Old, Slow Battleships

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Old, Slow Battleships

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 >> Old, Slow Battleships

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 1:10:08 AM

jazman

Posts: 369
Joined: 1/20/2007
From: Crush Depth
Status: offline

I have several US rustbucket battlewagons sitting in Alameda (repairs, reinforcements). It's late Jan, 1942. When they're all fixed up, I'll have a sixpack. What do I do with these things at this point of the game?

_____________________________

BS, MS, PhD, WitP:AE, WitE, WitW

Post #: 1

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 1:12:11 AM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jazman

I have several US rustbucket battlewagons sitting in Alameda (repairs, reinforcements). It's late Jan, 1942. When they're all fixed up, I'll have a sixpack. What do I do with these things at this point of the game?

In 1943 and onward you'll be greatful for the guns in bombardment TFs. Do the upgrades too.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to jazman)

Post #: 2

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 1:16:46 AM

The Gnome

Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline

I always put at least one in my amphibious TF's as well, they can help surpress coastal guns firing at your marines.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 3

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 1:18:51 AM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

I always put at least one in my amphibious TF's as well, they can help surpress coastal guns firing at your marines.

Before the last patch they acted as CD sponges while in amphib TFs. See old threads about invasions of Marshalls/Gilberts. DDs work as good or better, and usually survive.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to The Gnome)

Post #: 4

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 1:30:46 AM

Sredni

Posts: 705
Joined: 9/30/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

I've been using mine for hit and run bombardments on targets I know don't have much betty or nell coverage. If you send them in range of bettys and nells they just become that many victory points sitting at the bottom of the pacific.

I also ran a bombardment of wotje under heavy carrier air cover and got a real scare when 600 shore guns opened up on me. Luckily all that happened was some moderate damage to a couple CA's and one of the battleships had one of it's main guns smashed. Dunno if wotje's CD guns are smaller caliber or something but they didn't do much damage at all to the battleships.

but yeah... they'd be a lot more usefull if they were 30(15) knot ships. I'm very much envious of the japanese battleships.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 5

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 2:21:38 AM

Bullwinkle58

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

In my observations it seemed that there was different code generating hit probabilities between bombardment TFs and BBs included in amphib TFs. With the latter being much more destructive to capital ships.

The bombarment changes in the beta patch seem, in the limited number of cases I've done so far, to have made the fight much more fair, and I get the amount of damage I'd expect for the risk I'm running. I haven't tried putting BBs or CAs in landing TFs since a coulple of very bad experiences in 1944 (ie sunk BBs), but the smaller combatants I have included seem to supress about as much as I'd expect, and enough to get the troops on the beach. I have not DLed the "beta-beta" hotfix which I believe includes disruption effects on the enemy from heavy bombardment TF hits. Nor do I know if that same idea is now to be included in capital ships' return fire if they're included in landing TFs.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Sredni)

Post #: 6

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 2:46:40 AM

topeverest

Posts: 3376
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline

The work very well as the SCTF escort in invasions. They also protect key ports / battle areas if you place them well. They are good in defensive naval battles, or battles where the speed of a fast BB is not important.

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 7

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 11:06:22 AM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

If the IJN player is using SAGs outside LBA coverage, they can be useful as counters. They're also useful in bombardment missions if the Japanese air has been suppressed. Later, they get HA AA and can serve as mobile AA installations. If the IJN is using surface raiders, they can provide general support to your convoys.

Don't envy the IJN 30-knot BBs. Their underwater protection was pre-Jutland RN-design and lacked adequate subdivision. That means if you looked cross-eyed at them, they would capsize. Look at what happened to the Kongo.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to jazman)

Post #: 8

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 11:36:01 AM

xj900uk

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline

Agreed, bombardment missions are probably their best use particularly the US and Allied ones. It's tempting to put them in your carrier groups to aid/protect the carriers and absorb some attention from attacking planes (BB's can usually absorb a lot more bomb damage than wooden-decked CV's, although a lot o fthe older BB's are rather vulnerable to torpedo damage) but they are so slow and need refuelling so often they will do little more than slow your fast attack/strike carrier group down, although putting them as escorts to slower CVE's that are in turn escorting invasion convoys and flotillas is more of an option. Just remember to keep support/refuel/replentish groups fairly close by.

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 9

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 12:17:35 PM

vinnie71

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

They are also great ambush forces. What I mean is that if an opponent is constantly raiding a particular port which is out of range of his recon, just place them in port. He'll come knocking and get a surprise present...

I did it when the AI started raiding Timor relentlessly, slowing the buildup of the island considerably. It got bolder and bolder until I brought together an Aussie cruiser squadron + destroyers at Dili and the old British battleships in Lautern. In one night the former sank a BB (the Aussies crossed the T yay!) while the latter battered the Nagato so badly that it had to limp into Kendari. Guess what? In the next few turns I dropped a crapload of bombs on the port and once I rearmed the Warspite (which had been repairing light damage in Darwin) I sent it to Kendari to finish off the job and possibly bag some more victims

(in reply to xj900uk)

Post #: 10

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 12:55:18 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

They rule the waves away from air power.

That generally means that they rule the waves around your bases. Allied air power is poor against enemy BBs, so your BBs have to be the counter. Though i'd rather have a brace of torpedo bombers, it's true.

_____________________________

(in reply to vinnie71)

Post #: 11

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 3:11:04 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

And all of the suggestions above are remarkably consistent with how they were used IRL.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 12

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 3:14:02 PM

John Lansford

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

The latest patch appears to have improved the bombardment routine quite a bit; I had some old BB's bombard both Ponape and Maloelap recently, and the damage they took from CD gunfire was fairly realistic to me. I also had New Mexico and two CA's in the invasion TF for Ponape, and those three ships took the bulk of targetting from the guns while the transports were unloading. Another invasion TF that didn't have big ships in it had the APA's take the shell hits, not good.

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 13

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 3:15:52 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

put em in air TF's.

_____________________________

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 14

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 3:57:59 PM

xj900uk

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline

See my post above. the old BB's are too slow for air strike fast carrier TF's. They can possible exist in the slower CVE escort groups for invasion task forces though as AA and surface protection

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 15

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 5:07:06 PM

Alekks

Posts: 43
Joined: 7/6/2004
From: Belton, Texas
Status: offline

Agreed, excellent AA platforms for the escort carriers, freeing you CLAA and fast BBs for your fleet carrier task forces.

(in reply to xj900uk)

Post #: 16

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 5:23:33 PM

The Gnome

Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline

I actually stopped using the CLAA's with my fleet carriers, the Clevelands have a better AA rating, and are better in a surface action if it came to that, heaven forbid.

(in reply to Alekks)

Post #: 17

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 5:34:07 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

I actually stopped using the CLAA's with my fleet carriers, the Clevelands have a better AA rating, and are better in a surface action if it came to that, heaven forbid.

Agreed. I usually use the CLAAs in big supply convoys. One of the mid-later-war DD classes (Porter? Don't have the game open.) has huge AA numbers; they are useful as pseudo CLAAs as well, plus you get some ASW.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to The Gnome)

Post #: 18

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 5:51:20 PM

Alekks

Posts: 43
Joined: 7/6/2004
From: Belton, Texas
Status: offline

Agreed with this. The Porters make excellent air defense platforms and along with their ASW abilities, makes them very useful.

In addition, IIRC the Atlantas were originally envisioned as a type of DD Flotilla Leader and not specifically an area AA defense platform? Their 30 knot speed was a bit slower than the carriers anyway.

< Message edited by Alekks -- 7/8/2010 5:53:01 PM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 19

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 6:03:56 PM

The Gnome

Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline

Speaking of AA, I just got the first of my Baltimore cruisers. All I can say is "WOW". A 990 AA rating is just unbelievable, especially compared to the vast majority of my cruisers that sit in the 540 range.

(in reply to Alekks)

Post #: 20

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 8:41:01 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

I actually stopped using the CLAA's with my fleet carriers, the Clevelands have a better AA rating, and are better in a surface action if it came to that, heaven forbid.

The CLAAs were actually designed as DD squadron flagships. I try to give my old DD squadrons an old CL or CLAA as stiffening.

_____________________________

(in reply to The Gnome)

Post #: 21

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 8:52:15 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

See my post above. the old BB's are too slow for air strike fast carrier TF's. They can possible exist in the slower CVE escort groups for invasion task forces though as AA and surface protection

not in the game the're not.

_____________________________

(in reply to xj900uk)

Post #: 22

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 8:59:19 PM

The Gnome

Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

I actually stopped using the CLAA's with my fleet carriers, the Clevelands have a better AA rating, and are better in a surface action if it came to that, heaven forbid.

The CLAAs were actually designed as DD squadron flagships. I try to give my old DD squadrons an old CL or CLAA as stiffening.

That's what she said?

(Sorry I couldn't resist

)

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 23

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 9:18:11 PM

JohnDillworth

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

quote:

Speaking of AA, I just got the first of my Baltimore cruisers. All I can say is "WOW". A 990 AA rating is just unbelievable, especially compared to the vast majority of my cruisers that sit in the 540 range.

But have you checked how many air craft actually get shot down by Naval flack? Not much, not much at all. Allied flack is grossly underpowered compared to historical. Go to the planes shot down screen and see how many aircraft were actually shot down by flack. you might be surprised.

_____________________________

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 The Gnome)

Post #: 24

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 9:27:53 PM

The Gnome

Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

Speaking of AA, I just got the first of my Baltimore cruisers. All I can say is "WOW". A 990 AA rating is just unbelievable, especially compared to the vast majority of my cruisers that sit in the 540 range.

But have you checked how many air craft actually get shot down by Naval flack? Not much, not much at all. Allied flack is grossly underpowered compared to historical. Go to the planes shot down screen and see how many aircraft were actually shot down by flack. you might be surprised.

I haven't really been paying attention. In my game I haven't had a lot of air to ship strikes against high AA targets, and none really since my late-42/early-43 AA refits. The largest I had was a 16 Betty raid against a bunch of transports escorted by an old BB, 2xCA, CLAA, 6x DD...

I didn't get more than a handful of betties shot down (2-4?) but that's a 12.5-25% loss rate. Not sure how that stacks up to historical data.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 25

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 9:42:21 PM

crsutton

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

Just be careful and look at the crew exp ratings. Some of the old BBs have poor crews and should not be fighting Japanese surface ships. Some of the fast BBs (Indiana comes to mind) are not so hot either.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to The Gnome)

Post #: 26

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 9:48:37 PM

vinnie71

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

But its very difficult to raise their experience level. I sent them on cruises but the rise in experience was minimal. Maybe it was because I had sent them to Tahiti and Bora Bora

Frankly unless you catch a convoy and shred it, BBs gain experience very slowly....

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 27

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/8/2010 10:26:23 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

But its very difficult to raise their experience level. I sent them on cruises but the rise in experience was minimal. Maybe it was because I had sent them to Tahiti and Bora Bora

Frankly unless you catch a convoy and shred it, BBs gain experience very slowly....

Yes, this is unfortunate but the low exp BBs are still good support ships.

I took a look look at crew experiences last night for both sides and was a bit surprized. British crew experience is pretty solid (expected) American experience-especially night, remains pretty low to moderate until late 1944 and then ships start arriving with both day and night exp in the near 70 range. However, depending of how they are used, many of the original DDs and crusiers do not gain a whole lot of exp. You really have to be careful and not forget some CAs and DD and leave them in port. Find something for them to do to gain exp.

Japanese crews come with good skills all through the war. Every Japanese ship seems to start with about 65-70 skill levels and reinforcments seem to come on with the same high skills (we are talking CVs BBs CAs CLs and DDs). This sort of surprised me as I thought that Japanese late war crews suffered major drop offs in skill levels due to lack of fuel and ships for training. I really expected ships arriving late war to have very low skill levels, especially smaller patrol classes which all seem to come with skill levels in the low 40s regardless of the date.

Japanese and American subs all come on with skills in the mid 50s range.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to vinnie71)

Post #: 28

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/9/2010 2:44:47 AM

bklooste

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

But its very difficult to raise their experience level. I sent them on cruises but the rise in experience was minimal. Maybe it was because I had sent them to Tahiti and Bora Bora

Frankly unless you catch a convoy and shred it, BBs gain experience very slowly....

Yes, this is unfortunate but the low exp BBs are still good support ships.

I took a look look at crew experiences last night for both sides and was a bit surprized. British crew experience is pretty solid (expected) American experience-especially night, remains pretty low to moderate until late 1944 and then ships start arriving with both day and night exp in the near 70 range. However, depending of how they are used, many of the original DDs and crusiers do not gain a whole lot of exp. You really have to be careful and not forget some CAs and DD and leave them in port. Find something for them to do to gain exp.

Japanese crews come with good skills all through the war. Every Japanese ship seems to start with about 65-70 skill levels and reinforcments seem to come on with the same high skills (we are talking CVs BBs CAs CLs and DDs). This sort of surprised me as I thought that Japanese late war crews suffered major drop offs in skill levels due to lack of fuel and ships for training. I really expected ships arriving late war to have very low skill levels, especially smaller patrol classes which all seem to come with skill levels in the low 40s regardless of the date.

Japanese and American subs all come on with skills in the mid 50s range.

By the end of the war most crews were survivors from earlier crews so you would have excellent NCOs etc ....I dont thnk much training was needed..
Their morale however would be very poor and they would be fatalistic which would mean they were not diligent , this can only be solved by some sort of National Will ( see the WITP 2 thread)

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 29

RE: Old, Slow Battleships - 7/9/2010 3:41:02 AM

topeverest

Posts: 3376
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline

Tip...keep you warship ships at sea at all times, except when required to replenish or repair at port. Their experience will crawl up slow and steady. I found this to make a huge difference over a 6 month period in the crew ratings of inexeperienced ships.

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to bklooste)

Post #: 30