Naval Bombardment

Naval Bombardment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames

Message

Timian -> Naval Bombardment (8/24/2014 7:24:53 PM)
Has a rule ever been proposed ref allowing Naval Units to Bombard similar to Air and Artillery Units? If so, what did it say? Thanks, Don.

composer99 -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/24/2014 7:59:54 PM)
Do you mean bombard like ground strikes? Or bombard like shore bombardment (equivalent to ground support) during land combats? The former is not a thing, while the latter is a standard part of the rules.

Timian -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/24/2014 8:39:13 PM)
Yes / Ground Strikes. Don.

composer99 -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/24/2014 9:24:36 PM)
OK. I can only speculate, since I know not whether past rules included such a feature, or whether it was suggested for the WiF rules that have been coded for MWiF, or the upcoming revision to the boardgame rules.

Ur_Vile_WEdge -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/24/2014 10:25:20 PM)
Shore bombardment as ground strikes only came up with Leaders in Flames, the kit that nobody likes to play with. Put simply, it's absurdly powerful, especially for naval powers like the CW, U.S. and Japan. You'd be able to get a truly ridiculous number of "naval strikes" against anything sitting on the coast.

brian brian -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/25/2014 2:43:12 AM)
I think a very old issue of Lines of Communication, like when it was still printed in Canada, had a proposed Naval Ground Strike rule too, but it has never gained any traction, nor should it in my opinion. In WiF 7, shore bombardment is still too powerful anyway. World in Flames is somewhat saying that 6 cruisers are just as valuable for a land battle as an entire corps of veteran infantry. This will be changing in the future of the game.

AlbertN -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/26/2014 5:02:21 PM)
I agree than its current for Shore Bombing is way too strong and effective; to the extent that the defensive Shore Bombardment is one of the very few optionals I do not use with my gaming buddy.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/26/2014 5:24:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian I think a very old issue of Lines of Communication, like when it was still printed in Canada, had a proposed Naval Ground Strike rule too, but it has never gained any traction, nor should it in my opinion. In WiF 7, shore bombardment is still too powerful anyway. World in Flames is somewhat saying that 6 cruisers are just as valuable for a land battle as an entire corps of veteran infantry. This will be changing in the future of the game. Any small tweak to this would be easy to code. For example, if the contribution of each naval unit were cut in half, or limited to half of the strength of the attacking forces, etc., there would only be one or two lines of code to modify.

delatbabel -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/27/2014 12:29:04 AM)
The change that has been made in v.8 of the rules, which is quite a good one IMHO, is that there can only be the same number of ships shore bombarding as there are corps-sized land units in the side of the combat. i.e. if you are attacking with 3 corps, then only 3 ships can shore bombard. It makes the big battleships a bit more useful, and combined with the "spotting bombarding fleets" rule really limits the amount of impact that shore bombarding ships can have in the combats occurring along the edge of their sea zone. I'm not sure how hard that would be to implement.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/27/2014 2:23:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: delatbabel The change that has been made in v.8 of the rules, which is quite a good one IMHO, is that there can only be the same number of ships shore bombarding as there are corps-sized land units in the side of the combat. i.e. if you are attacking with 3 corps, then only 3 ships can shore bombard. It makes the big battleships a bit more useful, and combined with the "spotting bombarding fleets" rule really limits the amount of impact that shore bombarding ships can have in the combats occurring along the edge of their sea zone. I'm not sure how hard that would be to implement. Fairly easy to code. Enabling the Undo capability would be the only concern. But I am not changing the rules at the moment (or in the foreseeable future).

Centuur -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/27/2014 10:28:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: delatbabel The change that has been made in v.8 of the rules, which is quite a good one IMHO, is that there can only be the same number of ships shore bombarding as there are corps-sized land units in the side of the combat. i.e. if you are attacking with 3 corps, then only 3 ships can shore bombard. It makes the big battleships a bit more useful, and combined with the "spotting bombarding fleets" rule really limits the amount of impact that shore bombarding ships can have in the combats occurring along the edge of their sea zone. I'm not sure how hard that would be to implement. Fairly easy to code. Enabling the Undo capability would be the only concern. But I am not changing the rules at the moment (or in the foreseeable future). Can we make this an optional rule, if that's easy to code? I also think that this is a reasonable rule change...

Courtenay -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/27/2014 11:47:01 AM)
Well, putting a new optional rule is well down the list of things to code. I also find it a very strange rule. Consider D-day: Six divisions invading, plus three airborne divisions, plus some specialized units. Three corps, plus some divisions. In WiF, one might get six corps, representing follow up forces. Ships represented by WiF counters that provided NGS on D-Day: Utah beach: Nevada, Quincy, Tuscaloosa, HMS Enterprise, Hawkins, Erebus, Black Prince Omaha beach: Texas, Arkansas, Glasgow, Bellona, Montcalm Gold Beach: Ajax, Argonaut, Emerald, Orion Juno Beach: Belfast, Diadem Sword Beach: Warspite, Ramilles, Arethusa, Frobisher, Mauritius, Roberts (I may have missed some. If so, my apologies to any ships and crews I omitted.) Even assuming that some of these ships provided defensive shore bombardment (and yes, the Allies were using that optional rule [:)]), limiting the amount of shore bombardment to three, or even six, ships is ridiculous.

AxelNL -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/27/2014 2:57:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Courtenay Well, putting a new optional rule is well down the list of things to code. I also find it a very strange rule. Consider D-day: Six divisions invading, plus three airborne divisions, plus some specialized units. Three corps, plus some divisions. In WiF, one might get six corps, representing follow up forces. Ships represented by WiF counters that provided NGS on D-Day: Utah beach: Nevada, Quincy, Tuscaloosa, HMS Enterprise, Hawkins, Erebus, Black Prince Omaha beach: Texas, Arkansas, Glasgow, Bellona, Montcalm Gold Beach: Ajax, Argonaut, Emerald, Orion Juno Beach: Belfast, Diadem Sword Beach: Warspite, Ramilles, Arethusa, Frobisher, Mauritius, Roberts (I may have missed some. If so, my apologies to any ships and crews I omitted.) Even assuming that some of these ships provided defensive shore bombardment (and yes, the Allies were using that optional rule [:)]), limiting the amount of shore bombardment to three, or even six, ships is ridiculous. I think the Allies used a offensive chit (or two) that day.....

Courtenay -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/27/2014 4:37:49 PM)
Yes, the Allies used a couple of O-chits that impulse. How does that affect the new shore bombardment rule? At Iwo Jima, bombarding ships included Arkansas, Idaho, Nevada, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Biloxi, Chester, Indianapolis, Pensacola, Salt Lake City, Santa Fe, Tuscaloosa, and Vicksburg. To repeat, my opinion is that restricting the number of ships that can provide NGS to two (the stacking limit at Iwo Jima) is ridiculous.

AxelNL -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/27/2014 4:42:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Courtenay Yes, the Allies used a couple of O-chits that impulse. How does that affect the new shore bombardment rule? At Iwo Jima, bombarding ships included Arkansas, Idaho, Nevada, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Biloxi, Chester, Indianapolis, Pensacola, Salt Lake City, Santa Fe, Tuscaloosa, and Vicksburg. To repeat, my opinion is that restricting the number of ships that can provide NGS to two (the stacking limit at Iwo Jima) is ridiculous. The suggestion was to ease the limit when a chit was used in that impulse. But coding becomes very quickly more complex with these kind of suggestions....

Timian -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/29/2014 2:21:20 PM)
Where can I get a copy (digits) of RAW 8.0? Thanks, Don.

WarHunter -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/29/2014 3:09:40 PM)
What is really annoying about naval bombardment? Having to click each ship to add bombardment points to offense or defense. Especially the part when after each ship the program centers back on the stack at sea. Depending on the sea zone. Zoom setting 2 must be used. The China sea is one of those. My opponent and I bag on this whenever we use ship bombardment. Could there be an easier way to add multiple ships to a bombardment? Is there a secret key combination we have missed? Setting? Also restriction of the number of ships to bombard is not a good idea. The mechanic of not adding more combat factors than what is already in the hex is a limit in itself. Boo hoo, The USN and RN have lots of ships. They pay good build points for them. Let them be used in any combination they want.

Numdydar -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/29/2014 3:14:35 PM)
Fire Control Officer: 'Captain, we have to crease firing at the enemy.' Captain: 'Why? Are we out of shells?' FCO: 'No. We have plenty of shells. But we have reached the maximum number of shells we are allowed to shoot.' Captain: [&:] Makes perfect sense to me [:'(] NOT.

WarHunter -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/29/2014 3:24:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Numdydar Fire Control Officer: 'Captain, we have to crease firing at the enemy.' Captain: 'Why? Are we out of shells?' FCO: 'No. We have plenty of shells. But we have reached the maximum number of shells we are allowed to shoot.' Captain: [&:] Makes perfect sense to me [:'(] NOT. Not exactly sure what you are saying? The Ground combat force is the limiting factor in the game for both Air and naval combat factors. This is not something that has changed with any edition of the game. Maybe you can explain what you want? No matter how extreme it sounds.

warspite1 -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/29/2014 5:44:54 PM)
A really interesting debate. I think you can make cogent arguments either way, but personally I agree with those that think NGS is too powerful currently.

Orm -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/29/2014 6:45:30 PM)
My main trouble with shore bombardment is with the sea box system. The ships are close to the shore bombarding enemy troops yet they are very hard to find for short range aircraft. No mines either. No torpedo boats. There are no risk involved with shore bombardment im WIF that was a present danger and a deterrent during WWII.

warspite1 -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/29/2014 7:03:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Orm My main trouble with shore bombardment is with the sea box system. The ships are close to the shore bombarding enemy troops yet they are very hard to find for short range aircraft. No mines either. No torpedo boats. There are no risk involved with shore bombardment im WIF that was a present danger and a deterrent during WWII. warspite1 Good point.

composer99 -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/29/2014 7:04:10 PM)
Not only that, but the ships higher up in the box are more effective at shore bombardment.

Numdydar -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/30/2014 12:11:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WarHunter quote: ORIGINAL: Numdydar Fire Control Officer: 'Captain, we have to crease firing at the enemy.' Captain: 'Why? Are we out of shells?' FCO: 'No. We have plenty of shells. But we have reached the maximum number of shells we are allowed to shoot.' Captain: [&:] Makes perfect sense to me [:'(] NOT. Not exactly sure what you are saying? The Ground combat force is the limiting factor in the game for both Air and naval combat factors. This is not something that has changed with any edition of the game. Maybe you can explain what you want? No matter how extreme it sounds. I was referring to this post from above. quote: ORIGINAL: delatbabel The change that has been made in v.8 of the rules, which is quite a good one IMHO, is that there can only be the same number of ships shore bombarding as there are corps-sized land units in the side of the combat. i.e. if you are attacking with 3 corps, then only 3 ships can shore bombard. It makes the big battleships a bit more useful, and combined with the "spotting bombarding fleets" rule really limits the amount of impact that shore bombarding ships can have in the combats occurring along the edge of their sea zone. I'm not sure how hard that would be to implement. But due to my lack of typing skills and other factors, my post did not appear right after this so so sowed confusion all around [:(]

paulderynck -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/30/2014 12:38:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Timian Where can I get a copy (digits) of RAW 8.0? Thanks, Don. It is still in playtest development and has not been officially released. It has been made available to players at the US, Europe and Australian WiFCons.

brian brian -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/30/2014 3:03:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Orm My main trouble with shore bombardment is with the sea box system. The ships are close to the shore bombarding enemy troops yet they are very hard to find for short range aircraft. No mines either. No torpedo boats. There are no risk involved with shore bombardment im WIF that was a present danger and a deterrent during WWII. This is a great point and it has been brought up many times over the years I think. For a good example of this, read up on what happened to the USS Savannah. In general though, the Allies operated with such air and naval superiority at any and all amphibious operations that the defenders rarely were able to hurt the supporting naval ships. But that was in history � the game is much different as humans commanding cardboard will take greater risks and operate on more of a shoe-string. The game can reward this at times in ways that reality would not. The not-yet-public rules edition 8 attempts to address this but fails in my opinion. The ships that shore bombard have to drop to the 0 box after they do it .. in theory this makes them more vulnerable to enemy NAV units at sea, as the enemy NAV would get a surprise point bonus attacking the 0 box. But I disagree, as dropping to the 0 box just allows any short range FTR on the invading side to cover the ships, from any base touching the sea zone. Not realistic at all. And in terms of striking at an invasion �.. your infantry can see the enemy battleships bombarding them and the landing craft disgorging troops in their binoculars, but your bomber pilots have to roll a 3 or 4 to attack those same ships? My suggestion to the Rules 8 process was to place shore bombarding ships and ships unloading invading troops (only invasions) on the adjacent sea-dot during the enemy impulse (one impulse only), where they could be subject to a Port Strike mission (still subject to search dice and the random chaos of war, but hex-dot considered to be 0 box instead of a 3 or 5 as in port). And the invading side would have to figure out how to get fighter cover over that sea-dot. This was rejected in favor of the now many years old proposal of moving them to the 0 box instead. Invading an enemy shore outside of the range of your own land-based air would be a serious thing. Carriers could cover things to a degree of course. But WiF has this problem everywhere due to the sea box system. The best US strategy in the Pacific, in my opinion, is to use Wake and the Marshalls for an airbase for fighters to cover the invasion of the Bonin Islands (Iwo Jima). Which would be completely impossible in the real Pacific. It is my sincere hope that the MWiF project will be finished, then WiF8 and Days of Decision can be put on a computer, and some day after that the power of computer technology can be put to use to solve some of the realism problems that creep in to the otherwise highly playable sea-box system. And Fog-of-War in production too, and other things that get lost in realism in the interest of playability in person. Computers can help improve that trade-off. But I'm not holding my breath that any of that will ever happen.

paulderynck -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/30/2014 8:42:15 AM)
Another problem with dropping them to the zero box is that at the end of the turn, they can return to bases much further away than if they were in the 3 or 4 box. Combined with the ease with which so many short range fighters (which by '44 the Allies have a surfiet of) can cover them (leaving the better, longer range fighters to cover the troops inland, and allowing them a no-action-cost rebase to the continent) makes it a very poor rule change IMO. ...but it is a separate option, and players can and should choose not to use it. Seems to me that because of the longer range rebase factor, the final wording was that if you use the rule, the defender decides if the invading/shore bombarding ships go down to the zero box or not, then the attacker has the option to move any others (CVs anyone?) from the same box along with them. Sounds like a real fun coding challenge if it ever were to be added to MWiF.

Extraneous -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/30/2014 9:58:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Timian Where can I get a copy (digits) of RAW 8.0? Thanks, Don. I believe this is WiF 8 2008 WiF Annual (incl Factories in Flames) Price: $60.00 US, $60.00 AU

Timian -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/30/2014 12:13:38 PM)
Thanks / Pretty sure I have the 2008 WiF Annual / Will look when I get Home. Don.

Froonp -> RE: Naval Bombardment (8/30/2014 12:55:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Extraneous quote: ORIGINAL: Timian Where can I get a copy (digits) of RAW 8.0? Thanks, Don. I believe this is WiF 8 2008 WiF Annual (incl Factories in Flames) Price: $60.00 US, $60.00 AU RAW 8 is not yet available anywhere. It is still under developpement. Bits of the 2008 Annual are included in RAW8, but RAW8 is not in the 2008 Annual.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625