, "suppress enemy fire"*

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

(in reply to baldbrother)

Post #: 2

RE: Invasion TF - 7/29/2007 5:28:20 AM

Gem35

Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

When planning an invasion to an island you will also want to consider sending either land based bombers within range or a carrier task force to bomb the port so you can suppress the big guns that may fire upon your landing forces. Port attacks will bomb the coastal defense guns that may be positioned there.
as dtravel said, you will want to include some dd/cl/ca to suppress the enemy fire on your landing ships, APs are best suited for invasion rather than Aks which may be subjected to more coastal guns thatn the APs.

_____________________________

It doesn't make any sense, Admiral. Were we better than the Japanese or just luckier?

Banner By Feurer Krieg

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 3

RE: Invasion TF - 7/29/2007 6:22:33 AM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

Well, you can insure that your -separate- bombardment TF hits the target on the same turn, but setting it to the same adjacent hext, and then sending them both in.

You're amphib TF is still going to get shot at by the CD guns, -but- when your troops shock attack from the landing (assuming it's an atoll), at least your bombardment TF will have hit the enemy on the same turn, causing disruption to the enemy and giving you the best chance you're going to get. You can also set the bombardment TF to patrol/no retire, and they will stay on station (altho subsequent rounds are usually far less effective than the initial bombardment for a variety of reasons).

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 4

RE: Invasion TF - 7/29/2007 1:24:31 PM

tabpub

Posts: 1019
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area
Status: offline

Agree with all posters on P/DNR to adjacent hex with landing force; then assign target hex for landing group on next order phase. You have to be confident in your situation to do this though, as it is a definite "giveaway" as to what the target is for tomorrow.

For bombardment, prefer to have bombardment force(s) "follow" the landing group(s); they will do the job and then hang around as big brothers for the little guys.

And, combatants in the landing force will fire and cause casualties; this is known and at the very least, their presence does seem to help attract fire to them, rather than the thin skins. Now, to what degree that works, well that is up to the individual to determine.
Personally, there is always a pre-1930's BB at least in most every landing force that I put together.

_____________________________

Sing to the tune of "Man on the Flying Trapeze"
..Oh! We fly o'er the treetops with inches to spare,
There's smoke in the cockpit and gray in my hair.
The tracers look fine as a strafin' we go.
But, brother, we're TOO God damn low...

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 5

RE: Invasion TF - 7/29/2007 6:40:27 PM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

Just be sure that the adjacent hex you select as your rally point does not contain any land. When a transport TF with LCUs loaded reaches its destination hex, it will start to unload regardless of whether "do not unload" is set or not. When this "feature" bites you, it always hurts like hell, not only because of the time it costs you, but also because of the exposure while you re-load, and worst of all because of the fatigue and disruption the unloaded LCUs will have earned....

< Message edited by irrelevant -- 7/29/2007 6:41:15 PM >

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to tabpub)

Post #: 6

RE: Invasion TF - 7/30/2007 5:42:17 AM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tabpub

Agree with all posters on P/DNR to adjacent hex with landing force; then assign target hex for landing group on next order phase. You have to be confident in your situation to do this though, as it is a definite "giveaway" as to what the target is for tomorrow.

For bombardment, prefer to have bombardment force(s) "follow" the landing group(s); they will do the job and then hang around as big brothers for the little guys.

And, combatants in the landing force will fire and cause casualties; this is known and at the very least, their presence does seem to help attract fire to them, rather than the thin skins. Now, to what degree that works, well that is up to the individual to determine.
Personally, there is always a pre-1930's BB at least in most every landing force that I put together.

Actually, I have yet to see test results that prove any benefit from placing surface combat ships in an amphib TF. From my own observations, such escorts do not inflict casualties on the defenders and their presence and fire actually draws additional fire on the TF from the defenders. So personally I would argue against putting such combatants in the transport TFs.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

(in reply to tabpub)

Post #: 7

RE: Invasion TF - 8/1/2007 12:51:53 PM

tabpub

Posts: 1019
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

quote:

ORIGINAL: tabpub

Agree with all posters on P/DNR to adjacent hex with landing force; then assign target hex for landing group on next order phase. You have to be confident in your situation to do this though, as it is a definite "giveaway" as to what the target is for tomorrow.

For bombardment, prefer to have bombardment force(s) "follow" the landing group(s); they will do the job and then hang around as big brothers for the little guys.

And, combatants in the landing force will fire and cause casualties; this is known and at the very least, their presence does seem to help attract fire to them, rather than the thin skins. Now, to what degree that works, well that is up to the individual to determine.
Personally, there is always a pre-1930's BB at least in most every landing force that I put together.

Actually, I have yet to see test results that prove any benefit from placing surface combat ships in an amphib TF. From my own observations, such escorts do not inflict casualties on the defenders and their presence and fire actually draws additional fire on the TF from the defenders. So personally I would argue against putting such combatants in the transport TFs.

Personally, I don't "test", I play; against other lifeforms, that is. And, my "transport" TF's do cause casualities. Now, as to whether this "draws" more fire to them...I can't really say; but, the boots get ashore and the job gets done. And, on the other side of the coin, I have seen plenty of Japanese TF's with no combatants get literaly MURDERED by coastal guns....so, I know what my opinion is. You have yours.....we obviously differ.

_____________________________

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 8

RE: Invasion TF - 8/1/2007 2:06:34 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

For gosh sakes', don't forget minesweepers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_____________________________

(in reply to tabpub)

Post #: 9

RE: Invasion TF - 8/1/2007 8:04:28 PM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

quote:

Actually, I have yet to see test results that prove any benefit from placing surface combat ships in an amphib TF. From my own observations, such escorts do not inflict casualties on the defenders and their presence and fire actually draws additional fire on the TF from the defenders.

That's why I like to put a CA or two, maybe a BB with a amphib TF... they will draw some of the CD fire that otherwise would hit the transports. Now if they would only shoot back...

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 10

RE: Invasion TF - 8/1/2007 9:36:00 PM

Mark VII

Posts: 1838
Joined: 8/11/2003
From: Brentwood,TN
Status: offline

In my last game as the Japanese, CA's would always have at least half ammo expended when part of the invasion TF. Did they hit anything, who knows!

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

That's why I like to put a CA or two, maybe a BB with a amphib TF... they will draw some of the CD fire that otherwise would hit the transports. Now if they would only shoot back...

Chez

_____________________________

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 11

RE: Invasion TF - 8/2/2007 11:24:02 AM

FeurerKrieg

Posts: 3397
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline

I've seen enemy casaulties cause by my invasion TF's before, not often, but it has happened. Now whether that is from my cruisers in the invasion TF or from the gunfire of my unloading troops I couldn't tell you.

_____________________________