Terrain+forts protection value vs. air/naval bombardements (Full Version)

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



Message

Alpha77 -> Terrain+forts protection value vs. air/naval bombardements (11/22/2019 4:19:15 PM)

I have added a 2nd topic below, please note :)

1. It is clear what terrain+forts do in a ground combat and the difference having your ground units in a clear or rough hex if bombed from the air.

However the manual is unclear or missing the info on effect of these 2 factors helping against base bombing (from the air and from the sea). Probably the info can be found somewhere in the forum or even veterans are not sure about this.

The AI builds lots of forts, but this does seem to have no effect on my bombing of their bases as they will be put out of action quite quickly (playing Allies vs. IJ AI). On the receiving end, I had for example bases bombed in jungle (this is 2x defensive bonus, but only in ground to ground combat?) also 1 of the bases reached fort 5 but I hardly see any protection value for base facilities, runways, ships in port or aircraft on the ground. The last bombardement (PBM me as IJ) by only 3 US CLs and 3 DDs would put out of action "only" 12 planes. SO I thought I got of ok, however there were many more damaged planes, morale low and the engineer and AA units took a disruption in the 70ties (!). I noticed this a turn later when their disruption was back to 40-50 which is still very high for only 6 ("lighter ships") bombarding a base with 2 x defense for jungle and 5 forts.

So it seems to me at least for airfields and their contents (means the service units for the aircraft and also AA) the terrain and fort value might not be usefull. One would think at 5 forts the personnel and at least a portion of the planes would be in hardened shelters...or perhaps at 6 forts a bonus kicks in[&:]

Which also reminds me of some 4Es bombing at night a size 5AF with 4 forts in the jungle. Which was devastating and AA hardly even shot..yes I have radars...

2. I have not seen that sweeps might be escorted ? I had "tacked on" my observation that 40 Georges sweeped, but 68 were in the report to be present at the target hex... in this thread:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4717153

But no replies anymore, perhaps someone has an idea, why additional 28 George fighters showed up in the report?



GetAssista -> RE: Terrain+forts protection value vs. air/naval bombardements (11/22/2019 4:54:40 PM)

Forts certainly help save troops from bombings/bombardments, no doubt about that. The effect depends on the incoming caliber. CL/DD bombardment will do nothing against high forts, but BB will kill some stuff even against level 9. On the other hand, have a 0 forts enemy bombarded with CL/DD TFs and you will be pleasantly surprised. I'm doing it right now against the Chinese respawn in Foochow (the last beta has them reviving in any large enough base in the AI game)

Forts should not save your planes like they do troops - planes are too big to hide in trenches. Not to mention ships and runways. Yes, airfield earthworks were used in WWII, but I assume their defensive effect is limited, no caves for planes to be built. And if the effect is in any way in game, it is also limited.
It would be reasonable if the airbase hits (that destroy supply) were somewhat negated with higher forts. You can hide your supply in your trenches. I don't know if this is the case in game



BBfanboy -> RE: Terrain+forts protection value vs. air/naval bombardements (11/23/2019 3:29:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

Forts certainly help save troops from bombings/bombardments, no doubt about that. The effect depends on the incoming caliber. CL/DD bombardment will do nothing against high forts, but BB will kill some stuff even against level 9. On the other hand, have a 0 forts enemy bombarded with CL/DD TFs and you will be pleasantly surprised. I'm doing it right now against the Chinese respawn in Foochow (the last beta has them reviving in any large enough base in the AI game)

Forts should not save your planes like they do troops - planes are too big to hide in trenches. Not to mention ships and runways. Yes, airfield earthworks were used in WWII, but I assume their defensive effect is limited, no caves for planes to be built. And if the effect is in any way in game, it is also limited.
It would be reasonable if the airbase hits (that destroy supply) were somewhat negated with higher forts. You can hide your supply in your trenches. I don't know if this is the case in game

I think forts would also include any camouflage efforts. Aircraft in revetments off in the bush could easily be hidden under camouflage. The taxiway itself would be harder to hide.



Alpha77 -> RE: Terrain+forts protection value vs. air/naval bombardements (11/27/2019 11:32:24 AM)

Probably camouflage (or maskirovska) is not moddelled in the game - I had also read some AAR and found that the results seem normal for Allied CL/DD bombardements. Perhaps the radar helps them as well vs. ground targets also their (nav)gun values are a bit higher then the IJN guns. Eg. the 6inch guns on esp. US cruisers seem among the best...

However I believe supply is somewhat protected by forts..ok one can say the planes on the field are vulnerable as no bomb proof shelters fro them exist. But the troops should benefit, however they get massive disruption, I am not speaking of BB or CA fleets btw. there it would perfectly finbe as one needs massive entrechments vs. BB shells.



BBfanboy -> RE: Terrain+forts protection value vs. air/naval bombardements (11/27/2019 12:10:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Probably camouflage (or maskirovska) is not moddelled in the game - I had also read some AAR and found that the results seem normal for Allied CL/DD bombardements. Perhaps the radar helps them as well vs. ground targets also their (nav)gun values are a bit higher then the IJN guns. Eg. the 6inch guns on esp. US cruisers seem among the best...

However I believe supply is somewhat protected by forts..ok one can say the planes on the field are vulnerable as no bomb proof shelters fro them exist. But the troops should benefit, however they get massive disruption, I am not speaking of BB or CA fleets btw. there it would perfectly finbe as one needs massive entrechments vs. BB shells.

Just like port level unloading rates account for lighters being available for unloading while not docked, fort levels make things harder to hit which could mean camouflage as well as physical protection. It doesn't have to be modeled as an item in the calculations, it is already modeled in the fort level benefits. That would account for aircraft not being hit as much as you assume they should. From what I have ready the Japanese naval bombardments of Henderson Field did not destroy all that many planes because they were hidden in the jungle, well dispersed. Float plane spotters dropping flares at night would have a very hard time finding them.



Alpha77 -> RE: Terrain+forts protection value vs. air/naval bombardements (11/27/2019 12:20:56 PM)

quote:

That would account for aircraft not being hit as much as you assume they should.


I only assume so cause of the damage these fields/planes plus support/AA troops receive in game. I think it is too much for smaller surface combatants as well by night bombing. But it is among the normal in the game as my own games and AARs show. Just to clarify I think the damage is too severe, I was only reasening above why it could the case..

And as I said I had "only" lost 12 planes on the ground in one example... which would be ok perhaps for a size 5 airfield / 5 forts. But later I checked the troops on the base and found high disruption, as well lots of damaged planes.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.890625