Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: John B.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John B.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John B.

Lowpe,

Oddly I think that the midget subs work just fine.

I tried the night air searches (this might be hampered by the fact that they are not yet night trained) and keeping ships in the hex. Alas, this has led to many fewer ships in the British arsenal. I also have subs on the run in hexes on the theory that if they see the bombardment TF that will increase the DL. Scott has a LOT of a/c on ASW so my own subs have high DLs which, I'm sure, makes it less likely that they will run into the TFs but it's worth a shot. Chittagong won't let me build PT boats which I suspect may be a result of the fact that it's a British base but, I could be wrong on that. the button to build them does not illuminate. I may try to work some AMs or MTBs over from Colombo but that will take awhile as they have to sneak up the coast from port to port to avoid the KB which lurks everyday at Cox's Bazar.

Good idea on the night naval bombing. It can't hurt to try that too!

FYI, my kevetching about CDs should not take away that Scott is beating me up fair and square. Ah, the agonies of being the allies in 1942.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John B.

Lowpe,

Oddly I think that the midget subs work just fine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: John B.

Lowpe,

Oddly I think that the midget subs work just fine.

What, they sink! The sink all the time from silly things like batteries exploding, or grounding, or foundering, or they hit underwater obstacles, and not to mention from depth charges etc.

How is that working I ask you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: John B.

In Frank's Guadalcanal (a very good book) he states that "Kurita protested fervidly that the risks to his ships [of the Henderson bombardment] far outweighed the potential gains, but Yamamoto silenced these objections with the threat to do the job personally if Kurita balked."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

There is the very early shelling of Midway by Destroyers....lasted about one hour, the destroyers wandered in too close and one of them took a few hits, whereupon the other made smoke and they steamed away.

A straight bombardment run. There is a lot of subs shelling...but alas, not modelled in the game.

By the way only float planes can do night naval search so get yourself some Kingfishers, or Walrus, or Sharks or whatever it is you Allies have and get them flying nigh naval search. Then find any decent squadron with some NavB or NavT or NavL training and set them to Naval attack.

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson
Subs can't bombard because I don't think there is any case of a sub bombardment doing anything actually useful militarily.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

In the real war, shore bombardment that wasn't part of an invasion was fairly rare. Invasions were often countered with heavy CD fire, but bombardment missions, not so much.

I'm sure there was some instance of just a bombardment mission being attacked by CD fire and some damage being done to the attacking force, but a quick check didn't turn up any instances. There are many instances of invasion support ships getting hit.

I did come across this:

I know it's Wikipedia, but the Allies bombarded industries in Japan and while the article doesn't mention CD fire one way or the other, there were no Allied ships hit.

I think the game allows the Japanese to do a lot more shore bombardment than they did in the real world. Especially bombardments with BBs. They only tried that during the Guadalcanal campaign and it didn't turn out that well when you weigh the losses vs the gains. There really isn't any mechanism to limit the Japanese other than a house rule.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Many of these things players can do that weren't done in the real war were things that were physically possible. The IJN could have used up their BB force bombarding Guadalcanal or other bases and the USAAF could have concentrated bombers and gone in at 1000 feet. Invading Wake with 20 divisions wasn't possible, but it would be horribly costly in game. It would likely tie up a massive number of transports plus they would burn through massive piles of supply every day.

There are things that can be done in game because players have 20/20 hindsight. The Japanese knew their bombardment of Henderson field with a BB did some damage, but they didn't know how much. The Cactus Air Force was in a deep crisis for a while, but they kept the planes flying and the Japanese really didn't know how badly damaged Henderson was. The US started using the old BBs for bombardment in later offensives in part because they knew how much damage they did when on the receiving end.

There are many areas where 20/20 hindsight comes into play.

4E bombers can be concentrated in large part because you can just steal the 11th and 7th AF's heavy bombers and put them in the Southwest Pacific, which couldn't happen in the real world because the commanders of those AFs would have had McArthur's head for doing that. The alternative is to build in a rather complex system of buying units out that is much more complex than the current one. And then you would have to accommodate actual units that were loaned to other commands for a period of time and probably some other things I'm not thinking of here.

The game is already very complex with a lot of micromanagement of the logistical details. I don't think many players would be able to stand much more of it.

An additional reason that 4E bombers were not used for low altitude attacks had more to do with the value of these planes rather than the lack of capability as well as an over inflated opinion of the accuracy of the Nordon bomb sight (another thing players have 20/20 hindsight about). B-17s were often used on recon missions in the early war and they don't usually play that role in game. Having an idea of the enemy's build up and capability when there were few offensive assets was more important than striking a few token blows and risking losing airframes.

Another thing the game doesn't model is the ops loss rate. The problem is that when developers get ops losses anywhere near reality, players raise hell about it claiming it is too high. When opposition was low, ops losses were usually about 4% per mission, going up much more as opposition increased. Ops losses for B-29s and some other types were very high.

I think the biggest reason people quit PBEMs is not gaminess, but a lack of time to commit to the game. Committing to a PBEM game which can go in for years is a major commitment and people's live change. I've never player PBEM in large part because I can't promise to be able to keep up with the game for an extended period. The AI doesn't care if I quit because my life got busy.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Many of these things players can do that weren't done in the real war were things that were physically possible. The IJN could have used up their BB force bombarding Guadalcanal or other bases and the USAAF could have concentrated bombers and gone in at 1000 feet. Invading Wake with 20 divisions wasn't possible, but it would be horribly costly in game. It would likely tie up a massive number of transports plus they would burn through massive piles of supply every day.

quote:



There are things that can be done in game because players have 20/20 hindsight. The Japanese knew their bombardment of Henderson field with a BB did some damage, but they didn't know how much. The Cactus Air Force was in a deep crisis for a while, but they kept the planes flying and the Japanese really didn't know how badly damaged Henderson was. The US started using the old BBs for bombardment in later offensives in part because they knew how much damage they did when on the receiving end.

There are many areas where 20/20 hindsight comes into play.

4E bombers can be concentrated in large part because you can just steal the 11th and 7th AF's heavy bombers and put them in the Southwest Pacific, which couldn't happen in the real world because the commanders of those AFs would have had McArthur's head for doing that. The alternative is to build in a rather complex system of buying units out that is much more complex than the current one. And then you would have to accommodate actual units that were loaned to other commands for a period of time and probably some other things I'm not thinking of here.

The game is already very complex with a lot of micromanagement of the logistical details. I don't think many players would be able to stand much more of it.

An additional reason that 4E bombers were not used for low altitude attacks had more to do with the value of these planes rather than the lack of capability as well as an over inflated opinion of the accuracy of the Nordon bomb sight (another thing players have 20/20 hindsight about). B-17s were often used on recon missions in the early war and they don't usually play that role in game. Having an idea of the enemy's build up and capability when there were few offensive assets was more important than striking a few token blows and risking losing airframes.

quote:



Another thing the game doesn't model is the ops loss rate. The problem is that when developers get ops losses anywhere near reality, players raise hell about it claiming it is too high. When opposition was low, ops losses were usually about 4% per mission, going up much more as opposition increased. Ops losses for B-29s and some other types were very high.

I think the biggest reason people quit PBEMs is not gaminess, but a lack of time to commit to the game. Committing to a PBEM game which can go in for years is a major commitment and people's live change. I've never player PBEM in large part because I can't promise to be able to keep up with the game for an extended period. The AI doesn't care if I quit because my life got busy.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

The point of over-exertion of bombardment units, especially BBs concerns me. I know it is valid. I use bombardment a lot....in my worthless opinion even the BBs are forced to earn their keep. BUT, I do not want to get "gamey" with my floating artillery. What is a reasonable window for using a BB before I voluntarily withdraw the unit? Who is the ordinance expert here????

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Many of these things players can do that weren't done in the real war were things that were physically possible. The IJN could have used up their BB force bombarding Guadalcanal or other bases and the USAAF could have concentrated bombers and gone in at 1000 feet. Invading Wake with 20 divisions wasn't possible, but it would be horribly costly in game. It would likely tie up a massive number of transports plus they would burn through massive piles of supply every day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpaemail
Not really. The linings of the BB guns had to be repaired after every firing. Not reflected in the game. The shells to shell shore targets were not the same shells that they would use in a surface engagement, yet the players can form bombard TFs at will at sea even. They should only be able to form bombard at a port with capacity to load the main guns of the ships (by the re-arm point schedule). Further, they should be at best at half ammo if a surface fight ensues thus forcing a withdrawl sooner.

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

The point of over-exertion of bombardment units, especially BBs concerns me. I know it is valid. I use bombardment a lot....in my worthless opinion even the BBs are forced to earn their keep. BUT, I do not want to get "gamey" with my floating artillery. What is a reasonable window for using a BB before I voluntarily withdraw the unit? Who is the ordinance expert here????

It's part of the game. Just use them. None of it is perfect and very little of it is worth HR'ing. If you are doing some refereed strictly-historical seeking simulation with the game, sure fine. And of course, whatever opponents agree on is fine anyway. But there is no ultimate set of HR's to make it 'right'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

I am largely just supposing but my expectation with worn BB barrels would largely just be diminished accuracy. Maybe there is a safety concern? Diminished accuracy would be a big deal in a SAG engagement but for bombardment, meh, especially at night, when you don't really know what you are shooting at anyway. Oh, my shell landed on the island, somewhere, maybe it hit something expensive! Lets do that again, and again, and again!