Invasion Support Ships (working?)

Invasion Support Ships (working?) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Desertdaddy -> Invasion Support Ships (working?) (12/22/2004 7:22:08 PM)
I want to believe but the combat reports say something different. This time invasion TF against Saipan, same leader, same APs, no FOW. Lots of nice CD guns to contend with. 10 AP no support, IJN base had very minor damage. A few 5” & 3” ammo decerased AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/20/44 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coastal Guns at Saipan, 63,64, firing at TF 1001 TF 1001 troops unloading over beach at Saipan, 63,64 776 Coastal gun shots fired in defense. Allied Ships AP Leonard Wood, Shell hits 2 AP Heywood, Shell hits 12, on fire AP Neville, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage AP George F. Elliot, Shell hits 15, on fire, heavy damage AP Fuller, Shell hits 3, on fire AP American Legion, Shell hits 7, on fire AP W.A. Holbrook, Shell hits 7, on fire Japanese ground losses: 15 casualties reported Guns lost 1 Allied ground losses: 932 casualties reported Guns lost 7 Vehicles lost 18 ___________________________________ 10AP, 40 LCI(G), 9 LCI(R), 12 LSM (R), CD guns 25 disruption. 2 LCI(G) ammo 0 but also Sys 99 Float 99 Fire 248 (yes 248!). ammo could have blown up (magazine explosion?). A few 5” & 3” guns had less ammo. AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/13/44 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coastal Guns at Saipan, 63,64, firing at TF 1001 TF 1001 troops unloading over beach at Saipan, 63,64 1202 Coastal gun shots fired in defense. Allied Ships LCI(G) LCI-61, Shell hits 14, on fire, heavy damage AP Arthur Middleton, Shell hits 15, on fire, heavy damage AP Calvert, Shell hits 30, on fire, heavy damage LCI(G) LCI-65, Shell hits 11, on fire, heavy damage LCI(G) LCI-69, Shell hits 6, on fire, heavy damage LCI(G) LCI-66, Shell hits 12, on fire, heavy damage AP Heywood, Shell hits 3, on fire AP Neville, Shell hits 18, on fire, heavy damage LCI(G) LCI(G)-77, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage AP George F. Elliot, Shell hits 4, on fire LCI(G) LCI-70, Shell hits 6, on fire LCI(G) LCI-64, Shell hits 4 AP W.A. Holbrook, Shell hits 10, on fire, heavy damage LCI(G) LCI-68, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage Japanese ground losses: 14 casualties reported Allied ground losses: 1427 casualties reported Guns lost 14 Vehicles lost 4 _____________________________ 10 AP % 15 LCI(G). CD no damage or disruption. Very small amount of fire from 5” and 3” guns AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/14/44 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coastal Guns at Saipan, 63,64, firing at TF 1001 TF 1001 troops unloading over beach at Saipan, 63,64 1004 Coastal gun shots fired in defense. Allied Ships LCI(G) LCI-66, Shell hits 30, on fire, heavy damage AP Arthur Middleton, Shell hits 6 AP Calvert, Shell hits 1, on fire LCI(G) LCI-64, Shell hits 2 AP Leonard Wood, Shell hits 15, on fire, heavy damage LCI(G) LCI-67, Shell hits 4 AP Heywood, Shell hits 2, on fire AP George F. Elliot, Shell hits 11, on fire, heavy damage AP American Legion, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage LCI(G) LCI-61, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage AP W.A. Holbrook, Shell hits 13, on fire LCI(G) LCI-68, Shell hits 10, on fire, heavy damage Japanese ground losses: 4 casualties reported Guns lost 1 Allied ground losses: 1030 casualties reported Guns lost 10 Vehicles lost 21 I do agree that costal defense guns increase the landing casualties. This may be because of all the AP hits (hitting the troops before they can disembark) not necessarily hitting the troops on the beach. I just don’t see the advantage of including these LCI type ships in an invasion fleet. Their contribution is next to nothing and their numbers added up make an extreme disadvantage. Add these support ships and take more damage. Is the solution smaller invasion TFs like below? _______________________ 1AP. 0 disruption on IJN base, no ammo decrease. AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/16/44 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coastal Guns at Saipan, 63,64, firing at TF 1001 TF 1001 troops unloading over beach at Saipan, 63,64 20 Coastal gun shots fired in defense. Allied Ships AP American Legion Allied ground losses: 52 casualties reported I will test any way you want, but from the results I've seem all day long. More ships is more casualties no matter if LCI(G)s are present or not.

byron13 -> RE: Invasion Support Ships (working?) (12/22/2004 9:01:02 PM)
Bump. And happy holidays, everyone!

Sneer -> RE: Invasion Support Ships (working?) (12/23/2004 11:13:09 AM)
I also noticed weird CD behaviour- the more ships in tf the more shots and bigger damage to TF looks like each ships gets its portion of CD attention on the same level no matter the size of TF When increased twice invasion TF for Wake I get half of ships sunk or heavy damaged 3 CL couple of DDs and smaller ships , punch of support and transports 1 CL& 2 dd + 1 tr sunk + 1 CL & 2 dd + others damaged or heavy damaged

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Invasion Support Ships (working?) (12/23/2004 12:35:21 PM)
Same thing happens with surface naval combat. Ever notice when one ship fires at the other, the target ship returns fire? So, let's say you have 4 ships vs 1: Your four ships each fire once, but the target ship fire back at each ship, thereby quadrupling its firepower. This is a serious design flaw as it ignores the concept of simultaneous fire. I'm not sure if operations points are being expended here or not, but the 4 ships should all be able to fire once and the target ship once (at one of the 4 enemy ships).

ADavidB -> RE: Invasion Support Ships (working?) (12/23/2004 1:27:38 PM)
quote: I do agree that costal defense guns increase the landing casualties. This may be because of all the AP hits (hitting the troops before they can disembark) not necessarily hitting the troops on the beach. I just don’t see the advantage of including these LCI type ships in an invasion fleet. Their contribution is next to nothing and their numbers added up make an extreme disadvantage. Add these support ships and take more damage. Is the solution smaller invasion TFs like below? _______________________ 1AP. 0 disruption on IJN base, no ammo decrease. AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/16/44 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coastal Guns at Saipan, 63,64, firing at TF 1001 TF 1001 troops unloading over beach at Saipan, 63,64 20 Coastal gun shots fired in defense. Allied Ships AP American Legion Allied ground losses: 52 casualties reported I will test any way you want, but from the results I've seem all day long. More ships is more casualties no matter if LCI(G)s are present or not. Hmmm - this reminds me - I seem to remember that when you have multiple TFs going in against a target the CDs attack the first TF the most, then the next one less and so on. You know, you may have stumbled upon something here. Think about the problem with loading multiple LCUs in a single TF - making multiple TFs and arranging their arrival might solve two problems at the same time. Dave Baranyi

von Murrin -> RE: Invasion Support Ships (working?) (12/23/2004 2:06:18 PM)
I do that anyway. Works great, I tell ya.[:)]

shoevarek -> RE: Invasion Support Ships (working?) (12/23/2004 11:18:21 PM)
quote: Ever notice when one ship fires at the other, the target ship returns fire? Once in the UV forum there was discussion about naval combat. I posted same observation. I remember in UV crippled US cruiser demolishing my few CA task force (radar + action/reaction = IJN is doomed in all encounters no matter what you attack). In WiTP naval combat is changed somewhat for the better though. There was also another problem - big ship or small ship all commanders seemed to like close range encounters, thus defying the advantage of range and armour.

DrewMatrix -> RE: Invasion Support Ships (working?) (12/23/2004 11:27:35 PM)
I ran a bunch of bombardment test games a while back. Similar to the CDs but with the ships shooting at the CDs and the CDs shooting at the ships. At first I thought that many 1 ship TFs made a difference, but on further testing of (as I recall) 12 1 ship TFs, 3 4 ship TFs, 2 6 ship TFs and 1 12 shipi TF (or something like that) The results are variable turn to turn, but if you run all those for about 5-6 turns they all start to trend to the same mean numbers of hits. This was not under 1.4 but is easy to reproduce: 4 Japanese bases, 4 sets of US TFs go to each base, just run over and over.

witpqs -> RE: Invasion Support Ships (working?) (12/23/2004 11:51:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Same thing happens with surface naval combat. Ever notice when one ship fires at the other, the target ship returns fire? So, let's say you have 4 ships vs 1: Your four ships each fire once, but the target ship fire back at each ship, thereby quadrupling its firepower. This is a serious design flaw as it ignores the concept of simultaneous fire. I'm not sure if operations points are being expended here or not, but the 4 ships should all be able to fire once and the target ship once (at one of the 4 enemy ships). Sometimes they used different turrets to fire on different targets. I think the rationale when under fire from multiple adversaries is that leaving any of them unharrased is bad juju - they can just cream you with greater accuracy than if they are under fire themselves. That would be fine in WITP, but then the volume of fire at each target must be reduced appropriately. In your example the target could return full fire at one enemy, or return reduced fire at multiple enemies. The definition of 'multiple' would depend on the ship in question.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.84375