Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: shore bombardment

 
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 >> The War Room >> RE: shore bombardment Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: shore bombardment - 3/28/2015 5:44:58 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Example of above, using Moose's "standing on the beach". Let's say that means you are almost 4 feet above sea level. You are average height and wearing combat boots (it's AE!), so let's call your eye height 10 feet as a round number. Looking up on the table gives us 3.7 nm.

The top of the highest mast of the ship you trying to spot is - I am making this up, use your own better figure - 50 ft. Looking that up on the table yields 8.3 nm.

3.7 nm + 8.3 nm = 12 nm.

So standing on the beach in the way I described it, you can see the tip of a 50 ft high object when it is 12 nm away.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 61
RE: shore bombardment - 3/28/2015 7:08:16 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

Go stand on a beach at sea level. Can you see 40 miles out to sea? Twenty miles? No? There you go.

From Bowditch:





Now do it for the night move phase.

0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 . . .

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 62
RE: shore bombardment - 3/28/2015 7:43:17 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		I thought that mooses ate carrots!

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 63
RE: shore bombardment - 3/28/2015 8:36:22 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I thought that mooses ate carrots!


When we can get them. The Cub Foods is frequently out, however.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 64
RE: shore bombardment - 3/28/2015 10:00:17 PM   
John B.


Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline 		Bullwinkle,

Thanks for the very helpful post pointing out that I can't see 40 nm or even 20 nm out to sea. However, I do believe that I can see 1,000 yards, 2,000 yards, heck, I'll be wild and say that I can even see 3,000 yards out to sea. You do know that 3,000 yards is less than 20 nm right? Right? ;-)

As I've said all along, it makes sense to me that CD guns are much more helpful against invasion but I think that they would at least shoot when ships are close in and bombarding. As I said, I think that there is a problem with the CD units.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 65
RE: shore bombardment - 3/28/2015 10:20:33 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: John B.

Bullwinkle,

Thanks for the very helpful post pointing out that I can't see 40 nm or even 20 nm out to sea. However, I do believe that I can see 1,000 yards, 2,000 yards, heck, I'll be wild and say that I can even see 3,000 yards out to sea. You do know that 3,000 yards is less than 20 nm right? Right? ;-)

As I've said all along, it makes sense to me that CD guns are much more helpful against invasion but I think that they would at least shoot when ships are close in and bombarding. As I said, I think that there is a problem with the CD units.


From personal experience in the Pacific and IO I can say you frequently can't see 3000 yards out to sea from a beach on a moonless night. From personal experience I can also say that remaining at battlestations 24/7/365 is impossible. Think of the CD crews as being at chow when the shells start coming in from over the horizon and they're hampered in getting to the guns and unlimbering them before the hailstorm is over.

Or just accept this is the way the game works. As I've said several times there are defenses against bombardments. Use your own navy. Make it costly or at least risky for him.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to John B.)
Post #: 66
RE: shore bombardment - 3/28/2015 10:57:09 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: John B.

However, I do believe that I can see 1,000 yards, 2,000 yards, heck, I'll be wild and say that I can even see 3,000 yards out to sea.

Are you saying that those bombardments are at 1,000, 2,000, or 3,000 yards off shore? The combat reports screen pics that you give don't have that information. It would be extremely - insanely - unusual for a naval bombardment to be conducted at that range.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to John B.)
Post #: 67
RE: shore bombardment - 3/29/2015 1:24:51 AM   
John B.


Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline 		Witpqs,

Here, for example, is an IJN CA bombarding from 4,000 yards. I see this all the time. And, I think I've seen DD's come in closer but not in the last few rounds and I don't feel like combing files to find those. :-) Is there a different version of the game where they won't come in this close?

@Bullwinkle, I agree with you that no one can see on a moonless night. Yet the IJN comes in and does quite well in the bombardments. At Henderson field they used star shells and I suspect that's what is modeled here otherwise they would be firing blind and doing a really good job. Just like there would be star shells used by the defending forces. And, I also agree that no installation is manned 100% 24/7. But, the gun emplacements are not empty with everyone miles away. I can understand reduced effectiveness and I can understand fewer shots, it's time and again when no one shoots anything that I don't understand.

If I've offended you by criticizing an aspect of the game that's not my intent and I apologize. I think that the game models many things quite well and is certainly much better than anything I could ever do. I just happen to think that it is quite unrealistic for CD batteries to not shoot at all with shore bombardments coming in night after night. If that's the way the game is than that's the way that it is, but, being on the receiving end I don't have to like it. :-)




Attachment (1)

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 68
RE: shore bombardment - 3/29/2015 1:46:32 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		OK, I see 4,000 yards. If you are playing against the AI - I mean this quite sincerely - don't whine, because as you get up to speed on the game the AI will need all the help it can get to give you an enjoyably competitive game.

If you are playing against another player, it works the same for both sides. Allies take it on the chin from bombardments early, and deliver loads and loads of payback later on. See my own AAR for examples, or many others.

If you take the time to search the forum for older threads on this topic, you will see that we have gone through this many times. The answers you are getting are only so quick because they have been hashed out before. This is what we got.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to John B.)
Post #: 69
RE: shore bombardment - 3/29/2015 9:11:45 AM   
wegman58

 

Posts: 460
Joined: 12/28/2013
From: Edina, MN (FROM the Bronx)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I thought that mooses ate carrots!


When we can get them. The Cub Foods is frequently out, however.


You're shopping at the wrong Cub.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 70
RE: shore bombardment - 3/29/2015 12:12:31 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Strange.

All the Japanese navy guns used by Jap coastal artillery units have a CD flag in Tracker.

All the Japanese DP guns used by Jap coastal artillery units have a DP flag in Tracker.

Allies have to quaint guns - the 6" gun and 155mm GPF. Both guns lack the CD flag in Tracker. All other movable Allied navy guns have the CD flag.

I guess the 6" gun (device 1036) is treated by the game code as an army weapon, and not as a naval gun. They will probably shoot when an amphibious TF unloads at Chittagong.

I guess it is a bug.

< Message edited by Yaab -- 3/29/2015 1:13:34 PM >

(in reply to wegman58)
Post #: 71
RE: shore bombardment - 3/29/2015 1:11:46 PM   
John B.


Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline 		@Yaab, that is very interesting. I wonder if it is supposed to be that way for the 6" CD units. If so, then perhaps they can be relabled or perhaps they can be given the internal CD designation. Should I report this as a potential bug in at the other forum site?

@Witpqs. This is my fourth game. The first one was against the AI and you're more than correct, the poor AI needs all the help it can get. :-) Both Scott and I messed up with carriers in the next two games hence we've only made it to 1943 once.

The reason why I even brought this up was when I invaded Saipan in the time I invaded in 1943 the IJA CD unit kept bashing my bombardment TFs and now I'm not getting anything out of my own CD units.

Interestingly, I tried to run some allied bombardments so I set up face to face for 1941 and grounded all aircraft and sent ships out of the way to hurry through turns to get bombardment TFs to Saipan and Cam Ranh Bay to try some experiments. I did one bombardment with PoW and Repulse on Cam Ranh at 14K and it did give me the same results I have been getting in Chittagong. That is, no CD fire. So, maybe it is a range thing.

I could not continue to try other bombardments. The funny thing is that I could not rerun the turns. In fact, the computer has taken over and converted the game into one against the AI and it has flown planes and sent out ships to intercept me. I guess it just could not stand the fact that the IJN was not bashing the allies in December 1941 .

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 72
RE: shore bombardment - 3/29/2015 1:24:45 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline 		The range of 6" guns is 17,000 yards. If you check the manual for field guns and their range, it says the bigger the range the higher the CHANCE to shoot. Maybe it works the same for naval guns? Ships bombarding at 14,000 yards may not be engaged by guns with max range of 17,000 yards. Try to run bombardment TFs at 5,000 yards and see if you get any reaction from the CD unit.

(in reply to John B.)
Post #: 73
RE: shore bombardment - 3/29/2015 5:30:06 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline 		I don't really care what Tracker says. The 6in M1903, 6" Mk V/VII and 6" Mk XI/XII are Naval Guns (at least in Babes, other scens, you are on your own). That means they shoot in any combat algorithm designated as Naval, including bombardment. Period. There is no such thing as a CD Gun. There are only CD units. And just because a unit has a gun that you people think should be a CD gun, isn't informative. The 155mm GPF was an ARTILLERY weapon. Ok, it was used as an anti-ship weapon, but BFD! If you think you are informed enough to tweak the paradigm, I would love to hear from you. Otherwise,you get what you get.



_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 74
RE: shore bombardment - 3/29/2015 5:49:08 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Symon, I am nowhere near to tweak anything. I just find it puzzling why a CD unit equipped with navy guns would not consistently engage a bombarding TF firing at 4,000 yards. CD units for both sides are few and far between, and if they do not fire, it is a major disappointment for the player using them.


(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 75
RE: shore bombardment - 3/29/2015 6:43:16 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Symon, I am nowhere near to tweak anything. I just find it puzzling why a CD unit equipped with navy guns would not consistently engage a bombarding TF firing at 4,000 yards. CD units for both sides are few and far between, and if they do not fire, it is a major disappointment for the player using them.



Of course there could be more than one thing involved. The scenario they (he) are playing might have an error in the definition (Babes corrected many, many such things). "But" I am not convinced that the performance is so wrong. Yes, ships in AE probably do get to bombard more than IRL, and that's a separate issue. The CD unit in the pic does not have a radar device. Ships at night are going to be in and out of visual detection range pretty quickly. Maybe there are other surface search radars in the hex, but I don't recall reading that.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 76
RE: shore bombardment - 3/29/2015 7:41:50 PM   
witpaemail

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 3/2/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Symon, I am nowhere near to tweak anything. I just find it puzzling why a CD unit equipped with navy guns would not consistently engage a bombarding TF firing at 4,000 yards. CD units for both sides are few and far between, and if they do not fire, it is a major disappointment for the player using them.



Of course there could be more than one thing involved. The scenario they (he) are playing might have an error in the definition (Babes corrected many, many such things). "But" I am not convinced that the performance is so wrong. Yes, ships in AE probably do get to bombard more than IRL, and that's a separate issue. The CD unit in the pic does not have a radar device. Ships at night are going to be in and out of visual detection range pretty quickly. Maybe there are other surface search radars in the hex, but I don't recall reading that.



Umm, a ship that shoots at night is pretty easily spotted out to 17,000 yards or more...

Not to mention that Japanese optics and listening gear was actually better than early allied RADAR units. And since you pointed out the NAVAL guns attached to CD units are in fact NAVAL, they would be manned by NAVAL crews, which were well trained in night combat techniques.

Now, from the allied side, they should be handicapped until the superior RADAR sets arrived in 43 and later. Tell that to the Dutch shore guns that always seem to b*tch-slap my landing forces ;)

< Message edited by witpaemail -- 3/29/2015 8:46:25 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 77
RE: shore bombardment - 3/29/2015 7:46:40 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: witpaemail


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Symon, I am nowhere near to tweak anything. I just find it puzzling why a CD unit equipped with navy guns would not consistently engage a bombarding TF firing at 4,000 yards. CD units for both sides are few and far between, and if they do not fire, it is a major disappointment for the player using them.



Of course there could be more than one thing involved. The scenario they (he) are playing might have an error in the definition (Babes corrected many, many such things). "But" I am not convinced that the performance is so wrong. Yes, ships in AE probably do get to bombard more than IRL, and that's a separate issue. The CD unit in the pic does not have a radar device. Ships at night are going to be in and out of visual detection range pretty quickly. Maybe there are other surface search radars in the hex, but I don't recall reading that.



Umm, a ship that shoots at night is pretty easily spotted out to 17,000 yards or more...


USN early war gun flashes, USN later war gun flashes, or IJN and other navies' gun flashes? Non-flashless propellant was only used early war by USN. Japanese (and AFAIK other navies) used it for the entire war.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 3/29/2015 8:47:17 PM >

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to witpaemail)
Post #: 78
RE: shore bombardment - 3/29/2015 7:53:06 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Strange.

All the Japanese navy guns used by Jap coastal artillery units have a CD flag in Tracker.

All the Japanese DP guns used by Jap coastal artillery units have a DP flag in Tracker.

Allies have to quaint guns - the 6" gun and 155mm GPF. Both guns lack the CD flag in Tracker. All other movable Allied navy guns have the CD flag.

I guess the 6" gun (device 1036) is treated by the game code as an army weapon, and not as a naval gun. They will probably shoot when an amphibious TF unloads at Chittagong.

I guess it is a bug.


Why do you guess device #1036 is treat by the code as an army weapon? You have looked up the editor to see the stats for that device. There is zero ambiguity in the scenario 1 database that device #1036 is a naval gun, not an army weapon nor any other type of device. The game code therefore sees device #1036 only as a naval gun and treats it as such.

There are too many people around here who accord Tracker God like qualities and infallibilities. It is neither. Whenever there is a conflict between Tracker and the game's database, Tracker is to be disregarded and only the game database is to be used. The CD flag you refer to is a Tracker invention which has no game meaning.

So far I have seen no evidence adduced to support the assertion that there is a bug here.

Alfred

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 79
RE: shore bombardment - 3/29/2015 8:13:09 PM   
1EyedJacks


Posts: 2244
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

I don't really care what Tracker says. The 6in M1903, 6" Mk V/VII and 6" Mk XI/XII are Naval Guns (at least in Babes, other scens, you are on your own). That means they shoot in any combat algorithm designated as Naval, including bombardment. Period. There is no such thing as a CD Gun. There are only CD units. And just because a unit has a gun that you people think should be a CD gun, isn't informative. The 155mm GPF was an ARTILLERY weapon. Ok, it was used as an anti-ship weapon, but BFD! If you think you are informed enough to tweak the paradigm, I would love to hear from you. Otherwise,you get what you get.




KA-CLICK!

_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 80
RE: shore bombardment - 3/29/2015 8:30:46 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		There are some really fundamental misunderstandings held by those who do not like the results they are seeing.

1.  In post #34 I drew attention to the spotting rules listed in the manual, which is absolutely fundamental to understanding this issue.  I therefore find it astonishing that subsequently it has been suggested that maybe a bombardment TF gets a DL when it enters the hex.  This is just wishful thinking of what the code might do and is no substitute for reading the manual which states what the code actually does.

2.  A CD unit will fire if it passes a die roll.  That call is made once only at the start of the naval bombardment.  It is not made every time there is an exchange of gunfire.  IOW, if the die roll is not made at the start, it is completely irrelevant if subsequently the bombardment TF moves in closer to shore.  Ergo all this angst about not firing back at 4k yards or less is irrelevant and another example of wishful thinking displacing what the code actually does.

3.  The devs have never provided exact details of what factors are taken into account in the die roll.  There is no doubt however that the DL of the bombardment TF is the single most important factor.  A bombardment TF which has a zero DL on it, which is the case here, is not going to be fired upon by CD units.  I refer back to my previous post on spotting which directed readers back to the relevant section in the manual.

4.  Range of weapons is very relevant when the die roll is successfully passed.  Readers should read my comments in this thread.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3546521&mpage=1&key=bombardment%2Crange&#3557171

5.  The bottom line is that the OP has received useful advice from several people.  None of that advice appears to have been implemented so it comes as no surprise to me that the same outcome continues.

Alfred

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 81
RE: shore bombardment - 3/29/2015 9:02:25 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Alfred, points well taken. Don't want to "Castor Troy" this thread, but the OP has three CD units in the hex, and his reward for the well-placed units is, well, nil. Maybe only CD units that are *static* can hit anything, and those that can be moved, do not?

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 82
RE: shore bombardment - 3/29/2015 9:11:41 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Alfred, points well taken. Don't want to "Castor Troy" this thread, but the OP has three CD units in the hex, and his reward for the well-placed units is, well, nil. Maybe only CD units that are *static* can hit anything, and those that can be moved, do not?


You don't seem to be readin gwhat people are saying. They do fire depending on die rolls. None of us know all of the factors here including leaders, DL, distances from shore and all that. It is the way it is and it's not going to change. Right?



_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 83
RE: shore bombardment - 3/29/2015 9:22:54 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

OK, I see 4,000 yards. If you are playing against the AI - I mean this quite sincerely - don't whine, because as you get up to speed on the game the AI will need all the help it can get to give you an enjoyably competitive game.

If you are playing against another player, it works the same for both sides. Allies take it on the chin from bombardments early, and deliver loads and loads of payback later on. See my own AAR for examples, or many others.

If you take the time to search the forum for older threads on this topic, you will see that we have gone through this many times. The answers you are getting are only so quick because they have been hashed out before. This is what we got.


My distant memory is that the range spinner was patched in pretty early but didn't ship with the original build. In the base game you just ordered a bombardment and watched it.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 84
RE: shore bombardment - 3/29/2015 9:23:44 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: wegman58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I thought that mooses ate carrots!


When we can get them. The Cub Foods is frequently out, however.


You're shopping at the wrong Cub.


Cake eater!

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to wegman58)
Post #: 85
RE: shore bombardment - 3/30/2015 3:19:58 AM   
John B.


Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline 		Ah, it appears that there are fundamental misunderstandings by people who don't like what they're reading from people who are registering a concern. :-)

I actually have 4 CD units in the hex and in the course of more than 5 bombardments (I've lost track) one gun has fired one shot. If these guns are with good training (level 60), undisrupted and with good morale keep failing their die rolls then I humbly and with great trepedation (and with great tugging of my forelock) suggest that maybe perhaps, just possibly the system is not giving a good result. In this case, by good I mean something that appears to align with what units are there for. If planes never ever rose to fly CAP despite good weather, undamaged airfields and good leaders then I would make a similar comment because units would not be doing what they appear to be designed to do.

The bombardments do more than dash in, launch a single salvo and dash out. Henderson Field bombardment lasted more than an hour with a liberal use of star shells by the IJN BBs. The opening day of the bombardment of Gallipoli lasted, well, most of the day (with significant damage to a number of entente capital ships).

I've been playing this system for a long long time (I had the original War in the South Pacific). It's very good and entertaining.

But, Alfred, to address you directly, you are right, I have received some good advice from people which I have implemented including extra searches and putting naval units into the hex. I have fewer naval units now, , but, alas, the CD guns still don't shoot. Again, you're right, I don't like the results that I'm seeing. But, to be very clear, it's not the bombardments I object to, what I don't like is that the CD units don't fire. You did explain DL to me and you were kind to do so but, if it's all DL, then in line with my original posts I think that's a mistake that leads to a skewed result. The code may be what it is, but in this case the code is not good enough, IMHO. Hmmm, is that a lightening bolt I see headed my wa . . .





(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 86
RE: shore bombardment - 3/30/2015 3:54:19 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		No one has suggested that bombardments are a single salvo. We have also been discussing nighttime bombardments, so damage done in daytime at Gallipoli is irrelevant. Deliberately mischaracterizing what people are saying to you does not further anything.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to John B.)
Post #: 87
RE: shore bombardment - 3/30/2015 5:01:09 AM   
Anthropoid


Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline 		Task forces move, shorelines do not move.

_____________________________

The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ328&feature=autoplay&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CocLGbd6tpbuQRxyF4FGNr&playnext=3

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 88
RE: shore bombardment - 3/30/2015 5:29:38 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline 		In a few games against a computer IJ, I've had bombardment TFs consistently take fire from bases such as Shortlands which have CD units. It's enough return fire that it's usually a good idea to keep escorts from bombarding and to move out the range to avoid too much damage to cruisers and BBs.

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to Anthropoid)
Post #: 89
RE: shore bombardment - 3/30/2015 12:19:12 PM   
John B.


Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline 		Witpqs,

I am mystified by your post. Alfred said that whether or not a CD unit fires is determined at the start of combat. My response is that combat does not work that way IRL. It's not a single shot decision. If I was inarticulate in conveying that point that is certainly my problem but how you can make the leap that I am deliberately misconstruing what people say seems a bit, overboard, if you'll excuse the topical pun.

In any event, I agree with you that the damage done at Gallipoli is irrelevant.

But, this topic is about the fact that the CD guns don't shoot at all. Here from my original post (#1 in this chain)

"The problem is that they [CD units] did not fire a single shot at the bombarding fleet. Not one shot from four units and this has happened with previous encounters."

The point is that at Gallipoli the coastal artillery shot. CD units shot at the allied invasion fleet before dawn at Normandy. One can presume for all the historical evidence that the Germans had a zero DL level on that fleet and we know the Ottomans had no air search capability. If there are numerous instances of CD guns not fired back when under bombardment then I'm wrong it's as simple as that. But I don't know if that is a typical occurrence and no one on this site, and there is a lot of military historical knowledge on this site, has made the argument that CD guns don't at least shoot in an historical context.

Let me put it this way. In every surface engagement I've had that I can think of my ships have always shot back (well, unless they get blasted right away). They shoot back if they are surprised and the enemy TF had a zero DL and my ships are damaged with bad leaders and poor crews on moonless nights. They with regularity shoot back. They get smashed (all too frequently alas) as it should be, but they at least fired their guns. Again, as it should be. The fact that CD units don't fire back may be the code then the model is flawed in that regard. It's still a great game, I still tell my friends to buy it, and it is much more sophisticated than anything I can do, but in this aspect it's flawed.


(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: shore bombardment Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.094