RE: naval bombardment. (Full Version)

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



Message

Crackaces -> RE: naval bombardment. (12/1/2013 5:02:15 PM)

quote:

Give me 1 example in history....


Thinking this game is a simulation is a point that causes much consternation in this group ... I might suggest one of the points of interest before choosing an opponent. Else one might invest a great deal of time to find out that an opponent has an interesting view of history, simulation modeling, war gaming, and the like .. especially when things start going the other way ..



Grollub -> RE: naval bombardment. (12/1/2013 5:08:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MDDgames
So, unless you can answer the question of when in HISTORY did shore guns not return fire at a bombarding TF, then really, you have nothing to say on the matter. And again, Michaels is the ONLY opinion that matters.


Sorry, but this has to be the lamest argument ever. You expect the forum to present you with "things that never happened" to debunk your pet theory?

I have some news for you - It's very rare for historians to note non-occurrances, that is, something that didn't happen even though it's theoretically possible that something could have happened.

I can really see some dude researching old wartime documents making the discovery; "Ahaaa ... on this day MM/DD/YYYY this TF apparentely passed at least one nautic mile within range of this shore emplacement - AND IT NEVER FIRED! I guess everyone would be interested in this" ... [8|]

Green buttoned from now on.



Yaab -> RE: naval bombardment. (12/1/2013 5:24:39 PM)

Well, when one looks at the TOE of the Hong Kong Defence Force (unit id 3445) it looks like an infantry regiment with around 20 field guns. It has the same picture as the borders forts in Manchuria - pure CD units have a different picture. It seems to me it may be an improvised defence force for both Hong Kong coast and the inland connection to Hong Kong (in the game, Hong Kong has only one hexside connecting it to mainland China). The unit looks like a solid fortress unit (lots of MGs in its TOE too).

Now, the unit has the CD icon, but I wonder if it really acts as one. Is it really subjected to a CD gun die roll when there are ships visible? Seems to me its field guns would only fire if there was an amphibious landing at Hong Kong.

Also, it is worth noting, that Japanese special base forces have both naval support and aviation support in their TOE, thus their DP guns could be assigned to cover port and airfield at the same time. The can be placed in different parts of the hex and not placed wholesale on the coast.



JocMeister -> RE: naval bombardment. (12/1/2013 5:39:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MDDgames
Why not? Could it be because it never happened in history maybe? So the "game design" is nothing but Dons/JWEs whim and has nothing to do with history. At least lets set the record straight on this. Don/JWE are AFBs and didnt want anything to slow down the allied advance. No other explanation for this AND the fact that there are nearly as many minesweepers in the game as mines....


Wow. [X(]

I donīt think I have ever seen someone make such a fool out of himself on this forum. Ever. I would find this hilarious if it wasnīt for the fact that you had an opponent that has now wasted a good amount of his spare time on your game.






Don Bowen -> RE: naval bombardment. (12/1/2013 7:47:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MDDgames
...

Give me 1 example in history where shore guns didnt fire in 1943 at bombarding ships (either side, any theater). I am unaware of any, so please educate me. Otherwise, Michael, please fix this....

Why not? Could it be because it never happened in history maybe? So the "game design" is nothing but Dons/JWEs whim and has nothing to do with history. At least lets set the record straight on this. Don/JWE are AFBs and didnt want anything to slow down the allied advance. No other explanation for this AND the fact that there are nearly as many minesweepers in the game as mines....

So, unless you can answer the question of when in HISTORY did shore guns not return fire at a bombarding TF, then really, you have nothing to say on the matter. And again, Michaels is the ONLY opinion that matters.


Bovine Feces, and a Green Button goodbye to you.



KenchiSulla -> RE: naval bombardment. (12/1/2013 8:21:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Btw, did you know the moonlandings are fake?


They are there is no wind on the moooooooon!



obvert -> RE: naval bombardment. (12/1/2013 10:38:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MDDgames


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller
No. He wont answer any messages I send, not even to confirm the game is over.


Sorry to hear that. [:(]


Actually, I answered every one of his mails.

As for the China unit on Java, I combine the 2 Bns to form the unit (the 3rd was killed), Flew them to Miri, and then flew them to Java. Then I turned on reinforcements and thats all there was to it. And I told Miller that also.

I noticed that not 1 regular Jap player has said they think its working as designed, only people that regularly play allies. What a surprise.

God forbid that something should slow down the allied advance (like mines or shore guns that actually fire).

quote:


I hope it wasn't the rough treatment he got here that led to his quitting, although I suspect as much is true.


LOL. I have said it a few times now, I guess people cant comprehend what they read. so I will say it one more time.

Michaels is the only opinion that matters on this issue.

Hope that was clear enough. The rest of you, I could care less what you think. And until michael says its working as designed, then I consider the game broken.


Actually, I am playing the Japanese side regularly, and I think it's working as designed.

I didn't want to get back into this but man, you're insulting just about everyone, you've obviously given Miller the run-around, and everything you say is inflammatory.

Michaelm most likely will never respond to this, and you know it. After all you were a play-tester, right, and know all of these developers well? At least that is what you imply. You also know a lot of secret ways to work the game engine, don't you, like the permanently restricted unit move trick?

I've blown up about some things in this game, and it's not perfect, but usually after a little perspective from others on the forum, from my opponent and from my own sense of dignity I realize I've boiled over and have to wipe up the mess. It's time now for you to take a step back and realize this is not so important and if you want to ever play another PBEM you should probably apologize to a few people.



Mac Linehan -> RE: naval bombardment. (12/1/2013 11:07:27 PM)

Sir -

I normally do not comment in situations like this; but you have shown a complete lack of manners and respect for others on this forum.

You are insulting men who not only have contributed enormously to AE but are held in the highest regard by this community, due to their expertise, knowledge and willingness to help other players.

Your allegations, which are completely baseless, are just a personal attack on those who have done the most to support and improve AE.

I respectfully submit that Miller is right on the mark; you are seeking a very dishonorable way out of your game. That does not surprise me, he is a very experienced player.

I also suspect that you enjoy trolling; but know this - you will pay a price for your actions.

Mac




LoBaron -> RE: naval bombardment. (12/2/2013 5:53:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Btw, did you know the moonlandings are fake?


They are there is no wind on the moooooooon!



Aiind the shadows are all wroooooooong!



erstad -> RE: naval bombardment. (12/3/2013 2:07:27 AM)

quote:

So, unless you can answer the question of when in HISTORY did shore guns not return fire at a bombarding TF, then really, you have nothing to say on the matter.


OK, I'll succumb to feeding the troll. Note that there is no concrete reason to believe the ships were even in range of the guns. The difference between the naval gun range and the shore gun range was 1,000 yards, right (or something similarly small). There are many places in a 40nm hex where the ships might be in range of some shore targets but not in range of the guns.

Not saying this is necessarily the reason for whatever random resulted in no fire. But there's no basis for concluding that the ships were somehow standing in the range of an active battery without molestation.



Yaab -> RE: naval bombardment. (12/3/2013 2:11:14 PM)

Actually, I wonder if a die roll is the only factor for successful ship engagement. Bataan guns engage enemy ships quite regularly, and if one examines Bataan's TOE, the unit has surface radars. There are just a few Allied CD units that actually start the game equipped with surface radars.



chuckj118 -> RE: naval bombardment. (12/7/2013 4:24:57 AM)

Engagement of ships by land units have so many variables in the real world (esp. back in the 1940's) that a WIDE range of outcomes are to be expected. In WitP I have sailed by major CD units and had NOTHING happen. On other occasions, such as a landing, I have been plastered. As a 40+ year reader of naval history I think this is fairly valid. Generally, ships were pretty safe from land guns as long as they could get it over quick and keeping moving.

I fail to understand why the original writer thinks that having CD guns present will protect airfields and other installations. Any soft targets such as aircraft are going to be massively damaged if they are getting fired at by a large number of naval guns. History bares this out at Guadalcanal and other places.



MDDgames -> RE: naval bombardment. (12/10/2013 7:33:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nalamin

Engagement of ships by land units have so many variables in the real world (esp. back in the 1940's) that a WIDE range of outcomes are to be expected. In WitP I have sailed by major CD units and had NOTHING happen. On other occasions, such as a landing, I have been plastered. As a 40+ year reader of naval history I think this is fairly valid. Generally, ships were pretty safe from land guns as long as they could get it over quick and keeping moving.

I fail to understand why the original writer thinks that having CD guns present will protect airfields and other installations. Any soft targets such as aircraft are going to be massively damaged if they are getting fired at by a large number of naval guns. History bares this out at Guadalcanal and other places.


Apparently, you failed to READ the original writer. The point is not that they didnt protect anything. The point is they didnt even fire. They will NEVER fire unless an actual landing is happening. And it was designed that way. And again, ANY historical reasoning for this from ANY nation on ANY front has yet to be submitted. Its just a poor design, that needs correction.

You, like pretty much everyone else here makes me laugh my ass off. Seriously. On one hand you laugh at the movie "Pearl Harbor" because of its historical inaccuracies, and yet Jap shore guns not returning fire at bombarding ships is just peachy to you.

LMFAO at all of you. Seriously. Especially those that designed it to "work" this way. And even more so because not only do you think you can cyber bully me, that I will be the least bit intimidated by it, but thinking that you can change my opinion. My opinion (backed up by historical precedence) isnt going to change any more so than those of you cuddling up to those that poorly designed it are likely to change your tune. Im not trying to change YOUR tune. I dont CARE what your opinion is, any more than YOU care what MY opinion is.

And again, it doesnt matter what I think. It doesnt matter what YOU think, it doesnt matter what the AFBs that designed it think. It ONLY matters what Michael thinks. And from what I have seen of his changes to the game thus far, he tends to do right by history. And I certainly hope this badly needed change is no exception.

If you can make a historical argument to back up the way it is designed, by all means, please do so. I welcome it. If all you are going to do is to continue to violate the user agreement on this site by attacking me on a personal level, please continue to do that also. Again, I dont CARE what YOUR opinion is on this. If you cant engage in a historical discussion on the subject, then I dont care what you have to say.

History is on MY side. Hard to admit you are wrong isnt it?



Yaab -> RE: naval bombardment. (12/10/2013 8:43:28 AM)

MDD, if you ask about shore (CD) guns engaging TF bombarding a given base, they should fire provided the TF is in the range of the CD guns.

If you ask about field artillery units engaging passing ships, I think it is unlikely they ever fire. Field artillery units don't park their guns on the shore (one hex is 45 miles wide) - the guns can be anywhere in the hex. It takes a TF 4 hours to pass a hex ( one phase in game is 12 hours, TF moves with speed of 3 hexes per phase). Is the arty unit on a 24hr duty to always engage a moving target? What if the TF passes the straits during nighttime? Your unit can have their IJA squads dug at the beaches while the arty is dug to the rear, just like the 352th Div at the Omaha beach.

Now, if you ask about field artillery unit engaging a TF that bombards the base at 0 range, then
you could argue that at least some field guns should engage such ships from time to time to deter careless bombings at 0-3 range.

You played well by having moved the HK unit to Merak, but the unit is just a field artillery unit. It has no CD guns and no surface radar. Switch to the Allied side, go to Calcutta and find the "CD" unit there. The unit is just a fortress unit wth no CD guns - that will deter the Japs from landing there for sure. Labels can be misleading at times if you do not look at TOEs of units. Some Naval HQ have no naval support but have aviation support in their TOE.

BTW, Merak is a great place to park subs, midget subs, PT boats and a tons of mines. I don't think the Japanese have any mobile CD unit to put there. Field arty and base forces cover the whole hex with their field and DP guns, just like base AA value is divided by 6 to simulate its dispersal in the hex.



JocMeister -> RE: naval bombardment. (12/10/2013 9:09:36 AM)

Yaab,

Donīt bother. He isnīt interested in listening. He just wanted out of a game where he was losing and made up an "issue" instead of manning up and admitting defeat.




Lecivius -> RE: naval bombardment. (12/10/2013 1:39:20 PM)

Another Green Button Candidate.

Still, it's one of the best forum features [;)]



Miller -> RE: naval bombardment. (12/11/2013 2:00:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Yaab,

Donīt bother. He isnīt interested in listening. He just wanted out of a game where he was losing and made up an "issue" instead of manning up and admitting defeat.




He was far from defeated, but the tide was beginning to turn. Could have been an epic game, such a waste over nothing.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.093994