quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

This whole "I'm bombarding at night" arguement is pretty silly anyway.  If the moonlight is bright enough for you to spot your "reference points", it's bright enough for those big spotting scopes in the base end stations to spot your funnel glow and or your wake (if not the ship itself).  And those PB's have got to be in close to even begin to bombard anything with their popguns.  The whole arguement is nonsensical.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn

Looking at the big picture from the information presented in this thread i'd say that the result is not that unrealistic. The allies have been getting steamrollered
through the pacific and there have been indications of an attack on Pearl Harbour and yet the Japanese still managed to gain strategic and tactical suprise for
their operation. There was even a operation going on to distract the allies - which worked. Sounds like a pretty much optimal situation for the Japanese. A well
planned an executed operation.

Also i think it is neccessary that the place can be invaded, keeps the allies honest, sweating about keeping their most important assets safe, forcing the allies to protect em [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

WIPPL is a very nasty player who knows how to exploit the system. Don't mean that in a negative way. I learned a few tricks from the whipping I got.

He'd make a good playtester. I'm sure he can find many of the flaws.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

I think that this might be important:
I have loaded forces very, very carefully. It took weeks. They were loaded to a TFs equal to their troop capacity about +20%. Thats a lot of ships but they unload in one go. That was a plan.

WITPPL. As I said before, I'm not knocking your play or your planning. Your opponent seems to have bungled badly, and your scheme was inventive and well carried out.

Nevertheless, you should have been butchered if the game's programming had been up to the task. Not your fault..., and you may have uncovered a loophole big enough to drive a tank through. So thanks for your efforts..., and the ball is now in the designer's court for correction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

Yop,

Checked.
PBs were not sinking during shelling. NADA.
They were sys: 99 Fld: 99 Eng: 0-1 Fire: 99 but still afloat after combat.

Ridicculous I know but I didnt know that this will happened.

This issue should be looked and changed. My DDs were in much better shape. None sunk i think.


to sum this up:
- theres no sinking in invasion model.
- there is no armanent destuction on vessels (and land batteries?) in invasion model. All PBs have all arms unscratched.

All above has created a loop of artillery duels between, adding to a fact that I was able to unload in just one impulse not a turn gave us the results.

I dont know why but invasion model is different from Naval model. Should be replaced i think.

Invasions should have 2 phases within an impulse:

1) Fighting - naval model fits here (with mod for shore gun batteries)
2) Unloading - I do not think that a size of an invaded base should help to unload (looks like it does) and i dont think that heavy equipment like tanks and large guns should be allowed to make amphibious assaults.

Mistery unsolved i think

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

OH LORD,

Knowing the Rules of a game and its mechanics is not an exploit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

WIPPL is a very nasty player who knows how to exploit the system. Don't mean that in a negative way. I learned a few tricks from the whipping I got.

He'd make a good playtester. I'm sure he can find many of the flaws.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

I think that this might be important:
I have loaded forces very, very carefully. It took weeks. They were loaded to a TFs equal to their troop capacity about +20%. Thats a lot of ships but they unload in one go. That was a plan.

WITPPL. As I said before, I'm not knocking your play or your planning. Your opponent seems to have bungled badly, and your scheme was inventive and well carried out.

Nevertheless, you should have been butchered if the game's programming had been up to the task. Not your fault..., and you may have uncovered a loophole big enough to drive a tank through. So thanks for your efforts..., and the ball is now in the designer's court for correction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

If we want community to grow we should work out to limit mistery knowledge ie exploits.

I know that thanks to this forum and a team of Devs it is possible.

Everybody: It have to be retested but it looks like we have a black whole here. Big one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I wonder if these amphibious landing results took place due to the most recent patch.  In my CG, the AI has attempted forced landings at two of my bases, Port Moresby and Dutch Harbor.  Both resulted in transports and escorts taking shore based gunfire, and both only had a small amount of troops landing.  After the first day at PM, for example, I got the message that the landing troops surrendered to the defenders since the TF could not re-embark the troops.

At DH, when it became apparent that the landing force was way too small to defeat my dug in BF, infantry regiment, multiple AA units and a CD unit, the AI re-embarked the survivors and ran off.  In both landings the escorts and transports took damage from shorebased gunfire.  At DH the escorts were severely damaged and transports attempted to suppress the CD guns, with little effect.  IIRC both landings were tried prior to the new hotfix patch being applied.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

OH LORD,

Knowing the Rules of a game and its mechanics is not an exploit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

2) Unloading - I do not think that a size of an invaded base should help to unload (looks like it does) and i dont think that heavy equipment like tanks and large guns should be allowed to make amphibious assaults.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

2) Unloading - I do not think that a size of an invaded base should help to unload (looks like it does) and i dont think that heavy equipment like tanks and large guns should be allowed to make amphibious assaults.

You mean just for the Japanese, right?
Because the Allies unloaded tanks during amphibious invasions all the time. D-Day is a classic case, but there are many others. Heavy landing craft were designed specifically to carry tanks, while some tanks were made amphibious (only in theory in some sad cases) with add-on kits. Also, beached LSTs could unload in the midst of heavy beach fighting. They didn't, but they could, if losses were accepted.

Again, I would join others in cautioning throwing the baby out with the bath water. The game's balance, with all the new stuff like loading/unloading limits, is based on the current rules offering a speed of advance to each side that is further balanced against VP targets and victory conditions. I woudn't want amphibious invasions made so "realistic" by ham-stringing ship types, making CD guns into laser guided bombs, etc. that summer 1945 found me still on the approaches to Saipan when I otherwise played a smart, tight game.

All of the game's processes support or cancel others. The proper question should be whether the overall war effort for either side leads to overall balanced results, not whether any sub-phase is balanced against one historic fact set or other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

If someone can invade Oahu without taking heavy losses in ships and men, though, simply by putting some minor escorts with the transports, something is wrong with the game.  That's not balanced, that's messed up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
The actions by the Allied player to allow 350+ ships to arrive undetected at Oahu, with apparently massive air and logistic suppport already next door in the Hawaiian Islands, is what's "wrong." The systematic destruction of Allied power is what's "unbalanced", and that was accomplished by a better player playing well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

AFV - fron not specialized ships.
Art and other heavy equipment - transport only.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


USN AKA-class ships, available in 1943, carried LCM landing craft (Landing Craft, Mechanized) specifically designed to deliver armor to invasion beaches, while fighting was underway. These were not "specialized" amphibious assault ships like LSTs or LSDs. They were cargo haulers. Removing their armor-delivery capability from Allied invasions would severely reduce the Allies' abilty to successfully conduct invasions, especially those with mandatory shock attacks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
The actions by the Allied player to allow 350+ ships to arrive undetected at Oahu, with apparently massive air and logistic suppport already next door in the Hawaiian Islands, is what's "wrong." The systematic destruction of Allied power is what's "unbalanced", and that was accomplished by a better player playing well.

What has that got to do with the combat routine for amphibious assaults?

I have been trying to avoid getting into these discussions because I really dont see what relevance they have to the question if the results of the amphibious assault is reasonable or not. Is it reasonable to be able to invade Pearl Harbor, without any prior bombardment from air or sea, with 350+ ships, land 75 000 men in one impulse, and only lose 1000 causualties and a handful of PBs?

What relevance has Wake, Midway or Johnston Island to that question? And the Jap ships were spotted before they invaded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
A different question:

What would have been the invasion results if you had placed three surface TFs in the PH hex continaing, in total, 6-8 CAs, 5 CLs, and 30 DDs?

quote:


Whining about CD results, when other results are obtained elsewhere with different force balances, misses the point. When you rely on CD to stop an invasion, you've already lost.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
A different question:

What would have been the invasion results if you had placed three surface TFs in the PH hex continaing, in total, 6-8 CAs, 5 CLs, and 30 DDs?

That is indeed a different question. One that has got nothing whatsoever to do with the question about the amphibious assault combat routine. Which of cource makes it completely irrelevant and pointless in this discussion. Get it?

quote:



Sorry, but I refuse to accept that your failure to play well results in a conclusoin that the code is broken.

Get it?