Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

So, I think there's two things to point out.

1. AS BBfanboy has noted, a rocket is not a shell, and thinking about it as such will lead to the wrong conclusions.

2. Is heavy saturation bombardment LCI craft causing large causalities (and critically for AE, massive disruption to units) ahistorical? It's not.

I mean, this is effectively what the LCI conversions were designed to do. Overwhelm the defenders with firepower and allow the landing infantry an easy time ashore.

Worth considering other factors in AE. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but atoll terrain functions like clear terrain. Not good for protection against bombardments of any kind...

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken

M_M these boats seen widespread use irl , despite that most naval invasions were bloody and lengthy . These rockets have very limited range , they were used for beachhead supression for troops to land easier , not wipe out entire island garrisons in 1 day. Its pretty clear that they violate the effect/anti-soft value rules that are used everywhereelse and there is nothing else uses this device type. Unless you come with actual usefull data please stay away i am so done with you

Worth re-reading post #1437 again.

The entire garrison was not wiped out by the pre-invasion bombardment from the LCI craft on day 1.

They were heavily disrupted by the bombardment, to the point that they had zero effective assault value, but they were not wiped out until the Allied auto-shock attack took the base afterwards.

IJ defenders were alive and kicking when the auto-shock attack went in, they just weren't in a position to offer effective resistance (which is probably to be expected after the entire atoll has just been carpeted by rockets).

In other words, WAD.

As for the violation of the effect/anti-soft value rules, I'd be interested to know:

1. What the rules actually are
2. How these rocket devices violate above rules.

AFAIK, the formula behind the game values was never disclosed, so keen to see what insider info you have on this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
It may just be me, but what exactly is the expectation here for a garrison that will be concussed, dazed and bleeding from the ears?

Are they to dig themselves from under the stand, charge and drive the Americans back into the ocean?

quote:

Should have done with this one too, it's so ridicoulos that I really wonder if you have any brain left. You have obviously NO clue about the effect of these boats in real life. Do you? Clearly no.

quote:

Look at the combat report, troll. Can you even read? I had 300 av on the atoll and all was disabled during the LCI(G) support during the landing. Nothing was left. Can you read??

quote:

Same happened at Wake, with Wake's CD unit in place. GO AWAY TROLL and read up on the performance of these ships in real life, they were nothing more than suppressive weapons at the beaches. Considering your non stop bullsh*t the Allied wouldn't have needed anything else than the LCI(G) to clear islands. They actually used them and nothing, not a single moment in life where they close to as effective in the game. They are most likely 10 times overrated if not more, I wouldn't be surprised if it would be identified as a database error if it came up ten years ago.

quote:

First time ever IIRC to use the green button. If you want to continue this discussion then do it on the main forum not in this AAR. People, pls just answer him anymore, it's going to stop the AAR, one or the other way and Admiral unescorted carrier task force will have achieved his goal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

So, I think there's two things to point out.

1. AS BBfanboy has noted, a rocket is not a shell, and thinking about it as such will lead to the wrong conclusions.

2. Is heavy saturation bombardment LCI craft causing large causalities (and critically for AE, massive disruption to units) ahistorical? It's not.

I mean, this is effectively what the LCI conversions were designed to do. Overwhelm the defenders with firepower and allow the landing infantry an easy time ashore.

Worth considering other factors in AE. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but atoll terrain functions like clear terrain. Not good for protection against bombardments of any kind...

Yes it is ahistorical, the LCI(G) rocket was a short range weapon only for beach support with 1 km range. So unless you can argue that enemy is all in small stretch of 500m deep beach and that assuming it fires from 500 out on the sea... not even considered that there is no precision at all.

We have here 26 LCI(G), and LCI(G) rocket with 2.9kg explosive is not certainly better than a 150mm gun/howitzer round. So could you get these results with 26 of said guns firing in day?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken

M_M these boats seen widespread use irl , despite that most naval invasions were bloody and lengthy . These rockets have very limited range , they were used for beachhead supression for troops to land easier , not wipe out entire island garrisons in 1 day. Its pretty clear that they violate the effect/anti-soft value rules that are used everywhereelse and there is nothing else uses this device type. Unless you come with actual usefull data please stay away i am so done with you

Worth re-reading post #1437 again.

The entire garrison was not wiped out by the pre-invasion bombardment from the LCI craft on day 1.

They were heavily disrupted by the bombardment, to the point that they had zero effective assault value, but they were not wiped out until the Allied auto-shock attack took the base afterwards.

IJ defenders were alive and kicking when the auto-shock attack went in, they just weren't in a position to offer effective resistance (which is probably to be expected after the entire atoll has just been carpeted by rockets).

In other words, WAD.

As for the violation of the effect/anti-soft value rules, I'd be interested to know:

1. What the rules actually are
2. How these rocket devices violate above rules.

AFAIK, the formula behind the game values was never disclosed, so keen to see what insider info you have on this.

i am gonna post this again since apperantly you cant read
normally naval guns have 1/10th of their effect(shell weight) as soft attack value. For example most 8in guns have around 330 effect and 33 soft attack but these 4.5in rockets have higher soft attack value than their effect , causing them to be 10times more effective than what they are supposed to be. 4.5in Rocket has 20 effect and 26 soft attack so each one of these devices are almost as devastating as one 8in device.

Also as a note this 1/10th rule also applies to bombs.

I would guess these rockets are working as a naval gun when put on ships. If you want to come with actual usefull data change these rockets to naval gun in editor and do a test with them as vanilla and changed to naval gun, if you get near identical results , its violating the 1/10th rule

quote:

I don't think anyone is saying the garrison should have been only mildly affected

quote:

ORIGINAL: WriterNotViking

As a general comment, while the historical efficacy of these ships might be substantial, the fact that level 6 forts did nothing to prevent the garrison from being rendered completely ineffective seems to me the most serious issue. I don't think anyone is saying the garrison should have been only mildly affected, but the complete elimination of the defenders' combat power strikes me as excessive.

Even if historical data could be found to support this effect (I'm not an encyclopedia so I cannot be sure) I would still hold to the view that, for game purposes, the effect ought to be nerfed in order to avoid making atolls completely indefensible to any degree if the attacker deploys LCI gunboats. I need not list examples of other real-world technologies whose effectiveness was reduced to make the game even marginally competitive.

On a more specific note:

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
It may just be me, but what exactly is the expectation here for a garrison that will be concussed, dazed and bleeding from the ears?

Are they to dig themselves from under the stand, charge and drive the Americans back into the ocean?

This is disingenuous, because no one said they expected anything like this. Such of phrasing is only good for muddying the waters, and it casts an unpleasant light on your intentions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Those rocket had only 1km range...

quote:

I don't think anyone is saying the garrison should have been only mildly affected

I do think that should have been even less than mild.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Those rocket had only 1km range...

quote:

I don't think anyone is saying the garrison should have been only mildly affected

I do think that should have been even less than mild.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Without level 6 forts, the garrison would have been completely destroyed.

My comment was not disingenuous, I am genuinely curious what more is expected here.

quote:

Are they to dig themselves from under the stand, charge and drive the Americans back into the ocean?

quote:

The fact is that the IJ troops and forts fulfilled their strategic role to the full. The Allies were required to make a large scale amphibious landing with a significant proportion of high-VP assets beyond the range of supporting land-based air and at some distance from supporting bases.

quote:

Having an expectation that a small garrison of light infantry are each going to put on a performance to put Heinrich Severloh to shame after a monumental rocket barrage is, to be blunt, stupid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken

M_M you are falling into a logical fallacy here. Who here claimed rocket artillery were completely useless ?

quote:

You are being disingenuous in your arguments and you are not answering any points with any sort of data.

quote:

If you look at results with 6000 casualties from 26 LCI (G) on atoll invasion. These LCI's fired their rockets in pairs of 12 and each rocket warhead has 6.5 lb of explosive which brings us to 78 LB per salvo with 780 lb total per LCI (with irl values) meanwhile an American heavy cruiser has 21 lb of explosive per shell , thats 189 LB of explosive per salvo with hundreds of rounds (if anyone knows total 8in ammo on US heavy cruisers please chime in with total number)(if we go with 14 rounds per gun of Witp its 9x14x21=2646).

quote:

ORIGINAL: WriterNotViking

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Those rocket had only 1km range...

quote:

I don't think anyone is saying the garrison should have been only mildly affected

I do think that should have been even less than mild.

Okay, I stand corrected, someone is saying that. I made some assumptions about atolls not being particularly large, and looking up Marcus Island (now called Minami-Tori-shima), it's only 1.51 square kilometers, so perhaps its entire surface could be in rocket range. With that said, I still hold that level 6 forts should do something more than diversify the skyline.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101
M-M, I believe the primary point of contention that is being leveled here is not that these weapons are not effective, it's that they should not be more effective than other bombardment tools also present in the game to a point that is clearly ahistorical. I think we all know enough about the Pacific War to see that an LCI(G) should not be more effective than a dozen heavy cruisers in bombardment, but if you think differently could you please explain why the USN went to such lengths to bring in large numbers of heavy warships for sustained bombardments very late into the war if they could have simply used a score of these craft in a single run?

quote:

I have studied artillery effects quite extensively in my professional life. The latest project I did directly tied to the subject was a few years back when I looked at the 2014 Zelenopillya attack. The main weakness of standard rocket artillery is the lack of penetrating capacity. Especially when we are talking about WW2 rockets, they are great against units on the surface with little cover but are extremely inaccurate and are very weak against units in bunkers. I assure you they are not nearly as powerful against dug in forces, especially if concrete emplacements are available, as large caliber howitzer or gun shells.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

You know Castor I disagreed with some of your complaints before but I didn't write anything about it. This time though I think you are right to be frustrated. This LCI(G) issue you are illustrating here seems to me to be quite a problem. I can't imagine this is as intended since it is quite clearly unrealistic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken

I have taken a look at LCI (G) and similiar classes and their devices;
Normally naval guns have 1/10th of their effect(shell weight) as soft attack value. For example most 8in guns have around 330 effect and 33 soft attack but these 4.5in rockets have higher soft attack value than their effect , causing them to be 10times more effective than what they are supposed to be. 4.5in Rocket has 20 effect and 26 soft attack so each one of these devices are almost as devastating as one 8in device. Meaning 1 LCI (G) with 120 rockets have power of 13 Heavy cruisers (120/9guns).

This can be fixed easily by adjusting the devices soft attack value and can be put in to effect in an ongoing PBEM with ease , i can help you if you would like.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

It may just be me, but what exactly is the expectation here for a garrison that will be concussed, dazed and bleeding from the ears?

Are they to dig themselves from under the stand, charge and drive the Americans back into the ocean?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101



...I can't speak for Castor but I think the issue here is that you have a bombardment from a single LCI(G) be more devastating than ten heavy cruisers. I think we can all agree that's not realistic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken

...Here is a base game 500 lb bomb , as you can see Soft attack is 1/10th of effect. Please dont spread missinformation without actually checking. I couldnt find anything else that uses these rockets in base game , there are some land based rockets that act as artillery but effect and soft attack values are pretty consistent on those

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

So, I think there's two things to point out.

1. AS BBfanboy has noted, a rocket is not a shell, and thinking about it as such will lead to the wrong conclusions.

2. Is heavy saturation bombardment LCI craft causing large causalities (and critically for AE, massive disruption to units) ahistorical? It's not.

I mean, this is effectively what the LCI conversions were designed to do. Overwhelm the defenders with firepower and allow the landing infantry an easy time ashore.

Worth considering other factors in AE. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but atoll terrain functions like clear terrain. Not good for protection against bombardments of any kind...

I don't have an issue with #1. But if it is true that on an aggregate scale an LCI(G) is more effective than a dozen heavy cruisers in a bombardment then yes, I would definitely say that is ahistorical.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

So, I think there's two things to point out.

1. AS BBfanboy has noted, a rocket is not a shell, and thinking about it as such will lead to the wrong conclusions.

2. Is heavy saturation bombardment LCI craft causing large causalities (and critically for AE, massive disruption to units) ahistorical? It's not.

I mean, this is effectively what the LCI conversions were designed to do. Overwhelm the defenders with firepower and allow the landing infantry an easy time ashore.

Worth considering other factors in AE. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but atoll terrain functions like clear terrain. Not good for protection against bombardments of any kind...

Anti Soft value is a universal value , its pretty clear that these rocket boats are extremely op given that you wouldnt achieve these results even with extreme number of capital ships in a bombardement

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken

Oh one thing i didnt take into account is that they have only 1 round per device so they are not as effective as 13 CA's , sorry. They are probably equal to 1 CA each on firepower

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

So, I think there's two things to point out.

1. AS BBfanboy has noted, a rocket is not a shell, and thinking about it as such will lead to the wrong conclusions.

2. Is heavy saturation bombardment LCI craft causing large causalities (and critically for AE, massive disruption to units) ahistorical? It's not.

I mean, this is effectively what the LCI conversions were designed to do. Overwhelm the defenders with firepower and allow the landing infantry an easy time ashore.

Worth considering other factors in AE. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but atoll terrain functions like clear terrain. Not good for protection against bombardments of any kind...

I don't have an issue with #1. But if it is true that on an aggregate scale an LCI(G) is more effective than a dozen heavy cruisers in a bombardment then yes, I would definitely say that is ahistorical.

Why, exactly?

A heavy cruiser is an ocean-going warship designed with a specific purpose in mind - to sink other ships. It's capability at coastal bombardment is secondary to that (and you could probably argue that it's tertiary, with CV escort duties bumped up to the number two spot).

The LCI conversion riff-raff, on the other hand, were developed with the specific role of invasion support in mind. As a result, there are a number of factors, which when combined could lead you to expect their effectiveness to be greater than a given number of heavy cruisers.

Some examples to illustrate:
- barrel wear on 8inch guns
- overheating and warping the gun barrels
- sufficient number of shells for sustained bombardment
- the "shock" factor

To go in to greater detail on the last point (which IMO is key to actually understanding what the game is trying to represent), the thing that rocket artillery does well is cause serious, widespread damage across a large area in a very, very short space of time.

Essentially, it's a question of what is more damaging to troops on the ground: a cruiser blazing away at a hillside till the magazines are empty, or the entire hillside exploding effectively instantaneously?

I'd refer you to the evaluation of the Soviet rocket artillery units in WW2, as we're roughly in the same territory in that regard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

So, I think there's two things to point out.

1. AS BBfanboy has noted, a rocket is not a shell, and thinking about it as such will lead to the wrong conclusions.

2. Is heavy saturation bombardment LCI craft causing large causalities (and critically for AE, massive disruption to units) ahistorical? It's not.

I mean, this is effectively what the LCI conversions were designed to do. Overwhelm the defenders with firepower and allow the landing infantry an easy time ashore.

Worth considering other factors in AE. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but atoll terrain functions like clear terrain. Not good for protection against bombardments of any kind...

Anti Soft value is a universal value , its pretty clear that these rocket boats are extremely op given that you wouldnt achieve these results even with extreme number of capital ships in a bombardement

Worth keeping in mind that while the value is universal, the application of that value will differ depending on the module (ie. land combat, naval combat, etc) and you will see different values depending on the module used.

As for the effectiveness question, I'd refer you to my comments above.

Naval artillery is, by design, precision weaponry. The unguided rockets of the period are area suppression.

This is all before we get into the nuances of the ballistic differences (where the high trajectory rockets will be at an advantage in dealing certain geographic or defensive features.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


...Some things to note from the combat report:
- Limited CD gunfire from IJ troops (which in my experience tends to focus Allied fire on the CD unit and shield the combat units to some extent).

- Large number of disablements and relatively little actual squads destroyed, which would be what you'd expect from a large area suppression attack from rockets....

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken

M_M these boats seen widespread use irl , despite that most naval invasions were bloody and lengthy . These rockets have very limited range , they were used for beachhead supression for troops to land easier , not wipe out entire island garrisons in 1 day. Its pretty clear that they violate the effect/anti-soft value rules that are used everywhereelse and there is nothing else uses this device type. Unless you come with actual usefull data please stay away i am so done with you

Worth re-reading post #1437 again.

The entire garrison was not wiped out by the pre-invasion bombardment from the LCI craft on day 1.

They were heavily disrupted by the bombardment, to the point that they had zero effective assault value, but they were not wiped out until the Allied auto-shock attack took the base afterwards.

IJ defenders were alive and kicking when the auto-shock attack went in, they just weren't in a position to offer effective resistance (which is probably to be expected after the entire atoll has just been carpeted by rockets).

In other words, WAD.

As for the violation of the effect/anti-soft value rules, I'd be interested to know:

1. What the rules actually are
2. How these rocket devices violate above rules.

AFAIK, the formula behind the game values was never disclosed, so keen to see what insider info you have on this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken


...I would guess these rockets are working as a naval gun when put on ships....

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


...Without level 6 forts, the garrison would have been completely destroyed...