Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (Full Version)

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



Message


shawn118aw -> Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/12/2006 3:23:10 AM)

Game version 1.804

I first want to say that I really love this game except for the one MAJOR ERROR in the game programming—COASTAL GUN FIRE! I just hate making any type of amphibious landing (either as the Allied or Japanese player) because I believe the games “Coastal Gun Fire logic” is way off base, my estimation is between 6 and times 10 to high. Example, the last landing I made as the Japanese Player, (Feb 2 1942) I landed 22,721 troops of the Japanese 2nd Inf Div on the Island of Lahanina Hawaii. It was defended by only 6,108 troops with 114 guns (74-155mm FG, 4-3inch guns, 12-90mm AAA, 16-40mm AAA, 8-20mm AAA, and a fort of 1.

CAN SOME ONE EXPLANE WHY HOW ONLY 6,108 TROOPS & 76 FIELD GUNS LISTED-- CAN FIRE 7,846 GUNS ???? That’s right 7,846 guns fired resulted in 10,632 killed, 14 ships sunk that turn and 29 more damaged 70% of better. NOW COME ON!!!

Can someone please explain this, why are these guns so effect? In this case the Japanese should have never built a single ship and just built Coastal Gun Units.

Also, once I did get shore, how can the artillery continue to fire both at my ships landing supplies AND used in their full strength in combat during the Allied counter attacks—maybe a new weapon that fires in 2 directions at the same time.

HELP, HELP, HELP…can someone fix this in 1.805V?[&:]
[:@]




Ron Saueracker -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/12/2006 3:37:42 AM)

I think it is brutally over effective as well. Dedicated coastal defences are one thing and simple arty is another but the game makes no effort to distinguish between directed and zeroed fire from less effective types nor does it take into account that many guns should be otherwise involved vs land targets or are simply too far away from the coast, after all, "it is a sixty mile hex."[8D] However, you are not one of those guys who does not prep an assault with bombardments and does not place heavy warships in amphibious TFs are ya?




Feinder -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/12/2006 3:44:32 AM)

quote:

74-155mm FG, 4-3inch guns, 12-90mm AAA


You do realize that 74x 155mm Field Guns is rougly equal to broadside of 6x Clevend class CLs... And that doesn't count the 3" guns.

I'm not saying you're "mistaken" in your observations. Many have complained about the effectiveness of CDs. As many also feel that they are in-fact, UNDER represented.

Honestly, the best wat to deal with CDs is pound the sh_t out of them with bombers (on port attack), and bombardment groups set to "no escorts bombard" (otherwise, you have 74x 6" ripping into your destroyers, which will really ruin your turn).

And recon. LOTs of recon with real recon planes. Recon raises the effectiveness of your bombs/bombardments dramatically. Couple that with 2 weeks of pounding, and those Field Guns will be throwing nothing but soap bubbles, trust me.

-F-




wdolson -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/12/2006 4:47:34 AM)

You say the response was 7800+ guns firing in response. I think if you go back and look you will see that it's 7800 shots fired. That's about 100 rounds per gun. A bit high, but if they had plenty of supply and ammo to burn, they could get off quite a few rounds in the 8 hours or so of a phase. That's 12-13 rounds an hour.

If you are attacking a base without doing much recon first, then your troops have no idea where the enemy guns are emplaced and those guns will keep firing until the troops on the ground can find them and neutralize them. If recon is done first, the landing troops will know where the guns are and a fair number will be silenced early on. Heavy bombardment and air strikes will also help soften up the target dramatically.

I learned to put some kind of combat ship in an amphibious TF. The guns will end up dueling with the escorts and leave the transports more or less alone. The escorts might get chewed up, but you don't need to use DDs, you can use PCs, PGs, or even MSWs.

Bill




Ian R -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/12/2006 6:15:29 AM)

This game mechanic actually gives the Alaska class CBs something to do, as well as shooting at kamikazes. Their 11" armament fires from a range where 155 +mm and even 203 mm (8 inch) or 9 inch coastal guns don't seem to ever do them much harm but would blow some holes in the heavy and light cruisers.

I do applaud the fact that in this game two or three of your older BBs with a DE escort can settle in and do some damage over a period, whereas if you shove a heap of cruisers and destroyers in on "escorts bombard" you get a lot of ship damage for not much more return. It makes for more historically accurate TFs. Its always a nice surprise to get one of those occasional bombardment results where you find you absolutely plastered an airbase and (allegedly) destroyed 300 aircraft, and 2 slow battleships seem to be as capable of producing it as whole fleet of smaller ships.

Just remember to save the pilots/aircraft of those Dutch recon squadrons in the spotter biplanes. One day they will turn into F5A squadrons. Their range is so short you have to load some of them on ships to get them out but its worth the points.

All the above comments are totally based on purely anecdotal evidence and have no logic or science behind them.




Ron Saueracker -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/12/2006 8:14:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

This game mechanic actually gives the Alaska class CBs something to do, as well as shooting at kamikazes. Their 11" armament fires from a range where 155 +mm and even 203 mm (8 inch) or 9 inch coastal guns don't seem to ever do them much harm but would blow some holes in the heavy and light cruisers.

I do applaud the fact that in this game two or three of your older BBs with a DE escort can settle in and do some damage over a period, whereas if you shove a heap of cruisers and destroyers in on "escorts bombard" you get a lot of ship damage for not much more return. It makes for more historically accurate TFs. Its always a nice surprise to get one of those occasional bombardment results where you find you absolutely plastered an airbase and (allegedly) destroyed 300 aircraft, and 2 slow battleships seem to be as capable of producing it as whole fleet of smaller ships.

Just remember to save the pilots/aircraft of those Dutch recon squadrons in the spotter biplanes. One day they will turn into F5A squadrons. Their range is so short you have to load some of them on ships to get them out but its worth the points.

All the above comments are totally based on purely anecdotal evidence and have no logic or science behind them.



Hmmm...so you are saying that it is quite acceptable to have basic undirected howitzers, infantry guns and mortars firing just as effectively vs moving ships as directed and zeroed dedicated CD guns with proper traverse mechanisms firing ranges as far as 30 milesn ot to mention that a fair portion of these very weapons are actually blinded by terrain and incapable of even engaging?




Ian R -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/12/2006 12:53:20 PM)

"Hmmm...so you are saying that it is quite acceptable to have basic undirected howitzers, infantry guns and mortars firing just as effectively vs moving ships as directed and zeroed dedicated CD guns with proper traverse mechanisms firing ranges as far as 30 milesn ot to mention that a fair portion of these very weapons are actually blinded by terrain and incapable of even engaging? "



No Ron, I'm not. Actually I was agreeing, at least in part, with your earlier post. And I was referring to my own comments, not yours.






herwin -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/12/2006 1:47:15 PM)

The historical rule of thumb was that land-based artillery was about four times as effective as the same number of guns afloat, and only a fool attacked a fort with a ship unless he had overwhelming superiority. Most of the mobile artillery in Hawaii was there as mobile backups to the emplaced guns, so it wasn't even as if it was untrained and unprepared for the mission. To take Lahaina, I suspect you would have needed three or four divisions in reality, with proportionate support. Remember also, the Hawaiian Division was the largest and best-trained division in the US Army in December 1941.




castor troy -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/12/2006 3:09:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: shawn118aw

Game version 1.804

I first want to say that I really love this game except for the one MAJOR ERROR in the game programming—COASTAL GUN FIRE! I just hate making any type of amphibious landing (either as the Allied or Japanese player) because I believe the games “Coastal Gun Fire logic” is way off base, my estimation is between 6 and times 10 to high. Example, the last landing I made as the Japanese Player, (Feb 2 1942) I landed 22,721 troops of the Japanese 2nd Inf Div on the Island of Lahanina Hawaii. It was defended by only 6,108 troops with 114 guns (74-155mm FG, 4-3inch guns, 12-90mm AAA, 16-40mm AAA, 8-20mm AAA, and a fort of 1.

CAN SOME ONE EXPLANE WHY HOW ONLY 6,108 TROOPS & 76 FIELD GUNS LISTED-- CAN FIRE 7,846 GUNS ???? That’s right 7,846 guns fired resulted in 10,632 killed, 14 ships sunk that turn and 29 more damaged 70% of better. NOW COME ON!!!

Can someone please explain this, why are these guns so effect? In this case the Japanese should have never built a single ship and just built Coastal Gun Units.

Also, once I did get shore, how can the artillery continue to fire both at my ships landing supplies AND used in their full strength in combat during the Allied counter attacks—maybe a new weapon that fires in 2 directions at the same time.

HELP, HELP, HELP…can someone fix this in 1.805V?[&:]
[:@]


Coastal gun fire is too effective, because there aren´t landing crafts in the game and therefore the AKs and APs are targeted directly. But there weren´t 7,846 GUNS that were shooting at you. There were 7,846 shots fired at you which isn´t much if you consider the guns available.

And in this case you ran into a super coast defense (in game terms) as there were 74 155 mm FG guns that are able to fire on your ships. This is like the number of 5,5 inch guns of 8!!!! big Japanese base forces...




Ian R -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/12/2006 3:33:05 PM)

Actually (unsurprisingly) some one has tested this out - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=935927

I noted with interest that all the 'army weapons" etc do not fire on bombardment TFs, but do get to engage invasion TFs.





Ron Saueracker -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/12/2006 4:19:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

The historical rule of thumb was that land-based artillery was about four times as effective as the same number of guns afloat, and only a fool attacked a fort with a ship unless he had overwhelming superiority. Most of the mobile artillery in Hawaii was there as mobile backups to the emplaced guns, so it wasn't even as if it was untrained and unprepared for the mission. To take Lahaina, I suspect you would have needed three or four divisions in reality, with proportionate support. Remember also, the Hawaiian Division was the largest and best-trained division in the US Army in December 1941.


But the issue here has been that all guns, regardless of whether they are simple light mortars or 14" turret mounted CD emplacements, fire under the same parameters in the game. If anything, dedicated forts and CD units should have much more effective anti shipping ability than infantry support weapons so the accuracy/effectiveness of the routine could use a decrease. Also, only a percentage of guns should be able to fire vs a landing given that all guns are not at any one point geographically and are therefore not capable of defending the assault beach. Heck, this concept is in naval combat (ships in the same TF often don't take part in combat because of random factors...nothing more bizarre than having your BB flagship in the centre of the action inexplicably enter another dimension) so should really be part of land combat as well.

Recent example of one CD unit vs a massive naval force...

Update to 30th July 1942

Akyab, Burma

A large enemy TF wrecked havoc in residential quarters of Akyab on the 28th July, with a heavy night time bombardment. No military targets were hit. Many civilians were killed and maimed. BB's Royal Sovereign and Revenge were spotted at dawn, heading towards Chandpur. A flight of G4M1 (Bettys) recorded a number of 'probable' hits on the said vessels.


Kiska, Aluetians

In the early hours of the 29th, several large American TF's attacked Kiska. In an attack similar to the previous 20th July Allied disaster, many enemy vessels were sunk by brave gunners of the 17th Coastal gun battery. However, this time the enemy pressed forward, with scant regard to military casualties. Elements of at least an U.S. Army corps landed during the day, and encountered devastating fire from the small garrison. Thousands of dead American soldiers littered the beaches of Kiska but the reckless U.S. Army continued to feed troops into the meatgrinder. Undoubtedly the censored government mouthpiece American press will proclaim a victory in due course.

Bloody 'Kiska' details:-


Night casualties

817 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
MSW Quatsino, Shell hits 38, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Guysborough, Shell hits 35, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Kelowna, Shell hits 21, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Courtenay, Shell hits 22, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Lockeport, Shell hits 17, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Wasaga, Shell hits 42, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Bungaree, Shell hits 50, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Vireo, Shell hits 13, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Turkey, Shell hits 10, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Skylark, Shell hits 36, on fire, heavy damage
DMS Hopkins, Shell hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
DMS Hovey, Shell hits 48, on fire, heavy damage
APD Manley, Mine hits 3, on fire, heavy damage

Morning casualties

DMS Hopkins, Shell hits 379, on fire, heavy damage
APD Manley, Mine hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
APD Colhoun, Mine hits 1, on fire
DD Brooks, Mine hits 1
DD Monaghan, Mine hits 1
AP Westralia, Mine hits 1
DD Selfridge, Mine hits 1, on fire
DD Henley, Mine hits 1, on fire
AK Alcyone, Mine hits 2, on fire
AP J. Franklin Bell, Mine hits 2
AK Fomalhaut, Mine hits 1, on fire
AP Henderson, Mine hits 1
AP Royal T. Frank, Mine hits 1
AP Harris, Mine hits 1, on fire
AP Van Overstraten, Mine hits 1, on fire

Afternoon casualties

APD Colhoun, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CL Phoenix, Shell hits 3
DD Clark, Shell hits 3, on fire
AP Van Neck, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Selfridge, Shell hits 1, on fire
AK Alhena, Shell hits 4, on fire
DD Henley, Shell hits 4, on fire
DD Downes, Shell hits 12, on fire
AP President Madison, Shell hits 7, on fire
AP President Monroe, Shell hits 6, on fire
CL Concord, Shell hits 2
AP J. Franklin Bell, Shell hits 4, on fire
AP Harris, Shell hits 6, on fire
AP President Adams, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage
DD Worden, Shell hits 5
AP Hunter Liggett, Shell hits 1
AP American Legion, Shell hits 3
BB New Mexico, Shell hits 1

Allied ground losses:
2448 casualties reported
Guns lost 7

< Message edited by Mike Dixon -- 11/14/2006 8:20:01 AM >





Feinder -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/12/2006 7:34:10 PM)

quote:

I noted with interest that all the 'army weapons" etc do not fire on bombardment TFs, but do get to engage invasion TFs.


Just to clarify your statement (since I did much of the testing):

"Army Guns" -will- fire during the landing. However, they do not attack the ships. They cause disruption/disablement to the TROOPS. So they will report under shots fired, but will not affect ships.

"Naval Guns" and "DP" guns will fire during the landing, and will fire at your ships and men. They also are reported in shots fired.

Also the to whomever it was, the number of shots fired is greatly dependent on

1. Supplies. The more supply at a base, the more they seem to fire. I didn't test commanders are skill, but a fully supported unit with 4x supplies threw a lot more shells than one that was only 2x supplies or even 1x supplied (pink).

2. ROF of the gun. My opponnet landed at Rabaul a long time ago. There was a AAA unit there. Message said something like 2000 shots fired in defense. Most of them were evidently LMGs and light AA, because my opponents bombardment TF suffered only slight damage to his bombarding CLs (the small weapons and light AA obviosuly don't have the penetration to harm the CLs). My point being that of those 1500 shots fired at you, they may or may not, have been from 155mm Field Guns (equal to 6" guns = nasty). However, even if they were small weapons fired, they -will- shread unarmored units like transports and DDs (and most people would actually agree that the light weapons do in fact do to much damage to DDs etc.).

-F-




Ron Saueracker -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/12/2006 7:52:00 PM)

Just look at the above posted Kiska example from Spence and Dixon's game...one little CD unit is hitting all these ships? Gimme a break! Not even one casualty vs the CD units from the warships in the TF? Give me another break! I've said this all along that this is yet another routine which is grossly over effective and bloody but it's like farting in an empty elevator...nobody cares.[8D]




Feinder -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/12/2006 9:31:34 PM)

(* makes a mental note to not ride elevators with Ron at any future WitP-cons *)

-F-




kilowatts -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/12/2006 10:20:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
...
BB New Mexico, Shell hits 1
...


I have several questions on that report, but most important: Why was the BB in the invasion TF?! Or is that report a consolidated list of casualties.




Feinder -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/12/2006 10:47:04 PM)

You can add a BB to an invasion TF by first setting the TF type as “Escort” and then changing it to “Transport”.

It has been unclear whether or not this was actually intended by the devs (to exclude BBs from invasion TFs). But a “tactic” (if you could call it that), is to include a BB or two in with your invasion TFs. (In theory) They return fire with the CD guns (reducing their effectiveness), and act as bullet sponges because the CD units will fixate on them instead of the invasion TF.

Is it gamey? Is it an exploit? Is it the way things were supposed to have been in the first place?

Dunno. It all depends on the original intent of the devs, and nobody knows that (or has answered).

-F-




kilowatts -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/12/2006 11:14:34 PM)

I've never seen anything in an invasion TF fire so much as a BB ([:'(]) gun at coastal defences - or least they've never hit anything. So other than as a bullet-sponge the New Mexico serves no purpose here.*

Did the invader (Spence or Dixon) have such an overwhelming Bombardment TF that the New Mexico was overkill and thus get shoved into the transport TF? or is she in the transport TF because the invader 'thought' they would fire back or are we looking at a consolidated report which covers several rounds of firing at both the transport TF and at the bombardment TF. Can't tell.

To back up your point I have occasionally seen large numbers (several thousands) of hits and casualties on invasion TFs that I did deduce were inflicted mostly by AA guns.

Mike

* I've also not observed that CD guns target the escort more than the transports in invasion TF or that a heavier ship gets hit more often that a lighter ship. In that case a DE works as well as a BB for a bullet-sponge (though perhaps not for as long [;)])





Xargun -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/13/2006 4:22:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kilowatts

I've never seen anything in an invasion TF fire so much as a BB ([:'(]) gun at coastal defences - or least they've never hit anything. So other than as a bullet-sponge the New Mexico serves no purpose here.*


I have seen the difference between warships mixed with an invasion force and no warships. The defensive fire from the coastal guns is a lot less when you include warships in the TF to counterbattery fire the enemy guns.. Only a couple of times have I seen defensive casualties on an invasion (but I have seen them) but I swear warships will lessen the amount of fire your men / ships take. It doesn't seem to matter what type of warships but they need to be a warship, not simply an armed merchie - so PC. PGs, DDs and CA work great.

Xargun




kilowatts -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/13/2006 6:12:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun
The defensive fire from the coastal guns is a lot less when you include warships in the TF to counterbattery fire the enemy guns.


Agreed, but my opinion is that in the game this is mostly abstracted down to a simple reduction in the amount of shots the coastal guns take and the better use for a 6" cruiser or better is in a bombardment TF where they will actually take out some of those guns.




Mike Scholl -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/13/2006 8:27:36 PM)

"CAN SOME ONE EXPLANE WHY HOW ONLY 6,108 TROOPS & 76 FIELD GUNS LISTED-- CAN FIRE 7,846 GUNS ???? That’s right 7,846 guns fired resulted in 10,632 killed, 14 ships sunk that turn and 29 more damaged 70% of better. NOW COME ON!!!"



OK. You sailed a bunch of "floating targets" into range of 76 6.1" Coastal Guns..., and they each fired a bit over 100 rounds at you (a couple of hours of "deliberate aimed fire"). And you got your head handed to you... What's the problem? You should have supressed them.




Sardaukar -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/14/2006 2:36:14 PM)

And always add CAs to invasion TF if possible. They can soak lot of fire that is < 8" and will suppress lighter guns in addition to drawing lot of that fire.




marky -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/16/2006 4:17:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

And always add CAs to invasion TF if possible. They can soak lot of fire that is < 8" and will suppress lighter guns in addition to drawing lot of that fire.


indeeed always always always

and hit it with as many barttleships and CAs as possible for long as possible and of course hit the port and airfield and do ground attacks




Yamato hugger -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/16/2006 7:20:24 AM)

Ron.
I dont know but looking at that snippet, I see no less than 20 mine hits. This tells me that it was a well fortified area. Probably a level 9 fort. I would assume that a well dug in unit knows where every grain of sand is on the island, where every reef and shoal is off the beach. It also tells me that the invader did no prep work on this landing at all. No coastal bombardment, no mine clearing, no recon.

Everyone throughout recorded history had built extrensive forts to guard important areas from naval vessels, and naval vessels stayed away from those forts. I wonder if maybe there was a reason for it? The airplane made it possible to strike at those forts without the danger of risking a naval vessel. Japs landing at Wake (the first one), no prep work, got slaughtered. 2nd time, they had 2 or 3 carriers in support. Germans tried to run to Oslo in 1940 without any prep work, and failed miserably also.

Those that are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.




frank1970 -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/19/2006 2:01:44 PM)

Now come on, it IS BS, that each and every gun in the hex fires at the landing TF.

Matrix should simply introduce the order "protect beach"into the land forces menue. Units doing so should not be fighting against attacks form land or defend against airraids (or at least with a lower effectiveness).




Sardaukar -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/19/2006 4:46:32 PM)

Yep...it should be modifies somehow. Then you know what really sucks when you use LCIs and other landing craft to invade unsupressed base with lots of infantry etc. *Every* "peashooter" has field day against those crafts...

I only use landing crafts to invade atolls where it's important to get troops ashore in as good condition as possible (even when lots of LCIs are still shot to pieces no matter what). LST ships, on the other hand are very very good in every amphibious invasion.




qgaliana -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/19/2006 6:11:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

Now come on, it IS BS, that each and every gun in the hex fires at the landing TF.

Matrix should simply introduce the order "protect beach"into the land forces menue. Units doing so should not be fighting against attacks form land or defend against airraids (or at least with a lower effectiveness).


Each and every gun doesn't automatically fire. But it seems to get a chance to. Even in my limited play I've seen and received enough invasions to notice the results are highly variable. Sometimes you get 3 or 4 rounds fired, sometimes dozens. Landing at night in the game seems to help. In RL too - compare Wake invasion attempt 1 vs number 2. They probably should have set a cap for the percentage of weapons getting a chance, but hey...

"The Yanks have 6" guns at Aqaba, errr Lahaina, I don't think you fully appreciate what that means"




Yamato hugger -> RE: Coastal Gun Fire Effectives—is outrageous! (12/19/2006 8:47:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Yep...it should be modifies somehow. Then you know what really sucks when you use LCIs and other landing craft to invade unsupressed base with lots of infantry etc. *Every* "peashooter" has field day against those crafts...



I have no answer for this. I am stunned beyond words. I truely hope you were being sarcastic, but somehow I dont think you were.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875