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: Disaster!

 
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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Disaster! Page: <<   < prev  222 223 [224] 225 226   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Disaster! - 2/8/2016 1:20:55 AM   
fulcrum28


Posts: 660
Joined: 2/28/2010
Status: offline
thank you for the feed-back on the time. it is very interesting AAR. did you try a full campaign using 2 or 3 days turn length instead of 1 day?

_____________________________


The most comprehensive website on the IJN Imperial Japanese Navy Y:"Let us enjoy the beauty of the moon (sinking aboard Hiryu)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6691
RE: Disaster! - 2/8/2016 1:27:08 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
July 9, 1944

Heavy bombing across all of Honshu, catches a few of my planes on the ground. Heavy bombardments all across Honshu, most at Nagoya and Hamamatsu.

Only a deliberate attack at Matsumaya, and we hold with no decrease in the 1 level forts.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to fulcrum28)
Post #: 6692
RE: Disaster! - 2/8/2016 1:32:46 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Nagoya's defenders:

I manage to rail in two fresh artillery units, one has 22 15cm guns to counter all the Allied tanks. I am moving a third ART unit from Hamamatsu, but really only to get the Allies to bomb an bombard there rather than focusing on Nagoya with everything-- and it is working.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6693
RE: Disaster! - 2/8/2016 1:35:10 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Allies are pretty intent on capturing Matsuyama. I will be sending another brigade by barge today.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6694
RE: Disaster! - 2/8/2016 1:42:34 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Plane losses for the day.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6695
RE: Disaster! - 2/8/2016 1:43:53 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fulcrum28

thank you for the feed-back on the time. it is very interesting AAR. did you try a full campaign using 2 or 3 days turn length instead of 1 day?


When I play the AI, I use 2 day turns. Never tried three day turns. It really changes how the game is played, & I don't think it speeds up the game much if at all.

(in reply to fulcrum28)
Post #: 6696
RE: Disaster! - 2/8/2016 2:58:43 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
I have managed to take this lull in the Deathstar's activities to get three units with DP guns along the Yangtze river. Plus I am mining the river and seeding it with ACMs.

The Tone is all the way upriver with 600 naval support squads repairing. I have both daytime and night time CAP, but as experience has shown, it is within range of the Deathstar. I didn't count the hexes, but I assume the B29 can hit me too. Maybe not yet though...

I am also putting as many motor launches that I can find to protect the river. They will at least cause any penetrating Allied ships to expend ammo on low victory point ships with the potential of putting a torpedo in some Allied ship's keel.


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6697
RE: Disaster! - 2/8/2016 8:05:02 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: fulcrum28

thank you for the feed-back on the time. it is very interesting AAR. did you try a full campaign using 2 or 3 days turn length instead of 1 day?


When I play the AI, I use 2 day turns. Never tried three day turns. It really changes how the game is played, & I don't think it speeds up the game much if at all.


If you really want to play 2- or 3-day turns, do most/all of your stuff on a single day's turn. Then on the next one, don't change anything except for some really important stuff and then just advance the turn.

This works perfectly well against the AI, and in PBEM to an extent during certain time periods.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6698
RE: Disaster! - 2/9/2016 1:02:04 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
July 9, 1944

Heavy naval bombardments of Nagoya, Hamamatsu, Hirosaki, and Cam Ranh Bay.

Allies use their B29s at 7000 feet to hit the troops defending Nagoya, I can expect another full scale attack there.

Allies are using their subs all throughout, and I catch them every now and then.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 2/9/2016 2:10:18 PM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 6699
RE: Disaster! - 2/9/2016 1:14:58 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Just a bombardment attack...I am mistaken again.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6700
RE: Disaster! - 2/9/2016 1:38:17 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
The Allies have bolstered their Saigon fleet, unfortunately. And now it is out and looking for trouble.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6701
RE: Disaster! - 2/9/2016 1:42:12 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Battered Nagoya.

Losses are extreme to heavy B29 bombardment and by BB bombardment. Ugly, ugly, ugly.




I will pull back some of the shattered Divisions into the mountains maybe. Or break them down into thirds which seems to avoid some of the BB bombardments.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 2/9/2016 2:44:45 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6702
RE: Disaster! - 2/9/2016 9:03:59 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
The Dinah fighter. Down to my last two planes.

Got some kills. Invaluable in the early night bombing defensive role on landlocked bases. In a pdu on game I would always build a sentai, break it into thirds and use them as night CAP prior to the arrival of the Nick D.

Very happy with their performance this game.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to fulcrum28)
Post #: 6703
RE: Disaster! - 2/10/2016 2:17:49 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
July 11,1944

Heavy ship bombardments at Nagoya, then Allied bombers run roughshod over Honshu and Hong Kong. P38s tangle with a half dozen Franks for a fairly equal trade before a half dozen low flying B29s hit the port at Hong Kong.

Four Franks do a good job, destroying one in A2A but they bounce 10 500# bombs off he Oyoda which is in drydock. Amazingly the Oyoda survives....

No Allied attacks anywhere.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to fulcrum28)
Post #: 6704
RE: Disaster! - 2/10/2016 2:25:06 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Nagoya

I guess on a good day we have less than 2000 losses due to bombardments and bombing. On bad days, don't ask.

Anyhow, I broke down a heavy Infantry Division into thirds and they came thru the bombardment just fine. So, I need to put Depot Divisions there to absorb the naval bombardments (along with ENG/AA units) and keep the good infantry below 200 AV in size to weather this storm.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6705
RE: Disaster! - 2/10/2016 5:06:20 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
So, I need to put Depot Divisions there to absorb the naval bombardments (along with ENG/AA units) and keep the good infantry below 200 AV in size to weather this storm.

I have doubts that bombardment vulnerability relates in any way with unit size. AI seem to target assault LCUs at random, and base forces get their share if the base (port/airfield) is selected. If there are CD units they get preferential attention from bombarding TF, otherwise anyone can get some. I don't know the details behind the selection algorythm, but it might just as well be one that would make dividing weak units beneficial instead when e.g. all LCUs present get equal chances of being the target

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6706
RE: Disaster! - 2/10/2016 5:26:43 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
So, I need to put Depot Divisions there to absorb the naval bombardments (along with ENG/AA units) and keep the good infantry below 200 AV in size to weather this storm.

I have doubts that bombardment vulnerability relates in any way with unit size. AI seem to target assault LCUs at random, and base forces get their share if the base (port/airfield) is selected. If there are CD units they get preferential attention from bombarding TF, otherwise anyone can get some. I don't know the details behind the selection algorythm, but it might just as well be one that would make dividing weak units beneficial instead when e.g. all LCUs present get equal chances of being the target

My observations are more like Lowpe's. Bombardment priority seems to be:

1. if units are moving, the unit closest to exiting toward allied troops
2. the unit with the most AV
3. HQs
4. minor combat units
5. support units

Note that the thing I am reporting is the unit target info just below the bombardment results in the combat report. The actual casualties seem to be more in the support units, presumably because the combat troops are the ones dug in behind the forts and the support units have to have people in the open to do their job.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 6707
RE: Disaster! - 2/10/2016 6:15:38 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Thanks guys.

It is interesting to note the Armored units, if not moving, are not touched by bombardments. Which explains why armored cars do well on atolls with lots of other units present.

Artillery gets targeted.

I think a lot of targeting depends upon detection levels. But with high detection levels, prior to the bombardment, then I think size does matter. The BBs will focus fire on CD guns, Artillery, HQ, Eng, and large combat units. This allows the smaller infantry units and armored units to remain pretty much unmolested.

Gawd, will there be 5 more months of daily bombardments by up to 8 BB+ all the assorted cruisers and destroyers and destroyer escorts? Tedious.




(in reply to fulcrum28)
Post #: 6708
RE: Disaster! - 2/10/2016 7:39:25 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
So, I need to put Depot Divisions there to absorb the naval bombardments (along with ENG/AA units) and keep the good infantry below 200 AV in size to weather this storm.

I have doubts that bombardment vulnerability relates in any way with unit size. AI seem to target assault LCUs at random, and base forces get their share if the base (port/airfield) is selected. If there are CD units they get preferential attention from bombarding TF, otherwise anyone can get some. I don't know the details behind the selection algorythm, but it might just as well be one that would make dividing weak units beneficial instead when e.g. all LCUs present get equal chances of being the target

My observations are more like Lowpe's. Bombardment priority seems to be:

1. if units are moving, the unit closest to exiting toward allied troops
2. the unit with the most AV
3. HQs
4. minor combat units
5. support units

Note that the thing I am reporting is the unit target info just below the bombardment results in the combat report. The actual casualties seem to be more in the support units, presumably because the combat troops are the ones dug in behind the forts and the support units have to have people in the open to do their job.


Why would 1 ever occur? I don't think the code would prioritize units such as this

My observation is closer to GA's - which is to say, it seems to be random except when bombarding a base with a TF, then CD guns will be hit more simply because counter battery fire is a thing. Even then, TFs mostly bombard the base and rarely seem able to target an LCU itself. Casualties seem to be incidental.

Bombing from the air seems to select a random LCU, perhaps weighted towards whichever one is on top. I have seen many raids on the same day hit many LCUs in the same hex. If there were some sort of sorting algorithm for this, rather than a random (weighted or not), then they would all start out bombing the same LCU.

Bombing an airfield has a small chance to also affect units with aviation support in them, as they can be construed as working at the airfield instead of in the trenches.

Bombing a port has a small chance to also affect units with naval support in them, as they can be construed as working at the port.

The LCU bombardment is detailed in the manual, IIRC, but I don't think any units are given preferential treatment.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Thanks guys.

It is interesting to note the Armored units, if not moving, are not touched by bombardments. Which explains why armored cars do well on atolls with lots of other units present.

Artillery gets targeted.


I think a lot of targeting depends upon detection levels. But with high detection levels, prior to the bombardment, then I think size does matter. The BBs will focus fire on CD guns, Artillery, HQ, Eng, and large combat units. This allows the smaller infantry units and armored units to remain pretty much unmolested.

Gawd, will there be 5 more months of daily bombardments by up to 8 BB+ all the assorted cruisers and destroyers and destroyer escorts? Tedious.



I think you are reaching a false conclusion from the same data.

Armored units are typically "not touched" when their own side bombards (i.e., after an amphibious landing) because they typically do not have any bombardment-capable artillery within their TOE and therefore within their unit - if they aren't firing at the guys coming up from the beach, then they can't be subjected to counter-bombardment.

This is precisely the reason that artillery "gets targeted."

So far as I know, detection levels mean about as much for land combat as positive, 2-digit degrees of Celsius mean for the state of water.

Beyond CD guns being fired on by a bombardment TF, do you have anything to support the hypothesis that certain types of units are targeted first by them? How about contrary evidence, such as bombarding a place and seeing "XX Ship firing at (infantry LCU)"? Because I see that occur just as often in bombardments as "XX Ship firing at (base force LCU)".


Edit for clarity: armored units can still be hit by opposing bombardments, not counter-bombardments, unless in Reserve mode (which prevents participation in bombardments). And obviously forts will affect whether and how many casualties are taken, as always.

< Message edited by Lokasenna -- 2/10/2016 8:42:48 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 6709
RE: Disaster! - 2/10/2016 7:55:28 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Lok,

I am talking naval bombardments.

For evidence, just scroll back thru the posts of Nagoya's defenders which I have provided almost daily. Not once has an armored unit suffered any disruption from naval bombardments, despite it being a daily (often several daily) occurrences. Not once.


For the regiment and brigade sized units have also not been disrupted, except for aerial bombing.

I am trying to weather the naval bombardments, and it seems that I can avoid it by having 1-2 full sized divisions and support troops absorbing the naval bombardments.






(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 6710
RE: Disaster! - 2/10/2016 8:02:07 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Lok,

I am talking naval bombardments.

For evidence, just scroll back thru the posts of Nagoya's defenders which I have provided almost daily. Not once has an armored unit suffered any disruption from naval bombardments, despite it being a daily (often several daily) occurrences. Not once.


For the regiment and brigade sized units have also not been disrupted, except for aerial bombing.

I am trying to weather the naval bombardments, and it seems that I can avoid it by having 1-2 full sized divisions and support troops absorbing the naval bombardments.



So it's not just armored units, it's basically non-CD and non-base units that are not being affected. This would easily be explained by it being random, although with a greater chance for CD units to be subject to counter-battery fire and base forces subject to disruption/incidental casualties when their facilities are targeted (whether hit or not) by the bombardment TF. I have seen AF and port units disrupted by bombardment of an island, whether they suffered casualties or not - the island's AF and port was hit.

I am with you a little bit on DL affecting whether non-CD and non-base units are targeted, however. When I bombard a base but don't use recon ahead of time, LCUs at that base are rarely hit.


PS - my work computer following my last-read place in your thread is still messed up. I may be missing posts from where it starts me at in the thread, and not realizing I should scroll up.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6711
RE: Disaster! - 2/10/2016 8:11:58 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
The point I am making is it isn't random for naval bombardments. It is smaller infantry and armor that is avoiding the naval bombardments.

I could win the lottery before I saw the same pattern at Nagoya, with respect to naval bombardments. If it was random, then the hits would be distributed at least a little to the armor, rgts, brigades and I would have absolutely no chance of holding the city.

Now there could be a random factor in it, but I don't see it and is perhaps negated by DL here at Nagoya -- detection levels have been very high for months on end, all naval bombardment comes in with multiple spotters (although I understand it needs just one spotter).

The dispersion is different with aerial bombing, which doesn't happen every day at Nagoya but is very noticeable when it does happen.







< Message edited by Lowpe -- 2/10/2016 9:13:46 PM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 6712
RE: Disaster! - 2/10/2016 8:32:16 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Here are more units at Nagoya. The artillery with 20 something disruption arrived yesterday.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to fulcrum28)
Post #: 6713
RE: Disaster! - 2/10/2016 9:04:12 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
I've have extensive naval bombardment runs against AI in my current campaign, and had AI armor units demolished into trash by my BBs. But(!) this happened when they were in the hex with my base not theirs. Never paid attention to how them behave when bombarded in their own base.
If them are invulnerable to bombardments in their own base it would be an interesting thing bordering a bug.

Also had naval bombardments helping with trashing LCUs defending the base. And yes, DL seems to help hit combat units. Also learned a neat trick somewhere here of bombarding as amphib force instead of bombardment, to hit CDs and arty and not hit the industry or such )

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6714
RE: Disaster! - 2/10/2016 11:31:31 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

Lokasenna :

Why would 1 ever occur? I don't think the code would prioritize units such as this


Two possible reasons - 1. units in motion are easier to spot than those hiding in the bush or foxholes 2. If the D/L reveals they are moving toward own troops the assumption is the allied troops in the next hex would want them disrupted, so the code is written to favour that unit as a target. Not absolute, just a better chance. And recent postings by the experts say that recon for an attack has to be same day to have any effect on accuracy, so a nighttime naval bombardment with recon is going to focus on what is revealed by flare light.

Re: tank invulnerability in own base - I had four cruiser/DD TFs bombarding an island base with ONLY a tank unit on it and they rarely got any casualties or disabled vehicles. I put some BBs on the case and got immediate, but not spectacular results.

I conclude that the base forts and the tanks' own armour factor might add together such that only the heaviest artillery can destroy them.

Bombing with 500 lb bombs was similarly unproductive but a carrier raid by SBDs with their 1000 lb bombs got a few vehicles (no telling if they were tanks or trucks).

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6715
RE: Disaster! - 2/11/2016 1:05:58 AM   
PaxMondo


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

The point I am making is it isn't random for naval bombardments. It is smaller infantry and armor that is avoiding the naval bombardments.


Yes, and I think the reason was given above: those units have no organic arty that would contest the naval bombardment, ergo they are not spotted. Large INF and Arty units do and they will contest naval bombardment if they have supply.
Sad that as 6" arty against 16" naval guns is not really equal .... but there it is ....

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6716
RE: Disaster! - 2/11/2016 1:54:43 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
It is really much simpler than what many are posting.

1.  Aircraft on airfield attack focus on airfield facilities and land units which operate those facilities.

2.  Aircraft on port attack focus on port facilities, disbanded ships and land units which interact with naval things.  Hence coastal defence units figure highly on the target selection routines.

3.  Aircraft on ground attack focus on the biggest/highest AV LCU.  The detection level is important to ascertain which unit it is.  Subsequent raids in the same turn may find a different LCU now meets the target criteria.  And as always there is a random element in the algorithms.

4.  A Bombardment TF is basically the naval equivalent of an air port attack.  With the added possibility of targeting industrial facilities (which is a separate mission for aircraft).

5.  Shore based naval guns will return fire at a Bombardment TF.  These are found inside coastal defence units which already is the primary targeting focus of a said bombardment TF.

6.  Artillery guns and DP guns, which are found in non coastal defence units, will also shoot at a Bombardment TF if their horizontal range exceeds the threshold required.

7.  Both fortification levels and terrain protect the land units.  So even if a hit is registered, and not every salvo is going to achieve a hit, the damage inflicted is reduced by the fort level and terrain.

8.  LCU in combat mode suffer less damage than if they are in move mode.

Alfred

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 6717
RE: Disaster! - 2/11/2016 2:35:42 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Here are more units at Nagoya. The artillery with 20 something disruption arrived yesterday.







Those are all units that can either:

1) Fire back at bombarding ships (AA/ART has gun tubes that will fire if ships come within range, yes?), especially if he has the bombardment range set to 0.

2) Base forces, which will be disrupted as the AF (for Av Supp) or Port (for Nav Supp) is bombarded.

Does that 1st Ind. Tank Co have tubes to shoot back at the ships?

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6718
RE: Disaster! - 2/11/2016 2:36:19 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

It is really much simpler than what many are posting.

1.  Aircraft on airfield attack focus on airfield facilities and land units which operate those facilities.

2.  Aircraft on port attack focus on port facilities, disbanded ships and land units which interact with naval things.  Hence coastal defence units figure highly on the target selection routines.

3.  Aircraft on ground attack focus on the biggest/highest AV LCU.  The detection level is important to ascertain which unit it is.  Subsequent raids in the same turn may find a different LCU now meets the target criteria.  And as always there is a random element in the algorithms.

4.  A Bombardment TF is basically the naval equivalent of an air port attack.  With the added possibility of targeting industrial facilities (which is a separate mission for aircraft).

5.  Shore based naval guns will return fire at a Bombardment TF.  These are found inside coastal defence units which already is the primary targeting focus of a said bombardment TF.

6.  Artillery guns and DP guns, which are found in non coastal defence units, will also shoot at a Bombardment TF if their horizontal range exceeds the threshold required.

7.  Both fortification levels and terrain protect the land units.  So even if a hit is registered, and not every salvo is going to achieve a hit, the damage inflicted is reduced by the fort level and terrain.

8.  LCU in combat mode suffer less damage than if they are in move mode.

Alfred


Pretty much this.

< Message edited by Lokasenna -- 2/11/2016 3:37:59 AM >

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 6719
RE: Disaster! - 2/11/2016 4:29:40 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Here are more units at Nagoya. The artillery with 20 something disruption arrived yesterday.







Those are all units that can either:

1) Fire back at bombarding ships (AA/ART has gun tubes that will fire if ships come within range, yes?), especially if he has the bombardment range set to 0.

2) Base forces, which will be disrupted as the AF (for Av Supp) or Port (for Nav Supp) is bombarded.

Does that 1st Ind. Tank Co have tubes to shoot back at the ships?

An important point though - having the bombardment standoff range does not mean a battleship will close in to the beach - they will usually come in no closer than 4000 yards, but DDs sometimes come in as close as 2000 yards. Even with ranges this close, DP guns seem to save their anti-ship ammo for an amphib TF rather than a bombardment one.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 6720
Page:   <<   < prev  222 223 [224] 225 226   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Disaster! Page: <<   < prev  222 223 [224] 225 226   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

0.953