Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Naval 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] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> Naval Bombardment Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Naval Bombardment - 3/28/2017 8:22:16 PM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1041
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline 		Okay the way the system now works a ship can move in and out. A land unit can face potentially 50 ships bombard it in one game turn. Folks the sense in this is a little sketchy to me. After how many massive salvos from Battleships would it take before you and your men would evacuate the coastal zones and the max range on the biggest 18 inch guns isn't more than a 24 miles?(Iowa Class BB Wiki)

At what point do you say, NO MORE? Common sense dictates short of an Island or locked zone you get the heck out of the way.. Or get underneath some big protection as Units did throughout history.

(I would personally like to hear, After numerous bombardments outside of say fortifications unit is shattered and made into half strength and gives hex in murderous shell shock? Rather than camping out and dying)

< Message edited by battlevonwar -- 3/28/2017 8:25:33 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Naval Bombardment - 3/28/2017 8:51:49 PM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline 		Yeah in PBEM I've had to sit through a replay of what seems like every ship in the game bombarding one hex. It's annoying if nothing else. Maybe limit bombardment of one hex to a max of 5 ships in a turn?

_____________________________

We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 2
RE: Naval Bombardment - 3/28/2017 9:05:40 PM   
vonik

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/8/2011
Status: offline 		I agree . Sometimes it is ridiculous to see how one ship after the other comes, fires and again goes away .
In reality such a continuous bombardment would attract the whole air force and long range heavy guns which would put a fast stop to such a Madness .
Not mentionning mines which quite effectively prevent that a whole navy comes to the same place to fire its guns somewhere far inland in the middle of nowhere where they can't know if the fire has any sense at all .

(in reply to elmo3)
Post #: 3
RE: Naval Bombardment - 3/28/2017 9:30:36 PM   
Guderian1940

 

Posts: 191
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: offline 		It seems the root of the Naval system problem is the large movement rates which allow for abuse. I would think that some form of movement cost be given to Naval unit when they perform combat. Whatever that is it should have a big affect on hit and run tactics. Would extra action point penalties have an effect?

Land units suffer a bit with this but due to limited movement it is almost acceptable. For land unit the mobility tech gives land unit maybe a little too much ability to strike and move, perhaps a reduction in capability or a reduction in the chance that technology gets applied. I can see the USA benefiting from mobility but the Germans and others certainly were restricted by many deficiencies. German had million of horses and could not easily replace them. Even in 44/45. I know it is hard for the Germans to not have tons of tanks and mechanized units but this is an issue that needs a balance I think. Higher costs, slower implementation of mobility etc.

I think research is too easy reached in the game. I think it should take longer slower. Maybe cost more. 41 Germans at 2 tank and Inf, mobility, Air at 2 range 2 and etc. Too fast. Unbalances the game too much. I know they are hard to fix. Where one thing affects another. Has to be thought out. But I think just a longer random time before implementation might be the key. Although it might work that ones side is lucky and the other not!


< Message edited by Guderian1940 -- 3/28/2017 9:31:38 PM >

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 4
RE: Naval Bombardment - 3/28/2017 9:51:52 PM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Guderian1940

...I would think that some form of movement cost be given to Naval unit when they perform combat....


Agree with this. It would probably be more easily implemented than my idea of 5 attacks on a hex.

_____________________________

We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester

(in reply to Guderian1940)
Post #: 5
RE: Naval Bombardment - 3/28/2017 10:44:46 PM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1041
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline 		Entrenchment levels can have some effect on this but combo warfare is made to do away with Sitzkrieg. Although if you fortify and tech evenly you can hold a long time. Most Frances' including my own can hold into September or longer if you really want to. This isn't all that bad on a human player but it really pushes one. The primary issue is you have to be on par in technology across the board. Infantry weapons, Tank Levels and combat doctrine.

1 ship is abstract and coastal guns kill units not fortified or in cities quite easily. We need a way to uproot them but hitting 1 unit 20 times is sort insane, or 30 times possibly. Then 5-10 times by air. That's a lot of clicking but there may be not way around this the way the system works and entrenchments works. That's why I said a forced retreat of land units in shock or a bottom value they reach before they stop taking damage.

You're right Germans ran on horsepower not motorized power.

< Message edited by battlevonwar -- 3/28/2017 10:45:25 PM >

(in reply to Guderian1940)
Post #: 6
RE: Naval Bombardment - 3/29/2017 7:14:04 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		Naval Bombardment should have an affect on the Target Morale, but should not actually reduce the Target Strength. The effect on Morale is measured in a percentage, so more than two or three Naval Bombardments produce diminishing results. I also hold the same opinion for Air and Artillery.

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 7
RE: Naval Bombardment - 3/29/2017 1:39:00 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 2105
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline 		In my practical experience I get my ships damaged more often than I damage a land unit, and so the cost trade off isn't worthwhile.

AI rarely if ever seems to get hit back when using naval bombardment, but it feels like when I do it more than half the time I'm taking ship damage.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 8
RE: Naval Bombardment - 3/29/2017 3:02:36 PM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1041
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline 		Strange, is the type of unit that's receiving bombardment?

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 9
RE: Naval Bombardment - 3/29/2017 3:40:01 PM   
vonik

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/8/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Guderian1940


Land units suffer a bit with this but due to limited movement it is almost acceptable. For land unit the mobility tech gives land unit maybe a little too much ability to strike and move, perhaps a reduction in capability or a reduction in the chance that technology gets applied.
I can see the USA benefiting from mobility but the Germans and others certainly were restricted by many deficiencies. German had million of horses and could not easily replace them.
Even in 44/45. I know it is hard for the Germans to not have tons of tanks and mechanized units but this is an issue that needs a balance I think. Higher costs, slower implementation of mobility etc.



This is upside down .
All armies were using horses in WWII . Patton complained in Tunisia that if he had more horses he could have prevented the German to escape .

Actually using horses especially in Russia and Africa was a smart move which was increasing mobility, not decreasing it .
The reason for that is that there was no adequate road infrastructure in the 1940ies . So in adverse climatic (rain, snow, mud, sand) and terrain circumstances, horses were faster and more reliable than wheeled vehicles .
Even a fully motorized Panzergrenadier Division in Russia would use horses for supply purposes to be more efficient .
The US were lucky to fight only in France and Germany where a road infrastructure existed but if they were in Russia they'd have been lost without enough horses .
Of course nobody but Poles and Russians was using horses in large numbers for combat purposes .

It is simply 2 different things - armies could have tons of tanks and half tracks (Germany did) and yet use horses to tow carts or field artillery in places with no roads .
I consider that increasing mobility of infantery units in the game actually means that they get more horses and have an adequate doctrine for their use .

(in reply to Guderian1940)
Post #: 10
RE: Naval Bombardment - 3/29/2017 3:50:28 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 2105
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

Strange, is the type of unit that's receiving bombardment?


Doesn't seem to matter. Infantry units, HQs, air units. I've attacked them all and either don't hit them, or more often receive a hit myself. Because you're limited in bases that can repair a ship back up to 10 strength it just makes me leery of using it. Would rather save the points for naval combat or trying to survive air attacks.

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 11
RE: Naval Bombardment - 3/30/2017 1:40:27 AM   
James Taylor

 

Posts: 638
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Corpus Christi, Texas
Status: offline 		I'll admit funneling through every ship that can bombard is somewhat of a chore.

As far as effects, this is a crap shoot! Sometimes I get amazing results reducing a combat unit from 10 to 4 and then other times I take very damaging results to my naval vessels.

Same for carrier airstrikes on ground units, you just never know, feels like the unknown, like the supply system. Its a little thing, but does a lot to promote the variability of warfare. I love it!

_____________________________

SeaMonkey

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 12
RE: Naval Bombardment - 3/30/2017 12:46:36 PM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

In my practical experience I get my ships damaged more often than I damage a land unit, and so the cost trade off isn't worthwhile.

AI rarely if ever seems to get hit back when using naval bombardment, but it feels like when I do it more than half the time I'm taking ship damage.


+1

I doubt people hit garrisons every turn during the entirety of the war. It is something that is done a small lost, so you save it in support of a major operation.

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 13
RE: Naval Bombardment - 3/31/2017 12:40:31 AM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1041
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline 		I've lost 2-3 units from naval bombardment combos with air.

Killed 1 as well. It's irritating like ants crawling on you when you know how to use it. I have also KO'd a Panzer Division with my Carrier when I ran out of ideas... The game has many methods to go about getting a job done. Taking damage? I see that happen, but not so much as I see damage dished out and only against certain targets. So I'm not sure of the dynamic there.

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 14
RE: Naval Bombardment - 3/31/2017 2:31:55 AM   
IrishGuards


Posts: 542
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline 		well make it so that the hex or hexes where the shore bombard is coming from can only have so much traffic,
so to speak, in and out of hexes, the bombarding unit uses huge action points, because they have to be there
for a long period of time to inflict the actual damage, and I have seen the co-ordination of units to destroy
other units, ftrs and such that react to interception, and yet the bombers being bombed arent coming up against
the attacking ships, and the bombers dont retreat well ... !
IG

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 15
RE: Naval Bombardment - 3/31/2017 8:57:31 PM   
solipsismMatrix

 

Posts: 55
Joined: 12/13/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Guderian1940

It seems the root of the Naval system problem is the large movement rates which allow for abuse.



The solution for this and all other large-movement problems is opportunity fire. If a unit expends, say, 1/4 of it's movement within range of an air unit (set to "interdiction" mode), bang. If there is an artillery or rocket unit withing range, bang. If a naval unit does a bombardment with any air or artillery unit within range, bang. One could also say that a coastal bombardment uses 1/4 of the movement, to accommodate a day of blasting away at a coastline.

So a coastal unit hung out to dry in some benighted part of Norway would be completely exposed to continuous naval bombardment, but a unit on the coast of France, covered by air and other long-range assets, would have some protection.

This would also stop the German navy from ripping through the English Channel at high speed with total impunity. Or any other chokepoint covered by air or artillery.

More mature gamers will recall "panzerbush".



(in reply to Guderian1940)
Post #: 16
RE: Naval Bombardment - 4/1/2017 8:15:18 AM   
xwormwood


Posts: 1149
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: Bremen, Germany
Status: offline 		It would be nice if Hubert would create a sea mine concept for one of his next releases.
This way you could protect certain hexes, which, until cleared by a destroy, would endanger every enemy ship passing through.
With this, you would have to prepare naval bombardements, and if you wouldn't, high losses would upon you.

Certain key hexes could be mined right from the start of the game, and additional hexe either via decision even, and / or through destroyer units to be placed.
The destroyer should need at least one or two turns to do so (and the same time, or better even more, to remove the mines). Somewhat like the engineer units builds defence works.

_____________________________

"You will be dead, so long as you refuse to die" (George MacDonald)

(in reply to solipsismMatrix)
Post #: 17
RE: Naval Bombardment - 4/1/2017 9:46:52 AM   
vonik

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/8/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: solipsismMatrix


quote:

ORIGINAL: Guderian1940

It seems the root of the Naval system problem is the large movement rates which allow for abuse.



The solution for this and all other large-movement problems is opportunity fire. If a unit expends, say, 1/4 of it's movement within range of an air unit (set to "interdiction" mode), bang.
If there is an artillery or rocket unit withing range, bang.
If a naval unit does a bombardment with any air or artillery unit within range, bang. One could also say that a coastal bombardment uses 1/4 of the movement, to accommodate a day of blasting away at a coastline.



I like this idea .
I would make it simpler - if a naval unit (excepted subs in silent mode) is in range of a bomber, an artillery or a rocket unit at ANY moment of its movement (e.g at least one hex of its track fulfills this condition), it is struck .
There may be only 1 strike per movement happening on the first hex fulfilling these conditions .

(in reply to solipsismMatrix)
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> Naval Bombardment Page: [1]
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

0.875