CL Boise On Steroids?

CL Boise On Steroids? (Full Version)

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

Message

Icedawg -> CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 6:30:22 PM)
What's the deal with this ship? In three different games, I've encountered the Boise and the Houston with a far superior surface force and gotten my $#% kicked soundly all three times. In every case, I had at least 3 CA's, 2 CL's and 6 DD in a surface TF that ran into these two unescorted ships. In all three engagements, the Houston did next to no damage to my ships, but the Boise with its 6 inch guns blazing single-handedly demolished my TF's. In the most recent (and most gruesome) disaster, she sank 2 CA's, 2 CL's and 3 DD's outright and severely crippled 2 more CA's and 3 more DD's (all five of these ships sank before making it back to port). In the process, she took two 8 inch shell hits and a smattering of 5 inchers. I had Tanaka in command of the TF and he actually "crossed the T". In spite of having a superior commander, a tactical advantage and a vastly superior force, this single ship made hamburger out of me. If this was just a single engagement, I could chalk it up to the unexpected outcomes war brings. However, to have it happen three separate times and all at the hands at the same ship, I have to wonder if the Boise has some special advantage built into her early war performance. I noticed that she gets in a couple dozen shots with those 6 inch guns while my ships plug off one or two shots. This happens in every subround of combat. One of my CA's fires a couple of shots, then gets pummeled by the 6 inchers. Another CA gets off a couple of shots and those same 6 inchers (which had just been firining on the other ship) also bury this CA. This happens for every one of my ships that fire on her. It's as though my ships are attacking one at a time rather than all firing simultaneously. Is there something wrong here, or was the Boise actually equipped with a few hundred of those 6 inch guns?

Freedom205 -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 6:36:44 PM)
I have only had 1 successful encounter "early war" with the Boise, but many that came out like your 3 poundings. I think Gary had a relative serve on her or something ; ) (or maybe it was a favorite ship of his?)

Mike Solli -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 6:39:53 PM)
I always play the Japanese and I consider it a victory if I sink the Boise. Screw the rest of the war. [:D] The key to getting the Boise is to hit her with air power. A few torpedoes in her and that's all she wrote. Stay away from her with ships.

niceguy2005 -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 6:42:21 PM)
Have you looked at the Boise in detail. It is a floating fortress, with well trained crew, and 6" guns at close range are lethal (much higher rate of fire and more accurate). The Boise is the scurge of the IJN in the first week or two of fighting. Alas, I always get the Boise sunk in the first few turns. Houston is a good ship, but really just your run of the mill US CA.

rtrapasso -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 6:43:04 PM)
It is widely known that Boise is a "magic ship" at the beginning of the war - almost always can dish it out pretty well... Mike is right about air power, though...

Mike Solli -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 6:43:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 Alas, I always get the Boise sunk in the first few turns. We're counting on that happening in our upcoming game. [:'(]

Ian R -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 6:53:02 PM)
"What's the deal with this ship? " The Brooklyn and Cleveland classes are assigned main turret armor of 312 in the data base. By comparison, the Baltimores are 200. One of the RN classes (Gloucester) have 100, that is about the highest of any other CL in the game.

Wolfie1 -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 6:53:36 PM)
I all ways play allies, and I just love the Boise in the first month of the war - I've even had her head to head with BB's and dish out better than she received.[:D]

Ian R -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 6:54:03 PM)
The above refers to stock scen 15. Don't know about the mods.

Icedawg -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 6:55:02 PM)
So, this is a known bug. Has anyone made any attempt to fix this? I ask because it's kind of discouraging to spend the better part of two to three weeks preparing an initial turn as the Japanese player and then having a major part of your SRA offensive literally blown out of the water by a bug. [:@] With all of the griping about the early war Zero advantage (which at least had a historical basis), you'd think that this CL that performs like the Yamato would draw some attention (especially since the Boise didn't have any kind of legendary performances to her credit). I guess until (if?) this bug is fixed, I'll just have to wait for Ms Betty or Ms Nell to take care of her.

niceguy2005 -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 6:56:36 PM)
Yep, air power works well. In my last game against the AI, Boise took on 10 DD by herself. The outcome was not good for the Boise and crew $#^@ long lance torpedos. [:@]

niceguy2005 -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 6:58:11 PM)
Is it a bug or was the Boise's armor actually that thick?

Icedawg -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 6:58:12 PM)
Turret armor is not the issue. Rate of fire is the issue. I know the 6 inchers have a high rate of fire, but when the Boise is being attacked by 10+ IJN ships and she is getting off 30 to 40 times the number of shots AS THE ENTIRE IJN TASK FORCE, either those gunners are on crystal meth or there is some kind of bug here.

rtrapasso -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 6:58:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icedawg So, this is a known bug. Has anyone made any attempt to fix this? I ask because it's kind of discouraging to spend the better part of two to three weeks preparing an initial turn as the Japanese player and then having a major part of your SRA offensive literally blown out of the water by a bug. [:@] With all of the griping about the early war Zero advantage (which at least had a historical basis), you'd think that this CL that performs like the Yamato would draw some attention (especially since the Boise didn't have any kind of legendary performances to her credit). I guess until (if?) this bug is fixed, I'll just have to wait for Ms Betty or Ms Nell to take care of her. it is a known ISSUE - not sure i'd call it a bug...

rtrapasso -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 7:00:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icedawg Turret armor is not the issue. Rate of fire is the issue. I know the 6 inchers have a high rate of fire, but when the Boise is being attacked by 10+ IJN ships and she is getting off 30 to 40 times the number of shots AS THE ENTIRE IJN TASK FORCE, either those gunners are on crystal meth or there is some kind of bug here. This is probably the "kung fu effect" - another well known issue... a single ship or a TF with just a few ships will commonly outshoot TFs with many more ships... and this is not limited to the Boise...

goodboyladdie -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 7:07:21 PM)
It's not a bug. These CLs were really CAs with many 6" guns instead of 8" guns. Boise is one of the few USN ships that is relatively experienced in the early period which is why she tends to do well. In a naval battle she is generally able to defeat CAs and CLs due to her greater firepower, rate of fire and good armour. Also most cruisers she comes up against have transport, escort or bombard missions which means they try to get on with their primary role, thereby giving the surface combat tf with Boise in a tactical advantage. She is not invulnerable and Betties and Nells soon sort her out. Even in surface combat situations I lose her half the time due to relatively poor nightfighting ability and lack of radar. JFBs tend to focus on her because she is the only fly in their ointment early on...

Akos Gergely -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 7:07:59 PM)
I won't exactly call it a bug. She is a really formidable ship at close range, especially with radar, the 6" guns have an extremly high ROF and good accuracy and from under 5-6k they can penetrate CA armour very well. Coupled that you use a large SC TF she can be very much a pain in the... If the turret armour data in stock is really 312 than it is a bug. Though in real life BOise took an 8" shell hit that penetrated her fron turret's face, went through the magazines then exited the ship without doing much harm to her. Her actual face plate thickness is 6" btw which should be 152 mm in the database. I've heard somebody saying that these ships had 6" machine guns literally, and there is a nice story in Friedman's US cruiser's book about USS Savannah's test firing, how it impressed everyone, especeially Pres. Roosvelt. She smothered her target so much that the continous watersprouts obscured it alltogether. On the other hand WitP engine seems to be overexagerating the value of the number of mountings and guns. In WPO the Wyoming class BBs are doing very well, simply because they have 12 guns in 6 turrets, well distributed. Would be interesting to see it in a surface fight in Witp.

saj42 -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 7:40:13 PM)
Wish I was so lucky. I'm playing Big B's scen 192 against AI (to see what its like) and I lost Boise in my first combat in early Jan 42[X(] Boise plus 4 DDs were at Davao when an IJN tf of 4xCA 1xCL and 5xDD came calling at night and achieved surprise. All 5 USN ships lost for no more than a dozen hits on the IJN vessels. Perhaps I'm just a cr@p player lol

mlees -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 7:51:33 PM)
The Washington Naval Treaty limited cruiser sizes to 10,000 tons. (The effect of Article XI: "No vessel of war exceeding 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) standard displacement, other than a capital ship or aircraft carrier, shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for, or within the jurisdiction of, any of the Contracting Powers. " Which meant that any vessel larger than 10,000 tons was to be considered a "Capital Ship", and had to be counted in it's tonnage limits as laid out in other articles.) Initially, the US (in the 20's) went with the 8 inch gun while the RN pretty much stuck with the 6-inch gun for its cruisers, because the US wanted to have superior firepower to the RN and Japanese, ton for ton. The 8-inch gun has heavier hitting power, and slightly greater range. However: the 6-inch has a greater rate of fire, which means that you get more chances to damage the enemy. (If you can get in hits early enough, then the enemy may not be able to return fire as effectively as he could otherwise, meaning you suffer less damage as a result.) The 6 inch weapon mounted on the Brooklyn's was a newer Mk weapon, compared with the weapon mounted on the Omaha's, for example, and it had better penetration capability. It was decided by the General Board that a cruiser with 15 6-inch weapons was "better" than a cruiser with 8 or 10 slower 8-inch weapons. The Brooklyn displaces 10,000 tons standard. If I recall correctly, it's armor scheme is the same as any US "Heavy" cruiser of the period. (USS Houston actually displaces 9000 tons, and the Japanese prewar CL's weighed in at 4500 to 7500 tons...) I'll have to reverify it's protection, though. So, in effect, the Brooklyn is not really a "Light" cruiser... despite the CL in it's hull number.

Big B -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 8:17:12 PM)
The Brooklyn/St Louis class Light Cruisers were in fact advanced Heavy Cruiser for their time. The turret armor was 6" (compared to an IJN CA wich has 1 inch), belt and magazine aromor was around 4 - 6 inches, and if I remember corectly it was all class A armor (very very good armor). Their real advantage were the brand-new 6"/47 Mk 16 guns. These weapons fired a heavier than normal 6" shell (130lbs), had a very long range for a 6" gun (26,000 yards), and an incredible rate of fire of 8 to 10 rounds per minute (in a Brooklyn that equates to 120 to 150 rounds per minute of main battery fire). So if you haven't surprised them with Long Lances, they will likely shoot the pants off of you. EDIT: Regarding armor - the Brooklyns and Clevelands in the stock game have 312mm Turret Armor, actual should be 165mm. So yes, that is incorrect, however it may have been an attempted compensation for Class A armor (who knows[8\|]). Furthermore All japanese CAs in the stock game have Turret armor at 125mm, this is flat wrong also - as they all had a uniform 25mm turret (because of weight restrictions in over stressed hulls)[X(].

FAdmiral -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 9:07:50 PM)
I remember a scenario I created using "Destroyer Command" where I had 2 Brooklyn class cruisers go up against the "Bismarck". I used a v pattern in closing with my 2 cruisers firing all the way. The Bismarch could not aim her main guns towards both ships at once. I WON the battle without losing either cruiser. Rate of fire was the KEY and keeping all 30 6" guns on the target.... JIM

Terminus -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 9:28:37 PM)
I'm sure the Bismark was scuttled...[:D]

wild_Willie2 -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 9:45:27 PM)
In fighting steel I LOST the YAMATO in a night action with 4 Brooklyn CL's..... They plinked me to death, using their radar controlled guns to start fires and demolishing my upper deck. I lost my BB to the ensuing fires without even seeing them.... I REALLY hated that mission...

pauk -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 10:21:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus I'm sure the Bismark was scuttled...[:D] she was sunkled!

Terminus -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/7/2007 10:21:41 PM)
Scunked!

pauk -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/8/2007 12:23:15 AM)
i have no choice and must admit you are right, for the first time!

ctangus -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/8/2007 12:40:59 AM)
Here's how to handle Boise: [8D] 12/11/41 Day Air attack on TF at 64,59 Japanese aircraft B5N2 Kate x 23 Japanese aircraft losses B5N2 Kate: 1 damaged Allied Ships CL Boise, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage Sinks!

Accipiter -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/8/2007 3:14:10 AM)
I've sent multiple CVLs againt the Boise in the early days of my RHSEOS campaign. All I had to show for it was about 2 dozen lost Kates over the course of 3 days of fighting. All the while the Boise was alone without aircover or escorts. A monster of a ship.

niceguy2005 -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/8/2007 7:32:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ctangus Here's how to handle Boise: [8D] 12/11/41 Day Air attack on TF at 64,59 Japanese aircraft B5N2 Kate x 23 Japanese aircraft losses B5N2 Kate: 1 damaged Allied Ships CL Boise, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage Sinks! No doubt air power is the safest method.

Icedawg -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/8/2007 9:05:27 PM)
23 Kates? How did you get 23 Kates onto the Ryujo (I assume that's where they came from) so early in the game (only four days in)? The max # of aircraft in Ryujo's Kate section is 19, so you clearly had another unit aboard. How did you transfer that unit all the way to Palau (or the general vicinity thereof) so early on? Did you take a few small undefended airfields in the Philippines with paratroopers and leap-frog a Kate squadron from Japan (or the one stationed on the Hosho perhaps)? While I'm on the topic of the Ryujo, what is the best strategy for using her early on? Is she better used to hunt down allied ships in the Philippines and Dutch East Indies, or to provide air cover for transport TF's in the same area? With just one section of Kates and one section of Zero's, it doesn't seem as though her original compliment of aircraft will be sufficient to do either. Currently, I lean towards transferiing her Kates to Palau, then transferring a second Zero squadron from Takao to her decks. Doing so gives me a potent little CAP assemblage of 50+ Zero's scouring the skies over those invasion forces immediately bound for Amboina, Kendari, Tarakan and Balikpapan. Without this supplemented CAP, my invasion forces usually take a slight-to-moderate beating from Martins and Hudsons on the way to their destinations. With this extra CAP, they ususally make it to their landing sites unscathed.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.78125