RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

Alfred -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/12/2010 11:55:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

I noticed the same thing, Moose.  I just checked, and at least for Scen 1, Singapore starts with lvl 0 forts.  [:(]


Got to admit, I just got back from starting a new game just to check too. This to me is the problem, not the CD. With zero forts, and 15K of odds & ends LCUs, and a horrible HQ CO, it isn't hard to get enough Japanese combat power ashore through the mines and CD to take SIngapore on 12/8. A zero fort level means no wire, no foxholes, no log bunkers, nothing on the sea side? Really? I thought the sea side of Singapore was like the Atlantic Wall? That was the whole basis of the British idea of Fortress Singapore--nobody can approach by land, and we've made an impassable wall by sea.

Jack the forts up to something reasonable--even a 3-4, and see how it goes.


Historically there wasn't much fortification present on 7 December. A little around the naval base. The British were relying primarily on their big guns to blow any direct invasion force out of the water, also aided by Force Z and the numerous airbases. The Japanese in their planning were not to know that they would destroy the defending RN as early as 10 December, by which date of course their own landings had already proceeded.

Thus you might be able to argue for Singapore to already have level 1 or at a stretch level 2 fortifications on 7 December 1941, but I don't think you should have any higher.

Alfred



witpqs -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/12/2010 5:18:22 PM)

Seems like it's too early for any concrete official word yet.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/12/2010 7:38:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: skrewball

Has there been any "official" word on this issue?

Would it be just a simple hotfix to change the targeting/firing routines of the CDs?



JWE commented that I saw.

Looking at what the CD routines do, in several different types of scenarios, I doubt it's anything like "simple" to change. A lot of what people have been discussing here looks like it would involve a lot of new sub-looping current attack loops to add interim target-damaged-or-sunk checks, but then, if the target fails them, where to and with what new target criteria?

I've had small island CD eat me alive (see Wotje above), and today I got ashore on Shortlands with very litttle damage. I think there are more variables at work than in a surface battle, because CDs are LCUs, with all the supply, disruption, HQ etc. inputs. But they're LCUs not targeting other LCUs, and ships have a whole different damage, supply, mobility variable set. CD is probably the most complex of the attack sub-routines from what I see in the results, even more so than AA in a big invasion.

If CD is the subject of code changes, I think the devs have to be VERY careful to not over-strength it to the point that the Allies have no invasion capability by 1944 due to sunk ship totals. The Japanese do their work early and sit on defense. But if the Allies can't invade when they did in late war, you don't have a game anymore.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/12/2010 7:48:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Historically there wasn't much fortification present on 7 December. A little around the naval base. The British were relying primarily on their big guns to blow any direct invasion force out of the water, also aided by Force Z and the numerous airbases. The Japanese in their planning were not to know that they would destroy the defending RN as early as 10 December, by which date of course their own landings had already proceeded.

Thus you might be able to argue for Singapore to already have level 1 or at a stretch level 2 fortifications on 7 December 1941, but I don't think you should have any higher.

Alfred


Thanks. After I posted I went looking for info and photos of SIngapore, since I'm no expert. Most of what I found was as of 2/1942, and had defenses to the northeast and north, and a bit due east on the island perimeter. Very little on the sea side.

I found lots of info on the theory of the fleet rescue, and that, by 1941, the "hold out" period had been extended to 180 days from half that in the late 1920s. Also, criticism that the big guns had only AP ammo in stock, and no HE to repel troops/landing forces. The sources stated that, contrary to popular belief, many of the sea-defense guns could aim inland, but weren't useful against the land invasion due to not having HE ammo.

The few references I found to sea-side defenses spoke of MG positions (concrete I assume, rather than log dugouts, but I don't know), and, I presume, some wire, and other light installations. Certainly the British didn't prepare for a beach assault in any meaningful way. But a zero? I agree that a 1-2 might be better, and allow the human Allied player at least one turn to activate troops off Rest/Reserve if needed. It would give the land-side a bit of a head start on forts, but OTOH, getting to a 1 from 0 at a very large base is often just the work of a couple of days.

As it stands now, without an HR, were I playing Japan it would be stupid not to eat the dessert that's offered on 12/8.



treespider -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/12/2010 8:46:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58



As it stands now, without an HR, were I playing Japan it would be stupid not to eat the dessert that's offered on 12/8.



Or simply play with the "Historical Start"...[:)]



herwin -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/12/2010 9:20:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58



As it stands now, without an HR, were I playing Japan it would be stupid not to eat the dessert that's offered on 12/8.



Or simply play with the "Historical Start"...[:)]


That just delays things one day. The ports vulnerable to this include Hong Kong, Bataan, Singapore, Davao, Pearl Harbor, the US West Coast, Port Moresby, Batavia, Soerabaya, Darwin, Truk, etc.--it has to be fixed. The most realistic way I know of is inserting a beach approach phase between the ship-to-shore duel and the assault (which involves just a comparison of AV strengths and no casualties). During the beach approach unsuppressed coast defence artillery and beach defences get to chew on the landing force. Suppression is determined based on whether the escort/bombardment force or the coast defence artillery took higher percentage casualties. Note that the coast defence artillery has about four times the firepower of an equivalent number of guns on ships.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/12/2010 10:03:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58



As it stands now, without an HR, were I playing Japan it would be stupid not to eat the dessert that's offered on 12/8.



Or simply play with the "Historical Start"...[:)]


Do you say that because it commits and lands the Japanese forces on the northeast coast of the peninsula? I haven't ever played that one. Seems a littl ebit wimpy for the Allied player to ask for "good" results at PH, and then have a free hand with all those BBs.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/12/2010 11:44:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

That just delays things one day. The ports vulnerable to this include Hong Kong, Bataan, Singapore, Davao, Pearl Harbor, the US West Coast, Port Moresby, Batavia, Soerabaya, Darwin, Truk, etc.--it has to be fixed. The most realistic way I know of is inserting a beach approach phase between the ship-to-shore duel and the assault (which involves just a comparison of AV strengths and no casualties). During the beach approach unsuppressed coast defence artillery and beach defences get to chew on the landing force. Suppression is determined based on whether the escort/bombardment force or the coast defence artillery took higher percentage casualties. Note that the coast defence artillery has about four times the firepower of an equivalent number of guns on ships.



I agree 100% with Herwin..., this programming failure takes a great game and turns it into a joke. The only thing I would disagree with him on is that the guns of an established pre-war Coast Defense Installation should be about 10 times as effective as shipboard artillery.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/12/2010 11:47:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Do you say that because it commits and lands the Japanese forces on the northeast coast of the peninsula? I haven't ever played that one. Seems a littl ebit wimpy for the Allied player to ask for "good" results at PH, and then have a free hand with all those BBs.



BULLwinkle. It's obvious you've never played this start, as the "historical" start starts with the "historical" attack on PH. Any "Free BB's" left after that are purely do to luck...



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/13/2010 12:21:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Do you say that because it commits and lands the Japanese forces on the northeast coast of the peninsula? I haven't ever played that one. Seems a littl ebit wimpy for the Allied player to ask for "good" results at PH, and then have a free hand with all those BBs.



BULLwinkle. It's obvious you've never played this start, as the "historical" start starts with the "historical" attack on PH. Any "Free BB's" left after that are purely do to luck...



I've restarted the 12/7 Scenario three times, all between Patch I and II. I've never come close to losing only two BBs. I hear it's possible, but I've never seen it.



Lecivius -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/13/2010 12:34:21 AM)

"I hear it's possible, but I've never seen it. "

Just FWIW, I have. And once ( in a LOT of starts) I've seen them all go up in smoke & fire.

<goes quietly back to his reading nook>



John Lansford -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/13/2010 12:47:21 AM)

I've started the CG twice; both times I lost two BB's at PH, and had all the others moderately to severely damaged.

If the developers can do this, I'd suggest some kind of bonus to the fixed coastal defenses at the various ports.  The "fortresses" and other fortifications that have the larger guns would be the ones with the comprehensive fire control systems, hardened positions, bore sighted ranges, plenty of ammo, etc, as opposed to the CD units that can be positioned wherever the player wants.  I think the introduction of a phase against the invading troops is a good idea, as well as more emphasis put on non-suppressed CD guns targeting transports and not the escorts firing at them.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/13/2010 2:44:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I've started the CG twice; both times I lost two BB's at PH, and had all the others moderately to severely damaged.

If the developers can do this, I'd suggest some kind of bonus to the fixed coastal defenses at the various ports.  The "fortresses" and other fortifications that have the larger guns would be the ones with the comprehensive fire control systems, hardened positions, bore sighted ranges, plenty of ammo, etc, as opposed to the CD units that can be positioned wherever the player wants.  I think the introduction of a phase against the invading troops is a good idea, as well as more emphasis put on non-suppressed CD guns targeting transports and not the escorts firing at them.



Throwing my socks into the ring yet again, I URGE the devs to be careful with this. It risks mightily throwing the game balance off.

A big problem with addressing any of these "emerging issues"-- CD performance, ASW performance, submarine accuracy and aggression, fighter sweeps, death stars-- is in chasing the downstream effects that spin away from any one fix, historical or not. For example, a fixed point of reference in the game is its historic OOB. Hundreds (thousands?) of man hours went into research. What we have is much better that WITP's, at least on the Allied side I know best. WITP had stupid numbers of everything, especially transports. AE has historical levels. Transport now is, while not borderline scarce, very valuable. You can't throw them away. Concurrently, the devs made the decision, like it or not, to remove the Japanese sub doctrine option from the game. Now Japanese subs sink hundreds of transports, an ahistorical result. Still able to be handled, but the margin for error for the Allied player is thinner if he wants to maintain an historical timetable. Note that sub doctrine decision was made WITH THE CURRENT CD MODEL. It assumes some average loss rate for transports in the necessary invasions the Allied player must undertake to have any chance of winning. Historical or not the game balance assumes the current CD model. (And it's not historical, but not only in the ways the Japanese fans here think. Lots of invasions--Guadalcanal, Leyte, many on New Guinea--took place with Japanese troops "in hex" but with zero fighting or CD response on the beach. Try that in the game.) CD now is something the Allied player has to take into consideration, it's somewhat random, it demands use of combat ships to accompany the transports, and it can be somewhat decisive (my Wotje experience), especialy for the sloppy player. (moi) Beef it up so that there is no real defense to it, or increase the transport loss rate per invasion by, say, 15--20%, and the game breaks unless it is re-balanced in some way. The Allied player runs out of ships.

And I'm not even going into the extra CD-caused LCU KIAs coupled with the hard-coded low device replacement rates following an invasion. Demanding more carnage on the beaches will slow down unit recovery and further retard possible Allied movement forward. Everything is interconnected. You can't pull on one thread without the rug coming apart.

Plugging at a percieved exploit available to Japanese PBEM players in the early game risks seriously breaking the game's pace due to mauling of Allied transports at many/most island sites. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN AND IS NOT HISTORICAL. But even if it were, the devs would be irresponsible in doing it if they also left the rest of the model alone, particualrly the IJN submarine doctrine that attacks merchants in ways similar to the USN's submarine war practices.

As for your specific proposals above, I could go for the "fortresses" having some additional impact in a CD phase to prevent early war exploits, if there were some agreement on which bases are "fortresses." Good luck with that one here, but if the devs do this change they'll make that call.

However, I'd disagree with the extra phase on incoming assault craft. There's already one there, and I believe it causes disruption. I think, from combat footage I've seen, this should be its main effect. Further, many of the CD LCUs didn't have HE ammo, and shooting an 8-in AP shell at a Higgins boat is pretty stupid (as well as our favorite word tonight--ahistorical.) From actual documentary footage one can see that most/all of the shore fire directed at incoming assault craft are not the CD LCUs, but regular LCUs--mortars, MGs, grenades, and rifle fire. The occasional shell we could consider to be from regular artillery LCUs, not CDs whose fire was rarely directed at the beaches. Siting, elevation, visibility, ammo type, and fire direction equipment all were designed to stop ships, not Private Schmuckatelli.

Being in the midst of this issue in the last week, and being in the decided vocal minority (maybe there's a silent majority?), has been interesting. I hope the devs take this up in a sober, non-hysterical way that doesn't break the game, particularly for AI players. So far, on every other of the "emerging issues" (aka "screaming lynch mobs" [:)]) this is what they've done.



Mynok -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/13/2010 3:15:20 AM)


I'm also all for keeping in mind the law of unintended consequences. Certainly I'm of the opinion that well-established CD systems should be death on invasion fleets.



sfbaytf -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/13/2010 3:17:19 AM)

For whatever its worth, I'm in a PBEM game and its Feb 44. I decided to reinforce an invasion that was taking longer than I liked. It was at the SHortlands and I already had a division (41st Div) and ARM BN (NZ) on the place. I thought it would be an easy mopping up operation as I already occupied Rabaul, Kavieng and most of NG. I had plenty of air support and had been bombing the joint for weeks with heavies, dive bombers, mediums, you name it, but the pace was slower than I wanted-especially when you consider it was defended by mostly rear area forces. I thought I could just roll up some LST's, LSI's and a few AK, APA's and AK without any escorting warships or naval bombardment and just unload a CAV regiment, Art BN and ARM BN to reinforce the effort.

The return fire damaged a few of the AP, AKs, LST's, LSI and ended up sinking one of the AP's. The entire TF carrying the ARM BN took a few hits and abandoned the landings-guess the TF commander lost heart.
. As the allied player, I'm taking quite a bit of punishment form the 20cm guns-whatever that is.

Here is the results-obviously I may a big error in judgement in thinking I could land reinforcements without CL and DD's for support:

Pre-Invasion action off Shortlands

12 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
xAP Devonshire
xAP Cape Cleare, Shell hits 1, on fire
xAP Cape Perpetua, Shell hits 3
AP Zeilin
AP Hunter Liggett


Allied ground losses:
6 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)


17th Naval Construction Battalion firing at xAP Devonshire
20cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAP Cape Cleare at 12,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAP Cape Perpetua at 12,000 yards
12.7cm 3YT DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAP Cape Perpetua at 12,000 yards
xAP Devonshire firing at enemy troops
20cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAP Devonshire at 1,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAP Devonshire at 1,000 yards
AP Zeilin firing at enemy troops
AP Hunter Liggett firing at enemy troops
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Assault at Shortlands

TF 93 troops unloading over beach at Shortlands, 109,131


Allied ground losses:
224 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 54 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 35 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 20 (1 destroyed, 19 disabled)
Vehicles lost 8 (0 destroyed, 8 disabled)


0.5in M2HB AAMG x4 dropped into water during unload of 209th FA Bn /3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Invasion action off Shortlands - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

11 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
xAK Nancy Lykes, Shell hits 4, on fire
LCI-85, Shell hits 1, heavy damage
LST-19
LST-448, Shell hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage


Allied ground losses:
Vehicles lost 5 (1 destroyed, 4 disabled)


3rd Special Base Force firing at xAK Nancy Lykes
20cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-85 at 10,000 yards
xAK Nancy Lykes firing at enemy troops
20cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Nancy Lykes at 1,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Nancy Lykes at 1,000 yards
LST-19 firing at enemy troops
LST-448 firing at enemy troops
20cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LST-448 at 1,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LST-448 at 1,000 yards


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion Support action off Shortlands - Coastal Guns Fire Back!
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft

8 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
xAP Devonshire, Shell hits 2, on fire
AP Hunter Liggett, Shell hits 1
xAP Cape Perpetua, Shell hits 1, on fire
AP Zeilin


Allied ground losses:
18 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


3rd Special Base Force firing at xAP Devonshire
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging AP Hunter Liggett at 12,000 yards
12.7cm 3YT DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAP Cape Perpetua at 12,000 yards
xAP Devonshire firing at enemy troops
AP Zeilin firing at enemy troops
AP Hunter Liggett firing at enemy troops



Invasion Support action off Shortlands
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft

7 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
xAP Cape Cleare, on fire
xAP Cape Perpetua, Shell hits 2, on fire
xAP Lycaon
AP Zeilin
AP Hunter Liggett



12.7cm 3YT DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAP Cape Perpetua at 12,000 yards
xAP Lycaon firing at enemy troops
AP Zeilin firing at enemy troops
AP Hunter Liggett firing at enemy

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Feb 16, 44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion Support action off Shortlands
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft

13 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
xAP Cape Perpetua, on fire
xAP Cape Cod, Shell hits 1
xAP Lycaon
AP Zeilin, Shell hits 1
AP Hunter Liggett



14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAP Cape Cod at 12,000 yards
xAP Lycaon firing at enemy troops
AP Zeilin firing at enemy troops
20cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging AP Zeilin at 1,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging AP Zeilin at 1,000 yards
AP Hunter Liggett firing at enemy troops


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion Support action off Shortlands
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft

9 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
xAP Cape Cleare, Shell hits 1, on fire
xAP Cape Perpetua, on fire
xAP Lycaon
AP Zeilin
AP Hunter Liggett



20cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAP Cape Cleare at 12,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAP Cape Cleare at 12,000 yards
xAP Lycaon firing at enemy troops
AP Zeilin firing at enemy troops
AP Hunter Liggett firing at enemy troops


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion Support action off Shortlands
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft

7 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
xAP Cape Perpetua, Shell hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
xAP Cape Cod
xAP Cape Cleare, Shell hits 1, on fire
xAP Lycaon
AP Zeilin
AP Hunter Liggett



20cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAP Cape Perpetua at 12,000 yards
12.7cm 3YT DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAP Cape Cleare at 12,000 yards
xAP Lycaon firing at enemy troops
AP Zeilin firing at enemy troops
AP Hunter Liggett firing at enemy troops

Invasion Support action off Shortlands
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft

11 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
xAP Cape Cleare
xAP Cape Perpetua, Shell hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAP Lycaon, Shell hits 1
AP Zeilin
AP Hunter Liggett



20cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAP Cape Cleare at 12,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAP Cape Perpetua at 12,000 yards
12.7cm 3YT DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAP Cape Perpetua at 12,000 yards
xAP Lycaon firing at enemy troops
20cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAP Lycaon at 1,000 yards
12.7cm 3YT DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAP Lycaon at 1,000 yards
AP Zeilin firing at enemy troops
AP Hunter Liggett firing at enemy troops


Ground combat at Shortlands (109,131)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 5001 troops, 221 guns, 68 vehicles, Assault Value = 303

Defending force 5168 troops, 35 guns, 41 vehicles, Assault Value = 35

Japanese ground losses:
7 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled



Assaulting units:
41st Infantry Division
112th Cavalry Regiment
3rd NZ Armoured Sqn
209th Field Artillery Battalion

Defending units:
8th Fleet
39th Road Const Co
2nd Air Division
3rd Special Base Force
17th Naval Construction Battalion
144th JAAF AF Bn





bklooste -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/13/2010 4:04:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Since the rangefinders could detect ships out to 125,000 yds from Oahu, and the 16" guns could fire on targets within 35,000 yds, I'd say there's no place an invasion fleet's transports could unload the men and supplies without coming under fire from at least the largest guns.  Even at Normandy the transports were unloading their troops within 20,000 yds of the shore; several were fired upon by large caliber guns but none were hit.  USS Arkansas, OTOH, took several 11" shell hits while bombarding the positions.


Oahu though is over 70 km at its widest so 35,000 yards doesnt mean much... So all guns cant cover all angles. I believe there were few guns on the north side. If the 16" guns were placed in the middle they ( and only the 16" guns) could cover all beaches at maximum range with very poor accuracy.

I dont think there is a major issue with the CD routines , they seem to be too accurate except for
- The targetting of warships smaller than Cruisers
- The abbility of these warships to supress CD guns.
- As has been mentioned vessels take too much damage warships with more than 30 damage should immediately be removed.



Alfred -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/13/2010 4:07:30 AM)

Bullwinkle58,

Another fine post which is on the mark.  If I may, a few brief comments which I think are consistent with your several posts made in the last week (perhaps part of the silent majority awakening).

(1)  AE is neither a similation nor a tactical game, points which I fear too many on this forum overlook when they propose "remedial" action.

(2)  Ahistorical actions will always lead to ahistorical outcomes.  How people expect to accurately determine what should be the "correct" and only outcome, particularly when they are discussing a situation which never occurred in real life, simply amazes me.

(3)  In AE, unless a land hexside which borders the sea/ocean is specifically marked as impassible, any amphibious landing is possible.  For game purposes such a hexside assumes that you have 40 nautical miles/46 statute miles of beach to land on.  In the real world this is just nonsense.  No notice is taken of cliffs, mangrove swamps, tidal conditions etc (remember AE is not a simulation)

(4)  In AE there are aggregate port and pierside (including individual ship docking) tonnage limits which apply to your own ships.  There are troop and cargo unloading rates which impact upon your turnaround times in your own owned ports.  There are however no such limits on an enemy invasion force.  Consequently at a size 10 owned port I am limited to an aggregate tonnage of 196,000 tons docked, with a daily cargo unload of 176,000 tons and a daily troop unload rate which is only a fraction of that achievable by beach craft or attack amphibious craft in an Amphious TF were I to invade an enemy owned sized 10 port.

(5)  In AE it is assumed that there is sufficient room on land to accommodate every man, tank, can of coke etc without the need to build a 70 storey skyscrapper.  Sure there are now some supply disadvantages (note not absolute limits) on atolls/small/medium sized islands attached to over stacking, but you can still invade Tarawa with 500,000 men and associated tanks/artillery.  Good thing AE isn't a simulation because no way is there the grond space to accommodate all that personel/equipment.

To put this into context, consider landing on Norfolk Island.  According to AE, this location has a port SPS of 0, zero, nada, zilch.  Quite rightly so.  Even today it's pier facilities are basically non existent due to geological, mother nature reasons.  You won't find any suitable invasion beaches to land on either.  Yet nothing would prevent the total unload on day 1 of a 500,000 man invasion force carried on a fleet of 400 plus ships (equating to much more than our 196,000 tonnage limit at a size 10 port).  Where would all these ships anchor?  Come to think of it, the men would not need a beach to land on, they could simply walk across from one deck to another until they hit terra firma.

To me, if this thread has highlighted anything which the developers might consider, it is the tonnage limit discrepancies between amphibious unloading and regular stevedoring of task forces.  Look at post #200 on page 7 - although WITPPL has not provided the total tonnage of his Task Forces 99, 122 and 281 I would humbly suggest that they far exceeded the Pearl Harbor Allied unload rates.  If there had been some commensurate tonnage limits, then maybe WITPPL would have been able to unload only one of those Task Forces, with the others having to come in on consecutive days and being in turn again subjected to CD fire.  I rather suspect that on days 2 and 3 there might not be too many PBs etc left to shield the transports from CD fire.

Alfred 



Alfred -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/13/2010 4:12:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Historically there wasn't much fortification present on 7 December. A little around the naval base. The British were relying primarily on their big guns to blow any direct invasion force out of the water, also aided by Force Z and the numerous airbases. The Japanese in their planning were not to know that they would destroy the defending RN as early as 10 December, by which date of course their own landings had already proceeded.

Thus you might be able to argue for Singapore to already have level 1 or at a stretch level 2 fortifications on 7 December 1941, but I don't think you should have any higher.

Alfred


Thanks. After I posted I went looking for info and photos of SIngapore, since I'm no expert. Most of what I found was as of 2/1942, and had defenses to the northeast and north, and a bit due east on the island perimeter. Very little on the sea side.

I found lots of info on the theory of the fleet rescue, and that, by 1941, the "hold out" period had been extended to 180 days from half that in the late 1920s. Also, criticism that the big guns had only AP ammo in stock, and no HE to repel troops/landing forces. The sources stated that, contrary to popular belief, many of the sea-defense guns could aim inland, but weren't useful against the land invasion due to not having HE ammo.

The few references I found to sea-side defenses spoke of MG positions (concrete I assume, rather than log dugouts, but I don't know), and, I presume, some wire, and other light installations. Certainly the British didn't prepare for a beach assault in any meaningful way. But a zero? I agree that a 1-2 might be better, and allow the human Allied player at least one turn to activate troops off Rest/Reserve if needed. It would give the land-side a bit of a head start on forts, but OTOH, getting to a 1 from 0 at a very large base is often just the work of a couple of days.

As it stands now, without an HR, were I playing Japan it would be stupid not to eat the dessert that's offered on 12/8.


Well, your research is generally on the money. Unfortunately, to discuss this further would hijack this thread and should properly be addressed in its own separate thread.

Alfred



bklooste -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/13/2010 6:12:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


I'm also all for keeping in mind the law of unintended consequences. Certainly I'm of the opinion that well-established CD systems should be death on invasion fleets.




I think its worth revising how effective we think it should be invasions against heavy guns are few and far between .

The Dieppe raid and Dday faced heavy guns , these guns were not that effective versuses the landings as has been mentioned most large guns had AP shells. In most cases the landings got to the beaches where the really problems happened.

Tarawa landings are interesting since the bombardment created casualties equal to half the island yet did not supress most guns. While the 8" gun fired on ships the 37mm infantry guns , mortars and Machine guns/ 20 mm cannons did most of the damage.

In the 2nd Wake landings the damaged ships just beached themselves and unloaded the cargo.

So the effect on landings would not really kill that many though disruption effects were huge ( ie similar to Tarawa where the reef naturally created it and forced a lot of wading) . ie i cant see even the heaviest CD fire kill more than 10% of a large landing. Though i can see a disorganised , demoralized mess on the beach.

One thing we probably fail to measure is landing against any sort of fortrifications without armour /air support is an issue as the pill boxes are hard to take out.

Another thing is all opposed landings should do automatic shock attacks. That way heavy disruption results in massive casualties by the defenders and locations poorly defended but with CD guns are easily overrun.



Marty A -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/13/2010 6:18:26 AM)

Invasion unload rate should not be base on port size of landing target i disagree on that. it should be based maybe on size however i think. as you say in game you can unload 500.000 men on wake in 1 turn. getting them back off will be problem but nothing stop from landing all in 1 day. should be limit of 6.000 in day size that is size of island. tarawa should have 30.000 maximum because of island size.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/13/2010 6:56:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


I'm also all for keeping in mind the law of unintended consequences. Certainly I'm of the opinion that well-established CD systems should be death on invasion fleets.




I think its worth revising how effective we think it should be invasions against heavy guns are few and far between .

The Dieppe raid and Dday faced heavy guns , these guns were not that effective versuses the landings as has been mentioned most large guns had AP shells. In most cases the landings got to the beaches where the really problems happened.

Tarawa landings are interesting since the bombardment created casualties equal to half the island yet did not supress most guns. While the 8" gun fired on ships the 37mm infantry guns , mortars and Machine guns/ 20 mm cannons did most of the damage.

In the 2nd Wake landings the damaged ships just beached themselves and unloaded the cargo.

So the effect on landings would not really kill that many though disruption effects were huge ( ie similar to Tarawa where the reef naturally created it and forced a lot of wading) . ie i cant see even the heaviest CD fire kill more than 10% of a large landing. Though i can see a disorganised , demoralized mess on the beach.

One thing we probably fail to measure is landing against any sort of fortifications without armour /air support is an issue as the pill boxes are hard to take out.

Another thing is all opposed landings should do automatic shock attacks. That way heavy disruption results in massive casualties by the defenders and locations poorly defended but with CD guns are easily overrun.



The problem is that you aren't talking about established Coast Defense Systems. Yes, there was artillery on the coast in Normandy..., but it was emplaced simply to drop shells along the beach. True Coast Defense Artillery is tied into a sophisticated naval-style Fire Control System.

Most Pacific islands had some guns mounted to use direct fire under local control against naval targets..., but when you are talking about Oahu or Singapore or the Tsushima Straits the Fire Control systems could bring down accurate directed fire on moving targets the guns themselves could not see.

The basic difference is between guns that could fire on Higgins Boats and Diahatsus along the beach---and guns that could sink the transports before they could put those boats in the water.



castor troy -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/13/2010 7:37:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58



As it stands now, without an HR, were I playing Japan it would be stupid not to eat the dessert that's offered on 12/8.



Or simply play with the "Historical Start"...[:)]


That just delays things one day. The ports vulnerable to this include Hong Kong, Bataan, Singapore, Davao, Pearl Harbor, the US West Coast, Port Moresby, Batavia, Soerabaya, Darwin, Truk, etc.--it has to be fixed. The most realistic way I know of is inserting a beach approach phase between the ship-to-shore duel and the assault (which involves just a comparison of AV strengths and no casualties). During the beach approach unsuppressed coast defence artillery and beach defences get to chew on the landing force. Suppression is determined based on whether the escort/bombardment force or the coast defence artillery took higher percentage casualties. Note that the coast defence artillery has about four times the firepower of an equivalent number of guns on ships.



this would be great. A phase for the beach assault which is completely missing now.



castor troy -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/13/2010 8:29:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


I'm also all for keeping in mind the law of unintended consequences. Certainly I'm of the opinion that well-established CD systems should be death on invasion fleets.




I think its worth revising how effective we think it should be invasions against heavy guns are few and far between .

The Dieppe raid and Dday faced heavy guns , these guns were not that effective versuses the landings as has been mentioned most large guns had AP shells. In most cases the landings got to the beaches where the really problems happened.

Tarawa landings are interesting since the bombardment created casualties equal to half the island yet did not supress most guns. While the 8" gun fired on ships the 37mm infantry guns , mortars and Machine guns/ 20 mm cannons did most of the damage.

In the 2nd Wake landings the damaged ships just beached themselves and unloaded the cargo.

So the effect on landings would not really kill that many though disruption effects were huge ( ie similar to Tarawa where the reef naturally created it and forced a lot of wading) . ie i cant see even the heaviest CD fire kill more than 10% of a large landing. Though i can see a disorganised , demoralized mess on the beach.

One thing we probably fail to measure is landing against any sort of fortifications without armour /air support is an issue as the pill boxes are hard to take out.

Another thing is all opposed landings should do automatic shock attacks. That way heavy disruption results in massive casualties by the defenders and locations poorly defended but with CD guns are easily overrun.



The problem is that you aren't talking about established Coast Defense Systems. Yes, there was artillery on the coast in Normandy..., but it was emplaced simply to drop shells along the beach. True Coast Defense Artillery is tied into a sophisticated naval-style Fire Control System.

Most Pacific islands had some guns mounted to use direct fire under local control against naval targets..., but when you are talking about Oahu or Singapore or the Tsushima Straits the Fire Control systems could bring down accurate directed fire on moving targets the guns themselves could not see.

The basic difference is between guns that could fire on Higgins Boats and Diahatsus along the beach---and guns that could sink the transports before they could put those boats in the water.



and both things arenīt really happening. The transports arenīt shot to pieces by heavy CD due to the PBs acting as shell sponges and the landing crafts/boats and the troops landing onto the beach arenīt shot at either. Not by the CD guns, not by the defending troops. And to be honest, the real problem I see is that you land your couple of divisions into the face of the enemy and you have them in a state that would be the same as unloading in a friendly port, only suffering from accidents. A dozen MGs in a well prepared position cause real trouble against the enemy when landing in front of them, add in divisional artillery, mortars etc. But all this isnīt happening anymore in AE (it was in WITP when people complained about 3000 shots fired against an invasion even though 2.950 shots were actually fired onto the beach and the shots ranged from a 80mm mortar to a 150mm howitzer). I donīt care as much about a dozen transports sunk as I do about the enemy troops landing in 100% perfect condition against a strong enemy position.



jimh009 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/13/2010 10:47:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


BULLwinkle. It's obvious you've never played this start, as the "historical" start starts with the "historical" attack on PH. Any "Free BB's" left after that are purely do to luck...



I've restarted the 12/7 Scenario three times, all between Patch I and II. I've never come close to losing only two BBs. I hear it's possible, but I've never seen it.



Well...it just happened to me. :)

In my last historical start game playing the AI, only two BB's were sunk, despite three freaking days of attacks by the Japanese. Allies got a bit lucky on the 2nd and 3rd days, though - as a few merchant ships I forgot about stumbled into KB's range - and KB pounced on them. But the Allied CAP on day two also really ripped into the Japanese torpedo bombers, too - which really helped keep down losses on the day 2 and day 3 strikes.



bklooste -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/13/2010 11:08:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

and both things arenīt really happening. The transports arenīt shot to pieces by heavy CD due to the PBs acting as shell sponges and the landing crafts/boats and the troops landing onto the beach arenīt shot at either. Not by the CD guns, not by the defending troops. And to be honest, the real problem I see is that you land your couple of divisions into the face of the enemy and you have them in a state that would be the same as unloading in a friendly port, only suffering from accidents. A dozen MGs in a well prepared position cause real trouble against the enemy when landing in front of them, add in divisional artillery, mortars etc. But all this isnīt happening anymore in AE (it was in WITP when people complained about 3000 shots fired against an invasion even though 2.950 shots were actually fired onto the beach and the shots ranged from a 80mm mortar to a 150mm howitzer). I donīt care as much about a dozen transports sunk as I do about the enemy troops landing in 100% perfect condition against a strong enemy position.


I agree the PBs is an issue ( both for taking hits and supressing arty) , but i think the views of the CDs blasting the transports to oblivian is also wrong ( esp with large caliber using AP) in addition any ship badly holed would just beach. DDs however could be quite effective supressing guns but i doubt PBs would be.

And as you point out and i for Tarawa its not the large guns but the small guns / divisional artillary which most units have .. The Japanese thought the 20mm cannon was one of their best guns against invasion ( and the marines hated the 37mm ) and when comming in an LST i wouldnt like a 20mm cannon firing at me i would preffer a 15" gun. 105mm divisional battery firing on a beach when landing would be devistating.

Agree the biggest issue is disruption under fire and the fact that you cant sit on a beach you MUST make a shock attack. ( unless you have like 5* the AV)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl



The problem is that you aren't talking about established Coast Defense Systems. Yes, there was artillery on the coast in Normandy..., but it was emplaced simply to drop shells along the beach. True Coast Defense Artillery is tied into a sophisticated naval-style Fire Control System.

Most Pacific islands had some guns mounted to use direct fire under local control against naval targets..., but when you are talking about Oahu or Singapore or the Tsushima Straits the Fire Control systems could bring down accurate directed fire on moving targets the guns themselves could not see.

The basic difference is between guns that could fire on Higgins Boats and Diahatsus along the beach---and guns that could sink the transports before they could put those boats in the water.




The spread of 16" guns is still going to be 100 yards or more compared to 200 yards at least for a BB which is still significant. The Normandy guns did have quite a good accuracy and hits some BBs ( I dont think they fired much on the beach) , another point is how effective is firecontrol anyway here. On a ship your dealing with roll , the ship moving coordinating , the salvo but for CD guns you know the range and the angle the only issue is predicting how the target will evade/ move which i dont think any WWII FC system takes into account and which target you fire on which is of some benefit but a radio can do this ok eg "fire on the first battleship" . Also CD guns have lower traverse and elevation rates ( because they are not needed) . STill even if you are 10* as accurate as a Battleship that is still not great as BBs mount 8-12* the guns , and if like Rodney it takes 17 Salvos ( you dont get great crews on CD guns) to get a hit your not going to hit many ships before your out of ammo ( I dont know PH but most had limited stores else they become vulnerable to a magazine hit) .
. Anyway this OT as these guns will only really engage large capital ships and save their mostly AP ammo for them



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/13/2010 1:58:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


The problem is that you aren't talking about established Coast Defense Systems. Yes, there was artillery on the coast in Normandy..., but it was emplaced simply to drop shells along the beach. True Coast Defense Artillery is tied into a sophisticated naval-style Fire Control System.

Most Pacific islands had some guns mounted to use direct fire under local control against naval targets..., but when you are talking about Oahu or Singapore or the Tsushima Straits the Fire Control systems could bring down accurate directed fire on moving targets the guns themselves could not see.

The basic difference is between guns that could fire on Higgins Boats and Diahatsus along the beach---and guns that could sink the transports before they could put those boats in the water.


All well and good, in theory. Now look at the TOE of the Oahu CD unit in the game. Very few of the tubes are in centrally-directed, no-seeum anti-ship roles. Most are anti-personnel weapons intermixed with the 14- and 16-inchers.

I wish the game had an Allied CD routine and a Japanese CD routine, but it doesn't. "Fixing" the routine to stop rare, early-war Japanese exploits can't be allowed to "break" the dozens of Allied landings essential to playing the game later on.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/13/2010 2:05:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Bullwinkle58,

Another fine post which is on the mark.  If I may, a few brief comments which I think are consistent with your several posts made in the last week (perhaps part of the silent majority awakening).

(1)  AE is neither a similation nor a tactical game, points which I fear too many on this forum overlook when they propose "remedial" action.

(2)  Ahistorical actions will always lead to ahistorical outcomes.  How people expect to accurately determine what should be the "correct" and only outcome, particularly when they are discussing a situation which never occurred in real life, simply amazes me.

(3)  In AE, unless a land hexside which borders the sea/ocean is specifically marked as impassible, any amphibious landing is possible.  For game purposes such a hexside assumes that you have 40 nautical miles/46 statute miles of beach to land on.  In the real world this is just nonsense.  No notice is taken of cliffs, mangrove swamps, tidal conditions etc (remember AE is not a simulation)

(4)  In AE there are aggregate port and pierside (including individual ship docking) tonnage limits which apply to your own ships.  There are troop and cargo unloading rates which impact upon your turnaround times in your own owned ports.  There are however no such limits on an enemy invasion force.  Consequently at a size 10 owned port I am limited to an aggregate tonnage of 196,000 tons docked, with a daily cargo unload of 176,000 tons and a daily troop unload rate which is only a fraction of that achievable by beach craft or attack amphibious craft in an Amphious TF were I to invade an enemy owned sized 10 port.

(5)  In AE it is assumed that there is sufficient room on land to accommodate every man, tank, can of coke etc without the need to build a 70 storey skyscrapper.  Sure there are now some supply disadvantages (note not absolute limits) on atolls/small/medium sized islands attached to over stacking, but you can still invade Tarawa with 500,000 men and associated tanks/artillery.  Good thing AE isn't a simulation because no way is there the grond space to accommodate all that personel/equipment.

To put this into context, consider landing on Norfolk Island.  According to AE, this location has a port SPS of 0, zero, nada, zilch.  Quite rightly so.  Even today it's pier facilities are basically non existent due to geological, mother nature reasons.  You won't find any suitable invasion beaches to land on either.  Yet nothing would prevent the total unload on day 1 of a 500,000 man invasion force carried on a fleet of 400 plus ships (equating to much more than our 196,000 tonnage limit at a size 10 port).  Where would all these ships anchor?  Come to think of it, the men would not need a beach to land on, they could simply walk across from one deck to another until they hit terra firma.

To me, if this thread has highlighted anything which the developers might consider, it is the tonnage limit discrepancies between amphibious unloading and regular stevedoring of task forces.  Look at post #200 on page 7 - although WITPPL has not provided the total tonnage of his Task Forces 99, 122 and 281 I would humbly suggest that they far exceeded the Pearl Harbor Allied unload rates.  If there had been some commensurate tonnage limits, then maybe WITPPL would have been able to unload only one of those Task Forces, with the others having to come in on consecutive days and being in turn again subjected to CD fire.  I rather suspect that on days 2 and 3 there might not be too many PBs etc left to shield the transports from CD fire.

Alfred 


Continuing our Mutual Admiration Society [:)] thanks for your thoughts. These are things I had not considered. I applauded the atoll rules and the unload limits in AE, but hadn't really considered how, maybe, some aspects of WITP were actually better, such as the auto-shock-attacks.

It seems to me--and this was brought up somewhere in this thread and quickly overrun--that the main issue with the OP's results is not a CD issue, it's an unload issue, as you expand upon above. If unloading took the time it should for a massive op against constrained beachhead real estate, the current CD system would have plenty of time to chew. First and second waves at places like Saipan and Tarawa got ashore in 1-2 days, with heavy casualties. But the Saipan op took over a month. However, for that to really be "fair" that shock attack ought to over-target the CD units rather than the regular LCUs back from the beach, in cover and hasty or prepared defenses. I don't think the combat routines can do this. Everything in the hex is considered to be at the same range from the attacker as every other. In RL taking out the CD units would be a primary mission of the first assault waves (see the D-Day vertical assault on those (missing) guns), but the game's code doesn't allow for this degree of granularity.

Early in this thread I went and researched various combat diaries for AKAs. One I found, USS Virgo, showed that during the Okinawa op she took SIX WEEKS to complete the combat offload, and sustained shore fire damage at several points in that period. Did not sink, and the damage didn't stop operations, but she was hit.



morganbj -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/13/2010 2:32:14 PM)

Again, the problem may be with the amphib bonus in hexes that are heavily defended.  (I'm assumning that the amphib bonus itself is the appropriate way to model the Japanese "blitzkrieg" in the early war.)  Why not just reduce the amphib bonus dependent on the number/type of CD available?  (I'd use throw weight as the variable.)  The longer that the unloading occurrs, the more likely that the invaders will take casualties, because from my experience, ships seem to take far more damage than the CD guns.  Just a thought.



castor troy -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/13/2010 2:42:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

Again, the problem may be with the amphib bonus in hexes that are heavily defended.  (I'm assumning that the amphib bonus itself is the appropriate way to model the Japanese "blitzkrieg" in the early war.)  Why not just reduce the amphib bonus dependent on the number/type of CD available?  (I'd use throw weight as the variable.)  The longer that the unloading occurrs, the more likely that the invaders will take casualties, because from my experience, ships seem to take far more damage than the CD guns.  Just a thought.




the amphib bonus makes this flawed routine worse, therefore I guess later on it wonīt be as bad as it is early on. It wonīt be good but not as bad. Iīm only guessing as Iīve not seen any evidence for it yet, I think that at least the "casualties" from unloading will go up and perhaps so is the disruption as soon as the amphib bonus runs out. But with the amphib bonus itīs just completely off. A not working CD routine at all (no itīs not working, no matter if there are 500 shots fired and 5 PBs sinking the following day) and a not existing firing at the landing troops at all anymore. Canīt be much worse I guess. And to really highlight the flaws, the amphib bonus kicks in, making invasions of heavily defended spots a cakewalk, storming ashore is just as easy as moving in overland, not much difference.

Forget the whole CD guns for a moment and only think about a couple hundred artillery pieces, from medium mortars to heavy artillery. Letīs say two divisions are defending, sitting behind more than just a couple of foxholes, with their artillery aiming at the landing beaches and NOT on the AKs/APs unloading the troops. So none of the ships would get hit but the landing troops would get heavily mauled for sure. D-day could not have been stopped by CD guns but I donīt want to think of lots of undamaged artillery in prepared positions with ample ammo doing barrage fire on the four beaches for the whole 6th June. How many troops would have been landed there? How would the invasion divs have looked like? Surely not at 99/100 with only 15 disruption. Even with facing more or less "only" MGs and mortars, I doubt you will find any D-day veteran calling the landing a cakewalk. And the Nazis didnīt have a hundred medium to heavy artillery tubes unleashing their fire onto the beaches. Even if they had, with the AE invasion routines, those tubes would just not open fire on the invasion to completely maul it. It would cause 400-500 casualties at the end of the day during the auto bombardment. But by then the invaders is treated as sitting in itīs position already, just like at any continental place. The fight is won or lost on the beach during an invasion and not because of sinking the unloading ships with CD gunfire. Gallipoli anyone? Even if it was a different war...

attacking a spot that is heavily defended (no matter if CD guns there or not, only talking about inf units) is a mess and everytime it happened in real life that saw an invasion with heavy resistance it was a blood bath. If the resistance is knocked out before or there is none anyway, no problem with an "easy" landing. Heck, noone would call D-day a cakewalk but just think about what the German really had there. And then compare it to a part of the Eastern front for example. The Normandy defenses were NOT what someone would call a at all costs heavily defended place, it was the weakest spot and thatīs the reason why the Allied invaded there. And it still was no cakewalk.

Take 30km of the Eastern front of Heeresgruppe Mitte and put them into an area of an amphibious assault. No CD guns but IMO something I would call heavy resistance. Have fun... in AE, no damage to the invasion.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/13/2010 2:43:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

Again, the problem may be with the amphib bonus in hexes that are heavily defended.  (I'm assumning that the amphib bonus itself is the appropriate way to model the Japanese "blitzkrieg" in the early war.)  Why not just reduce the amphib bonus dependent on the number/type of CD available?  (I'd use throw weight as the variable.)  The longer that the unloading occurrs, the more likely that the invaders will take casualties, because from my experience, ships seem to take far more damage than the CD guns.  Just a thought.



I'm not sure it's simply the amphib bonus, although that certianly exacerabates the results. I think it's the built-in unload assumptions whereby spreading the assault troops over many, many hulls allows the human player to artificially land more on the first phase than dense loading fewer ships would allow. The funnel is unlimited on the sea side, and there is no small end constraint on the shore side. If I'm willing to invest 300 xAPs and xAKs in the operation, each one gets to unload its small contingent of troops on the first phase, regardless of whether, as Alfred shows with the Norfolk I. example, those craft could ever really get onto sand simultaneously. I think that's how the code works, for both sides in all eras. The amhib bonus just gives a temporary increase in the idea, making small TFs more efficient than otherwise, but not really helping huge, ahistorical TFs such as those in the OP's data. They don't need the help. As always, if I"m wrong, somebody say so.

Making this offload-rate versus landing-rate work differently in terms of base size might be a pretty big code rip out and re-write. I don't know, but I suspect so. I'm not sure it's the best use of the dev's time right now.



Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.296875