Naval Bombardments

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Naval Bombardments - too weak?

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Naval Bombardments - too weak?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 4:05:25 AM

jackyo123

Posts: 697
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline

Tonight, I hit Henderson Field with the full might of the Japanese Navy - 5 bb's (including Yamato), 5 CA's, 2 CL's, 12 DD's.

What was there? 86 aircraft, and 19,000 troops (confirmed by my opponent - we discussed the result afterwards). I hit them for 2 nights. Yamato alone expended 70% of its 18" ammo.

What was the damage?

11 casualties (only 2 destroyed). 2 wrecked planes. some base force supplies hit (FOW reported 18 casualties, but the real result was 11). Level 1 forts were in place.

And thats it.

Has anyone else noticed that bombardments are much weaker than they were historically?

Thats a really nerfed result. I remember reading that in WITP bombardments were too strong. Have they gone too far the other way?

I know now that its completely pointless to run another nightime bombardment mission of Henderson to try and keep the aircraft down. 86 Aircraft on a level 3 field (5 air groups) is a pretty crowded field. IRL, the big bombardment of Henderson destroyed about 50 planes or so, and wiped out all the stored aviation fuel. It also shredded the runways.

Post #: 1

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 4:10:09 AM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

Yes, many have noticed a similar trend - naval bombardments don't have the "nuclear" impact that they did in WitP. (If you really need a nuclear impact, just land three or four artillery units and the entire American Army will surrender in a week.)

I have, however, also seen effective naval bombardments. It may be a matter of random luck, or a product of good pre-bombardment reconnaissance, a combination, or who knows.

But overall I'd say the naval bombardments are much more realist in AE than they were in WitP. After all, in the real war the Japanese Navy wasn't able to put Henderson Field out of commission very long and it was probably level one forts - guys were running around jumping into foxholes while shells were coming in.

(in reply to jackyo123)

Post #: 2

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 5:01:43 AM

erstad

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline

What was the DL? The results are highly dependent on DL level, in my experience, although one never gets to "nuke" in any case

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 3

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 5:37:07 AM

Fishbed

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline

I can only agree, for having extensively tried the thing in the Solomons. Detection level matters the most: recon the place serveral times with specialized planes and seaplanes in the phases before the attack. The losses can be quite important, especially in terms of planes, and it's quite understandable from my point of view.

I wonder if you can even try to recon the place flying night recon with a seaplane, does it work...? If so, DO IT TOO!!!

Then you'll be able to inflict damages even with limited assets.

_____________________________

(in reply to erstad)

Post #: 4

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 8:06:58 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

Considering the fact that bombarding ships don�t use up their bombardement ammo in one night (unlike WITP) you can still inflict huge amounts of damage with bombardements. The biggest difference is that in WITP you "could" achieve a nuke without recon (most times you didn�t) and in AE it seems without recon it�s nearly impossible. With enough recon, you can make a base look like the moon with bombardements and if you think about the ships being able to do three bombardements without having to replenish for example just multiply the results below (recent happenings in my PBEM) by three and you�re very close to what was called nuke in WITP. The ammo expended makes the difference IMO.

Naval bombardment of Akyab at 54,45

Japanese Ships
BB Yamashiro
BB Fuso
CA Ashigara
CA Nachi
CA Haguro
CA Myoko

Allied ground losses:
372 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 14 destroyed, 46 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 4 disabled
Guns lost 6 (0 destroyed, 6 disabled)
Vehicles lost 4 (2 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Airbase hits 6
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 33
Port hits 17
Port fuel hits 3
Port supply hits 1

BB Yamashiro firing at Akyab
BB Fuso firing at Akyab
CA Ashigara firing at Akyab
CA Nachi firing at Akyab
CA Haguro firing at AVG Ground Echelon
CA Myoko firing at 106th RAF Base Force

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Naval bombardment of Chittagong at 55,41 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Warhawk: 2 destroyed on ground
H81-A3: 2 destroyed on ground
C-47 Skytrain: 2 destroyed on ground
Hurricane IIb Trop: 2 destroyed on ground

16 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
BB Haruna, Shell hits 2
BB Kongo
CA Kumano
CA Suzuya
CA Mikuma
CA Mogami

Allied ground losses:
137 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 17 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 5 (0 destroyed, 5 disabled)

Airbase hits 13
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 43

BB Haruna firing at Chittagong Fortress
BB Kongo firing at Chittagong
CA Kumano firing at Chittagong
CA Suzuya firing at Chittagong
CA Mikuma firing at Chittagong Fortress
CA Mogami firing at Chittagong Fortress

IIRC 16 ac were destroyed on the ground in this example. Multiply the hits on the airbase by three and you�ve got far over 100 hits on the runway alone. And it still matters what you�ve got at a base, if there are a lot of ac, the airfield is hit hard, if there are a lot of ships the port is hit hard, if there�s nothing at the base then the damage is done to both port and airfield (which is ok I guess). In both above examples my opponent has sent a lot of ac over the two bases (including recons I guess) and has achieved quite nice (for him) results.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 2/16/2010 8:08:32 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to jackyo123)

Post #: 5

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 8:20:15 AM

gajdacs zsolt

Posts: 113
Joined: 9/16/2009
Status: offline

Hmm, interesting point about recon. In my current game i bombarded Pegu for one night, and i got these results:

Naval bombardment of Pegu at 55,53

Japanese Ships
     BB Hyuga
     BB Ise
     BB Yamashiro
     BB Fuso
     CL Oi
     CL Isuzu

Allied ground losses:
     118 casualties reported
        Squads: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
        Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 11 disabled
        Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
     Guns lost 3 (1 destroyed, 2 disabled)
     Vehicles lost 7 (2 destroyed, 5 disabled)

BB Hyuga firing at 7th Australian Division
BB Ise firing at 6th Australian Division
BB Yamashiro firing at 6th Australian Division
BB Fuso firing at 7th Australian Division
CL Oi firing at 7th Australian Division
CL Isuzu firing at 6th Australian Division

3 army divisions have been fighting in the hex for many turns now, i run dedicated recon every turn (dinah set to Pegu as target), and every turn a force of 150-200 Sallys bomb the allies. In light of this, do you believe this to be a realistic result? (the enemy has a level 4 fort, i also have 1 heavy artillery and 2 medium artilley in hex. Those and aerial bombardments separately cause roughly half the casualties every turn.

I'm not necessarily saying it's not realistic, just curious of the opinion of others.

Thanks!

(in reply to Fishbed)

Post #: 6

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 9:45:18 AM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

I had six USN BB's and 3 CA's bombard Baker Island, where there was a garrison unit and a base force present. I've been running recon from Canton to Baker for the last two weeks straight, as well as a squadron of B-26's bombing them. The BB's inflicted fewer than 100 casualties on the defenders. After that kind of firepower got expended against an island as small as Baker, I would have expected much higher casualty levels.

(in reply to gajdacs zsolt)

Post #: 7

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 10:26:24 AM

aciddrinker

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline

hmm one hex is 40 square miles? Do not you think that the probability of mass killing by bombing is negligible?

_____________________________

Kill Board

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 8

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 10:56:45 AM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

Naval bombardment of Suva at 132,160

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
SBD-3 Dauntless: 3 destroyed on ground
LB-30 Liberator: 2 destroyed on ground
Hudson III (LR): 4 destroyed on ground
SBD-2 Dauntless: 6 destroyed on ground
P-38E Lightning: 4 destroyed on ground
B-17E Fortress: 4 destroyed on ground
B-26 Marauder: 1 destroyed on ground
F2A-3 Buffalo: 2 destroyed on ground
F4F-3 Wildcat: 2 destroyed on ground
B-18A Bolo: 1 destroyed on ground
S.19 Singapore III: 2 destroyed on ground

Japanese Ships
BB Kirishima
BB Hiei
CA Chikuma
CA Tone

Allied Ships
AE Lassen, Shell hits 2, on fire
AO Kurumba, Shell hits 1

Allied ground losses:
147 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 9 destroyed, 13 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost 2 (0 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Airbase hits 11
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 89

_____________________________

Surface combat TF fanboy

(in reply to aciddrinker)

Post #: 9

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 12:45:18 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: aciddrinker

hmm one hex is 40 square miles? Do not you think that the probability of mass killing by bombing is negligible?

Perhaps if my bombardment TF had just been randomly throwing shells all over the hex, you might have had a point, but I guess you neglected to notice I said they were bombarding Baker Island. That island is not much more than a pile of sand barely large enough for an airstrip, so I'd think that my ships would know where to shoot.

(in reply to aciddrinker)

Post #: 10

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 2:49:50 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

My experince has been naval bombardment is alomost useless. Even with recon I usually get a couple of dozen causalities with 5 or 6 BB's. As the allies I took Raubal and bombarded Keveing every day for a month with 2 BB's When I took it it had no damage, not an airfiled or port hit and the defenders put up a solid fight. Solid month, 2 BB's, every day and it seems every shell missed. This was before I knew how important recon was so I had very little but still.
worthless

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 11

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 2:57:30 PM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

weather or not its raining, sorry couldn't resist, if this needs to be tweeked, I think maybe a little..
My one issue, which seems so very obvious is that fortifications is a little, well odd, Some of these are permenent in real life, and are not transfereable and seem to be made of paper, on the other hand an 18 shell, or 16 for that matter moves the earth around like so much sand on a day at the beach... seriously forts on atols and small bases, large??? should really take a pounding... and as for fire control would not a bb or ca put up a recon plane to direct fire control inland?

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 12

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 3:03:27 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

Naval bombardment of Suva at 132,160

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
SBD-3 Dauntless: 3 destroyed on ground
LB-30 Liberator: 2 destroyed on ground
Hudson III (LR): 4 destroyed on ground
SBD-2 Dauntless: 6 destroyed on ground
P-38E Lightning: 4 destroyed on ground
B-17E Fortress: 4 destroyed on ground
B-26 Marauder: 1 destroyed on ground
F2A-3 Buffalo: 2 destroyed on ground
F4F-3 Wildcat: 2 destroyed on ground
B-18A Bolo: 1 destroyed on ground
S.19 Singapore III: 2 destroyed on ground

Japanese Ships
BB Kirishima
BB Hiei
CA Chikuma
CA Tone

Allied Ships
AE Lassen, Shell hits 2, on fire
AO Kurumba, Shell hits 1

Allied ground losses:
147 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 9 destroyed, 13 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost 2 (0 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Airbase hits 11
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 89

looks like a nice nuke to me considering the fact that the ground losses in the combat report are HIGHLY inflated and will be twice or three times as high as stated in the cr. Also looks like a complete overstacking of the airfield to me.

_____________________________

(in reply to String)

Post #: 13

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 3:53:42 PM

jackyo123

Posts: 697
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline

I reconned the base with 2 airgroups the previous day, and was also in a bombardment mode with land based troops (I landed arty at tsafaronga; presumably I was spotting the arty fall from the slopes of Mt Austen).

So I dont know exactly what the DL was - but recon had indeed been done. I dont run tracker/staff every turn so i dont always keep track of DL levels to what i should.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 14

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 3:54:18 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

Here is a recent one at Singapore. Surrounded with a 9/10 detection level. 3 old BB's. Don't know how to calculate total number of Shells but all ships expended about 60% of their ammo. 2 ports hits and a airfield hit just seems lite, I mean you can proably see the port from the ships:

Naval bombardment of Singapore at 50,84

Allied Ships
BB Texas
BB New York
BB Arkansas

Japanese ground losses:
79 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 7 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 3 (1 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 5
Port hits 2

BB Texas firing at 25th Division
BB New York firing at Singapore
BB Arkansas firing at 9th Base Force

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 15

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 5:08:20 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

quote:

I had six USN BB's and 3 CA's bombard Baker Island, where there was a garrison unit and a base force present. I've been running recon from Canton to Baker for the last two weeks straight, as well as a squadron of B-26's bombing them. The BB's inflicted fewer than 100 casualties on the defenders. After that kind of firepower got expended against an island as small as Baker, I would have expected much higher casualty levels.

[quotehmm one hex is 40 square miles? Do not you think that the probability of mass killing by bombing is negligible?

_____________________________]

Baker Island

The garrison was cleverly hidden under the bush towards the left end of the island

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jackyo123)

Post #: 16

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 5:37:07 PM

SuluSea

Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

The garrison was cleverly hidden under the bush towards the left end of the island

My results have been negligible even with the bonus of reconning and bombing by CV air.

< Message edited by SuluSea -- 2/16/2010 5:38:50 PM >

_____________________________

"There�s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.� ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 17

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 5:53:25 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

quote:

ORIGINAL: aciddrinker

hmm one hex is 40 square miles? Do not you think that the probability of mass killing by bombing is negligible?

Perhaps if my bombardment TF had just been randomly throwing shells all over the hex, you might have had a point, but I guess you neglected to notice I said they were bombarding Baker Island. That island is not much more than a pile of sand barely large enough for an airstrip, so I'd think that my ships would know where to shoot.

Baker is not exactly over-run with terrain or landmarks..., especially anything identifiable in the dark. Maybe they missed it and just beat up on a patch of rough water.

Big problem is that the "naval bombardment" represented in the game is a one- hour "shoot on the move" in the dark, followed by a high-speed escape. Not very conducive to accuracy...

Most player's expect the kind of destruction associated with a days-long deliberate fire exercise. But they want it all done in the safety (to them) of a high-speed in and out under cover of darkness. I've always wished the game had made the differentiation and offered both---"Day-Long Spotted Shoot" and "Night-Time Shoot and Scoot". Though even the first was a failure at Tarawa...

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 18

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 6:23:04 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

Bombardments were not, historically, devastating to troops (see many examples of US invasions, Guadalcanal, Wake, etc). They could be devastating to airfields and unprottected aircraft.

If you make bombardments more powerful vs troops, then the US will have a cake walk back to Japan.

It seems that with proper recon, bombardments are effective vs airfields. I think the troop disruption/loss should actually be toned down, unless there's 0 forts.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 19

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 6:35:58 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Mike and Bradley are on the money.

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 20

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 6:39:54 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

Well, it was a daytime bombardment, so even if the gunners had all been rookies I'd think they could see where 3500+ troops were hiding on Baker, and manage to at least hit the island.

For that matter, if 3500 troops were on Baker, they'd almost have to be standing in formation to keep their feet dry, especially when you throw in the base support equipment, supplies, fuel, planes, etc.

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 21

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 7:03:35 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Well, it was a daytime bombardment, so even if the gunners had all been rookies I'd think they could see where 3500+ troops were hiding on Baker, and manage to at least hit the island.

For that matter, if 3500 troops were on Baker, they'd almost have to be standing in formation to keep their feet dry, especially when you throw in the base support equipment, supplies, fuel, planes, etc.

Does the game code resolve area down smaller that the hex? IOW, are the relative sizes of RL islands taken into account in figuring bombarment outcomes?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 22

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 7:14:10 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Well, it was a daytime bombardment, so even if the gunners had all been rookies I'd think they could see where 3500+ troops were hiding on Baker, and manage to at least hit the island.

For that matter, if 3500 troops were on Baker, they'd almost have to be standing in formation to keep their feet dry, especially when you throw in the base support equipment, supplies, fuel, planes, etc.

According to Wikipedia Baker Island is almost 2/3 of a square mile. I once lived in a city that had about 40,000 people living in the 2/3 of a square mile that was residential, and that included houses, streets, parks.

I'm not saying that Baker should hold 40,000 (or even close) under combat conditions, but I am saying that standing room only (the way you describe it) gets you way, way more than 3,500.

The troops could certainly be missed by bombardment, and as pointed out previously some of the bombardment might be in the surf.

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 23

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 7:24:15 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

You've got to deduct out the airstrip and supply dumps from that 2/3 of a square mile though, and unless that garrison is building multistory homes then they are far more spread out than a city with 40,000 people living in it. I'm just saying that Baker isn't so large that it would be easy to hide from 6 BB's throwing shells at you in the daytime.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 24

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 7:25:45 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Foxholes, smoke, bunkers... they hid plenty for real in WWII.

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 25

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/16/2010 7:31:35 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

You've got to deduct out the airstrip and supply dumps from that 2/3 of a square mile though, and unless that garrison is building multistory homes then they are far more spread out than a city with 40,000 people living in it.� I'm just saying that Baker isn't so large that it would be easy to hide from 6 BB's throwing shells at you in the daytime.

John. You are correct that Baker or Wake or many other atolls/islands are severely lacking in real estate to hide in. AE dealt with this by limiting the size of the garrisons of such "micro-islands". Bombardments were more effective in WITP..., but you could also stack an Army on Baker Island.

It ain't perfect..., but it's gotten better.

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 26

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/17/2010 3:05:25 AM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

Basically I prefer the AE version of Naval Bombardments. The results obtained routinely by IJN warships (especially) bombarding airfields, etc in WitP were based on exactly one result obtained by IJN warships and routinely overstated the results against troops of even that one result by a factor of 10-100 (the real BB bombardment killed or wounded only about 150 troops: did do a nice job on the planes/runways though). Since the IJN always managed to get out of range of SBDs/TBFs in the ensuing day phase (IRL there would be quite a few IJN ship captains who probably did not realize they were out of range of Henderson Field on the morning after as the bombs came down) the tactic was grossly overused.

Just an aside. Is there any source of fresh water on Baker Island (sorta doubt it)? Midway made water with a desalinization plant (famous ruse to confirm Objective MI). Water probably was the really really limiting factor for garrisons on those little atolls. Seems like it would be hard to hide a desalinization plant from shells and bombs although I don't remember the Japanese targetting the one(s) on Midway (maybe it was because they thought it was OOC).

(in reply to jackyo123)

Post #: 27

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/17/2010 2:41:10 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
Just an aside. Is there any source of fresh water on Baker Island (sorta doubt it)? Midway made water with a desalinization plant (famous ruse to confirm Objective MI). Water probably was the really really limiting factor for garrisons on those little atolls. Seems like it would be hard to hide a desalinization plant from shells and bombs although I don't remember the Japanese targetting the one(s) on Midway (maybe it was because they thought it was OOC).

An aside, and I don't know about Baker, but Diego Garcia, another atoll, has a "water lens" underground where a non-porus layer of rock/coral has a free space above and coral and topsoil above that. Wells work OK there, but base management is very careful to manage drawdown from the lens so that sea water doesn't seep into gaps. When I was there we never had "water hours" or any restrictions, but it also rained a fair bit too.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 28

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/17/2010 4:58:53 PM

Admiral Scott

Posts: 625
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Syracuse, NY USA
Status: offline

Anyone notice the #33 tweak listed with the new beta patch?

33. Tweaked Ship bombardment affecting port base.

Whats does this tweak do exactly?

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 29

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/17/2010 8:05:49 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

I am Ok with it. Sneak bombardments were rare and usually ineffective. Both sides did not like risking large warships in restricted waters. They were essentially raids and not like the deliberate sustained bombardments that the Allies used later in the war. No ship to shore fire control and very little chance to spot from aircraft at night. What do you expect?

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Admiral Scott)

Post #: 30