Naval Bombardments - too weak?

Naval Bombardments - too weak? (Full Version)

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

Message

jackyo123 -> Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 4:05:25 AM)
Tonight, I hit Henderson Field with the full might of the Japanese Navy - 5 bb's (including Yamato), 5 CA's, 2 CL's, 12 DD's. What was there? 86 aircraft, and 19,000 troops (confirmed by my opponent - we discussed the result afterwards). I hit them for 2 nights. Yamato alone expended 70% of its 18" ammo. What was the damage? 11 casualties (only 2 destroyed). 2 wrecked planes. some base force supplies hit (FOW reported 18 casualties, but the real result was 11). Level 1 forts were in place. And thats it. Has anyone else noticed that bombardments are much weaker than they were historically? Thats a really nerfed result. I remember reading that in WITP bombardments were too strong. Have they gone too far the other way? I know now that its completely pointless to run another nightime bombardment mission of Henderson to try and keep the aircraft down. 86 Aircraft on a level 3 field (5 air groups) is a pretty crowded field. IRL, the big bombardment of Henderson destroyed about 50 planes or so, and wiped out all the stored aviation fuel. It also shredded the runways.

Canoerebel -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 4:10:09 AM)
Yes, many have noticed a similar trend - naval bombardments don't have the "nuclear" impact that they did in WitP. (If you really need a nuclear impact, just land three or four artillery units and the entire American Army will surrender in a week.) I have, however, also seen effective naval bombardments. It may be a matter of random luck, or a product of good pre-bombardment reconnaissance, a combination, or who knows. But overall I'd say the naval bombardments are much more realist in AE than they were in WitP. After all, in the real war the Japanese Navy wasn't able to put Henderson Field out of commission very long and it was probably level one forts - guys were running around jumping into foxholes while shells were coming in.

erstad -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 5:01:43 AM)
What was the DL? The results are highly dependent on DL level, in my experience, although one never gets to "nuke" in any case

Fishbed -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 5:37:07 AM)
I can only agree, for having extensively tried the thing in the Solomons. Detection level matters the most: recon the place serveral times with specialized planes and seaplanes in the phases before the attack. The losses can be quite important, especially in terms of planes, and it's quite understandable from my point of view. I wonder if you can even try to recon the place flying night recon with a seaplane, does it work...? If so, DO IT TOO!!! Then you'll be able to inflict damages even with limited assets.

castor troy -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 8:06:58 AM)
Considering the fact that bombarding ships don´t use up their bombardement ammo in one night (unlike WITP) you can still inflict huge amounts of damage with bombardements. The biggest difference is that in WITP you "could" achieve a nuke without recon (most times you didn´t) and in AE it seems without recon it´s nearly impossible. With enough recon, you can make a base look like the moon with bombardements and if you think about the ships being able to do three bombardements without having to replenish for example just multiply the results below (recent happenings in my PBEM) by three and you´re very close to what was called nuke in WITP. The ammo expended makes the difference IMO. Naval bombardment of Akyab at 54,45 Japanese Ships BB Yamashiro BB Fuso CA Ashigara CA Nachi CA Haguro CA Myoko Allied ground losses: 372 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 14 destroyed, 46 disabled Engineers: 2 destroyed, 4 disabled Guns lost 6 (0 destroyed, 6 disabled) Vehicles lost 4 (2 destroyed, 2 disabled) Airbase hits 6 Airbase supply hits 2 Runway hits 33 Port hits 17 Port fuel hits 3 Port supply hits 1 BB Yamashiro firing at Akyab BB Fuso firing at Akyab CA Ashigara firing at Akyab CA Nachi firing at Akyab CA Haguro firing at AVG Ground Echelon CA Myoko firing at 106th RAF Base Force ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Naval bombardment of Chittagong at 55,41 - Coastal Guns Fire Back! Allied aircraft no flights Allied aircraft losses P-40B Warhawk: 2 destroyed on ground H81-A3: 2 destroyed on ground C-47 Skytrain: 2 destroyed on ground Hurricane IIb Trop: 2 destroyed on ground 16 Coastal gun shots fired in defense. Japanese Ships BB Haruna, Shell hits 2 BB Kongo CA Kumano CA Suzuya CA Mikuma CA Mogami Allied ground losses: 137 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 17 disabled Engineers: 2 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 5 (0 destroyed, 5 disabled) Airbase hits 13 Airbase supply hits 3 Runway hits 43 BB Haruna firing at Chittagong Fortress BB Kongo firing at Chittagong CA Kumano firing at Chittagong CA Suzuya firing at Chittagong CA Mikuma firing at Chittagong Fortress CA Mogami firing at Chittagong Fortress IIRC 16 ac were destroyed on the ground in this example. Multiply the hits on the airbase by three and you´ve got far over 100 hits on the runway alone. And it still matters what you´ve got at a base, if there are a lot of ac, the airfield is hit hard, if there are a lot of ships the port is hit hard, if there´s nothing at the base then the damage is done to both port and airfield (which is ok I guess). In both above examples my opponent has sent a lot of ac over the two bases (including recons I guess) and has achieved quite nice (for him) results.

gajdacs zsolt -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 8:20:15 AM)
Hmm, interesting point about recon. In my current game i bombarded Pegu for one night, and i got these results: Naval bombardment of Pegu at 55,53 Japanese Ships BB Hyuga BB Ise BB Yamashiro BB Fuso CL Oi CL Isuzu Allied ground losses: 118 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 11 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Guns lost 3 (1 destroyed, 2 disabled) Vehicles lost 7 (2 destroyed, 5 disabled) BB Hyuga firing at 7th Australian Division BB Ise firing at 6th Australian Division BB Yamashiro firing at 6th Australian Division BB Fuso firing at 7th Australian Division CL Oi firing at 7th Australian Division CL Isuzu firing at 6th Australian Division 3 army divisions have been fighting in the hex for many turns now, i run dedicated recon every turn (dinah set to Pegu as target), and every turn a force of 150-200 Sallys bomb the allies. In light of this, do you believe this to be a realistic result? (the enemy has a level 4 fort, i also have 1 heavy artillery and 2 medium artilley in hex. Those and aerial bombardments separately cause roughly half the casualties every turn. I'm not necessarily saying it's not realistic, just curious of the opinion of others. Thanks!

John Lansford -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 9:45:18 AM)
I had six USN BB's and 3 CA's bombard Baker Island, where there was a garrison unit and a base force present. I've been running recon from Canton to Baker for the last two weeks straight, as well as a squadron of B-26's bombing them. The BB's inflicted fewer than 100 casualties on the defenders. After that kind of firepower got expended against an island as small as Baker, I would have expected much higher casualty levels.

aciddrinker -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 10:26:24 AM)
hmm one hex is 40 square miles? Do not you think that the probability of mass killing by bombing is negligible?

String -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 10:56:45 AM)
Naval bombardment of Suva at 132,160 Allied aircraft no flights Allied aircraft losses SBD-3 Dauntless: 3 destroyed on ground LB-30 Liberator: 2 destroyed on ground Hudson III (LR): 4 destroyed on ground SBD-2 Dauntless: 6 destroyed on ground P-38E Lightning: 4 destroyed on ground B-17E Fortress: 4 destroyed on ground B-26 Marauder: 1 destroyed on ground F2A-3 Buffalo: 2 destroyed on ground F4F-3 Wildcat: 2 destroyed on ground B-18A Bolo: 1 destroyed on ground S.19 Singapore III: 2 destroyed on ground Japanese Ships BB Kirishima BB Hiei CA Chikuma CA Tone Allied Ships AE Lassen, Shell hits 2, on fire AO Kurumba, Shell hits 1 Allied ground losses: 147 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Non Combat: 9 destroyed, 13 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled) Vehicles lost 2 (0 destroyed, 2 disabled) Airbase hits 11 Airbase supply hits 5 Runway hits 89

John Lansford -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 12:45:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aciddrinker hmm one hex is 40 square miles? Do not you think that the probability of mass killing by bombing is negligible? Perhaps if my bombardment TF had just been randomly throwing shells all over the hex, you might have had a point, but I guess you neglected to notice I said they were bombarding Baker Island. That island is not much more than a pile of sand barely large enough for an airstrip, so I'd think that my ships would know where to shoot.

JohnDillworth -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 2:49:50 PM)
My experince has been naval bombardment is alomost useless. Even with recon I usually get a couple of dozen causalities with 5 or 6 BB's. As the allies I took Raubal and bombarded Keveing every day for a month with 2 BB's When I took it it had no damage, not an airfiled or port hit and the defenders put up a solid fight. Solid month, 2 BB's, every day and it seems every shell missed. This was before I knew how important recon was so I had very little but still. worthless

freeboy -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 2:57:30 PM)
weather or not its raining, sorry couldn't resist, if this needs to be tweeked, I think maybe a little.. My one issue, which seems so very obvious is that fortifications is a little, well odd, Some of these are permenent in real life, and are not transfereable and seem to be made of paper, on the other hand an 18 shell, or 16 for that matter moves the earth around like so much sand on a day at the beach... seriously forts on atols and small bases, large??? should really take a pounding... and as for fire control would not a bb or ca put up a recon plane to direct fire control inland?

castor troy -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 3:03:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: String Naval bombardment of Suva at 132,160 Allied aircraft no flights Allied aircraft losses SBD-3 Dauntless: 3 destroyed on ground LB-30 Liberator: 2 destroyed on ground Hudson III (LR): 4 destroyed on ground SBD-2 Dauntless: 6 destroyed on ground P-38E Lightning: 4 destroyed on ground B-17E Fortress: 4 destroyed on ground B-26 Marauder: 1 destroyed on ground F2A-3 Buffalo: 2 destroyed on ground F4F-3 Wildcat: 2 destroyed on ground B-18A Bolo: 1 destroyed on ground S.19 Singapore III: 2 destroyed on ground Japanese Ships BB Kirishima BB Hiei CA Chikuma CA Tone Allied Ships AE Lassen, Shell hits 2, on fire AO Kurumba, Shell hits 1 Allied ground losses: 147 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Non Combat: 9 destroyed, 13 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled) Vehicles lost 2 (0 destroyed, 2 disabled) Airbase hits 11 Airbase supply hits 5 Runway hits 89 looks like a nice nuke to me considering the fact that the ground losses in the combat report are HIGHLY inflated and will be twice or three times as high as stated in the cr. Also looks like a complete overstacking of the airfield to me. [:D]

jackyo123 -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 3:53:42 PM)
I reconned the base with 2 airgroups the previous day, and was also in a bombardment mode with land based troops (I landed arty at tsafaronga; presumably I was spotting the arty fall from the slopes of Mt Austen). So I dont know exactly what the DL was - but recon had indeed been done. I dont run tracker/staff every turn so i dont always keep track of DL levels to what i should.

JohnDillworth -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 3:54:18 PM)
Here is a recent one at Singapore. Surrounded with a 9/10 detection level. 3 old BB's. Don't know how to calculate total number of Shells but all ships expended about 60% of their ammo. 2 ports hits and a airfield hit just seems lite, I mean you can proably see the port from the ships: Naval bombardment of Singapore at 50,84 Allied Ships BB Texas BB New York BB Arkansas Japanese ground losses: 79 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 7 disabled Engineers: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 3 (1 destroyed, 2 disabled) Airbase hits 1 Runway hits 5 Port hits 2 BB Texas firing at 25th Division BB New York firing at Singapore BB Arkansas firing at 9th Base Force

spence -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 5:08:20 PM)
quote: I had six USN BB's and 3 CA's bombard Baker Island, where there was a garrison unit and a base force present. I've been running recon from Canton to Baker for the last two weeks straight, as well as a squadron of B-26's bombing them. The BB's inflicted fewer than 100 casualties on the defenders. After that kind of firepower got expended against an island as small as Baker, I would have expected much higher casualty levels. [quotehmm one hex is 40 square miles? Do not you think that the probability of mass killing by bombing is negligible? _____________________________] Baker Island [image]local://upfiles/9007/117B1BA4F2E5428DA39D55CE320FE82F.jpg[/image] The garrison was cleverly hidden under the bush towards the left end of the island

SuluSea -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 5:37:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spence The garrison was cleverly hidden under the bush towards the left end of the island [image]http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/style_emoticons/default/mutley.gif[/image] My results have been negligible even with the bonus of reconning and bombing by CV air.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 5:53:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford quote: ORIGINAL: aciddrinker hmm one hex is 40 square miles? Do not you think that the probability of mass killing by bombing is negligible? Perhaps if my bombardment TF had just been randomly throwing shells all over the hex, you might have had a point, but I guess you neglected to notice I said they were bombarding Baker Island. That island is not much more than a pile of sand barely large enough for an airstrip, so I'd think that my ships would know where to shoot. Baker is not exactly over-run with terrain or landmarks..., especially anything identifiable in the dark. Maybe they missed it and just beat up on a patch of rough water. Big problem is that the "naval bombardment" represented in the game is a one- hour "shoot on the move" in the dark, followed by a high-speed escape. Not very conducive to accuracy... Most player's expect the kind of destruction associated with a days-long deliberate fire exercise. But they want it all done in the safety (to them) of a high-speed in and out under cover of darkness. I've always wished the game had made the differentiation and offered both---"Day-Long Spotted Shoot" and "Night-Time Shoot and Scoot". Though even the first was a failure at Tarawa...

Bradley7735 -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 6:23:04 PM)
Bombardments were not, historically, devastating to troops (see many examples of US invasions, Guadalcanal, Wake, etc). They could be devastating to airfields and unprottected aircraft. If you make bombardments more powerful vs troops, then the US will have a cake walk back to Japan. It seems that with proper recon, bombardments are effective vs airfields. I think the troop disruption/loss should actually be toned down, unless there's 0 forts.

witpqs -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 6:35:58 PM)
Mike and Bradley are on the money.

John Lansford -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 6:39:54 PM)
Well, it was a daytime bombardment, so even if the gunners had all been rookies I'd think they could see where 3500+ troops were hiding on Baker, and manage to at least hit the island. For that matter, if 3500 troops were on Baker, they'd almost have to be standing in formation to keep their feet dry, especially when you throw in the base support equipment, supplies, fuel, planes, etc.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 7:03:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford Well, it was a daytime bombardment, so even if the gunners had all been rookies I'd think they could see where 3500+ troops were hiding on Baker, and manage to at least hit the island. For that matter, if 3500 troops were on Baker, they'd almost have to be standing in formation to keep their feet dry, especially when you throw in the base support equipment, supplies, fuel, planes, etc. Does the game code resolve area down smaller that the hex? IOW, are the relative sizes of RL islands taken into account in figuring bombarment outcomes?

witpqs -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 7:14:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford Well, it was a daytime bombardment, so even if the gunners had all been rookies I'd think they could see where 3500+ troops were hiding on Baker, and manage to at least hit the island. For that matter, if 3500 troops were on Baker, they'd almost have to be standing in formation to keep their feet dry, especially when you throw in the base support equipment, supplies, fuel, planes, etc. According to Wikipedia Baker Island is almost 2/3 of a square mile. I once lived in a city that had about 40,000 people living in the 2/3 of a square mile that was residential, and that included houses, streets, parks. I'm not saying that Baker should hold 40,000 (or even close) under combat conditions, but I am saying that standing room only (the way you describe it) gets you way, way more than 3,500. The troops could certainly be missed by bombardment, and as pointed out previously some of the bombardment might be in the surf.

John Lansford -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 7:24:15 PM)
You've got to deduct out the airstrip and supply dumps from that 2/3 of a square mile though, and unless that garrison is building multistory homes then they are far more spread out than a city with 40,000 people living in it. I'm just saying that Baker isn't so large that it would be easy to hide from 6 BB's throwing shells at you in the daytime.

witpqs -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 7:25:45 PM)
Foxholes, smoke, bunkers... they hid plenty for real in WWII.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/16/2010 7:31:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford You've got to deduct out the airstrip and supply dumps from that 2/3 of a square mile though, and unless that garrison is building multistory homes then they are far more spread out than a city with 40,000 people living in it. I'm just saying that Baker isn't so large that it would be easy to hide from 6 BB's throwing shells at you in the daytime. John. You are correct that Baker or Wake or many other atolls/islands are severely lacking in real estate to hide in. AE dealt with this by limiting the size of the garrisons of such "micro-islands". Bombardments were more effective in WITP..., but you could also stack an Army on Baker Island. It ain't perfect..., but it's gotten better. [8D]

spence -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/17/2010 3:05:25 AM)
Basically I prefer the AE version of Naval Bombardments. The results obtained routinely by IJN warships (especially) bombarding airfields, etc in WitP were based on exactly one result obtained by IJN warships and routinely overstated the results against troops of even that one result by a factor of 10-100 (the real BB bombardment killed or wounded only about 150 troops: did do a nice job on the planes/runways though). Since the IJN always managed to get out of range of SBDs/TBFs in the ensuing day phase (IRL there would be quite a few IJN ship captains who probably did not realize they were out of range of Henderson Field on the morning after as the bombs came down) the tactic was grossly overused. Just an aside. Is there any source of fresh water on Baker Island (sorta doubt it)? Midway made water with a desalinization plant (famous ruse to confirm Objective MI). Water probably was the really really limiting factor for garrisons on those little atolls. Seems like it would be hard to hide a desalinization plant from shells and bombs although I don't remember the Japanese targetting the one(s) on Midway (maybe it was because they thought it was OOC).

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/17/2010 2:41:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spence Just an aside. Is there any source of fresh water on Baker Island (sorta doubt it)? Midway made water with a desalinization plant (famous ruse to confirm Objective MI). Water probably was the really really limiting factor for garrisons on those little atolls. Seems like it would be hard to hide a desalinization plant from shells and bombs although I don't remember the Japanese targetting the one(s) on Midway (maybe it was because they thought it was OOC). An aside, and I don't know about Baker, but Diego Garcia, another atoll, has a "water lens" underground where a non-porus layer of rock/coral has a free space above and coral and topsoil above that. Wells work OK there, but base management is very careful to manage drawdown from the lens so that sea water doesn't seep into gaps. When I was there we never had "water hours" or any restrictions, but it also rained a fair bit too.

Admiral Scott -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/17/2010 4:58:53 PM)
Anyone notice the #33 tweak listed with the new beta patch? 33. Tweaked Ship bombardment affecting port base. Whats does this tweak do exactly?

crsutton -> RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? (2/17/2010 8:05:49 PM)
I am Ok with it. Sneak bombardments were rare and usually ineffective. Both sides did not like risking large warships in restricted waters. They were essentially raids and not like the deliberate sustained bombardments that the Allies used later in the war. No ship to shore fire control and very little chance to spot from aircraft at night. What do you expect?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.138672