Bombardment efficency (Full Version)

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



Message

frank1970 -> Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 10:28:11 AM)

Reading all the AARs one gets the impression, that navalbombardment is quite overrated.
One can shell the enemy with Artillery regiments all day and night and will get losses like 200 casualities, 2 Guns destroyed, 8 guns lost. Thereby one will loose bunches of supplies.
So when I order a bombardment TF, it will cause massive damage (has anyone seen destroyed planes or runways by a LCU bombardmend?).

All this damages are caused by ships which will go some 15 kn fast and some sm offcoast.
I think it is quite annoying.



2ndACR -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 12:35:37 PM)

To increase the bombardment effect for LCU's, just have 2-3 units in a hex and have one deliberate attack and the other 2 bombard.

Take China for example against Ron, we are battling for Sian at the moment. He has 20 units there as the Chinese and I have 8 divisions, 5 brigades, 3 engineer regiments and 6 artillery units. When all units are set to bombard, I only kill 50-100 men. Take 1 division and deliberate attack with it and all others bombard and I take 500 losses to his 1900+ every attack. And I drop a fort level 80% of the time if I also include a engineer regiment.

With all those units there, I can rotate attacks every turn and pound him to dust very slowly. Soon I will all out attack and take that sucker away from him.



frank1970 -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 1:41:27 PM)

2ndACR, it is good to see a workaround, but I think it is highly historical uncorrect, that 5 BBs can kill one fifth of a garrison of 4000 and an bombardment attack of 300 guns kills 200 out of 150000.

As a matter of fact BBs and Artillery throw grenades at the enemy. Although the BBs have less guns they hit much much more. Whereis the sense of this. Why canīt I lock the airfield of a base by LCU artillery? I can do it with ships. Is a 15cm gun of a Cl so much deadlier than a 15cm gun of an artillery unit?
Why are ships killers and LCU arty loosers? Why is this so? I donīt understand it. [:(]



2ndACR -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 3:03:44 PM)

This is one of those things that not even I fully understand. So, I can not really explain it to you. All I can do is give you a workaround that works.

I wish we could shut down a airfield with artillery bombardment like we can with ships.

Even small 8 plane airstrikes do as much damage to LCU's as a 2000 plus artillery gun bombardment.[:@]



frank1970 -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 3:37:04 PM)

Ok, it is one of the mysteriums of the engine. [X(]



Hard Sarge -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 4:20:54 PM)

quote:

As a matter of fact BBs and Artillery throw grenades at the enemy. Although the BBs have less guns they hit much much more. Whereis the sense of this. Why canīt I lock the airfield of a base by LCU artillery? I can do it with ships. Is a 15cm gun of a Cl so much deadlier than a 15cm gun of an artillery unit?


well, it is not the CL's that are doing the damage during a bombardment, you do not have any guns in your land unit that come close to matching the guns on a BB

HARD_Sarge



frank1970 -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 4:28:24 PM)

So 9 16 inch guns firing about 20 shots (?) (I donīt know the weapon loadout of a Battleship, but I think it is about 2000 shells for the main guns?) have such an devasting effect? Without target indication, without radar, without anything you order your BBs to shell some spot on the map and they will totally destroy it? This might make sense in small islands, but a hex usually should represent 60 miles square.
No, the killing efficeny is much too high.
Just do the maths:
Do 20 B17 cause the same damage as 1 BB? Why not? B17 drop 200 bombs of about the same weight a BB shell. The planes would hit the port OR the airfield OR the troops, not all of them.

Edit: BB Bismarck had 1000 shells for her main guns
http://www.kbismarck.com/armament.html
so there are only 10 shots per gun per "ammopoint used". this means a BB fires 90 16inch shells, weighing about 800kg. This means this 90 shells make the difference of some hundred casualties?



2ndACR -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 4:33:50 PM)

Considering that the BB is tossing 9 Volkswagons down range with each solvo, yes they will tear up alot of things.

You are talking about a shell that leaves a 100 foot wide hole in the ground and kills or wounds everything in about a 100 yard area with each shell. The BB will be tossing about 900 of these in a bombardment of 6 hours or so. IIRC, reload time is about 4 minutes for sustained fire.

But I am a ground pounder by training, so naval reload times are murky for me.

edited: each BB shell weighs in at about 1600 to 2200 pounds.



frank1970 -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 4:44:21 PM)

That would be true IF the BB empties its magazine, but this wonīt happen. The BB has 9 "ammo points" for its batteries. One is used up for shelling? Three are used? this means that only 300 rounds will be fired. They will cause a lot of damage, no question about that, but have all the shells a autonavigation so they find their targets? BBs are firing more or less blind into the area behind the coast. Into 3600 squaremiles.


Has someone real numbers about the losses caused by BB shelling?



Feinder -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 4:52:18 PM)

You should be advised that Frag has stated that the "only attack with an ENG unit" is a bug. What's actually happening is, everyboyd bombards once before the attack, then everyone bombards again when the ENG goes in. You're getting 2x bombardments for the price of one (and the ENG unit suffers peculiarly -low- casualties).

While I personally belive that ART unit should be upgunned, just be advised that your "work around" is technically considered an exploit, and is on the list to be fixed.

If they were to upgun ART units, it would have dramatic effects in China (where things can already be tenuous), so I'm not sure they'd put extra umph in ART units any time soon, but who knows.

-F-



frank1970 -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 4:58:39 PM)

I do not think, that artillery needs to be upgunned. Naval bombardmend needs to be toned down.
BBs surely were great in destroying known strongholds or delivering firesupport while assaults, but like any bombardment attack on unknown targets should be not so deadly.
Why not a message: "bombardment didnīt hit target" depending on the recon of the square attacked, comparable eg to the plane night attack.?



Rainerle -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 5:03:36 PM)

Hi,
BB fire was directed by spotting planes, even at night. One source that I have access states that during the first bombardment attack on Henderson airfield 46 planes were destroyed, so BB damage seems o.k. What should be addes is damage to installations during Arty bombardment.



2ndACR -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 5:05:19 PM)

Sorry, I do not attack with just an engineer unit. I usually use 1 engineer and 1-2 divisions per attack. That allows me to, if I have enough units there, to round robin the attacks every turn.

But artillery attacks sure do need to be upgunned. They are the most devestating type of attack in real life.

Frank,

The BB's on a bombardment mission will use 6 of nine shots, so if they are carrying 1000 rounds of ammo, that translates into 6-700 rounds per BB. They can and were quite accurate once they got the range to a target.



mlees -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 5:55:38 PM)

quote:

They can and were quite accurate once they got the range to a target


Yes, they sure can. Remember that they are designed to attack a moving target that is 700 by 100 feet long, with both the target and shooter moving at twenty miles an hour, at a distance of ten miles. Hit ratio under these conditions is like 5%, (1 in 20) if I recall correctly. It will only improve against a bigger, non moving target.

Just a squeek from the peanut gallery. I likes my BB's...



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 6:25:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

To increase the bombardment effect for LCU's, just have 2-3 units in a hex and have one deliberate attack and the other 2 bombard.

Take China for example against Ron, we are battling for Sian at the moment. He has 20 units there as the Chinese and I have 8 divisions, 5 brigades, 3 engineer regiments and 6 artillery units. When all units are set to bombard, I only kill 50-100 men. Take 1 division and deliberate attack with it and all others bombard and I take 500 losses to his 1900+ every attack. And I drop a fort level 80% of the time if I also include a engineer regiment.

With all those units there, I can rotate attacks every turn and pound him to dust very slowly. Soon I will all out attack and take that sucker away from him.


Unfortunately, this enters into the exploit category I think. Why would this be the case with a division attacking or not? The land combat just can't handle large numbers and players frigging around with one engineer unit attacking, suffering minimal losses and getting a fort reduction etc is ridiculous. The defender seems to be getting the shaft here, where is the defender bonus? Game is trying to have tactical elements when even the strategic nature of game by necessity due to the scale fails miserably.

Other annoying elements of bombardments are the non simultaneous nature of LCU bombardment and the inexplicable ability of deliberate and shock attacks coming before bombardments because of leadership/experience/initiative.

Non simultaneous bombardments result in the side firing second performing ineffectually (many times zero casualties result vs enemy despite haveing thousands of arty pieces in the field). This should be simultaneous, or at least stagger the fire from unit to unit. (1 Jap unit fires, 1 Allied unit fires)

Bombardment should always come before attacks, regardless of initiative. Not only does the side without initiative get screwed by sufferring enemy bombardment first, but if attacked deliberately or shocked, they suffer again from the effects of these attacks before getting to bombard and worse, may even lose ability to fire due to retreat. Initiative is being given way too large an impact here.

Overall, bombardments are pretty much whacked. Naval bombardment is whacked due to incredible over effectiveness vs bases (basically, I'd reduce potential for damaging bases by a large degree because in most cases, much of the bases assets are spread out and too far inland within the 60 mile hex to be targetable, let alone in range. CD fire is whacked because it allows all guns in LCUs to respond and when firing on ships, the accuracy is insanely high and don't suffer enough from counter battery fire from ships (and inability of placing best bombard ship, the BB, into transport TFs is flawed). Air bombardment is way too effective in relation to LCU bombardment. When a squadron of Wirraways can do more damage in one sortie than 500 guns bombarding during the course of a day, something is wrong. Land combat bombard is whacked as stated in above paras.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 6:30:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR



I wish we could shut down a airfield with artillery bombardment like we can with ships.




This is a good point! Why not? At least heavy artillery should be in range. This is the 60 mile hex raising it's ugly head again. Ships can bombard targets anwhere in a 60 mile coastal hex but LCUs can't. Arbitrary design decision. I'm all for reducing effectiveness of naval bombardments vs airfields. If an atoll, they can be hit. Anything else, only naval base, naval base units, supply and fuel can be hit.



mlees -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 6:38:37 PM)

Is this a problem with the land combat calculator, or the device database (damage values for artillery too low)?



Mr.Frag -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 7:02:21 PM)

quote:

Is this a problem with the land combat calculator, or the device database (damage values for artillery too low)?


The problem is with neither. It's the way damage is absorbed by units.

There is temp damage. There is disabled. There is destroyed.

I think for Arty to get it's due, it has to bypass the first two and deal direct destruction.

As to the implications and impacts, that one is over my head...



mlees -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 7:39:34 PM)

quote:

The problem is with neither. It's the way damage is absorbed by units.

Dagnabbit. Sorry. I guess if the fix were easy, you guys would have fixed it already.[:)]



tanksone -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 7:56:32 PM)

Also remember that as an example the blast range of the Iowa was something like a square quater mile for a nine gun salvo[sm=00000036.gif]





















[sm=00000436.gif]



Nikademus -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 8:52:02 PM)

Bombardments in the game are magnified by two primary factors.

1. All bases with port ratings (size 0-10) are eligible for bombardment. In real life many ports could not be bombarded "Lunga style" (which is the template on which bombardment is based) Examples would be Rangoon. (Located too far up river, water is too shallow) or Port Morosby (some of the airfields are located well inland) or Moumein. You might bombard Rabaul but getting in an out of Stimpson harbor at night quickly without good maps would be interesting.

2. Bombardment affects both LCU's, support and aircraft simotaniously to varying degrees. Nature of the beast here as Frag related. Ideally it would be nice if the damage was more specific. (airfield/craft damage or LCU damage but not both) For example the "night" at Lunga where most of the airforce was knocked on it's keister had little impact on the Marine Perimeter surrounding Lunga.

Bombardment effects were tweaked downwards but results at time can still be spectacular....no free ride though against a player who's clever. I just got a major ship torpedoed....twice bombarding off Malay. I own the peninsula for the most part in terms of air superiority but its amazing what even one small squadron of torpedo bombers can acomplish when they have a good turn of luck. [:@]



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 9:08:09 PM)

Well, the way it is now, naval bombardment in WITP has become a staple tactic for shutting down bases, something not doable in WW2. This really needs to be reversed, or add yet another house rule to my games. Simply change the ability to refuel/rearm warships at bases not of a specific port size (like the restrictions for torps, mines etc) and reduce the effectiveness of naval bombardment. This would stop the "express" nature of bombardments and limit the returns vs risk. Adding ops point maximums for ports would go along way as well...[;)]



Nikademus -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 9:14:36 PM)

well thats not completely true (Lunga was indeed shut down for a bit) but more variance would be nice i'd agree.

The bombarder as it stands certainly doesn't escape from risk. Ise and Hyuga will attest to that.

[;)]



Mr.Frag -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 9:16:05 PM)

Really, all it takes is a couple of PT boats or a handful of mines and no more bombardments for quite some time. [:D]



Nikademus -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 9:23:58 PM)

in my case for sure....i have terrible luck with bombardments. The ghost of Tanaka does not walk with me. [:'(]



EUBanana -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 9:24:45 PM)

Battleships werent very good at shelling emplacements at Gallipoli.

The angle of fire for a naval gun is very flat, unlike a howitzer which has a high trajectory. Which made them poor at shelling in hilly terrain, and poor at doing much damage to emplacements and trenches.

That said one battleship did wipe out an entire Turkish company with a couple of rounds in one encounter, so if the targets were exposed they could put the hurt on.

WW1 again, but the same guns pretty much.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 9:29:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

well thats not completely true (Lunga was indeed shut down for a bit) but more variance would be nice i'd agree.

The bombarder as it stands certainly doesn't escape from risk. Ise and Hyuga will attest to that.

[;)]


But only after the gunnery officer from Yamato had been landed many weeks earlier to direct the Kongo and Haruna's fire. Taking the Lunga example and painting all bases with the same brush was a design flub. Lunga was the exception, not the rule.



Nikademus -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 9:34:47 PM)

I dont agree that Lunga was an exception since both the Japanese and Americans incorporated shore bombardment as part of their amphibious doctrines. However Lunga does provide a case set example that results can be devastating, but they can also be negligable, same as with air bombardments. The 2nd Japanese attempt to bombard Lunga did little real damage as the shells fell on the boneyard instead of the airfield.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 9:40:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I dont agree that Lunga was an exception since both the Japanese and Americans incorporated shore bombardment as part of their amphibious doctrines. However Lunga does provide a case set example that results can be devastating, but they can also be negligable, same as with air bombardments. The 2nd Japanese attempt to bombard Lunga did little real damage as the shells fell on the boneyard instead of the airfield.


Steve. I remember you had a solution to this problem back in Beta but it was not adopted for some reason. Had something to do with base resiliency I think. What was it again?

Naval bombardments were nowhere near effective vs entrenched troops either. One of the lessons of Tarawa was the ineffectivness of direct fire shelling. It was found that plunging fire was best but basically really reduced the range of bombardments and forced bombardment TFs away from beach (and out of range of any CD batteries aside from landed naval rifles.



Nikademus -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/9/2005 9:51:26 PM)

cant take credit for that one.

It was Drongo's idea. Its been so long i've forgotten the exact specifics but it involved the port size. Maybe he can elaborate. I see him lurking around here when he isn't busy plotting evil moves against me in PBEM.

My suggestion was to incorporate a greater degree of variableness (same as with air bombardments) that could go so far as to make the entire raid a complete miss. (The "raid killed alot of monkeys and downed alot of trees raid) such as often happened during the Buna-Gona campaign. (would also work for night bombing)

quote:


Naval bombardments were nowhere near effective vs entrenched troops either. One of the lessons of Tarawa was the ineffectivness of direct fire shelling. It was found that plunging fire was best but basically really reduced the range of bombardments and forced bombardment TFs away from beach (and out of range of any CD batteries aside from landed naval rifles


I agree....if firing against extensive fortifications. Tarawa was an eye opener for US Planners who thought nothing could have lived on such a moonscape (after the bombardment)



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.890625