LCI(G) still broke (Long)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

LCI(G) still broke (Long)

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 >> LCI(G) still broke (Long)

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

LCI(G) still broke (Long) - 12/18/2004 4:59:49 AM

Desertdaddy

Posts: 74
Joined: 7/17/2004
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline

The landing craft support vessels like LCI(G), LCI(M), LSM(R) are still not working correctly. They do not fire their rockets in support of landings. I brought this subject up many months ago but nothing has changed in the recent patches to fix it. I ran many test under the 1.4 patch using the tutorial scenario, here are some of my results and observations. I had fog of war off and played head to head, I used the expenditure of ammo as the indication of weapon firing.

I first tried to increase the ammo each ship had for the rockets from 1 to 10, thinking maybe a low ammo condition prevented firing as the computer only saw 1 ammo remaining. Rockets were still listed in the editor as SS rockets. No firing at all by the rockets in support of an invasion.

Next I changed the ship type from LCI(G) to BB so I could form bombardment TFs and test more theories. I created large bombardment TFs of like ships. I used the editor to make some of all the invasion support vessels available like the LSM(R) and other later war versions. No Rocket fire. I increased the range from 5000 slowly to see the effect. At 15000 the mortars started to fire (as evident by damage and ammo expenditure)

I now changed the weapon type from SS rocket to naval gun. I noticed something funny in the ship database for naval guns. The former rockets (changed and now showing up as naval guns) had a rate of fire of 0. Perhaps the problem�no. I sent of my TFs again to bombard this time with guns (changed from SS rockets in the editor) and they actually fired and did well. Range was 25000 and they expended 2 ammo. The mounts that started with 10 ammo now had 8; the mounts with only 1 now had 255 (-1 in code is 255 I guess). I reduced the range to 10000 next, now no fire at all. Lastly I tried 5000 (the original range for the unmodified rockets) and no fire. Range plays an important factor in shooting at the beach.

The next thing I tried was editing the weapon stats of a naval gun to match the original rocket values and mount these in the LCI(G)s. I used weapons with higher then 2 rate of fire because rate of fire seems to be hard coded and not editable. Every time I put one of these modified weapons on a LCI type ship they showed up in the games ship database screen as ROF 0. Intresting ROF sems tied to LCI type ship somehow.

The final tests involved including these landing support ships in invasion TFs again. I changed all their types back to original and used original weapons mounts (back to SS rockets) but with longer range. No rockets fired. I change the rockets to naval guns with 10000 or 5000 range and again nothing fired. Next I changed their type to DD, left the naval guns and tried again. This time maybe 20% of the total support ships did fire their gun (rockets) but the max weapons range was 25000. When tried at 5000 weapons range nothing fired.

In conclusion, the landing support ships need to be looked at. Their ROF of 0 does not seem correct. SS Rocket type weapons are not firing. The 5000 range may be historical but the ships are not going in close enough to use their weapons. I am almost to the time when these ships become available and wish something could be done so they are worth using. Right now they are just extra targets to suck fire away from your troop carriers, nothing more.

Post #: 1

RE: LCI(G) still broke (Long) - 12/18/2004 7:06:46 AM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

I brought your previous complaint to the developers attention last time. I also created a save that repeated the results you were concerned with.

The response I got after they looked at the save was that that aspect of the game was working properly and they did not see it as a problem.

Therefore nothing changed.

I will bring this latest post to their attention anyway (if they haven't seen it already).

Cheers

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Desertdaddy)

Post #: 2

RE: LCI(G) still broke (Long) - 12/18/2004 7:15:45 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

Answer was that the ships *were* having a dramatic impact on the casualty rates sustained during the landings which was the purpose for these ships (fire support to the grunts going ashore).

I suggest you expand your test results to include the effects on the troops being unloaded by this group as that is where you will see if they work, not in the manner you have tested.

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 3

RE: LCI(G) still broke (even Longer) - 12/19/2004 12:26:43 AM

Desertdaddy

Posts: 74
Joined: 7/17/2004
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline

I disagree completely. These ships are �not� having a dramatic impact on landing casualties.
I have conducted 12 tests using the tutorial scenario and not changing any ship weapons or type of weapons of the ships. For 2 tests I did make more LSM(R), LCI(G) and LCI(R) available but did not change their default weapons. All test were transport TF with the same leader using the same APs. All invasions were against Tinian with FOW off.
Here are a few of the results. I have all 12 available for those who want to see.

9 AP, no support ships at all. IJN Base 0 Disrupt.
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/16/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Tinian, 62,65, firing at TF 1001
TF 1001 troops unloading over beach at Tinian, 62,65

149 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
AP John Land
AP Warhawk, Shell hits 1
AP Doyen, Shell hits 3, on fire
AP Custer, Shell hits 1, on fire
AP Bolivar, Shell hits 4

Allied ground losses:
470 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Tinian, 62,65, firing at TF 1001
TF 1001 troops unloading over beach at Tinian, 62,65

118 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
AP Sheridan, Shell hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
AP Custer, Shell hits 1
AP Bolivar, Shell hits 1
AP Sumter, Shell hits 2

Allied ground losses:
521 casualties reported
Guns lost 3

10 AP with 40 LCI(G), 9 LCI(R) , 12 LSM(R) in support. IJN Base 9 disruption. More ships means more 3� guns. 3� & 5� guns only ammo used.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/15/44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Tinian, 62,65, firing at TF 1001
TF 1001 troops unloading over beach at Tinian, 62,65

170 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
LCI(G) LCI-66, Shell hits 1
LCI(G) LCI-64, Shell hits 6
LCI(G) LCI-61
AP Frederick Funston
AP American Legion, Shell hits 1
AP W.A. Holbrook

Allied ground losses:
761 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Tinian, 62,65, firing at TF 1001
TF 1001 troops unloading over beach at Tinian, 62,65

169 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
AP Arthur Middleton
LCI(G) LCI-61, Shell hits 1
AP Heywood, Shell hits 1
LCI(G) LCI-65, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AP George F. Elliot
LCI(G) LCI-64, Shell hits 2
LCI(G) LCI-69
AP American Legion, Shell hits 5, on fire
LCI(G) LCI-70, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied ground losses:
639 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

These results are not the extreme but the average of all the tests. Casualties varied a bit but not by a significant amount. When LCI(G) were included in TF, some fired there 3� guns which caused a little disruption on the IJN base but did not show any reduction in landing casualties or significantly reduce the number of CD shots. Landing casualties seem more related to the number of AP unloading then the CD guns firing back. Less APs unloading equals less landing casualties. Another interesting effect is less ships in the invasion TF the less CD shots directed at them.
I also conducted tests with 10 AP, 10 CA and 10DD in a single TF. The CA and DD fired their main guns and caused good disruption on the CD guns, caused a few Japanese casualties and limited the number of CD gun shots on the 2nd round of the invasion but this did not reduce the landing casualties.
The rational that by just including LCI(G)s in an invasion TF reduces the number of casualties by their mere presence is incorrect. The extremely minor effect their limited (almost non existent) use of their 3� guns is completely out weighed by that more ships in a TF means more CD shots and them getting hit along with the APs. These ships are not being used for their historical intended purpose, which is firing all those lovely rockets, and disrupting the heck out the defender before the troops hit the beach.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 4

RE: LCI(G) still broke (even Longer) - 12/19/2004 2:13:06 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

You might want to try an opposed landing, not a little joke like that. Sending AP's in against a real beach with no support should have netted you about 10,000 shots fired against you.

Landing against a bunch of base forces proves nothing at all. These guns suppress the troops, not the CD's of which your target has virtually none. Play with Guam or Saipan.

(in reply to Desertdaddy)

Post #: 5

RE: LCI(G) still broke (even Longer and longer) - 12/19/2004 4:35:42 AM

Desertdaddy

Posts: 74
Joined: 7/17/2004
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline

I want to believe but the combat reports say something different. This time invasion TF against Saipan, same leader, same APs, no FOW. Lots of nice CD guns to contend with.

10 AP no support, IJN base had very minor damage. A few 5� & 3� ammo decerased
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/20/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Saipan, 63,64, firing at TF 1001
TF 1001 troops unloading over beach at Saipan, 63,64

776 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
AP Leonard Wood, Shell hits 2
AP Heywood, Shell hits 12, on fire
AP Neville, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage
AP George F. Elliot, Shell hits 15, on fire, heavy damage
AP Fuller, Shell hits 3, on fire
AP American Legion, Shell hits 7, on fire
AP W.A. Holbrook, Shell hits 7, on fire

Japanese ground losses:
15 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Allied ground losses:
932 casualties reported
Guns lost 7
Vehicles lost 18
___________________________________
10AP, 40 LCI(G), 9 LCI(R), 12 LSM (R), CD guns 25 disruption. 2 LCI(G) ammo 0 but also Sys 99 Float 99 Fire 248 (yes 248!). ammo could have blown up (magazine explosion?). A few 5� & 3� guns had less ammo.
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/13/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Saipan, 63,64, firing at TF 1001
TF 1001 troops unloading over beach at Saipan, 63,64

1202 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
LCI(G) LCI-61, Shell hits 14, on fire, heavy damage
AP Arthur Middleton, Shell hits 15, on fire, heavy damage
AP Calvert, Shell hits 30, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI-65, Shell hits 11, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI-69, Shell hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI-66, Shell hits 12, on fire, heavy damage
AP Heywood, Shell hits 3, on fire
AP Neville, Shell hits 18, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI(G)-77, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage
AP George F. Elliot, Shell hits 4, on fire
LCI(G) LCI-70, Shell hits 6, on fire
LCI(G) LCI-64, Shell hits 4
AP W.A. Holbrook, Shell hits 10, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI-68, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage

Japanese ground losses:
14 casualties reported

Allied ground losses:
1427 casualties reported
Guns lost 14
Vehicles lost 4

_____________________________
10 AP % 15 LCI(G). CD no damage or disruption. Very small amount of fire from 5� and 3� guns
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/14/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Saipan, 63,64, firing at TF 1001
TF 1001 troops unloading over beach at Saipan, 63,64

1004 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
LCI(G) LCI-66, Shell hits 30, on fire, heavy damage
AP Arthur Middleton, Shell hits 6
AP Calvert, Shell hits 1, on fire
LCI(G) LCI-64, Shell hits 2
AP Leonard Wood, Shell hits 15, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI-67, Shell hits 4
AP Heywood, Shell hits 2, on fire
AP George F. Elliot, Shell hits 11, on fire, heavy damage
AP American Legion, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI-61, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AP W.A. Holbrook, Shell hits 13, on fire
LCI(G) LCI-68, Shell hits 10, on fire, heavy damage

Japanese ground losses:
4 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Allied ground losses:
1030 casualties reported
Guns lost 10
Vehicles lost 21

I do agree that costal defense guns increase the landing casualties. This may be because of all the AP hits (hitting the troops before they can disembark) not necessarily hitting the troops on the beach. I just don�t see the advantage of including these LCI type ships in an invasion fleet. Their contribution is next to nothing and their numbers added up make an extreme disadvantage. Add these support ships and take more damage. Is the solution smaller invasion TFs like below?

_______________________
1AP. 0 disruption on IJN base, no ammo decrease.
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/16/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Saipan, 63,64, firing at TF 1001
TF 1001 troops unloading over beach at Saipan, 63,64

20 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
AP American Legion

Allied ground losses:
52 casualties reported

I will test any way you want, but from the results I've seem all day long. More ships is more casualties no matter if LCI(G)s are present or not.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 6

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> LCI(G) still broke (Long)

Page: [1]