Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Use of LCI(G)

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Tech Support >> Use of LCI(G) Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Use of LCI(G) - 12/5/2005 2:54:53 AM   
hbrsvl

 

Posts: 1155
Joined: 10/2/2002
Status: offline
Hi-Got some at forward bases. Want to use them in an invasion. Hit their mission button, got "Transport". I thought these ships delivered rockets or gunfire support on invasion beaches. Would someone please inform me as to how to use these ships? Thanks, Hugh Browne.
Post #: 1
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/5/2005 4:35:15 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
You put them in a TF just like CLs or DDs.

(in reply to hbrsvl)
Post #: 2
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/5/2005 4:49:49 AM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
Put them in an invasion TF to soak up CD fire. They take the heat for your beaching craft. Get your troops ashore with less fatigue and disruption, fewer disablements.

It's a nice story anyway.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 3
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/5/2005 6:43:09 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
Irrelevant is right. They were supposed to provide covering shore bombardment but someone (I think Apollo11, but I'm not sure) ran some tests and found that they do ... absolutely nothing. I can't remember if it turned out that their fire did nothing or that they just didn't fire at all. (Or was it both?)

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 4
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/5/2005 6:46:41 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

I can't remember if it turned out that their fire did nothing or that they just didn't fire at all. (Or was it both?)




IIRC - they never fired!

(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 5
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/5/2005 6:52:08 AM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

I can't remember if it turned out that their fire did nothing or that they just didn't fire at all. (Or was it both?)




IIRC - they never fired!


Someone, I believe it was Desertdaddy, did some tests and found out that to get the 5 inch rockets on LCIs to fire he had to change their range to that of a US 5/38" gun.

Maybe the same needs to be done for the LCI(G)?

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 6
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/5/2005 6:58:40 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
FWIW,

I just ran two tests (so it hardly consitutes a proper sample), but the only thing I could see that LCI(G)s did, was to give the CD guns more targets to shoot at.

I took the tutoial scenario, and landed at Wolei. It is lightly defended by a CD unit and a BF with SNFL squads, which actually gives me exactly what I wanted.

Do the LCI(G) suppress or disable enemy CD guns before or during the attack, the reducing the amount of damage to other ships in the invasion TF?

Do the LCI(G) provide counter-battery fire to suppress the amount of fire against the invasion LCUs (thus reducing the amount of disablements?).

===

I formed an invasion TF with only LST and LCI (all of them), and then loaded the 2nd USMC Div, then landed at Wolei. Needless to say, it wasn't pretty (2nd USMC Div is 100 prepped for Saipan, and no escorts the CD units pummeled the TF).

End result
26 landing craft sunk, or will very soon, and the Div attacked at 10% assault strenght (about 30 AV).

[sorry, i forgot to save off the combat.txt].

===

Next, same invasion TF, but this time with all the LCI(G)s available (about 15 I think).

End result, an even worse slaughter (I was rather surprised at this).
46 landing craft sunk, or will very soon (including all the LCI(G)), and the Div attacked at about 15% assault strenght (about 40 AV).

There -were- more disabled guns in the defending CD unit, but it could just as well been from the (slightly) stronger shock attack made by 2nd USMC Div.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/14/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Woleai, 57,72, firing at TF 1001
TF 1001 troops unloading over beach at Woleai, 57,72


6072 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
LCI LCI-400, Shell hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI-61, Shell hits 77, on fire, heavy damage
LCI LCI-402, Shell hits 22, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI-65, Shell hits 54, on fire, heavy damage
LCI LCI-435, Shell hits 9, on fire, heavy damage
LCI LCI-436, Shell hits 37, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI-66, Shell hits 20, on fire, heavy damage
LCI LCI-443, Shell hits 22, on fire, heavy damage
LCI LCI-444, Shell hits 30, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI-68, Shell hits 36, on fire, heavy damage
LCI LCI-584, Shell hits 61, on fire, heavy damage
LCI LCI-585, Shell hits 14, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI-67, Shell hits 62, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI-64, Shell hits 43, on fire, heavy damage
LCI LCI-586, Shell hits 31, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI-69, Shell hits 48, on fire, heavy damage
LCI LCI-587, Shell hits 28, on fire, heavy damage
LCI LCI-621, Shell hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
LCI LCI-622, Shell hits 1, on fire
LCI(G) LCI-70, Shell hits 1, on fire
LCI(G) LCI(G)-76, Shell hits 13, on fire, heavy damage
LCI LCI-623, Shell hits 13, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI(G)-77, Shell hits 27, on fire, heavy damage
LCI LCI-625, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage
LST LST-179, Shell hits 16, on fire, heavy damage
LST LST-180, Shell hits 1, on fire
LCI(G) LCI(G)-79, Shell hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
LST LST-202, Shell hits 24, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI(G)-78, Shell hits 26, on fire, heavy damage
LST LST-203, Shell hits 12, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI(G)-81, Shell hits 11, on fire, heavy damage
LST LST-204, Shell hits 11, on fire, heavy damage
LST LST-205, Shell hits 25, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI(G)-80, Shell hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
LST LST-215, Shell hits 10, on fire, heavy damage
LCI(G) LCI(G)-82, Shell hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
LST LST-217, Shell hits 11, on fire, heavy damage
LST LST-270, Shell hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
LST LST-273, Shell hits 16, on fire, heavy damage
LST LST-274, Shell hits 10, on fire, heavy damage
LST LST-275, Shell hits 3, on fire
LST LST-277, Shell hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
LST LST-355, Shell hits 19, on fire, heavy damage
LST LST-357, Shell hits 4, on fire

Japanese ground losses:
10 casualties reported

Allied ground losses:
6086 casualties reported
Guns lost 94
Vehicles lost 3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Woleai

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 1856 troops, 56 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 5883 troops, 41 guns, 11 vehicles



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Woleai

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 5883 troops, 41 guns, 11 vehicles

Defending force 4991 troops, 68 guns, 0 vehicles

Allied assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 4)


Japanese ground losses:
340 casualties reported
Guns lost 15

Allied ground losses:
151 casualties reported
Guns lost 3
Vehicles lost 2


====


THIS WAS JUST 1 TEST AND 1 TEST. NEEDS FURTHER TESTING!!!![/B]

But it looks like
a. LCI(G) give more targets for the CD guns.
b. More targets means that fire is spread out against more ships, and thus more troops can come ashore (since fewer troop carying ships are damaged).
c. Even more landing ships were sunk tho. I think this MIGHT have been because the LCI(G)s spend an extra round FIGHTING the CD guns. This endagers the other landing craft for an extra round, and they take more damage. Whereas with no LCI(G)s, they MIGHT just be bugging out asap.
d. I did not see any significant extra damage to the enemy LCUs by including the LCI(G)s in with the invasion TF.

=========

This certainly needs more testing. But that's what ONE landing of each revealed.

-F-




_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to hbrsvl)
Post #: 7
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/5/2005 7:19:34 AM   
Cpt Sherwood

 

Posts: 837
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline
So we have a bug that was reported a long time ago and nothing has been done about it?

It would seem that just parking them somewhere out of the way is the only thing to do with them. Just great.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 8
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/5/2005 7:30:19 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

So we have a bug that was reported a long time ago and nothing has been done about it?

It would seem that just parking them somewhere out of the way is the only thing to do with them. Just great.


"A bug"? There is a multiple page list of bugs that have been reported almost since the game came out that are still not fixed. Since I don't work at Matrix or 2by3 I can't say which bugs they have worked on or not. (And I'm sure that they are tired of hearing me rant so I will try to avoid further speculation.)

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to Cpt Sherwood)
Post #: 9
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/5/2005 3:04:37 PM   
Cpt Sherwood

 

Posts: 837
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline
I was only referring to this one, BTW, did they fix the LCI(R) ships? Or are they bugged also? I am wondering if the money I spent for this game was well spent or not.

(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 10
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/5/2005 4:14:38 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
1. Yes, it was well worth it.
2. Probably, the LCI(R) doesn't work either (the LCI(G) main gun is a rocket anyway).

You can get around around this issue by:
a. Put a larger ship in the TF to absorb the CD fire. This is explointing the routines a bit, but frankly, everyone does it.
b. Don't include the LCI(G)s into your TF to begin with.
d. If they weren't in game to begin with, no one would have missed them, so just leave them in port.

Frankly, I believe this MIGHT have something to do with the fact the rockets have a penetration value of 50, but an EFFECT (and anti-armor/anti-soft) value of 0. I can bump of the effect and attack ratings of the rockets, to see if that helps at all. But it could be that the LCI(G)s are simply throwing dandilions at the shore batteries.

Then again, it could be that the routine is coded for a round of naval combat when unloading, and because of the LCI(G)s, an extra round (attack by them) is included (thus endagnering the tranports 2x). But again, I can't see the code, so more than likely, I'm just talking out of my ass (which is actually always the case).

But I will try to run a test tonight, after bumping up the "boom!" rating of the rockets to see what happens.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Cpt Sherwood)
Post #: 11
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/5/2005 4:15:42 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

I was only referring to this one, BTW, did they fix the LCI(R) ships? Or are they bugged also? I am wondering if the money I spent for this game was well spent or not.



Despite my (severe) reservations with the game, i think it is money well spent, as you will get more entertainment value for your money over the long run than anything else i know of. You might also get more aggravation for your money than most games, but, i think overall the game is a winner.

Just keep in mind that it IS a game (and not really a working truly historical simulation) and your aggravation level drops (at least mine did once i discovered this fact.)

(in reply to Cpt Sherwood)
Post #: 12
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/5/2005 6:14:15 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
quote:

Just keep in mind that it IS a game (and not really a working truly historical simulation)


Don't let Nik hear you say that...



-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 13
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/5/2005 7:05:59 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

quote:

Just keep in mind that it IS a game (and not really a working truly historical simulation)


Don't let Nik hear you say that...



-F-


Well - maybe Nik's mod hits closer to the mark, but haven't tried it (yet).

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 14
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/5/2005 11:22:02 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

So, if the LCI(G), LCI(R) and LCI(M) don't work against shore batteries - do they have any other effect?? Suppresion of troops, etc???


(in reply to hbrsvl)
Post #: 15
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/5/2005 11:35:49 PM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
So far as anyone has been able to determine thru testing, none of those ship types do anything but provide the defenders with more targets.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 16
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/6/2005 4:28:42 AM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

I was only referring to this one, BTW, did they fix the LCI(R) ships? Or are they bugged also? I am wondering if the money I spent for this game was well spent or not.


Repeat from a post above concerning the LCI(R). Just make the change in your scenario editor (though it doesn't help at all with current games).

Someone, I believe it was Desertdaddy, did some tests and found out that to get the 5 inch rockets on LCIs to fire he had to change their range to that of a US 5/38" gun.


_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Cpt Sherwood)
Post #: 17
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/6/2005 4:45:49 AM   
Cpt Sherwood

 

Posts: 837
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline
I would but I am waiting for my first PBEM turn from my Japanese opponent. I think it is a bit late.

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 18
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/6/2005 5:24:20 AM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
quote:

waiting for my first PBEM turn from my Japanese opponent. I think it is a bit late.

It can take some time....

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Cpt Sherwood)
Post #: 19
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/6/2005 5:34:27 AM   
Cpt Sherwood

 

Posts: 837
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline
Well, well, yes it does take time for that first all important Japanese turn, but since he has been working for more than a day now, I do not think I should ask him to start over with a modified senario file.

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 20
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/6/2005 6:20:13 AM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
Hey, who knows, maybe he has just been christmas e-shopping; a PM doesn't cost much

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Cpt Sherwood)
Post #: 21
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/6/2005 2:56:54 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

1. Yes, it was well worth it.
2. Probably, the LCI(R) doesn't work either (the LCI(G) main gun is a rocket anyway).

You can get around around this issue by:
a. Put a larger ship in the TF to absorb the CD fire. This is explointing the routines a bit, but frankly, everyone does it.
b. Don't include the LCI(G)s into your TF to begin with.
d. If they weren't in game to begin with, no one would have missed them, so just leave them in port.

Frankly, I believe this MIGHT have something to do with the fact the rockets have a penetration value of 50, but an EFFECT (and anti-armor/anti-soft) value of 0. I can bump of the effect and attack ratings of the rockets, to see if that helps at all. But it could be that the LCI(G)s are simply throwing dandilions at the shore batteries.

Then again, it could be that the routine is coded for a round of naval combat when unloading, and because of the LCI(G)s, an extra round (attack by them) is included (thus endagnering the tranports 2x). But again, I can't see the code, so more than likely, I'm just talking out of my ass (which is actually always the case).

But I will try to run a test tonight, after bumping up the "boom!" rating of the rockets to see what happens.

-F-


Try it in a TF of nothing but the LCI(G)'s and see what happens.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 22
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/6/2005 4:39:52 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
Yeah, will do that tonight, after turns.

But be aware that LCI(G) have a 0 capacity. Will try it in an invasion TF, they'll get shot up, but will be interested to see if they're shooting back (since no troops, would confirm it's not the Marines that are doing the damage). Will also try to put them in a bombardment TF, to see if that's useful.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 23
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/7/2005 8:32:58 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
I created 3 TFs. One with 10 LCI(G). One with LCI(M). And one with LCI(R).

The LCI(x) TFs would NOT land by themselves.

With no capacity, and thus no troops to land, the TFs would not move within range of the surface guns (altho they would stay put with patrol).

That being the case, Adm. Nimitz himself (Centpac), was loaded onto a single LCI, and included in the invastion TFs. I used an all support unit, in order to minimize casualties to Japan via ground combat...


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/09/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Woleai, 57,72, firing at TF 1087
TF 1087 troops unloading over beach at Woleai, 57,72


135 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
LCI LCI-62, Shell hits 26, on fire, heavy damage (sunk)
LCI(G) LCI-61, Shell hits 13, on fire, heavy damage (sunk)


Allied ground losses:
146 casualties reported


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Woleai

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 1876 troops, 56 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 0 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles


===

It was messy. Enemy LCU was unhurt, and Nimitz is now a POW.



Blah

Blah

Blah.

changed lots of stuff, including forcing them into a custom bombardment TF. Spent about 3 hours on this. Nothing worked, until...

Changed type of weapons from "rockets" to naval guns (since we know that naval guns damage facilities). This might be problematic, because now they can fire ship-to-ship. I also upped the ammo, incase they didn't like firing with only 1 ammo point.

Also had to change the type to "DD", appearently the type "Landing Craft xx" don't fire back.

After doing all that, this is what I got.


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/09/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Woleai, at 57,72 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!
 
Japanese aircraft
no flights
 
Japanese aircraft losses
F1M2 Pete: 2 destroyed
H8K Emily: 1 destroyed
 
186 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
DD LCI(G)-77, Shell hits 40,  on fire,  heavy damage
DD LCI(G)-76, Shell hits 31,  on fire,  heavy damage
DD LCI-70, Shell hits 18,  on fire,  heavy damage
DD LCI-69, Shell hits 2,  on fire,  heavy damage
DD LCI-68
DD LCI-67
DD LCI-66
DD LCI-65
DD LCI-64
DD LCI-61
 
Japanese ground losses:
102 casualties reported
Guns lost 2
 
Airbase hits 63
Airbase supply hits 25
Runway hits 582
Port hits 10
Port fuel hits 2
Port supply hits 1
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Woleai, at 57,72 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!
 
46 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
DD LCI(M)-664, Shell hits 4,  on fire,  heavy damage
DD LCI(M)-660
DD LCI(M)-659
DD LCI(M)-658
DD LCI(M)-633
DD LCI(M)-632
DD LCI(M)-631
DD LCI(M)-630
DD LCI(M)-588, Shell hits 2,  on fire,  heavy damage
DD LCI(M)-582
 
Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 23
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Woleai, at 57,72 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!
 
51 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
DD LCI(R)-337
DD LCI(R)-231, Shell hits 19,  on fire,  heavy damage
DD LCI(R)-230
DD LCI(R)-226
DD LCI(R)-225
DD LCI(R)-224
DD LCI(R)-74
DD LCI(R)-73
DD LCI(R)-72
DD LCI(R)-71
 
Japanese ground losses:
79 casualties reported
Guns lost 3
 
Airbase hits 8
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 189
Port hits 4
Port supply hits 2
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Woleai, at 57,72 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!
 
50 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
DD LCI-68
DD LCI-67, Shell hits 36,  on fire,  heavy damage
DD LCI-66
DD LCI-65
DD LCI-64
DD LCI-61
 
Japanese ground losses:
26 casualties reported
 
Airbase hits 7
Runway hits 99
Port hits 25
Port fuel hits 12
Port supply hits 46
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Woleai, at 57,72 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!
 
157 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
DD LCI(M)-660
DD LCI(M)-659
DD LCI(M)-658
DD LCI(M)-633, Shell hits 3,  on fire,  heavy damage
DD LCI(M)-632, Shell hits 38,  on fire,  heavy damage
DD LCI(M)-631
DD LCI(M)-630, Shell hits 45,  on fire,  heavy damage
DD LCI(M)-582, Shell hits 5,  on fire,  heavy damage
 
Runway hits 2
Port fuel hits 1
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Woleai, at 57,72 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!
 
108 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
DD LCI(R)-337
DD LCI(R)-230
DD LCI(R)-226
DD LCI(R)-225
DD LCI(R)-224
DD LCI(R)-74
DD LCI(R)-73, Shell hits 37,  on fire,  heavy damage
DD LCI(R)-72, Shell hits 33,  on fire,  heavy damage
DD LCI(R)-71
 
Japanese ground losses:
53 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
 
Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 48
Port hits 12
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 15
 



The base was basically wrecked. AF and Port at 90 - 100 damage. The two enemy LCUs were at 75+ disruption. They had SOME units disabled/destroyed, but not really that many. But I expect the disruption is the key.

Obviously, you can't add them into Bombardment TFs (altho maybe so, I changed their type to DD). But I think that was the critical element. I'll start backing things out (like putting ammo back to 1 etc.), to validate that the TYPE is what it probiting them from firing.

I can test some more "sometime"...

But the short of it, LCI(x) are only targets. They do absolutely nothing for your TF.
-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 24
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/7/2005 5:26:09 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
Sounds like something they ment to put in, and never got around to finishing it.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 25
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/7/2005 6:29:00 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
Yep. I still gotta go back, and see which specific thing, or combination actually fixed it.

a. Was it the ammo increase? The rockets only start with one ammo. I wasn't sure if they weren't going to fire with only one ammo.
b. Was it because they re-classed as DDs? Does the LCI craft simply not return fire on landing?
c. Was it because I changed the type of gun from "rocket" to "naval gun"? If I change the type to "army gun", will it still fire at the LCUs, and NOT at ships (would be preferable).
d. Will they even fire in a transport TF? I only got them to actually work in a bombardment TF after changing their type to DD.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 26
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/7/2005 6:50:31 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
Automatic Rant Pilot ON...

Basically it's the same damn scenario...they built a monster with probable good intentions and treated it like a 1st generation product that could be adequately tested in a short 6-12 month beta period. Having a real Alpha instead of what passed as one would have helped too. To be fair to this game it needed some serious development time (not a few peoples efforts either ) and should still be considered in the beta stage. The condition of the product clearly proves this.

Automatic Rant Pilot OFF.

But.......if they could just fix a few more things that are serious issues like Land Combat cancers, Air Combat cancers and Logistics cancers I think the community could fudge around with the editor to get the myriad of little details working acceptably on their own. Then it would be passable and would not be the balancing act between pleasure and pain, enjoyment and dread.

Despite this it sure takes up alot of my spare time, mainly tramping around here (unfortunately for many on the boards, eh) and the odd PBEM before it self detonates in a morass of design issues. Entertaining despite it all.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 12/7/2005 6:53:46 PM >


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 27
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/7/2005 8:57:50 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
Copy of a PM I was sent back in September concerning LCI rocket range. Not sure if anybody here has tried this or not.

quote:


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RE: LCI Rocket Range
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To get them to work almost all the time I had to increase the range to that of a US 5"/38 gun. The same ones used on most US DDs. I know it's totally unhistoric and unrealistic but these were very specialized ships. I tried 20mm and 40mm ranges and had limited success in them being effective. You can only put them in transport TFs not surface or bombardment TFs. One thing I haven't tested is if they " can" be fired during surface combat. It might be a shock if your invasion TF gets intercepted by a surface TF and all the sudden a ton of 5" rockets show up on the surface fight screen.

I've been testing and exploring these ships from almost the beginning. The mods say "work as designed" and fail to do anything about it. A simple test show it all. In the tutorial create an invasion TF composed only of LSTs and these support ships, no Destroyers or anything else. Then go invade Guam. Don't use Siapan or Tinian as Siapan is way to heavily defended and Tinain is a walk over. Note the results (lots of death to the invader). Next restart the tutorial and this time substitute DDs for all the support ships. The casualties may be high but nowhere near as high as with only the support ships. If historically these ships were such crap they never would have made so many of them.




_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 28
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/7/2005 9:50:00 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
The first tweak I did was to increase the range to 15k (device still was type rocket, and ship was still type LCI(x)). The range increase didn't help me. But we'll see.

Thanks for the tip.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 29
RE: Use of LCI(G) - 12/16/2005 4:45:07 AM   
Desertdaddy

 

Posts: 74
Joined: 7/17/2004
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline
Wow, someone actually remembered my posts about landing support craft not working.

Feinder, you have been conducting almost the same tests I did many months ago and have received the same results and discovered a few new theories; like the 2 rounds of surface to surface combat. The problem may be more complex in the end then just increasing range. The rockets are coded as surface to surface (the only weapons in the game that are), they only have a single ammo round and are very short range. The surface to surface rocket routine may never have been completed. The single ammo may be causing the ship not to fire because it needs to keep a few rounds left for self defense (BBs in bombard TF never shoot when down to 3 ammo rounds) and I don’t believe the game models the run in to the beach at all. No mater if your beaching LSTs in the first wave or unloading your APAs and going in on LVTs, the defender shots at all the same.

Without beating this horse any more, I gave up on the entire subject many months ago when, the powers that be, decided other bugs were more important. I still play the game and enjoy it very much.

The entire ground combat routines are not this game’s best selling point. But, if you have a genuine interest in the WW2 pacific war, this game is a must have.

I haven’t stopped my invasions at all; just never use landing support ships. Park them someplace out of the way. Flesh out your invasion TFs with DDs and CLs. They will add fire to suppress the defenders reducing landing casualties. Now if only the powers that be would allow BBs to be put into invasion TFs…

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Tech Support >> Use of LCI(G) Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.828