RE: Nuke naval bombardment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

treespider -> RE: Nuke naval bombardment (3/3/2006 12:56:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

What I don't understand is, why I -never- get any nuke bombardments.

I own Akyab (as Allies). My guys have bunkers inside of their bunkers. My opponent has 2 divisions mulling around outside, with no forts. I have complete air superiority, and recons flying all the time (so the enemy's detection level must be maxxed out).

You'd think my gunners could find a tactical nuke somewhere in the ammo stores, but no....


===


Naval bombardment of Akyab, at 30,29

Allied Ships
DD Thanet
CA Exeter
BC Repulse
CL Emerald
CL Glasgow
CA Devonshire
CA Cornwall
CA Dorsetshire
CLAA Caledon
CLAA Ceres
BB Resolution
BB Royal Sovereign
BB Revenge
CL Enterprise
CL Birmingham
CL Newcastle
DD Thracian
DD Encounter
DD Fortune
DD Hotspur
DD Isis
DD Napier
DD Nestor
DD Decoy
DD Inconstant

Japanese ground losses:
154 casualties reported
Guns lost 4


===

And yes, they were fully armed with heavy shells (I was actually hoping for a surface engagment).

Not really complaining. I think bombardments -are- overpowered. This might be more in line. It might be on the light side. While I have been the recipient of nukes before, I have never managed to deliver one myself.

(* sigh *)

One day...

-F-



Have there been 'nuke' bombardments - in game - on non-island hexes? Perhaps it is coded...



dtravel -> RE: Nuke naval bombardment (3/3/2006 5:49:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Have there been 'nuke' bombardments - in game - on non-island hexes? Perhaps it is coded...



Yes. In one early game as the Allies against the AI, the IJN sailed up and leveled the city of Rangoon in one attack.



spence -> RE: Nuke naval bombardment (3/3/2006 5:52:57 AM)

Amazingly though the entire city was flattened not one shell splinter even scratched the oil refineries.([&:])



dtravel -> RE: Nuke naval bombardment (3/3/2006 6:04:37 AM)

Pretty much.

I remember being really pissed off at this one bombardment causing more casualties than the previous week's ground combat (it was early '42 and the city was under siege by the IJA). As I recall the city/base was captured a day or two after that. I had a save from at the Allied EOT just before that bombardment took place, so I went back and re-ran it. Same TF bombarded again but the casualties and damage were much lower (and more in line with reality IMHO). Enough so that I continued this replay for at least another game-month and Rangoon had not fallen.



Sardaukar -> RE: Nuke naval bombardment (3/3/2006 2:54:39 PM)

Well...I've not seen too excessive results by bombardment. If one realizes that:

1. "Casualties" in WitP are *not* killed, wounded etc...only very few of them are, same in ground combat and air bombardment etc.
2. Putting 4 BBs and similar amount of CAs into TF and bombarding is going to have some effect. It's *very heavy* TF.
3. If one lets himself open to bombardment like that, he has it coming. It's usually not impossible to defend against Bombardment Tfs. PT boats, mines and own Surface Combat TF has very good chance to cancel enemy bombardment..and even leave it vulnerable to LBA. When opponent has air superiority over your base (like in DEI against IJN) it's more difficult. You can still mine and station PT boats, tho.

Just my 2 cents...



castor troy -> RE: Nuke naval bombardment (3/3/2006 6:48:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Well...I've not seen too excessive results by bombardment. If one realizes that:

1. "Casualties" in WitP are *not* killed, wounded etc...only very few of them are, same in ground combat and air bombardment etc.
2. Putting 4 BBs and similar amount of CAs into TF and bombarding is going to have some effect. It's *very heavy* TF.
3. If one lets himself open to bombardment like that, he has it coming. It's usually not impossible to defend against Bombardment Tfs. PT boats, mines and own Surface Combat TF has very good chance to cancel enemy bombardment..and even leave it vulnerable to LBA. When opponent has air superiority over your base (like in DEI against IJN) it's more difficult. You can still mine and station PT boats, tho.

Just my 2 cents...


1. in this case 25%+ are dead, rest is 100% disrupted (means not able to do anything)
2. yes it is heavy
3. the thing with PT boats is a thing in WITP that I don´t like that much. They´re popping up in dozens everywhere. Imagin my TF is spotted a day before and the next day there are suddenly 50 PT boats. They just popped up, made out of supply. So that would be a bit gamey to me. Mines are just to a small degree a good defense against bombardments (my bombardments at Baker did hit mines quite often though). So the best thing would be a SC-TF but with those heavy units in my bombardment TF it would be hard to stop them.

So probably the best thing would have been to build up the forts to level 9 before building AF and port, but I think Wolfpack nor I knew that a bombardment like this can happen.



Sonny -> RE: Nuke naval bombardment (3/3/2006 9:34:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


...........................................


So probably the best thing would have been to build up the forts to level 9 before building AF and port, but I think Wolfpack nor I knew that a bombardment like this can happen.


You don't need to build the forts to level 9 before doing the rest of that. You can build all three at once or build which ever one you want to what your most pressing need is at the moment. But to have the others built to their max and not build fortifications is rather negligent (as the Allies).



dtravel -> RE: Nuke naval bombardment (3/3/2006 10:10:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
2. Putting 4 BBs and similar amount of CAs into TF and bombarding is going to have some effect. It's *very heavy* TF.


"Some effect" =/= "Causing enough damage to airfields and ports to require 4 CB units weeks to repair while also completely destroying the combat effectiveness of multiple divisions for months"



Sardaukar -> RE: Nuke naval bombardment (3/4/2006 1:11:14 PM)

I do think that this result is from the top end of the scale. I'm not completely happy myself with the bombardment in game, but I can live with it. Sometimes one gets results like that, but mostly not. I'd like to see ammunition resupply rules like there is for mines and torpedoes. Would make those AEs actually useful.



Sardaukar -> RE: Nuke naval bombardment (3/8/2006 2:05:07 PM)

BTW, it's not only naval bombardments that target support units mostly. Also land combat bombardment seem to target almost exclusively HQ units when they are present (meaning LCU bombardment attack).

See the screenshot of Brit Air HQ after week+ of IJA bombardment attacks... I think that design decision is fundamentally flawed.

[image]local://upfiles/4867/1963CAF8132E4401A7FBA56F7C110A9E.jpg[/image]



frank1970 -> RE: Nuke naval bombardment (3/8/2006 4:12:26 PM)

Land combat bombardment is flawed as it is. Experience of a unit should play no role in the effect of the attack.
AS an artillerist you only have to put a grenade in a barrel and fire it. You have to do this as fast as possible. The only person whose experience is imprtant are the FO and the platoon leaders.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Nuke naval bombardment (3/8/2006 4:33:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

Land combat bombardment is flawed as it is. Experience of a unit should play no role in the effect of the attack.
AS an artillerist you only have to put a grenade in a barrel and fire it. You have to do this as fast as possible. The only person whose experience is imprtant are the FO and the platoon leaders.


Maybe in the new German Army![:D] Skill and training has alot to do with it, but as you say, the margin between excellence and raw recruit fades at the grunt level given the nature of the equipment and role.

Went to an exercise in Grayling Michigan once and the US Artillery units paled to the Canadian. Main reason, lack of training. Ask a US gunner what he does, he'll say "I load." Ask a Canadian and he can do every job on the detatchment, and any NCO basically can perform any job up to Battery Commander.



Tom Hunter -> RE: Nuke naval bombardment (3/8/2006 4:47:09 PM)

We have had this discussion with pictures of the target bases in the past.

As the player on the recieving end of the bombardment, if you do everything right you can get creamed. The attacker does not really control this, the defender does.

As a defender you should:

Stack a lot of support units
Stack a lot of planes
Don't build any forts
Don't put in any CD units
Don't put any PT boats in the hex
Don't put in a defensive minefield
Don't ever, ever even consider putting a major surface combat TF in the hex
Don't have any merchant ships unloading either
Do make sure your two days steaming from an enemy base

If you carefully do all these things there is a chance the enemy will get a nuclear bombardment. And if your opponent bombards and gets lucky you can get on the forums and write a long post talking about how unfair it is.

Though personally I think it is a lot of trouble to go to just to write a whinging letter. [;)]



dtravel -> RE: Nuke naval bombardment (3/9/2006 3:33:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

BTW, it's not only naval bombardments that target support units mostly. Also land combat bombardment seem to target almost exclusively HQ units when they are present (meaning LCU bombardment attack).

See the screenshot of Brit Air HQ after week+ of IJA bombardment attacks... I think that design decision is fundamentally flawed.
<snipped screenshot>


There is a known issue with air and land bombardments not targeting properly, instead concentrating all the damage on the unit in the hex that is listed first in the DB. Since this is almost always a HQ unit....



Erik Rutins -> RE: Nuke naval bombardment (3/9/2006 3:51:57 AM)

Yep, that's pretty much it. It's fair to say the bombardment _reports_ are misleading in the actual devastation of the bombardment, as Nik's example shows. In this case, a single base was chock full of engineers but had zero (0) fortifications. I don't consider the result out of line, considering the actual KIA are going to be much lower than listed in the report, which lumps in disrupted and destroyed squads together.

Regards,

- Erik



Tom Hunter -> RE: Nuke naval bombardment (3/10/2006 3:04:23 AM)

I'm with Erik on this one, it works fine, I am writing up a post on my AAR where I put the defense in place and it worked perfectly. To get the high casualties you as the target have to help the attacker. It's that simple.



Oznoyng -> RE: Nuke naval bombardment (3/10/2006 4:58:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
So probably the best thing would have been to build up the forts to level 9 before building AF and port, but I think Wolfpack nor I knew that a bombardment like this can happen.

As others have said, that isn't necessary. Even level 1 forts would have made a big impact on the results. You did the equivalent of sticking 25000 men in tents while they built the airfield and port, then complained when a bombardment group shreaded the tents (and the people inside). Frankly, I often build forts before I build anything else since I have seen all types of casualties reduced due to the presence of them.



tsimmonds -> RE: Nuke naval bombardment (3/10/2006 5:12:28 AM)

SOP since 1984, SPI's WITP:

1) build forts, then
2) build/expand airfield to level required for point defense (while continuing to expand forts), then
3) build/expand port to level required for efficiency (while continuing to expand airfield and forts), and finally
4) expand airfield to max level for offensive operations



Anthropoid -> RE: Nuke naval bombardment (1/22/2007 6:55:14 PM)

So THATS what PT boats are for!

Great thread guys. Even if it was a long whinging letter, it has taught me a lot!



rtrapasso -> RE: Nuke naval bombardment (1/22/2007 9:03:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

But most of those nuke bombardments are just screaming in on an enemy base. No spotters, no nothing. Just trying to get bearings on a landmark at night (moon or not) is tough.

Sorry, I gotta throw in with the nay-sayers on this one.


Actually, getting landmarks in the dead of night isn't that hard, moon or no moon. It's even easier if you have radar. Given that the date is early 43, it's possible that at least one ship had been upgraded with radar. And don't forget, Washing Machine Charlie didn't have much problem finding Henderson Field after flying a few hundred miles at night.

However, without radar, the Japanese tended use to either floatplanes dropping flares, so finding the target and ranging on it isn't that big a deal if the floatplane is calling the shots. If the ships are relying on starshell for illumination, then they must be in visual range of the target.

As far as the casualties incurred by this bombardment, I would not consider it out of line if a few hundred troops were killed. The Henderson bombardment of 13/14 Oct 42 saw 41 men killed and 2-3 times that many wounded. Many more would have been killed but the ships were firing AP shells which dug deep into the ground before exploding thereby minimizing casualties and damage.

If Castor Troy's bombardment had resulted in 12000 dead, then I would agree that it was way out of line. But given that the vast majorityof those 12000 were only disrupted. Most will be ready for action fairly quickly. The rest of the damage (airfield and aircraft) are well within reason for that level of bombardment.

I would like for Wolfpack to post a screen shot of the base just before the bombardment so that we can compare the 2 to get a more accurate picture of the casualties.

Anyways, no bones to pick. Just MHO.

Chez



The Henderson Field bombardment was mainly such a success because the IJN had a special spotter unit with a radio correcting fire on the airfield.

Compare this result to the very FEW other bombardments the IJN carried out without spotter units. Compare this result to the USN's frequent bombardment of Japanese bases from just after PH to the end of the war.

The ONLY time you had really effective naval gunfire is when someone was ashore spotting - not spotting from a float plane (although that was better than no spotting at all, but as far as i can determine that wasn't done at the Guad - see below).

As for "Washing Machine Charlie" - those were planes sent over to assure that the US troops didn't sleep, or not sleep well. Scouting was apparently sometimes done by "Louie the Louse" - cruiser floatplanes that would drop flares. They apparently were used to search out enemy shipping for the IJN to attack - i can not find any report of them actually using floatplanes to spot for artillery during the Guadalcanal campaign. The flares could also aid as a "pathfinder" and i think during Savo, they helped "backlight" Allied ships. If there is proof to the contrary (i.e. - actual reports from the IJN) that they were used otherwise (i.e. for naval gunfire spotting during the Guadalcanal campaign), i will stand corrected.



bradfordkay -> RE: Nuke naval bombardment (1/22/2007 9:22:13 PM)

"Went to an exercise in Grayling Michigan once and the US Artillery units paled to the Canadian. Main reason, lack of training. Ask a US gunner what he does, he'll say "I load." Ask a Canadian and he can do every job on the detatchment, and any NCO basically can perform any job up to Battery Commander."

I saw a show on history channel where a modern Canadian artillery crew was matched against a group of amercan civil war artillery buffs in a target competition. IIRC, the civil war artillery buffs placed 4 of 5 rounds on target while the modern crew had zero direct hits (some schrapnel holes were in the target but none large enough to be considered a direct hit). To be fair, the producers then had them target a wrecked automobile. The modern gun blew that to smithereens...



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.359375