Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Invasion Support Ships (working?)

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Invasion Support Ships (working?) Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Invasion Support Ships (working?) - 12/22/2004 7:22:08 PM   
Desertdaddy

 

Posts: 74
Joined: 7/17/2004
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline
I want to believe but the combat reports say something different. This time invasion TF against Saipan, same leader, same APs, no FOW. Lots of nice CD guns to contend with.

10 AP no support, IJN base had very minor damage. A few 5” & 3” ammo decerased
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/20/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Saipan, 63,64, firing at TF 1001
TF 1001 troops unloading over beach at Saipan, 63,64


776 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
AP Leonard Wood, Shell hits 2
AP Heywood, Shell hits 12, on fire
AP Neville, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage
AP George F. Elliot, Shell hits 15, on fire, heavy damage
AP Fuller, Shell hits 3, on fire
AP American Legion, Shell hits 7, on fire
AP W.A. Holbrook, Shell hits 7, on fire

Japanese ground losses:
15 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Allied ground losses:
932 casualties reported
Guns lost 7
Vehicles lost 18
___________________________________
10AP, 40 LCI(G), 9 LCI(R), 12 LSM (R), CD guns 25 disruption. 2 LCI(G) ammo 0 but also Sys 99 Float 99 Fire 248 (yes 248!). ammo could have blown up (magazine explosion?). A few 5” & 3” guns had less ammo.
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/13/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Saipan, 63,64, firing at TF 1001
TF 1001 troops unloading over beach at Saipan, 63,64


1202 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
LCI(G) LCI-61, Shell hits 14, on fire, heavy damage
AP Arthur Middleton, Shell hits 15, on fire, heavy damage
AP Calvert, Shell hits 30, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI-65, Shell hits 11, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI-69, Shell hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI-66, Shell hits 12, on fire, heavy damage
AP Heywood, Shell hits 3, on fire
AP Neville, Shell hits 18, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI(G)-77, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage
AP George F. Elliot, Shell hits 4, on fire
LCI(G) LCI-70, Shell hits 6, on fire
LCI(G) LCI-64, Shell hits 4
AP W.A. Holbrook, Shell hits 10, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI-68, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage

Japanese ground losses:
14 casualties reported

Allied ground losses:
1427 casualties reported
Guns lost 14
Vehicles lost 4

_____________________________
10 AP % 15 LCI(G). CD no damage or disruption. Very small amount of fire from 5” and 3” guns
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/14/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Saipan, 63,64, firing at TF 1001
TF 1001 troops unloading over beach at Saipan, 63,64


1004 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
LCI(G) LCI-66, Shell hits 30, on fire, heavy damage
AP Arthur Middleton, Shell hits 6
AP Calvert, Shell hits 1, on fire
LCI(G) LCI-64, Shell hits 2
AP Leonard Wood, Shell hits 15, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI-67, Shell hits 4
AP Heywood, Shell hits 2, on fire
AP George F. Elliot, Shell hits 11, on fire, heavy damage
AP American Legion, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI-61, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AP W.A. Holbrook, Shell hits 13, on fire
LCI(G) LCI-68, Shell hits 10, on fire, heavy damage

Japanese ground losses:
4 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Allied ground losses:
1030 casualties reported
Guns lost 10
Vehicles lost 21

I do agree that costal defense guns increase the landing casualties. This may be because of all the AP hits (hitting the troops before they can disembark) not necessarily hitting the troops on the beach. I just don’t see the advantage of including these LCI type ships in an invasion fleet. Their contribution is next to nothing and their numbers added up make an extreme disadvantage. Add these support ships and take more damage. Is the solution smaller invasion TFs like below?

_______________________
1AP. 0 disruption on IJN base, no ammo decrease.
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/16/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Saipan, 63,64, firing at TF 1001
TF 1001 troops unloading over beach at Saipan, 63,64


20 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
AP American Legion


Allied ground losses:
52 casualties reported


I will test any way you want, but from the results I've seem all day long. More ships is more casualties no matter if LCI(G)s are present or not.
Post #: 1
RE: Invasion Support Ships (working?) - 12/22/2004 9:01:02 PM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
Bump. And happy holidays, everyone!

(in reply to Desertdaddy)
Post #: 2
RE: Invasion Support Ships (working?) - 12/23/2004 11:13:09 AM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline
I also noticed weird CD behaviour- the more ships in tf the more shots and bigger damage to TF
looks like each ships gets its portion of CD attention on the same level no matter the size of TF
When increased twice invasion TF for Wake I get half of ships sunk or heavy damaged
3 CL couple of DDs and smaller ships , punch of support and transports
1 CL& 2 dd + 1 tr sunk + 1 CL & 2 dd + others damaged or heavy damaged

(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 3
RE: Invasion Support Ships (working?) - 12/23/2004 12:35:21 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
Same thing happens with surface naval combat. Ever notice when one ship fires at the other, the target ship returns fire? So, let's say you have 4 ships vs 1: Your four ships each fire once, but the target ship fire back at each ship, thereby quadrupling its firepower. This is a serious design flaw as it ignores the concept of simultaneous fire. I'm not sure if operations points are being expended here or not, but the 4 ships should all be able to fire once and the target ship once (at one of the 4 enemy ships).

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 4
RE: Invasion Support Ships (working?) - 12/23/2004 1:27:38 PM   
ADavidB


Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

I do agree that costal defense guns increase the landing casualties. This may be because of all the AP hits (hitting the troops before they can disembark) not necessarily hitting the troops on the beach. I just don’t see the advantage of including these LCI type ships in an invasion fleet. Their contribution is next to nothing and their numbers added up make an extreme disadvantage. Add these support ships and take more damage. Is the solution smaller invasion TFs like below?

_______________________
1AP. 0 disruption on IJN base, no ammo decrease.
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/16/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Saipan, 63,64, firing at TF 1001
TF 1001 troops unloading over beach at Saipan, 63,64


20 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
AP American Legion


Allied ground losses:
52 casualties reported


I will test any way you want, but from the results I've seem all day long. More ships is more casualties no matter if LCI(G)s are present or not.


Hmmm - this reminds me - I seem to remember that when you have multiple TFs going in against a target the CDs attack the first TF the most, then the next one less and so on.

You know, you may have stumbled upon something here. Think about the problem with loading multiple LCUs in a single TF - making multiple TFs and arranging their arrival might solve two problems at the same time.

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to Desertdaddy)
Post #: 5
RE: Invasion Support Ships (working?) - 12/23/2004 2:06:18 PM   
von Murrin


Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline
I do that anyway. Works great, I tell ya.

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to ADavidB)
Post #: 6
RE: Invasion Support Ships (working?) - 12/23/2004 11:18:21 PM   
shoevarek

 

Posts: 141
Joined: 5/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Ever notice when one ship fires at the other, the target ship returns fire?


Once in the UV forum there was discussion about naval combat. I posted same observation. I remember in UV crippled US cruiser demolishing my few CA task force (radar + action/reaction = IJN is doomed in all encounters no matter what you attack). In WiTP naval combat is changed somewhat for the better though.
There was also another problem - big ship or small ship all commanders seemed to like close range encounters, thus defying the advantage of range and armour.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 7
RE: Invasion Support Ships (working?) - 12/23/2004 11:27:35 PM   
DrewMatrix


Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline
I ran a bunch of bombardment test games a while back. Similar to the CDs but with the ships shooting at the CDs and the CDs shooting at the ships.

At first I thought that many 1 ship TFs made a difference, but on further testing of (as I recall) 12 1 ship TFs, 3 4 ship TFs, 2 6 ship TFs and 1 12 shipi TF (or something like that) The results are variable turn to turn, but if you run all those for about 5-6 turns they all start to trend to the same mean numbers of hits.

This was not under 1.4 but is easy to reproduce:

4 Japanese bases, 4 sets of US TFs go to each base, just run over and over.

_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to shoevarek)
Post #: 8
RE: Invasion Support Ships (working?) - 12/23/2004 11:51:23 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Same thing happens with surface naval combat. Ever notice when one ship fires at the other, the target ship returns fire? So, let's say you have 4 ships vs 1: Your four ships each fire once, but the target ship fire back at each ship, thereby quadrupling its firepower. This is a serious design flaw as it ignores the concept of simultaneous fire. I'm not sure if operations points are being expended here or not, but the 4 ships should all be able to fire once and the target ship once (at one of the 4 enemy ships).


Sometimes they used different turrets to fire on different targets. I think the rationale when under fire from multiple adversaries is that leaving any of them unharrased is bad juju - they can just cream you with greater accuracy than if they are under fire themselves.

That would be fine in WITP, but then the volume of fire at each target must be reduced appropriately. In your example the target could return full fire at one enemy, or return reduced fire at multiple enemies. The definition of 'multiple' would depend on the ship in question.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 9
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Invasion Support Ships (working?) 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

0.922