RE: AAR 1944 (Full Version)

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



Message

Dili -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/6/2021 8:58:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

So, I think there's two things to point out.

1. AS BBfanboy has noted, a rocket is not a shell, and thinking about it as such will lead to the wrong conclusions.

2. Is heavy saturation bombardment LCI craft causing large causalities (and critically for AE, massive disruption to units) ahistorical? It's not.

I mean, this is effectively what the LCI conversions were designed to do. Overwhelm the defenders with firepower and allow the landing infantry an easy time ashore.

Worth considering other factors in AE. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but atoll terrain functions like clear terrain. Not good for protection against bombardments of any kind...


Yes it is ahistorical, the LCI(G) rocket was a short range weapon only for beach support with 1 km range. So unless you can argue that enemy is all in small stretch of 500m deep beach and that assuming it fires from 500 out on the sea... not even considered that there is no precision at all.

We have here 26 LCI(G), and LCI(G) rocket with 2.9kg explosive is not certainly better than a 150mm gun/howitzer round. So could you get these results with 26 of said guns firing in day?

Allied Ships
LCI(G)-468
LCI(G)-467
LCI(G)-466
LCI(G)-465
LCI(G)-464
LCI(G)-463
LCI(G)-462
LCI(G)-455
LCI(G)-454
LCI(G)-453
LCI(G)-451
LCI(G)-450
LCI(G)-449
LCI(G)-442
LCI(G)-441
LCI(G)-398
LCI(G)-397
LCI(G)-396
LCI(G)-373
LCI(G)-372
LCI(G)-366
LCI(G)-365
LCI(G)-82
LCI(G)-81
LCI(G)-79
LCI(G)-78
LCI(G)-77
LCI-70
LCI-69
LCI-68
LCI-67
LCI-66
LCI-65
LCI(M)-588
LCI(M)-582
LSM-99
DE Lamons
LCI-335
LCI-435
LCI-443

Japanese ground losses:
6675 casualties reported
Squads: 54 destroyed, 353 disabled
Non Combat: 56 destroyed, 342 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 85 (15 destroyed, 70 disabled)
Vehicles lost 17 (4 destroyed, 13 disabled)






Dili -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/6/2021 9:01:31 PM)

Note that in game, editors put it at 5km range instead of real 1km... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.5-Inch_Beach_Barrage_Rocket

Correction, the version that is game LCI(G) is slot 1746 and they have put 2km range.



Evoken -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/6/2021 9:04:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken

M_M these boats seen widespread use irl , despite that most naval invasions were bloody and lengthy . These rockets have very limited range , they were used for beachhead supression for troops to land easier , not wipe out entire island garrisons in 1 day. Its pretty clear that they violate the effect/anti-soft value rules that are used everywhereelse and there is nothing else uses this device type. Unless you come with actual usefull data please stay away i am so done with you


Worth re-reading post #1437 again.

The entire garrison was not wiped out by the pre-invasion bombardment from the LCI craft on day 1.

They were heavily disrupted by the bombardment, to the point that they had zero effective assault value, but they were not wiped out until the Allied auto-shock attack took the base afterwards.

IJ defenders were alive and kicking when the auto-shock attack went in, they just weren't in a position to offer effective resistance (which is probably to be expected after the entire atoll has just been carpeted by rockets).

In other words, WAD.

As for the violation of the effect/anti-soft value rules, I'd be interested to know:

1. What the rules actually are
2. How these rocket devices violate above rules.

AFAIK, the formula behind the game values was never disclosed, so keen to see what insider info you have on this.

i am gonna post this again since apperantly you cant read
normally naval guns have 1/10th of their effect(shell weight) as soft attack value. For example most 8in guns have around 330 effect and 33 soft attack but these 4.5in rockets have higher soft attack value than their effect , causing them to be 10times more effective than what they are supposed to be. 4.5in Rocket has 20 effect and 26 soft attack so each one of these devices are almost as devastating as one 8in device.

Also as a note this 1/10th rule also applies to bombs.

I would guess these rockets are working as a naval gun when put on ships. If you want to come with actual usefull data change these rockets to naval gun in editor and do a test with them as vanilla and changed to naval gun, if you get near identical results , its violating the 1/10th rule



Dili -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/6/2021 9:10:00 PM)

Also a part of what is going on, i suspect is the problem that the game has with quantities (like air bombing with dozens of bombs, basically treats every bomb as independent).
Maybe the game "thinks" that 120 rockets can all be fired in different directions instead of only 1 direction that a LCI(G) can fire to.



WriterNotViking -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/6/2021 9:26:15 PM)

As a general comment, while the historical efficacy of these ships might be substantial, the fact that level 6 forts did nothing to prevent the garrison from being rendered completely ineffective seems to me the most serious issue. I don't think anyone is saying the garrison should have been only mildly affected, but the complete elimination of the defenders' combat power strikes me as excessive.

Even if historical data could be found to support this effect (I'm not an encyclopedia so I cannot be sure) I would still hold to the view that, for game purposes, the effect ought to be nerfed in order to avoid making atolls completely indefensible to any degree if the attacker deploys LCI gunboats. I need not list examples of other real-world technologies whose effectiveness was reduced to make the game even marginally competitive.

On a more specific note:

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
It may just be me, but what exactly is the expectation here for a garrison that will be concussed, dazed and bleeding from the ears?

Are they to dig themselves from under the stand, charge and drive the Americans back into the ocean?


This is disingenuous, because no one said they expected anything like this. Such of phrasing is only good for muddying the waters, and it casts an unpleasant light on your intentions.



mind_messing -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/6/2021 9:33:09 PM)

Maybe the AE hivemind is right. Maybe unguided rocket artillery is virtually worthless. Maybe decades of development of rocket artillery (on both sides of the Iron Curtain) has been completely wasted. Evidently rocket artillery isn't worth it, didn't do much in WW2, and we should break down all the MLRS systems, all the Graz, Smersh and Tornado launchers into something that will be more effective...

[8D]


quote:

Should have done with this one too, it's so ridicoulos that I really wonder if you have any brain left. You have obviously NO clue about the effect of these boats in real life. Do you? Clearly no.


Yes, I did have a read at this - https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/a/amphibious-operations-capture-iwo-jima.html

Section 2-1 onwards may be of interest.

I think it's also reasonable to draw on the performance of Soviet Guards Mortar regiments on the Eastern Front, with results generally consistent with what we're seeing here (in that concentration results in massive disablement/disruption of defending units).

quote:

Look at the combat report, troll. Can you even read? I had 300 av on the atoll and all was disabled during the LCI(G) support during the landing. Nothing was left. Can you read??


I refer you to post #1437

quote:

Same happened at Wake, with Wake's CD unit in place. GO AWAY TROLL and read up on the performance of these ships in real life, they were nothing more than suppressive weapons at the beaches. Considering your non stop bullsh*t the Allied wouldn't have needed anything else than the LCI(G) to clear islands. They actually used them and nothing, not a single moment in life where they close to as effective in the game. They are most likely 10 times overrated if not more, I wouldn't be surprised if it would be identified as a database error if it came up ten years ago.


So, here's where my understanding breaks down - isn't 350 odd infantry squads disabled (as in capable of fighting, just not currently) consistent with overwhelming suppressive fire? In that, if they were given the chance to recover, they would be able to fight...?

quote:

First time ever IIRC to use the green button. If you want to continue this discussion then do it on the main forum not in this AAR. People, pls just answer him anymore, it's going to stop the AAR, one or the other way and Admiral unescorted carrier task force will have achieved his goal.


I think this may be the fourth(?) time you've said you've green buttoned me, so evidently there's something going wrong on your end there.

The personal attacks are quite adorable.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

So, I think there's two things to point out.

1. AS BBfanboy has noted, a rocket is not a shell, and thinking about it as such will lead to the wrong conclusions.

2. Is heavy saturation bombardment LCI craft causing large causalities (and critically for AE, massive disruption to units) ahistorical? It's not.

I mean, this is effectively what the LCI conversions were designed to do. Overwhelm the defenders with firepower and allow the landing infantry an easy time ashore.

Worth considering other factors in AE. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but atoll terrain functions like clear terrain. Not good for protection against bombardments of any kind...


Yes it is ahistorical, the LCI(G) rocket was a short range weapon only for beach support with 1 km range. So unless you can argue that enemy is all in small stretch of 500m deep beach and that assuming it fires from 500 out on the sea... not even considered that there is no precision at all.

We have here 26 LCI(G), and LCI(G) rocket with 2.9kg explosive is not certainly better than a 150mm gun/howitzer round. So could you get these results with 26 of said guns firing in day?


Worth noting that not all LCI's use the Beach Barrage Rocket, others use the HVAR.

WRT the comparison with a 155mm shell, it's a case of concentration and timing. How long will it take you to deliver an equivalent volume of explosive, and how many guns would it require to do it in a similar length of time? As mentioned previously, the "shock" value.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken

M_M these boats seen widespread use irl , despite that most naval invasions were bloody and lengthy . These rockets have very limited range , they were used for beachhead supression for troops to land easier , not wipe out entire island garrisons in 1 day. Its pretty clear that they violate the effect/anti-soft value rules that are used everywhereelse and there is nothing else uses this device type. Unless you come with actual usefull data please stay away i am so done with you


Worth re-reading post #1437 again.

The entire garrison was not wiped out by the pre-invasion bombardment from the LCI craft on day 1.

They were heavily disrupted by the bombardment, to the point that they had zero effective assault value, but they were not wiped out until the Allied auto-shock attack took the base afterwards.

IJ defenders were alive and kicking when the auto-shock attack went in, they just weren't in a position to offer effective resistance (which is probably to be expected after the entire atoll has just been carpeted by rockets).

In other words, WAD.

As for the violation of the effect/anti-soft value rules, I'd be interested to know:

1. What the rules actually are
2. How these rocket devices violate above rules.

AFAIK, the formula behind the game values was never disclosed, so keen to see what insider info you have on this.

i am gonna post this again since apperantly you cant read
normally naval guns have 1/10th of their effect(shell weight) as soft attack value. For example most 8in guns have around 330 effect and 33 soft attack but these 4.5in rockets have higher soft attack value than their effect , causing them to be 10times more effective than what they are supposed to be. 4.5in Rocket has 20 effect and 26 soft attack so each one of these devices are almost as devastating as one 8in device.

Also as a note this 1/10th rule also applies to bombs.

I would guess these rockets are working as a naval gun when put on ships. If you want to come with actual usefull data change these rockets to naval gun in editor and do a test with them as vanilla and changed to naval gun, if you get near identical results , its violating the 1/10th rule


As you're the self-appointed testing guru, I'll leave the testing exercise to you.




Dili -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/6/2021 9:35:03 PM)

Those rocket had only 1km range...

quote:

I don't think anyone is saying the garrison should have been only mildly affected


I do think that should have been even less than mild.



mind_messing -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/6/2021 9:41:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WriterNotViking

As a general comment, while the historical efficacy of these ships might be substantial, the fact that level 6 forts did nothing to prevent the garrison from being rendered completely ineffective seems to me the most serious issue. I don't think anyone is saying the garrison should have been only mildly affected, but the complete elimination of the defenders' combat power strikes me as excessive.

Even if historical data could be found to support this effect (I'm not an encyclopedia so I cannot be sure) I would still hold to the view that, for game purposes, the effect ought to be nerfed in order to avoid making atolls completely indefensible to any degree if the attacker deploys LCI gunboats. I need not list examples of other real-world technologies whose effectiveness was reduced to make the game even marginally competitive.

On a more specific note:

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
It may just be me, but what exactly is the expectation here for a garrison that will be concussed, dazed and bleeding from the ears?

Are they to dig themselves from under the stand, charge and drive the Americans back into the ocean?


This is disingenuous, because no one said they expected anything like this. Such of phrasing is only good for muddying the waters, and it casts an unpleasant light on your intentions.


Without level 6 forts, the garrison would have been completely destroyed.

My comment was not disingenuous, I am genuinely curious what more is expected here.

The fact is that the IJ troops and forts fulfilled their strategic role to the full. The Allies were required to make a large scale amphibious landing with a significant proportion of high-VP assets beyond the range of supporting land-based air and at some distance from supporting bases.

Having an expectation that a small garrison of light infantry are each going to put on a performance to put Heinrich Severloh to shame after a monumental rocket barrage is, to be blunt, stupid.



mind_messing -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/6/2021 9:45:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Those rocket had only 1km range...

quote:

I don't think anyone is saying the garrison should have been only mildly affected


I do think that should have been even less than mild.


It's utterly absurd to have the expectation that after a saturation bombardment such as that, the defenders will dust themselves off and not even be mildly perturbed.

In reality, you'd be lucky to hear anything from your bleeding eardrums, let alone process what is going on from concussion. Suppression weapons are no joke.



Dili -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/6/2021 9:48:48 PM)

Are you joking? in a stretch of 500m of beach at most? The thing is a barrage weapon fired by direction that the LCI(G) is going with a very short range.



WriterNotViking -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/6/2021 9:49:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Those rocket had only 1km range...

quote:

I don't think anyone is saying the garrison should have been only mildly affected


I do think that should have been even less than mild.


Okay, I stand corrected, someone is saying that. [:D] I made some assumptions about atolls not being particularly large, and looking up Marcus Island (now called Minami-Tori-shima), it's only 1.51 square kilometers, so perhaps its entire surface could be in rocket range. With that said, I still hold that level 6 forts should do something more than diversify the skyline.



WriterNotViking -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/6/2021 9:55:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Without level 6 forts, the garrison would have been completely destroyed.

My comment was not disingenuous, I am genuinely curious what more is expected here.


If you'd simply been curious, you wouldn't have included this bit:

quote:

Are they to dig themselves from under the stand, charge and drive the Americans back into the ocean?


Because, again, no one said that.

quote:

The fact is that the IJ troops and forts fulfilled their strategic role to the full. The Allies were required to make a large scale amphibious landing with a significant proportion of high-VP assets beyond the range of supporting land-based air and at some distance from supporting bases.


This is irrelevant to the question of the gunboats' efficacy.

quote:

Having an expectation that a small garrison of light infantry are each going to put on a performance to put Heinrich Severloh to shame after a monumental rocket barrage is, to be blunt, stupid.


That's the second time you whip out the strawman. The issue is that the garrison was rendered completely ineffective, not that they didn't hold the island. And you're not being blunt, you're being rude.



Evoken -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/6/2021 10:16:06 PM)

M_M you are falling into a logical fallacy here. Who here claimed rocket artillery were completely useless ? You are being disingenuous in your arguments and you are not answering any points with any sort of data.If you look at results with 6000 casualties from 26 LCI (G) on atoll invasion. These LCI's fired their rockets in pairs of 12 and each rocket warhead has 6.5 lb of explosive which brings us to 78 LB per salvo with 780 lb total per LCI (with irl values) meanwhile an American heavy cruiser has 21 lb of explosive per shell , thats 189 LB of explosive per salvo with hundreds of rounds (if anyone knows total 8in ammo on US heavy cruisers please chime in with total number)(if we go with 14 rounds per gun of Witp its 9x14x21=2646).

Now if we use Witp soft attack values , we got 120x26=3120 soft attack per LCI and 9x12*x33=3564 soft attack (*12 because Cruisers dont spend all their ammo on bombardements in 1 day) as you can see an LCI with 4.5in rockets have almost same soft attack value as a heavy cruiser yet irl its much more different (by best estimate its 1/3rd of a CA), why do you think allies regularly bombarded with heavy guns at every oppurtunity(sometimes for days) instead of only using these cheap rocket filled ships ?




mind_messing -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/6/2021 11:00:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken

M_M you are falling into a logical fallacy here. Who here claimed rocket artillery were completely useless ?



I think you missed the sarcasm - I was highlighting the fact that rocket artillery has been an exceptionally effective weapon in causing widespread dislocation and disruption to defensive positions. Those claiming that this result is a game bug or database error are not grasping the real impact of the weapon (nor the significant difference with traditional artillery).

54 combat squads were destroyed. Killed. Wiped out. That seems appropriate.

353 combat squads were disabled. Injured, concussed, dazed. That also seems appropriate.

quote:

You are being disingenuous in your arguments and you are not answering any points with any sort of data.


Reposting the link as evidently you missed it.

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/a/amphibious-operations-capture-iwo-jima.html

Some choice quotes from me:


"The capture of Iwo Jima would have been impossible without the preparatory bombardment and continued support of fire support vessels, carrier and land-based aircraft supplementing the artillery, rockets, tanks, and organic infantry weapons of the landing force."

"The LCI(L)(3)(R)(RCM)'s were used for harassing and interdiction fires but their rockets were soon exhausted. As there were no replacements available, the LCI(R)'s were used thereafter for RCM and anti-small-craft patrol duties and smoke craft. The rockets have the advantage of long range (4,000-5,250 yards maximum) but their uncertain flight makes the troops unwilling to have them fired over men or boats or very close to front lines."

"RCM and Rocket Support Unit No. 1 consisting of nine 5".0 SSR Rocket LCI's, delivered scheduled neutralization fire on the Motoyama area from 0645 to 1300. All rockets on board these ships (a total of approximately 9,500) were delivered during this period, using standard plan RA from a reference point to northeast of the island. On completion of this fire, all fire support duties of this unit terminated for the remainder of the operation."

"How-minus-Forty-five and delivered initial rocket salvos in an attempt to detonate possible inflammables on the beach well in advance of the time of landing. Another innovation at Iwo Jima was the loading and firing of a second rocket salvo during the ship-to-shore movement of the leading wave. The gunboats fired their first salvo at How-minus-Ten minutes as in past operations, then reloaded rocket racks as they moved in to a range of 600-700 yards from the beach and fired a second salvo at How-minus-Five minutes placing this salvo 300 to 500 yards inland. Since 4".5 rocket fire is more neutralizing than destructive and since its short range prevents its use for neutralization of inland areas, its use has rarely been requested after a landing. The best employment of 4".5 rockets therefore is beach neutralization just prior to the landing and their employment for initial and additional salvos at Iwo Jima is recommended for future landing support."

Plenty more in there to discuss.

quote:

If you look at results with 6000 casualties from 26 LCI (G) on atoll invasion. These LCI's fired their rockets in pairs of 12 and each rocket warhead has 6.5 lb of explosive which brings us to 78 LB per salvo with 780 lb total per LCI (with irl values) meanwhile an American heavy cruiser has 21 lb of explosive per shell , thats 189 LB of explosive per salvo with hundreds of rounds (if anyone knows total 8in ammo on US heavy cruisers please chime in with total number)(if we go with 14 rounds per gun of Witp its 9x14x21=2646).


Some points:

- Not casualties in the sense of destroyed squads. Disablements. The distinction is critical here. If all those squads had been destroyed, I'd be inclined to think that there was something off. The fact that they are disablements suggests that these weapons are WAD.

- In terms of a rapid, focused, concentrated delivery of firepower, the LCI(G) is vastly superior. The entire battery rockets can be fired and impact in seconds over a large area, while for a CA to empty it's magazines you're likely talking in the rate of hours and the extent to which it can area saturate is very limited. That is something to factor in to the "shock" element when considering disablements.


quote:

ORIGINAL: WriterNotViking


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Those rocket had only 1km range...

quote:

I don't think anyone is saying the garrison should have been only mildly affected


I do think that should have been even less than mild.


Okay, I stand corrected, someone is saying that. [:D] I made some assumptions about atolls not being particularly large, and looking up Marcus Island (now called Minami-Tori-shima), it's only 1.51 square kilometers, so perhaps its entire surface could be in rocket range. With that said, I still hold that level 6 forts should do something more than diversify the skyline.


The abstractions work both ways: all the defenders have a chance to fire at the landing force, and so the landing force has a chance to fire back.

The level 6 forts kept the troops alive till the deliberate attack. That in itself is something. You've a Seelow Heights situation here - it doesn't matter how deep the trenches are when there's that much explosives going off.



DesertWolf101 -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/6/2021 11:42:44 PM)

Can we please stop with the insults? Surely we can have an interesting discussion or even an argument without resorting to playground behavior? [:-]

M-M, I believe the primary point of contention that is being leveled here is not that these weapons are not effective, it's that they should not be more effective than other bombardment tools also present in the game to a point that is clearly ahistorical. I think we all know enough about the Pacific War to see that an LCI(G) should not be more effective than a dozen heavy cruisers in bombardment, but if you think differently could you please explain why the USN went to such lengths to bring in large numbers of heavy warships for sustained bombardments very late into the war if they could have simply used a score of these craft in a single run?

I have studied artillery effects quite extensively in my professional life. The latest project I did directly tied to the subject was a few years back when I looked at the 2014 Zelenopillya attack. The main weakness of standard rocket artillery is the lack of penetrating capacity. Especially when we are talking about WW2 rockets, they are great against units on the surface with little cover but are extremely inaccurate and are very weak against units in bunkers. I assure you they are not nearly as powerful against dug in forces, especially if concrete emplacements are available, as large caliber howitzer or gun shells.



Evoken -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/6/2021 11:54:23 PM)

Agreed wolf , in witp best naval bombardement i have seen in my games was with 12 BB's and 3 BC's bombarding at day from really close range and it caused 2000 casualties. Seeing 6000 casualties with just by LCI (G) is quite absurd



mind_messing -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/7/2021 1:11:47 AM)

As a general observation, I find this entire debate quite amusing conceptually.

If there's this much contention at how disruptive pre-invasion rocket fire can be, I would hate to think of the howls that would emerge if napalm or air-deployed HVAR's were included in the game...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101
M-M, I believe the primary point of contention that is being leveled here is not that these weapons are not effective, it's that they should not be more effective than other bombardment tools also present in the game to a point that is clearly ahistorical. I think we all know enough about the Pacific War to see that an LCI(G) should not be more effective than a dozen heavy cruisers in bombardment, but if you think differently could you please explain why the USN went to such lengths to bring in large numbers of heavy warships for sustained bombardments very late into the war if they could have simply used a score of these craft in a single run?


The existence of the LCI variants in themselves is proof that there was a recognised need that supplementary assets were needed for the bombardment support/invasion role.

As for the USN going to great lengths to use the heavy warships in the bombardment role into the late war, what else were they to do, exactly? The IJN was largely out of the picture, surface combat was a remote possibility and the carriers only need so many escorting capital ships.

There's also the wider practical considerations of having larger warships capable of operating independently over distance versus the LCI variants that are much shorter legged.

quote:

I have studied artillery effects quite extensively in my professional life. The latest project I did directly tied to the subject was a few years back when I looked at the 2014 Zelenopillya attack. The main weakness of standard rocket artillery is the lack of penetrating capacity. Especially when we are talking about WW2 rockets, they are great against units on the surface with little cover but are extremely inaccurate and are very weak against units in bunkers. I assure you they are not nearly as powerful against dug in forces, especially if concrete emplacements are available, as large caliber howitzer or gun shells.


Then you'll know it's less about the actual penetrative capacity and overall lethality of the rockets themselves and much more on the wider physiological and psychological effects on units targeted.

That's true in a large part for most artillery in general, but much more so for rocket artillery.

What we have here is a situation where troops are in the open (atoll terrain in the game is considered clear terrain IIRC), with defences that add up to a complex trench network with field bunkers. The Maginot Line it is not.

It is worth reiterating here that focusing on the casualties is a red herring due to the way AE presents information on combat resolutions. Better to focus on the squads:

Squads: 54 destroyed, 353 disabled

In other words, 54 squads were destroyed outright, while 353 were impacted in such a way that they had their combat capability reduced. The IJ combat formations on the island were so disorganised by the overwhelming pre-invasion bombardment that their disruption and fatigue was such that they were not able to muster any effective AV at the combat resolution stage.

To me, that reads like a result consistent with what you'd expect from heavy rocketry bombardment in unhardened fortifications:
- Outright losses are fairly limited, confined to the rare direct hit on garrisoned positions.
- General loss of combat effectiveness and cohesion across the defenders ranks thanks to injury/concussion/hearing loss and general shock.
- Stress on command and control as comms break down, hard wires end up cut, and there's not many people keen to go run messages. Mass casualty event needs to be resolved (one way or another) before any consideration can be made for actually defending the position.

All of this is consistent with what you will have found in your professional life.



Alfred -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/7/2021 2:53:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

You know Castor I disagreed with some of your complaints before but I didn't write anything about it. This time though I think you are right to be frustrated. This LCI(G) issue you are illustrating here seems to me to be quite a problem. I can't imagine this is as intended since it is quite clearly unrealistic.


As is always the case, the issue is being misrepresented. The "unrealistic" conclusion is drawn from an erroneous premise of what the game engine does.

Alfred



Alfred -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/7/2021 2:57:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken

I have taken a look at LCI (G) and similiar classes and their devices;
Normally naval guns have 1/10th of their effect(shell weight) as soft attack value. For example most 8in guns have around 330 effect and 33 soft attack but these 4.5in rockets have higher soft attack value than their effect , causing them to be 10times more effective than what they are supposed to be. 4.5in Rocket has 20 effect and 26 soft attack so each one of these devices are almost as devastating as one 8in device. Meaning 1 LCI (G) with 120 rockets have power of 13 Heavy cruisers (120/9guns).

This can be fixed easily by adjusting the devices soft attack value and can be put in to effect in an ongoing PBEM with ease , i can help you if you would like.


There is nothing to be fixed. Your view is not supported by how the algorithms actually operate in the game.

Alfred



Alfred -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/7/2021 3:00:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

It may just be me, but what exactly is the expectation here for a garrison that will be concussed, dazed and bleeding from the ears?

Are they to dig themselves from under the stand, charge and drive the Americans back into the ocean?


A very precise comment.

There are many AE players who demand that the combat algorithms only deliver optimum outcomes for their side.

Alfred



Alfred -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/7/2021 3:05:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101



...I can't speak for Castor but I think the issue here is that you have a bombardment from a single LCI(G) be more devastating than ten heavy cruisers. I think we can all agree that's not realistic.


No, that isn't the case. Apples and oranges are not being compared as quite different algorithms are in play.

Alfred



Alfred -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/7/2021 3:10:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken

...Here is a base game 500 lb bomb , as you can see Soft attack is 1/10th of effect. Please dont spread missinformation without actually checking. I couldnt find anything else that uses these rockets in base game , there are some land based rockets that act as artillery but effect and soft attack values are pretty consistent on those
[image]https://i.gyazo.com/b3f93d56bd4705b26d113eba55585c82.png[/image]


The classic mistake of making a comment which is not informed by how the algorithms manipulate the data.

Alfred



Alfred -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/7/2021 3:13:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

So, I think there's two things to point out.

1. AS BBfanboy has noted, a rocket is not a shell, and thinking about it as such will lead to the wrong conclusions.

2. Is heavy saturation bombardment LCI craft causing large causalities (and critically for AE, massive disruption to units) ahistorical? It's not.

I mean, this is effectively what the LCI conversions were designed to do. Overwhelm the defenders with firepower and allow the landing infantry an easy time ashore.

Worth considering other factors in AE. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but atoll terrain functions like clear terrain. Not good for protection against bombardments of any kind...


I don't have an issue with #1. But if it is true that on an aggregate scale an LCI(G) is more effective than a dozen heavy cruisers in a bombardment then yes, I would definitely say that is ahistorical.


Again, not how the algorithms operate. Different actions call up different algorithms. Just because a player uses the same term, erroneously, for different actions, does not make them the same calling up the same algorithms.

Alfred



Alfred -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/7/2021 3:16:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

So, I think there's two things to point out.

1. AS BBfanboy has noted, a rocket is not a shell, and thinking about it as such will lead to the wrong conclusions.

2. Is heavy saturation bombardment LCI craft causing large causalities (and critically for AE, massive disruption to units) ahistorical? It's not.

I mean, this is effectively what the LCI conversions were designed to do. Overwhelm the defenders with firepower and allow the landing infantry an easy time ashore.

Worth considering other factors in AE. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but atoll terrain functions like clear terrain. Not good for protection against bombardments of any kind...

Anti Soft value is a universal value , its pretty clear that these rocket boats are extremely op given that you wouldnt achieve these results even with extreme number of capital ships in a bombardement


Not correct. "Universal value" is a phrase which should never be used in AE. The data in any field gets manipulated differently depending on what is the specific algorithm.

Alfred



Alfred -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/7/2021 3:22:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken

Oh one thing i didnt take into account is that they have only 1 round per device so they are not as effective as 13 CA's , sorry. They are probably equal to 1 CA each on firepower


AP and HE have quite different characteristics and accordingly are used for different purposes. Your comparis9on is invalid.

Alfred



Alfred -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/7/2021 3:26:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

So, I think there's two things to point out.

1. AS BBfanboy has noted, a rocket is not a shell, and thinking about it as such will lead to the wrong conclusions.

2. Is heavy saturation bombardment LCI craft causing large causalities (and critically for AE, massive disruption to units) ahistorical? It's not.

I mean, this is effectively what the LCI conversions were designed to do. Overwhelm the defenders with firepower and allow the landing infantry an easy time ashore.

Worth considering other factors in AE. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but atoll terrain functions like clear terrain. Not good for protection against bombardments of any kind...


I don't have an issue with #1. But if it is true that on an aggregate scale an LCI(G) is more effective than a dozen heavy cruisers in a bombardment then yes, I would definitely say that is ahistorical.


Why, exactly?

A heavy cruiser is an ocean-going warship designed with a specific purpose in mind - to sink other ships. It's capability at coastal bombardment is secondary to that (and you could probably argue that it's tertiary, with CV escort duties bumped up to the number two spot).

The LCI conversion riff-raff, on the other hand, were developed with the specific role of invasion support in mind. As a result, there are a number of factors, which when combined could lead you to expect their effectiveness to be greater than a given number of heavy cruisers.

Some examples to illustrate:
- barrel wear on 8inch guns
- overheating and warping the gun barrels
- sufficient number of shells for sustained bombardment
- the "shock" factor

To go in to greater detail on the last point (which IMO is key to actually understanding what the game is trying to represent), the thing that rocket artillery does well is cause serious, widespread damage across a large area in a very, very short space of time.

Essentially, it's a question of what is more damaging to troops on the ground: a cruiser blazing away at a hillside till the magazines are empty, or the entire hillside exploding effectively instantaneously?

I'd refer you to the evaluation of the Soviet rocket artillery units in WW2, as we're roughly in the same territory in that regard.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

So, I think there's two things to point out.

1. AS BBfanboy has noted, a rocket is not a shell, and thinking about it as such will lead to the wrong conclusions.

2. Is heavy saturation bombardment LCI craft causing large causalities (and critically for AE, massive disruption to units) ahistorical? It's not.

I mean, this is effectively what the LCI conversions were designed to do. Overwhelm the defenders with firepower and allow the landing infantry an easy time ashore.

Worth considering other factors in AE. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but atoll terrain functions like clear terrain. Not good for protection against bombardments of any kind...

Anti Soft value is a universal value , its pretty clear that these rocket boats are extremely op given that you wouldnt achieve these results even with extreme number of capital ships in a bombardement



Worth keeping in mind that while the value is universal, the application of that value will differ depending on the module (ie. land combat, naval combat, etc) and you will see different values depending on the module used.

As for the effectiveness question, I'd refer you to my comments above.

Naval artillery is, by design, precision weaponry. The unguided rockets of the period are area suppression.

This is all before we get into the nuances of the ballistic differences (where the high trajectory rockets will be at an advantage in dealing certain geographic or defensive features.


Regarding how the game operates, there is a great deal of value in what mind_messing has posted.

Alfred



Alfred -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/7/2021 3:34:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


...Some things to note from the combat report:
- Limited CD gunfire from IJ troops (which in my experience tends to focus Allied fire on the CD unit and shield the combat units to some extent).

- Large number of disablements and relatively little actual squads destroyed, which would be what you'd expect from a large area suppression attack from rockets....



Now we are getting to game reality and not unfounded player expectations.

Some time ago I went into great detail on how the different actions, which players tend to lump together as "bombardment", operated. It is simply not correct to lump together in a single term, "bombardment". Doing so just misrepresents what is actually happening.

Alfred



Alfred -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/7/2021 3:42:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken

M_M these boats seen widespread use irl , despite that most naval invasions were bloody and lengthy . These rockets have very limited range , they were used for beachhead supression for troops to land easier , not wipe out entire island garrisons in 1 day. Its pretty clear that they violate the effect/anti-soft value rules that are used everywhereelse and there is nothing else uses this device type. Unless you come with actual usefull data please stay away i am so done with you


Worth re-reading post #1437 again.

The entire garrison was not wiped out by the pre-invasion bombardment from the LCI craft on day 1.

They were heavily disrupted by the bombardment, to the point that they had zero effective assault value, but they were not wiped out until the Allied auto-shock attack took the base afterwards.

IJ defenders were alive and kicking when the auto-shock attack went in, they just weren't in a position to offer effective resistance (which is probably to be expected after the entire atoll has just been carpeted by rockets).

In other words, WAD.

As for the violation of the effect/anti-soft value rules, I'd be interested to know:

1. What the rules actually are
2. How these rocket devices violate above rules.

AFAIK, the formula behind the game values was never disclosed, so keen to see what insider info you have on this.


Again very correct commentary from mind_messing.

What we have here is someone who doesn't have access to the code but who doesn't let that inconvenient fact inhibiting him from substituting his own assumptions as to what is in the code. Spreadsheets are not a suitable substitute.

Alfred



Alfred -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/7/2021 3:48:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken


...I would guess these rockets are working as a naval gun when put on ships....


So, someone who is guessing, is telling us how the game algorithms operate and by extension from other posts, how to fix the game.

If only JWE/Symon were still on the forums, he would eviscerate your forum contributions.

Alfred



Alfred -> RE: AAR 1944 (4/7/2021 3:53:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


...Without level 6 forts, the garrison would have been completely destroyed...



Actually, one could make a decent argument that no size 1 atoll, should even be capable of building fortifications up to level 6.

Alfred



Page: <<   < prev  47 48 [49] 50 51   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.984131