Losing AP's during invasion (Full Version)

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



Message

Kwik E Mart -> Losing AP's during invasion (5/28/2010 6:44:24 PM)

Some of the threads on this forum mention losing AP's during invasions due to shore fire. It made me curious if the US (or any other nation) ever lost any AP's in RL during an invasion due to shore fire. Anyone know?



bklooste -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/29/2010 4:34:38 AM)

Its a good point as in most cases the stand of distance ( and hence disruption) would just increase.   I know at Wake Japan lost 2 APDs to CDs  but these were going to land on or near the beach anyway.



bradfordkay -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/29/2010 5:27:48 AM)

Wiki says that no US APs were lost to shore batteries in WW2, for what it is worth.

We lost five APs to German U-boats during Torch, it seems and three to Kamikaze attacks as the next highest cause of loss.

It appears that 2 DDs were sunk by German shore batteries at Normandy and one DD was lost to Japanese shore batteries after grounding off Okinawa (interestingly, it appears that the Japanese let it sit grounded until the tug showed up to pull it off and then they opened up on it). Those are the only large vessels (larger than an LST) lost to shore batteries in the war that I can find on short notice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Navy_losses_in_World_War_II



CarnageINC -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/29/2010 5:38:04 AM)

This information leads back to the issue of CD being to powerful that was discussed awhile ago.  Maybe landings should have higher infantry losses instead of hits on ships?  It always annoys me that AP's get nailed so hard, they should be well back from any battery fire.



Sredni -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/29/2010 5:53:13 AM)

Whenever you see war movies the landing ships are like down the horizon (or nearly) from the beach and the only ships making the run are little landing boats.

It does feel odd with AE where it seems the AP's are practically beaching themselves to land troops or something.



bklooste -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/29/2010 9:14:41 AM)

Not sure troop losses should be higher but imho disruption should be higher and a force shock attack if it is a contested landing.

Speaking of which was the worst landing in History ?



Walker84 -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/29/2010 11:02:48 AM)

I would tend to agree that CDs are too powerful in the game. A typical outcome when invading Ambon as the Japanese - after softening up the defenders with air bombardment - will see several APs heavily damaged together with supporting PBs - even a couple sunk. In one PBEM I had a sorry armada limping back to Kendari where more succumbed to fire damage and sank. I am all in favour of CD being a deterrent to weakly supported landings and also dont mind scoring some damage but this feature of the game does not seem all that balanced to real life experience. Its tough for Japan as they do not get a lot of replacement ships of these types. That said, once you are aware of it you learn to find ways of mitigating the worst effects so I don't feel it matrs the overall experience of a fantastic, deep operational game.



Q-Ball -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/29/2010 2:13:53 PM)

I would agree CDs are overrated; they should do very little to ships, except in places like Corregidor or the strait between Singapore and Sumatra, where the guns are meant to control a narrow body of water.

They should, though, take a toll on landing troops, which was what they did IRL. The Germans had alot of CD guns at Normandy, and they didn't do much to the US Navy, but they did take out alot of landing craft and otherwise caused alot of casualties.



treespider -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/29/2010 2:13:59 PM)

Think of the AP damage in a Witp-Zen sort of way...as an abstraction that helps to slow the pace of operations.

The damage could be considered to represent damage to the inherent landing craft that the player does not see. So the landing craft would need to be replaced (ie the AP needs to be repaired) prior to the next operation.




Don Bowen -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/29/2010 4:34:47 PM)


When designing the Amphibious Invasion process for AE, we went to the trouble of looking up the line of departure distance for several major invasions in the Pacific. The AE functions will generate transport ranges (from shore) well within these historical ranges. Transport locations and line-of-departure would of course be set for the shortest reasonable run in for the landing craft.




usersatch -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/29/2010 6:51:33 PM)

I think sinking APs to represent sinking LC/Higgins boats is not accurate, because the APs are taken completely out of the transport chain from the West Coast to wherever. If there were task forces of LCs running troops across the Pacific, then I could see the parallels. I've lost damn near 20 APs at Mili and Ponape alone, with the joyous Saipan looming in the near future. I think CinCPac would have a real issue with losing the transport capacity of two divisions at two piss-ant islands.

Would it be possible to have LCs added in to the mix without the huge micro-management effort normally required? Perhaps, each AP and AK has an option to "load" them like they do troops. When you are loading your troops at base, you also load landing craft. So you dont have to form a TF with 99 LC--it's automaticly done in the background of the game--limited by the LC resources you have available at that port. Your amphib TF pulls up off shore, and the troops hit the beach at a rate of how many ever LCs you have previously loaded. Now, the LCs get hammered, as in real life, and the APs stay relatively safe, as in real life.

BTW-how DID they get the small LCs to the battle? Were they towed behind the APs or were they carried in other ships?

Nevermind, answered my question here:

http://www.ussrankin.com/id34.htm



Zemke -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/29/2010 7:13:37 PM)

APs were hardly ever sunk during the war and should not be in the game.  I also agree that the landing troops should suffer much more than the ships.  

Another improvement would be to allow an order for a TF to do multi-day bombardments, currently it is a one shot deal and the bombardment TF sails away.



d0mbo -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/29/2010 7:31:54 PM)

I think WWI gallipoli (sp?); although i dont think it was the landing itself that went terribad......




usersatch -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/29/2010 7:39:08 PM)

Wasn't Dieppe a bad landing for the Royal Navy? I know it was for the grunts.

Wasn't Tarawa was the worst for the USN in the Pacific (besides kamikazees off of Okinawa)?



Alfred -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/29/2010 8:08:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Not sure troop losses should be higher but imho disruption should be higher and a force shock attack if it is a contested landing.

Speaking of which was the worst landing in History ?


From memory, I would nominate two landings which probably would not be nominated by others on this forum.

1. Kublai Khan's second invasion of Japan, the one which was visited by the divine "Kamikaze" wind but the invasion had already been defeated before the storm broke over the fleet.

2. The sea landing (IIRC in December 1914) in German East Africa which was defeated on the "beach".

In both instances the landings were complete failures, being unable to even remain on the beach and being forced to reembark. Although the casualties suffered by the British/Indian troops in East Africa was only a fraction of that of Kublai Khan's, in terms of site selection and planning, that has to be a leader in the most incompetent category.

Dieppe was only a raid. On Gallipoli the beaches were secured on day 1 (both the April and August landings) - they ran into difficulties inland but were never in danger of being pushed off the beaches. Anzio was similar to Gallipoli, although early on there was concern that the Germans might have broken through to the beachhead.

Alfred



CarnageINC -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/29/2010 9:08:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


When designing the Amphibious Invasion process for AE, we went to the trouble of looking up the line of departure distance for several major invasions in the Pacific. The AE functions will generate transport ranges (from shore) well within these historical ranges. Transport locations and line-of-departure would of course be set for the shortest reasonable run in for the landing craft.



So even though very few AP's were lost in all the invasions you feel that this is WAD when you designed it? I understand that CD fire go after the escorts mostly but don't you think that the losses suffered in the overall picture of invasions by AP's is to high? Whats your thoughts on loss ratio of the AP's versus escorts now when looking at the data in AAR's? Thanks for any response [;)]



Don Bowen -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/29/2010 10:12:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


When designing the Amphibious Invasion process for AE, we went to the trouble of looking up the line of departure distance for several major invasions in the Pacific. The AE functions will generate transport ranges (from shore) well within these historical ranges. Transport locations and line-of-departure would of course be set for the shortest reasonable run in for the landing craft.



So even though very few AP's were lost in all the invasions you feel that this is WAD when you designed it? I understand that CD fire go after the escorts mostly but don't you think that the losses suffered in the overall picture of invasions by AP's is to high? Whats your thoughts on loss ratio of the AP's versus escorts now when looking at the data in AAR's? Thanks for any response [;)]


You know, I did not say that I thought it was working as designed. I said that we considered historical stand off distanes when setting the distance from shore that the transports would unloading into landing craft.

I am no longer directly involved in support - just stick my nose in with a comment once in a while. But I do think it is universally recognized that CD and Naval Bombardment need some tuning.

Also, having once been an IBM trained manager, I have been trained in and have come to absolutely detest the "position as question" method of debate.



Nikademus -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/29/2010 10:14:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: d0mbo

I think WWI gallipoli (sp?); although i dont think it was the landing itself that went terribad......




no. The defenders had no CD defenses. MG's and rifles in those places where the landing was opposed. Gallipoli did witness the first dedicated (through conversion) landing ship attempt aka "The River Clyde" She was retrofitted with troop disembarking ramps and had sandbagged MG installations to cover the men as they disembarked.

I would mention that part of the reason, a big part, that no AP's were lost was because the Allies chose their locations with care and brought an overwhelming weight of support along with them. They tended to avoid assaulting places with heavy CD defenses. lol....first it was complained that CD's were too anemic....now they're overpowered. [:D]



CarnageINC -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/29/2010 10:35:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


When designing the Amphibious Invasion process for AE, we went to the trouble of looking up the line of departure distance for several major invasions in the Pacific. The AE functions will generate transport ranges (from shore) well within these historical ranges. Transport locations and line-of-departure would of course be set for the shortest reasonable run in for the landing craft.



So even though very few AP's were lost in all the invasions you feel that this is WAD when you designed it? I understand that CD fire go after the escorts mostly but don't you think that the losses suffered in the overall picture of invasions by AP's is to high? Whats your thoughts on loss ratio of the AP's versus escorts now when looking at the data in AAR's? Thanks for any response [;)]


You know, I did not say that I thought it was working as designed. I said that we considered historical stand off distanes when setting the distance from shore that the transports would unloading into landing craft.

I am no longer directly involved in support - just stick my nose in with a comment once in a while. But I do think it is universally recognized that CD and Naval Bombardment need some tuning.

Also, having once been an IBM trained manager, I have been trained in and have come to absolutely detest the "position as question" method of debate.


I meant no offensive nor I'm I trying to debate you. I value the opinion of anyone who has worked on AE had no idea you were not involved in the game anymore.



Don Bowen -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/29/2010 10:54:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


When designing the Amphibious Invasion process for AE, we went to the trouble of looking up the line of departure distance for several major invasions in the Pacific. The AE functions will generate transport ranges (from shore) well within these historical ranges. Transport locations and line-of-departure would of course be set for the shortest reasonable run in for the landing craft.



So even though very few AP's were lost in all the invasions you feel that this is WAD when you designed it? I understand that CD fire go after the escorts mostly but don't you think that the losses suffered in the overall picture of invasions by AP's is to high? Whats your thoughts on loss ratio of the AP's versus escorts now when looking at the data in AAR's? Thanks for any response [;)]


You know, I did not say that I thought it was working as designed. I said that we considered historical stand off distanes when setting the distance from shore that the transports would unloading into landing craft.

I am no longer directly involved in support - just stick my nose in with a comment once in a while. But I do think it is universally recognized that CD and Naval Bombardment need some tuning.

Also, having once been an IBM trained manager, I have been trained in and have come to absolutely detest the "position as question" method of debate.


I meant no offensive nor I'm I trying to debate you. I value the opinion of anyone who has worked on AE had no idea you were not involved in the game anymore.


No worries. Been on the project a long time and we're just tired of each other.



CapAndGown -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/29/2010 11:20:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

APs were hardly ever sunk during the war and should not be in the game.  I also agree that the landing troops should suffer much more than the ships.  

Another improvement would be to allow an order for a TF to do multi-day bombardments, currently it is a one shot deal and the bombardment TF sails away.


Use "remain on station".



wdolson -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/30/2010 12:05:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: usersatch

I think sinking APs to represent sinking LC/Higgins boats is not accurate, because the APs are taken completely out of the transport chain from the West Coast to wherever. If there were task forces of LCs running troops across the Pacific, then I could see the parallels. I've lost damn near 20 APs at Mili and Ponape alone, with the joyous Saipan looming in the near future. I think CinCPac would have a real issue with losing the transport capacity of two divisions at two piss-ant islands.

Would it be possible to have LCs added in to the mix without the huge micro-management effort normally required? Perhaps, each AP and AK has an option to "load" them like they do troops. When you are loading your troops at base, you also load landing craft. So you dont have to form a TF with 99 LC--it's automaticly done in the background of the game--limited by the LC resources you have available at that port. Your amphib TF pulls up off shore, and the troops hit the beach at a rate of how many ever LCs you have previously loaded. Now, the LCs get hammered, as in real life, and the APs stay relatively safe, as in real life.

BTW-how DID they get the small LCs to the battle? Were they towed behind the APs or were they carried in other ships?

Nevermind, answered my question here:

http://www.ussrankin.com/id34.htm


The game engine does not allow ships to carry another ship/boat item from the game. Historically, PT boats were lashed to the deck of ships and delivered to the base they would defend that way. Midget subs were carried on the mother sub. Don came up with a work around to pair up midgets and the mother sub carrier, but it wasn't really possible to load any kind of craft representing in the game onto another ship.

The landing craft you do get for short range barge operations already fill up a lot of slots in the ship table. Including all the LCs in the game as the US had in real life would be more than the ships table can take.

Bill



Jim D Burns -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/30/2010 1:11:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Wiki says that no US APs were lost to shore batteries in WW2, for what it is worth.


The same is true for LST's, I don't think any were lost to hostile fire in the war. They were not allowed to move into shore until the beach was secured, but in game they get shredded every time.

Jim



Bomber -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/30/2010 9:12:08 PM)

Faster unloading wouldnt hurt either if you have so many CD fire stages during a turn.
I am at the point in my game where the Japanese have the amphib bonus and suffer 4 CD attacks (or more) per turn with unbelievable accuracy from minor defending elements. It is taking me an average of 3-4 turns to disembark from the AP/AK's to the hex. That means I have to suck on 100+ CD hits before even being able to attack with the LCU at full or leave with the TF.



castor troy -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (5/31/2010 7:39:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Wiki says that no US APs were lost to shore batteries in WW2, for what it is worth.


The same is true for LST's, I don't think any were lost to hostile fire in the war. They were not allowed to move into shore until the beach was secured, but in game they get shredded every time.

Jim



But thatīs true for all shipping in the game, I guess every PBEM sees x times more Allied shipping losses than what happened in real life. Not saying thatīs a fault of the game.



Kwik E Mart -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (6/1/2010 7:11:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


When designing the Amphibious Invasion process for AE, we went to the trouble of looking up the line of departure distance for several major invasions in the Pacific. The AE functions will generate transport ranges (from shore) well within these historical ranges. Transport locations and line-of-departure would of course be set for the shortest reasonable run in for the landing craft.




interesting...so the line-of-departure is somewhat randomized for each invasion?



Kwik E Mart -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (6/1/2010 7:14:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I would mention that part of the reason, a big part, that no AP's were lost was because the Allies chose their locations with care and brought an overwhelming weight of support along with them. They tended to avoid assaulting places with heavy CD defenses.


yes, or they would select the line of departure that would guarentee no shore fire could reach them (the AP's). from don's response, it seems in AE the LOD can sometimes be within that range (obviously, if people are losing AP's in invasions).



Don Bowen -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (6/1/2010 7:46:19 PM)


To answer a couple of questions:

The Line of Departure is randomly selected within the range of historical distances. We checked a number of the major amphibious invasions in the Pacific and tallyed up the line of departure data that we could find. A patern developed and we set up a random distance calculator to approximate it. Quite an interesting thread on it in the development forum.

I suspect that higher than historical losses are largely caused by non-historical invasions. I would cite lack of proper preparation, too weak amphibious TFs, improper ships for the job, and target locations that are either over developed by the opponent or a difficult historical choice.

It is entirely possible that additional tuning might be required. However, it is the process in AE (and other games that I know of) to use some sort of random to generate different results each time the game is played. Randoms also give the "benefit" of a chance of unusual outcomes - the outnumbered winning, etc. Simply put, it's a bitch to tune random events. Besides, the amphibious invasion routines are just meant to emulate the process, not duplicate history to the finest detail.






Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (6/1/2010 8:23:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


To answer a couple of questions:

The Line of Departure is randomly selected within the range of historical distances. We checked a number of the major amphibious invasions in the Pacific and tallyed up the line of departure data that we could find. A patern developed and we set up a random distance calculator to approximate it. Quite an interesting thread on it in the development forum.

I suspect that higher than historical losses are largely caused by non-historical invasions. I would cite lack of proper preparation, too weak amphibious TFs, improper ships for the job, and target locations that are either over developed by the opponent or a difficult historical choice.

It is entirely possible that additional tuning might be required. However, it is the process in AE (and other games that I know of) to use some sort of random to generate different results each time the game is played. Randoms also give the "benefit" of a chance of unusual outcomes - the outnumbered winning, etc. Simply put, it's a bitch to tune random events. Besides, the amphibious invasion routines are just meant to emulate the process, not duplicate history to the finest detail.



I've seen some LOD data for LSTs in mid-late war that is on the order of 3000 yards when using amtracs. The exposure time and seasickness factor had to be measured against threat to the LSTs. I figure APAs were probably a bit farther out when using larger L-class landing variants.

My experience with (now ) many opposed invasions isn't that the LOD needs tuning, but rather, simply, when the player DOES do everything right, especially pre-bombardment and use of CAS assets, that the CD units be more suppressed than they are now. I think those LSTs could come into 3000 yards and survive because the gunners ashore in non-casemated open mounts were either dead or in bunkers.

I don't know how randoms work in the naval bombardment and air-to-port attack routines, but perhaps just a bit more chance to knock the CD units back/disrupt on the day of the landing would balance things out. I think that Japanese CD LCUs with the "fortress" descriptor might be immune to this, while garden-variety CD units could take more of a beating from a solid force of BBs in 1943-45.

Perhaps this could be accomplished with fewer coefficient or random number changes than any tuning of LOD code?



greycat -> RE: Losing AP's during invasion (6/2/2010 8:33:37 PM)

[sm=character0267.gif]I'm no expert on this subject but it seems to me that, historically, there was a distinction between coastal defence guns and beach defence guns; I don't know if this is modelled in the game. The former were intended to engage ships far out to sea and for this purpose required complicated range-finding and gun laying equipment. (In occupied Europe they were controlled by the German Navy; the Army was responsible for the beach defence guns.) True coastal defence batteries were usually sited to protect naval bases, major ports and strategic waterways from seaborne attack; for this reason, amphibious forces usually avoided such places like the plague! (Imagine if the Allies had tried to launch a direct assault on Le Havre, for example.[sm=Crazy-1271.gif]) In WitP the hexes are 40nm across, so an attacker could be some distance from the base and still be in the same hex. I still think the CD gun effects in the game are about right, however, in that they discourage invasions of major enemy bases without adequate preparation.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.078125