Emergency Reinforcements--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

Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments

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 >> Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/10/2010 5:40:09 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

Before commencing the final set of land invasions, I wanted to close the door on two other types of attacks (Bombardment, and Air) possible in the trigger zone to see if they alone would release emergency forces. I was almost sure they would not, but I wanted to make sure. If they did not, however, that might open up interesting tactical possibilities, especially in the non-North American trigger zones. This post reports the results of two types of Bombardment attacks on San Francisco.

Methodology--Test One:

1) Taking the large Japanese amphib TF sitting two hexes west of San Francisco, I split off a Bombardment TF, and sent them into SF. SF had been cleared of all aircraft, all ships, and all LCUs except the CD unit and the non-mobile base force. Bombardment range set to 10k. Escorts on Do Not Bombard.

Results:

1) Bombardment successful. Damage ashore accrued. CONUS/US/North American emergency reinforcements DID NOT trigger.
Naval bombardment of San Francisco at 218,70 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!
39 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
BB Kirishima
BB Hiei
CA Chikuma, Shell hits 3
CA Tone

Allied ground losses:
28 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 10 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 7 (2 destroyed, 5 disabled)

Airbase hits 29
Runway hits 75
Port hits 2

BB Kirishima firing at San Francisco
BB Hiei firing at San Francisco
CA Chikuma firing at SF Harbor Defenses
SF Harbor Defenses firing at CA Chikuma
CA Tone firing at San Francisco

OPERATIONAL REPORT FOR Mar 15, 42
Coastwatcher Report: harbor at Perth is reported empty
No additional repairs possible on DD Rathburne
using currently assigned resources at Los Angeles
No additional repairs possible on SS KXV
using currently assigned resources at Soerabaja
Coastwatcher Report: harbor at Perth is reported empty
No additional repairs possible on DD Rathburne
using currently assigned resources at Los Angeles
No additional repairs possible on SS KXV
using currently assigned resources at Soerabaja
Ship Withdrawals: 2 overdue (40 Daily PP, 1240 Accumulated PP)
Group Withdrawals:
43 overdue (513 Daily PP, 13110 Accumulated PP)
Bateson, R.N. reassigned
AP Thomas Jefferson arrives at Balboa
xAK Cornish City arrives at Aden
No.77 Sqn RAAF arrives at Sydney as arrival base is unavailable

Methodology--Test Two:

1) Retired above TF to offshore Replenishment group, refueled.
2) Moved one Kingfisher squadron into SF.
3) Move a mixed-type Escort TF to SF from Mare Island. Mostly merchants, AVP, and AD. Disbanded about half, left rest in Escort TF, not Docked. Wanted to see if Bombardment group would attack any ships, and if such an attack, or loss of aircraft on ground, would trigger emergency reinforcements.
4) Reduced Min. bombardment range to 0, set Escorts Bombard. Took two cycles to get Bombardment group to attack disbanded ship.
5) Result was emergency reinforcements DID NOT trigger.
6) An aside. In the OPS Rpt below, NZ reinforcements are noted as being released. This is the North Island invasion reported yesterday. I re-used a save.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Mar 23, 42--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 9 encounters mine field at San Francisco (218,70)

Japanese Ships
DD Isokaze

2 mines cleared
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of San Francisco at 218,70

Japanese Ships
BB Kirishima
BB Hiei
CA Tone
DD Wakaba
DD Hatsushima
DD Akigumo

Allied Ships
xAP Kota Agoeng, Shell hits 1
Airbase hits 7
Airbase supply hits 1 (lost 17 supply)
Runway hits 46

BB Kirishima firing at SF Harbor Defenses
BB Hiei firing at San Francisco
CA Tone firing at San Francisco
DD Wakaba firing at San Francisco
DD Hatsushima firing at San Francisco
DD Akigumo firing at San Francisco

OPERATIONAL REPORT FOR Mar 23, 42
Coastwatcher Report: harbor at Perth is reported empty
Coastwatcher sighting: 3 Japanese ships at 115,182 near Waipapakauri Speed unknown
No additional repairs possible on DD Rathburne
using currently assigned resources at Los Angeles
No additional repairs possible on SS KXV
using currently assigned resources at Soerabaja
Coastwatcher Report: harbor at Perth is reported empty
Coastwatcher sighting: 8 Japanese ships at 218,70 near San Francisco , Speed 6 , Moving East
No additional repairs possible on DD Rathburne
using currently assigned resources at Los Angeles
No additional repairs possible on SS KXV
using currently assigned resources at Soerabaja
Ship Withdrawals: 2 overdue (40 Daily PP, 1560 Accumulated PP)
Group Withdrawals:
43 overdue (513 Daily PP, 17214 Accumulated PP)
New Zealand invaded! Counter invasion forces released.
Bateson, R.N. reassigned

_____________________________

The Moose

Post #: 1

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/10/2010 5:53:53 PM

Redd

Posts: 203
Joined: 7/22/2005
From: Livermore,CA.
Status: offline

So the SF CD is basically worthless? Not what you were looking at but interesting nonetheless. Thanks for sharing by the way, thats what makes this place great!

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 2

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/10/2010 6:11:04 PM

JohnDillworth

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

You are doing the Lord's work son.

_____________________________

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 Redd)

Post #: 3

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/10/2010 6:16:42 PM

JohnDillworth

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

quote:

You are doing the Lord's work son.

BTW that's not politics, it's religion, so don't lock the thread........Aw Crap, I am just going to ignore myself. Wait, wait, I pressed the green button on myself and NOW I AM BLIND!

_____________________________

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 4

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/10/2010 6:29:12 PM

Pascal_slith

Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

You are doing the Lord's work son.

BTW that's not politics, it's religion, so don't lock the thread........Aw Crap, I am just going to ignore myself. Wait, wait, I pressed the green button on myself and NOW I AM BLIND!

Even with those big dark eyes?

BTW this guy Bateson is very popular, it seems. He's showed up in every AAR that Bullwinkle has showed us.

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 5

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/10/2010 6:44:34 PM

JohnDillworth

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

quote:

BTW this guy Bateson is very popular, it seems. He's showed up in every AAR that Bullwinkle has showed us.

I know, Poor guy was probably just waiting to go. If anything a-historical happened he gets the call. Just sat around waiting the whole war, died broke and penniless. Always shed a tear when his son asked: What did you do in the war daddy?" almost.......almost

_____________________________

(in reply to Pascal_slith)

Post #: 6

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/10/2010 6:47:41 PM

Canoerebel

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

You are doing the Lord's work son.

BTW that's not politics, it's religion, so don't lock the thread........Aw Crap, I am just going to ignore myself. Wait, wait, I pressed the green button on myself and NOW I AM BLIND!

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 7

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/10/2010 8:13:54 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Redd

So the SF CD is basically worthless? Not what you were looking at but interesting nonetheless. Thanks for sharing by the way, thats what makes this place great!

Whoops! Sorry. forgot to put in Methodology that I put fixed CD unit On Reserve (no pursuit.) SF still has about 300 mines, and I was afraid they plus big CD response would cripple the Bombardment test. I would NOT take these results as indicating the Japanese can sail into SF Bay unmolested.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Redd)

Post #: 8

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/10/2010 8:14:27 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

You are doing the Lord's work son.

Every once in awhile you have to take that OCD out for a walk, ya know?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 9

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/10/2010 8:16:11 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

You are doing the Lord's work son.

BTW that's not politics, it's religion, so don't lock the thread........Aw Crap, I am just going to ignore myself. Wait, wait, I pressed the green button on myself and NOW I AM BLIND!

Even with those big dark eyes?

BTW this guy Bateson is very popular, it seems. He's showed up in every AAR that Bullwinkle has showed us.

Yeah, he's in one of those Infinite Reass loops that started happening after Patch 2 I think. It's harmless. I had some guy named Mullins reassign himself for eight weeks when I started my current CG game.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Pascal_slith)

Post #: 10

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/10/2010 8:42:22 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Redd

So the SF CD is basically worthless? Not what you were looking at but interesting nonetheless. Thanks for sharing by the way, thats what makes this place great!

Whoops! Sorry. forgot to put in Methodology that I put fixed CD unit On Reserve (no pursuit.) SF still has about 300 mines, and I was afraid they plus big CD response would cripple the Bombardment test. I would NOT take these results as indicating the Japanese can sail into SF Bay unmolested.

OK, this was easy to do since I have a boatload of saves. I re-ran it with the CD unit on Combat.

Methodology:

1) Returned to save before first SF bombardment test. No aircraft or ships present in SF. Split off same combatants into Bombardmant TF. Min bombardment range 0, Escorts Bombard to "on".

2) Switched the SF CD unit to Combat, the same for the base force. Did not change COs. Turned replacements "on" although that won't matter on the run. SF has had no forts building since the beginning. Airfield at 9(9), Port at 10(7), Forts at 0(9).

3) Ran the bombardment. Different randoms than last time, but it should be directionally correct. The CD results were, to put it mildly for a really major Allied port, underwhelming.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Mar 16, 42--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of San Francisco at 218,70 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

81 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
BB Kirishima
BB Hiei
CA Chikuma, Shell hits 4
CA Tone
DD Isokaze
DD Akigumo

Allied ground losses:
36 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 18 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 4 (2 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Airbase hits 9
Runway hits 19
Port hits 1

BB Kirishima firing at San Francisco
BB Hiei firing at San Francisco
CA Chikuma firing at SF Harbor Defenses
SF Harbor Defenses firing at CA Chikuma
CA Tone firing at San Francisco
SF Harbor Defenses firing at DD Isokaze
DD Isokaze firing at SF Harbor Defenses
DD Akigumo firing at San Francisco

Conclusions:

1) I have been told, in PM exchanges with another veteran player, that PBEM players routinely do not fortify the WC bases. This seems to be a mistake to me. Although a high fort level would not have mattered much here, with a 10-BB and 10-CA bombardment group the difference might have been significant. Also, Allies should not count on CD to forestall a WC LCU landing in 1942.

2) More than 300 mines at SF would seem to be prudent.

3) Moving in some mobile CD the same.

4) Since Bombardment does not trigger reinforcements, a large Bombardment raid, if not at SF then perhaps San Diego or Sea-Tac, could, with a very large number of ships disbanded or in the yards, result in significant losses. The same for aircraft losses had I had 10-15 training groups or groups readied for deployment at SF airfield as I routinely do in a real game.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 11/10/2010 8:46:58 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 11

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/10/2010 10:22:06 PM

VSWG

Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Conclusions:

1) I have been told, in PM exchanges with another veteran player, that PBEM players routinely do not fortify the WC bases. This seems to be a mistake to me. Although a high fort level would not have mattered much here, with a 10-BB and 10-CA bombardment group the difference might have been significant. Also, Allies should not count on CD to forestall a WC LCU landing in 1942.

2) More than 300 mines at SF would seem to be prudent.

3) Moving in some mobile CD the same.

4) Since Bombardment does not trigger reinforcements, a large Bombardment raid, if not at SF then perhaps San Diego or Sea-Tac, could, with a very large number of ships disbanded or in the yards, result in significant losses. The same for aircraft losses had I had 10-15 training groups or groups readied for deployment at SF airfield as I routinely do in a real game.

In my experience return fire from CD guns is extremely random. I'm pretty sure that if you run the same setup several times, and maybe change some factors a bit (different leader, different weather/moonlight), you would get all kinds of results varying from "complete annihilation of Japanase TF" to "no damage to ships at all".

If a Japanese player is willing to risk his entire TFs for a naval bombardment of SF, he's welcome to do so. The next friendly port couldn't be farther away...

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 12

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/10/2010 10:54:25 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Conclusions:

1) I have been told, in PM exchanges with another veteran player, that PBEM players routinely do not fortify the WC bases. This seems to be a mistake to me. Although a high fort level would not have mattered much here, with a 10-BB and 10-CA bombardment group the difference might have been significant. Also, Allies should not count on CD to forestall a WC LCU landing in 1942.

2) More than 300 mines at SF would seem to be prudent.

3) Moving in some mobile CD the same.

4) Since Bombardment does not trigger reinforcements, a large Bombardment raid, if not at SF then perhaps San Diego or Sea-Tac, could, with a very large number of ships disbanded or in the yards, result in significant losses. The same for aircraft losses had I had 10-15 training groups or groups readied for deployment at SF airfield as I routinely do in a real game.

In my experience return fire from CD guns is extremely random. I'm pretty sure that if you run the same setup several times, and maybe change some factors a bit (different leader, different weather/moonlight), you would get all kinds of results varying from "complete annihilation of Japanase TF" to "no damage to ships at all".

If a Japanese player is willing to risk his entire TFs for a naval bombardment of SF, he's welcome to do so. The next friendly port couldn't be farther away...

Go bombard Vladivostock and then tell me that CD gun return fire is rare. When I did that and invaded by sea, I ended up losing around 2 dozen ships (including 2 BBs and 3 CA/CLs) to CD fire. What it comes down to is that Vladivostock has quite a few 356mm guns...size matters!

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to VSWG)

Post #: 13

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/10/2010 11:00:48 PM

VSWG

Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline

I've never said that return fire is rare, I'm arguing that the results vary widely without any explanation except (IMO) random numbers.

_____________________________

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 14

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/10/2010 11:01:22 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

In my experience return fire from CD guns is extremely random. I'm pretty sure that if you run the same setup several times, and maybe change some factors a bit (different leader, different weather/moonlight), you would get all kinds of results varying from "complete annihilation of Japanase TF" to "no damage to ships at all".

If a Japanese player is willing to risk his entire TFs for a naval bombardment of SF, he's welcome to do so. The next friendly port couldn't be farther away...

OK, I ran it again. Same ships, same Combat settings. SF CD has only one available CO; there are no options. This is the unit itself. (picture below) It is fully-supplied, not tired, with moderate training.

The results on this run were even worse for the Allies. Not even one hit on a Japanese ship:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Mar 15, 42--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Night Naval bombardment of San Francisco at 218,70

Japanese Ships
BB Kirishima
BB Hiei
CA Chikuma
CA Tone
DD Isokaze
DD Akigumo

Allied ground losses:
108 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 6 destroyed, 23 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 7 (2 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Vehicles lost 11 (2 destroyed, 9 disabled)

Airbase hits 19
Airbase supply hits 5 (lost 211 supply)
Runway hits 57
Port hits 1

BB Kirishima firing at San Francisco
BB Hiei firing at San Francisco
CA Chikuma firing at San Francisco
CA Tone firing at San Francisco
DD Isokaze firing at San Francisco
DD Akigumo firing at San Francisco

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

I agree that a raid woud be a risk, but there are potentially large rewards to the Japanese player who catches his opponent assuming there will never be a WC raid. (you know what they say about "assume".)

In the early months after PH, if that attack goes well, Midway could be taken, providing a fuel stop for a raiding force. With the KB standing back to LRCAP, a heavy surface force could get at Seattle or San Diego with a fraction of the risk associated with SF. The Allies have virtually no offensive power on the WC in those months. Most is sunk at Pearl, or in the PI or DEI. The subs are worthless yet. The aircraft have low training and a lot of Bolos and Texans.

I think we could see some WC raids with good returns from some of our more daring PBEM players. Even if the Japanese lost, say, an old BB and a CA, would it be worth it to take out 3-4 tankers, maybe 25 xAKs, 60-100 trainer aircraft, and shut down the airfield? Not to mention the pucker factor?

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to VSWG)

Post #: 15

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/10/2010 11:12:18 PM

VSWG

Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline

Back in the WitP days, there were some Japanese players who bombarded Singapore with large TFs. Some players bombarded the place with no damage at all to their ships. The next player lost the entire TF... No one knew why the results varied so wildy.

The results are in my experience so unpredictable that the risk is IMO just too high. As I said, maybe, with just a bit more moonlight, or a different detection level of the bombardment TF, or some changes to a completely different but important factor that no one except the coders know about, the same TF will get annihilated.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 16

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/10/2010 11:19:33 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

OK, I ran it a third time. Same ships, same set-up ashore. I moved 13 air units, eight of them Bolos, the rest Hudsons, Stearmans, O-47A, and Cats into SF airfield. I ordered every ship in the Bay area to SF on the bombardment turn. Most made it, except the subs, whcih were at sea during the attack and attacked the Japanese ships.

Note that this was 3% moonlight, and Thunderstorms. OTOH, I did not order the IJN BB planes to Recon SF. But a lesson might be to raid in bad weather in the early war.

The results were, again, abysmal for the Allies. No hits. Lots of sunken ships. Also fair number of Fires for strat VP damage considering the small number of Japanese capital ships.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Mar 15, 42--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near San Francisco at 218,70, Range 2,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
BB Hiei
BB Kirishima
CA Tone
CA Chikuma
DD Akigumo
DD Isokaze

Allied Ships
AP Crescent City, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
xAK Alcoa Prospector, Shell hits 7, and is sunk
xAP Tabinta, Shell hits 7, and is sunk
AVD Mackinac, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk

Reduced visibility due to Thunderstorms with 3% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Thunderstorms and 3% moonlight: 2,000 yards
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
Range closes to 10,000 yards...
Range closes to 9,000 yards...
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
Range closes to 7,000 yards...
Range closes to 6,000 yards...
Range closes to 5,000 yards...
Range closes to 4,000 yards...
Range closes to 3,000 yards...
Range closes to 2,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 2,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 2,000 yards
Yamaguchi, Jihei crosses the 'T'
BB Kirishima engages xAK Alcoa Prospector at 2,000 yards
BB Kirishima engages AP Crescent City at 2,000 yards
BB Kirishima engages xAK Alcoa Prospector at 2,000 yards
DD Akigumo engages xAP Tabinta at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 4,000 yards
BB Hiei engages xAP Tabinta at 4,000 yards
BB Hiei engages xAP Tabinta at 4,000 yards
xAK Alcoa Prospector sunk by BB Hiei at 4,000 yards
DD Isokaze engages AP Crescent City at 4,000 yards
Range closes to 3,000 yards
BB Kirishima engages AP Crescent City at 3,000 yards
AP Crescent City sunk by DD Akigumo at 3,000 yards
BB Kirishima engages AVD Mackinac at 3,000 yards
xAP Tabinta sunk by BB Kirishima at 3,000 yards
AVD Mackinac sunk by DD Isokaze at 3,000 yards
AVD Mackinac sunk by DD Isokaze at 3,000 yards
Combat ends with last Allied ship sunk...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near San Francisco at 218,70, Range 2,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
BB Hiei
BB Kirishima
CA Tone
CA Chikuma
DD Akigumo
DD Isokaze

Allied Ships
YMS-94, Shell hits 5, and is sunk
YMS-95, Shell hits 3, and is sunk

Reduced visibility due to Thunderstorms with 0% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Thunderstorms and 0% moonlight: 2,000 yards
Range closes to 10,000 yards...
Range closes to 9,000 yards...
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
Range closes to 7,000 yards...
Range closes to 6,000 yards...
Range closes to 5,000 yards...
Range closes to 4,000 yards...
Range closes to 3,000 yards...
Range closes to 2,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 2,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 2,000 yards
YMS-94 sunk by BB Kirishima at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 4,000 yards
YMS-95 sunk by DD Isokaze at 4,000 yards
Combat ends with last Allied ship sunk...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near San Francisco at 218,70

Japanese Ships
CA Tone
DD Akigumo
DD Isokaze

Allied Ships
SS Silversides

SS Silversides launches 6 torpedoes at CA Tone
Silversides bottoming out ....
DD Isokaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Isokaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of San Francisco at 218,70 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
PBY-5A Catalina: 1 destroyed on ground

29 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
BB Kirishima
BB Hiei
CA Chikuma
CA Tone
DD Isokaze
DD Akigumo

Allied ground losses:
68 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 6 destroyed, 29 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 3 (2 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost 21 (5 destroyed, 16 disabled)

Manpower hits 1
Resources hits 1
Fires 275
Airbase hits 31
Airbase supply hits 3 (lost 81 supply)
Runway hits 120
Port hits 4

BB Kirishima firing at San Francisco
BB Hiei firing at San Francisco
CA Chikuma firing at San Francisco
CA Tone firing at SF Harbor Defenses
SF Harbor Defenses firing at CA Tone
DD Isokaze firing at San Francisco
DD Akigumo firing at San Francisco

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 11/10/2010 11:22:37 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 17

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/11/2010 12:15:46 AM

JohnDillworth

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

Surprising results to say the least. Not one hit by a CD gun? I've seen the location of those batteries. They could not miss. I can't figure out why they put starfleet headquarters there in the future if it is that indefensible. All kidding aside, anyone who has been there would tell you, can't miss

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 18

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/11/2010 12:41:21 AM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Surprising results to say the least. Not one hit by a CD gun? I've seen the location of those batteries. They could not miss. I can't figure out why they put starfleet headquarters there in the future if it is that indefensible. All kidding aside, anyone who has been there would tell you, can't miss

All I can guess is 3%--0% moonlight, and thunderstorms. Ships move, land doesn't.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 19

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/11/2010 12:48:42 AM

vettim89

Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

What is the EXP and Morale for the CD unit at SF just out of curiosity? If this is typical, then its sad that the game makes the Saipan Naval Fortress a ship killer while the US units are virtually useless. On the other hand I know that straying into range of Correigidor makes bad things happen to the Japanese. I'm going to go look up what was at or near SF in WWII just out of curisosity.

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 20

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/11/2010 1:02:06 AM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

What is the EXP and Morale for the CD unit at SF just out of curiosity?

For my tests, it's in the picture above. They were good values. Not great EXP, but good.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 21

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/11/2010 1:04:12 AM

Amoral

Posts: 378
Joined: 7/28/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
Wait, wait, I pressed the green button on myself and NOW I AM BLIND!

Awesome.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 22

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/11/2010 1:10:59 AM

stuman

Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

You are doing the Lord's work son.

BTW that's not politics, it's religion, so don't lock the thread........Aw Crap, I am just going to ignore myself. Wait, wait, I pressed the green button on myself and NOW I AM BLIND!

Wow, you mentioned religion and politics in the same post. You are doomed.

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 23

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/11/2010 1:14:35 AM

vettim89

Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

Specifics are hard to come by but here is one site:

Sea Coast Defense

This one is perhaps better but the data is hard to parse

Harbor Defense

This one is better but one needs to follow a lot of links to get all the info

Harbor Artillery

I know this is a thread jack so I will stop. Just casually looking though, I would put SF in the same category as Singapore and Correigidor. Odd that the game does see it that way. BTW, if you read that information, no way SF should start with level 0 forts. I don't see how 20' thick concrete bunkers equals level 0.

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 24

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/11/2010 1:16:31 AM

stuman

Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline

Very interesting results.

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

(in reply to stuman)

Post #: 25

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/11/2010 1:18:04 AM

vettim89

Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

One last comment and I'll stop.

I wonder if putting a commander with high nav skill in charge of a CD unit makes any difference? That would be an interesting test

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 26

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/11/2010 2:13:57 AM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

Ok, thought I'd post some reports of CD return fire that is just awe inspriring...

BTW, this was from an early test run of a mod with ships that were cancelled/scrapped due to the Washington Naval Treaty being present (a not treaty mod).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Nakhodka at 112,47 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

860 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
BB Settsu, Shell hits 52, on fire
BB Aki, Shell hits 20
BB Satsuma, Shell hits 26, on fire
CB Ibuki, Shell hits 41, on fire
CB Kurama, Shell hits 25, on fire
CB Ikoma, Shell hits 22, on fire
CA Tokachi, Shell hits 14, on fire
CA Azuma, Shell hits 19, on fire

Allied ground losses:
61 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Primorsky UR Fortress firing at BB Settsu
BB Settsu firing at Primorsky UR Fortress
Primorsky UR Fortress firing at BB Aki
BB Aki firing at Primorsky UR Fortress
Primorsky UR Fortress firing at BB Satsuma
BB Satsuma firing at Primorsky UR Fortress
Primorsky UR Fortress firing at CB Ibuki
CB Ibuki firing at Primorsky UR Fortress
Primorsky UR Fortress firing at CB Kurama
CB Kurama firing at Primorsky UR Fortress
Primorsky UR Fortress firing at CB Ikoma
CB Ikoma firing at Primorsky UR Fortress
Primorsky UR Fortress firing at CA Tokachi
CA Tokachi firing at Primorsky UR Fortress
Primorsky UR Fortress firing at CA Azuma
CA Azuma firing at Primorsky UR Fortress

And

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Vladivostok at 112,46 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
I-153: 1 destroyed on ground
DB-3M: 1 destroyed on ground
MBR-2: 1 destroyed on ground
I-16m24: 1 destroyed on ground
R-10: 1 destroyed on ground

2999 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
BB Echigo
BB Izu, Shell hits 74, on fire
BB Sagami, Shell hits 46, on fire
BB Kawachi, Shell hits 61, on fire
BB Tango, Shell hits 31, on fire
BB Harima
BB Yamato, Shell hits 57, on fire
CL Omaru, Shell hits 9, on fire
CL Kitakami, Shell hits 9, on fire

Allied ground losses:
121 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 4 (1 destroyed, 3 disabled)

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 8

Vladivostok Naval Fortress firing at BB Echigo
BB Echigo firing at Vladivostok Naval Fortress
Vladivostok Naval Fortress firing at BB Izu
BB Izu firing at Vladivostok Naval Fortress
Vladivostok Naval Fortress firing at BB Sagami
BB Sagami firing at Vladivostok Naval Fortress
Vladivostok Naval Fortress firing at BB Kawachi
BB Kawachi firing at Vladivostok Naval Fortress
Vladivostok Naval Fortress firing at BB Tango
BB Tango firing at Vladivostok Naval Fortress
BB Harima firing at Vladivostok
BB Yamato firing at Vladivostok Naval Fortress
Vladivostok Naval Fortress firing at BB Yamato
CL Omaru firing at Vladivostok Naval Fortress
Vladivostok Naval Fortress firing at CL Omaru
CL Kitakami firing at Vladivostok Naval Fortress
Vladivostok Naval Fortress firing at CL Kitakami
-------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see, unlike the OPs results, mine were quite the polar opposite. Would be nice to know what exactly factors into the differenece.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 27

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/11/2010 1:32:13 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

One last comment and I'll stop.

I wonder if putting a commander with high nav skill in charge of a CD unit makes any difference? That would be an interesting test

I don't know the answer to that, but I just wanted to say again that in my test, for the SF CD as well as the SF non-mobile base force, in March 1942 there IS no alternate CO available. When you try to change the CO you get the one currently assigned and no alternates. That may be due to the early-war date, I don't know. But unless you use the editor, for these two billets you get what you're given.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 28

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/11/2010 1:35:24 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Ok, thought I'd post some reports of CD return fire that is just awe inspriring...

BTW, this was from an early test run of a mod with ships that were cancelled/scrapped due to the Washington Naval Treaty being present (a not treaty mod).

I recall al thread about Soviet CD results at Vlad, but I don't know if they were these. Was this run done before or aftter the patch which added Min Bombardment range and the ability to use float planes to recon the bombardment target? Because that patch significantly reduced the CD accurracy and hit rate in my experience. Prior to that patch certain Japanese CD installations at places like Wotje could sink multiple USN BBS in one engagement. After, they were still stiff targets, but not death-traps.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 11/11/2010 1:36:29 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 29

RE: Emergency Reinforcements--Bombardments - 11/11/2010 2:17:28 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Ok, thought I'd post some reports of CD return fire that is just awe inspriring...

BTW, this was from an early test run of a mod with ships that were cancelled/scrapped due to the Washington Naval Treaty being present (a not treaty mod).

I recall al thread about Soviet CD results at Vlad, but I don't know if they were these. Was this run done before or aftter the patch which added Min Bombardment range and the ability to use float planes to recon the bombardment target? Because that patch significantly reduced the CD accurracy and hit rate in my experience. Prior to that patch certain Japanese CD installations at places like Wotje could sink multiple USN BBS in one engagement. After, they were still stiff targets, but not death-traps.

This was after the min bombard range patch, and I had the minimum bombard range set to 7 to avoid the really small stuff. Most of what hit these ships was 6" or larger guns. Unfortunately I didn't know how to properly set the float planes which explains the pathetic performance of my BBs. I would love to know why Russian CD guns are over-achievers compared to other Allied CD guns though.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 30