RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat

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 >> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 3:04:31 AM

VladViscious

Posts: 10
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

I cannot comment on the warship to warship tallys but I saw on the WPO forum that Japanese Merchants had manuver ratings above 50, some as high as 70. I wonder if this is how they are able to get away and or cause the warships to miss so often. If you have medium transports with more manuverability than a DD it coudl explain a few things.

TANSTAAFL!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 151

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 3:18:53 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

"Life and Times of Old Shiny" has her getting the drop on a German DD at point blank range and doing 'over a donzen hits in two minutes" Sheffield can fire a maximum of 120 to 132 shells in 2 minutes which is also a 10% hit rate, IF she fired the maximum number of shells possible. This was at very close range, under 1000 yards, but she also had a very short time to react due to low visibility. Sheffield did much better than the German DD, which failed to fire at all.

We don't have the statistics, but a German raider managed to sink Sydney - at point blank - with inferior weapons. She didn't sink at once - but limped off burning and never was heard from again. The raider was also sunk in the same action - but some of the crew survived. At point blank range it is normal to score very well. But it is wrong to believe that average ships in average conditions will routinely score more than 10% hits even under such circumstances. This is not to say a superb ship under exceptional conditions could not sometimes achieve that - a different statement entirely. But you should not be expecting this, and you would be much more justified to cry "naval combat is broken" if you saw it regularly - than if you see lots of misses. Lots of misses ARE normal - even when you cannot explain why.

There is a submarine simulation game which got modified to the point it is "too realistic" - it is no longer easy to get a fire control solution. Players hate it - but that does not mean it is a bad simulation - it just means players like to see things go boom.

And what did the Kormoran sink the Sydney with??

60 years later no-one appears to have the answer!!

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 152

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 3:23:14 AM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VladViscious

I cannot comment on the warship to warship tallys but I saw on the WPO forum that Japanese Merchants had manuver ratings above 50, some as high as 70. I wonder if this is how they are able to get away and or cause the warships to miss so often. If you have medium transports with more manuverability than a DD it coudl explain a few things.

TANSTAAFL!

And lo...what do we find in the Stock scenario...70 for a small AK's maneuver rating.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to VladViscious)

Post #: 153

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 3:29:24 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Tom's logic is beyond dispute. Although one can magically conjure up a situation in which a BB might not fire at all (can't find a target, target masked, damaged critically before opening fire) that a BB should fire its secondaries or wait to suck the opposing CAs into 40mm range is beyond credible.

And the whole business about "you would not fire because you might not want to be seen" is the silliest straw man objection I have ever heard. The BB is there to shoot. It's what BBs do. It's the only thing they do. If you're taking fire, it makes no sense to not return fire (unless you can't because your equipment doesn't work or your crew is dead or your boat is sunk). And it makes even less sense to worry about someone spotting the gun flashes of your 14"-16" but to pound away with 5" and smaller.

Add to reasons for ships not firing (Just finished Morison's Guadalcanal.) The TF leader giving out poor instructions, fear of firing on own ships, ships at lead or rear manouvering for position but finding themselves out of the battle.

I also avoid combat simulation, it takes up too much time and as mentioned, appears more a cartoon thant a factual recreation.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 154

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 4:00:37 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Tom did a fine job but his logic is not without flaws. The primary is all his accuarcy numbers are too low because he expended 100 percent ammo (and in some cases is too high by 100 percent in this) while only 2/3 ammo can be used against ships.
size of a ship is a factor in man rating and this is furthered by speed so a man 70 ship with speed of 10 is easier to hit then a 50 man with speed of 30.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 155

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 4:10:33 AM

Tom Hunter

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline

Hi,

Dorry ofr the confusion I created in the last post by saying 1600 rounds on Warspite, I do know it is 100 rounds per 15" gun.

My accuracy numbers in the earlier part of the analysis are correct, they were done in an excel spreadsheet with rounds per gun data from Navweapons. I did not give accuracy number for the Fear and Loathing battle because I did not count shell hits by type, I just gave outcomes.
Even if Mog is correct in his 2/3rd useful assumption, and he might be, it still leave the hit rate too low compared to historical

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 156

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 4:39:11 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Good job Tom.

Mogami,

HE is appropriate against naval targets and certainly would be used - indeed preferred - against soft targets like merchant ships. Consider the battle off Samar. IJN BB's switched to HE because the AP was passing right through the CVE's without exploding.

What does need to be taken into account is that warships would be unlikely to expend all their ammo in such an attack lest they be caught defenseless by a more powerful force on the way home.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 157

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 4:43:45 AM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Good job Tom.

Mogami,

HE is appropriate against naval targets and certainly would be used - indeed preferred - against soft targets like merchant ships. Consider the battle off Samar. IJN BB's switched to HE because the AP was passing right through the CVE's without exploding.

What does need to be taken into account is that warships would be unlikely to expend all their ammo in such an attack lest they be caught defenseless by a more powerful force on the way home.

That gets to the nub of my question earlier in the thread...What does the ammunition rating of 9 for the big guns really represent?

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 158

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 4:50:40 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Beats me. It would be great if a lot more stuff was documented.

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 159

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 5:11:02 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, I bet you could go back 2 years or more and find that to figure out what 1 point of ammo represent divide ammo allotment in WITP by ammo in ships loadout per gun.
example HMS Warspite carried 100 rounds per gun and a full load in WITP is 9 rounds or 11 rounds per ammo point. 3 points of ammo are reseved for HE with 6 for AP. So if your Warspite fires and you check following turn and she has 5 points left she fired 4 points 4x11=44 rounds. This is an approx since WITP does not track specific ammo (but a BB will never fire more then 3 rounds against land targets on bombardment mission) Also a BB might fire all 9 rounds in surface combat even though it is only consider to have 6 points of AP (and no I don't think it changes to HE. Gun damage is based on gun size and target. with the gun always doing the best damage against whatever target is engaged. DP guns can eat all their ammo on AA and have none for surface action or they can expend it all in surface action and have none left for AA.

But thats not important. All that is important is "how many points do you have and where can you reload it"
WITP is not a tactical game. A specific TF should be tracked operationally. Did it complete the assigned mission or not. How effective was it during that mission? Not ship by ship round expended by round expended. The model is not designed tactically.

Land combat is not a set battle where the issue is resolved in a single day. It is an attrition model where when 1 side has collected the proper force ratio (2-1) after all other factors are considered it takes over the contested hex. (the resulting status of enemy forces is decided by other factors, can they retreat? can they remain in the hex even after losing control of the hex)
The air combat model assumes that control of the air is in dispute and one side will lose the abilty to contest control at some point and withdraw. In the period where control is disputed the combat will be bloody. Operating in enemy controled space will be costly and operations not possible prior to gaining control will become feasable once it is won.
Trying to dispute control with inadequate forces is costly. Air units require frequent periods of rest and refit. Naval units require frequent periods of refit and LCU require frequesnt periods of rest and refit. Ignoring these periods is costly.

where players tend to look at results and think 1 day the model thinks in longer periods. what occurs in 1 day of combat will have an influence on the days that follow.
It is permitted to play with this tactical mindset however the results will reflect over use of any unit. There are countless examples in this forum of posts asking "why" but only addressing the event as if it was isolated in time to just that particular turn and event. Often no accurate answer can be provided because the "facts" are presented as just raw numbers with no connection to the operation they are part of
"my 24 fighters were clobbered by his 16" "My ships got their butts kicked" "my landunits lost a battle"

< Message edited by Mogami -- 3/18/2006 5:15:51 AM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 160

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 6:27:33 AM

Tom Hunter

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline

Mogami is correct in his description of the number of rounds per ammo factor on Warspite, and the same goes for most BBs. But (just for example) the British had a standard number of rounds per gun for 6" guns that was the same for all their CLs. However in game the ammo factors on:

Town Class = 50 rounds
Leander Class = 33 rounds
Fleet (Dauntless) Class = 17 rounds

Personally I don't buy Mogami's argument that the results need to be looked at operationally either. If the individual battles don't work the operational result will be wrong too. You can't really expect a game where BBs consistently fail to control the sea to result in operational control off the sea. Any game that hope to be operationally correct by being tacticaly incorrect is bound to have problems.

But I am not really here to pick apart the game. I am here to tell you all to run your BBs in single ship TFs

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 161

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 6:50:53 AM

Tom Hunter

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline

This is a snip from my most recent post in the Lunacy AAR:

"Figuring out the naval combat exploit took a lot of work, but the combat Replay of Warspite plowing through the Japanese convoy was kind of amazing, even though she did a fraction of the damage she should have. 15" high explosive rounds at 4,000 yards in daylight should have simply obliterated Japanese merchant ships.

And as for the operational side off the simulation, in Fear and Loathing there were about 100 Japanese ships in a 60 mile hex with land on three sides and 15 Royal Navy Warships steaming in at fulls speed. Operationally the Japanese lost 6 ships. It is true that some of them may sink later, but later is after they unload the infantry divisions they are carrying onto Java. Operationally that is a huge failure, caused by the tactical failings of many parts of the games operating system."

I think this is a very important point. In the real war ships sink in minutes or hours, not days and if a mixed force of 2 Battleships, 6 cruisers and 7 destroyers had plowed into the Japanese invasion of Java that would have been the end of the invasion, right there, that day forever. Look at the damage the Houston did while engaging a vastly superior force of Japanese, now imagine Warspite, Revenge and freinds Vs. only a few patrol craft.

Of course no Japanese admiral would ever have come close to letting this happen. But WE can let this happen, because the ships don't actually sink for a variety of reasons. So we launch invasions that would never have been launched historically. We launch them because they will work no matter what. The naval combat system simply won't allow 100 merchant ships to be sunk in a day no matter how many surface warships you send. So the risk of operational failure goes way down, and people launch crazy operations because crazy suceeds in this game. Real admirals would have launched them too if they would succeed.

But everyone knows that if the forces that just clasaed off of Soerbaja had really met it would have been a massacre of Japanese shipping. Even though the Japanese got badly hurt the fact is that the 60,000 odd troops that are still on those ships will all unload tomorrow night. In fact one 20+ship convoy is still unloading supplies at Soerbaja right now, right over the beaches! The game did not allow the British to find it.

The Japanese were defeated off Soerbaja in Fear and Loathing when the launched an invasion they should have escorted more heavily. But the reality is they took a gamble that in this game was a really good bet, and if we had kept Warspite and Revenge in the same TF the Japs would have suffered a fraction of the casualties they did.

But in reality they should have lost tens of merchant ships, not 6. The risk of such a high loss rate would have put the brakes on doing really dumb things and forced them to play in a smarter more historical way.

So I don't buy Mogami's argument. If you look at the operational picture it is deeply flawed due to problems with the underlying tactical combat system. It is just more difficult to see those problems because the cause and effect relationships are very complex and take a long time to understand.

Now that I do understand them personally I can't accept them. I'm not arguing that the game was not a good effort, or that no one should play. I think I got fair entertainment value for my money. But I am somewhat disapointed, if the thing worked it would be a truly fascinating simulation.

< Message edited by Tom Hunter -- 3/18/2006 6:56:40 AM >

(in reply to Tom Hunter)

Post #: 162

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 7:21:27 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I bet you could go back 2 years or more and find that to figure out what 1 point of ammo represent divide ammo allotment in WITP by ammo in ships loadout per gun.
example HMS Warspite carried 100 rounds per gun and a full load in WITP is 9 rounds or 11 rounds per ammo point. 3 points of ammo are reseved for HE with 6 for AP. So if your Warspite fires and you check following turn and she has 5 points left she fired 4 points 4x11=44 rounds.

I take it you mean 'per gun', which is then x 8 for the ship in question.

quote:

This is an approx since WITP does not track specific ammo (but a BB will never fire more then 3 rounds against land targets on bombardment mission) Also a BB might fire all 9 rounds in surface combat even though it is only consider to have 6 points of AP (and no I don't think it changes to HE.

I was commenting that IRL HE would be used against ships as needed and as appropriate. I understand the game engine just does damage as though an AP penetrated and exploded inside the target.

Regarding the overall results, I find them generally good, but Tom is right on the areas for improvement. In fighting an alternate WWII, going over the 'too bloody A2A' threshold is very easy with reasonable actions. It is not just a matter of trying to do things when you lack air superiority. Putting a very capable - and large - CAP over your own base can result in lopsided (read: unrealistic) slaughter of your forces.

Regarding surface combat, Tom's comments about the effect of the asymmetry probelms (i.e. cruisers vs. battleships) are correct. BB's should kick butt on cruisers more than they seem to be doing. In any game where one side has his BB's out of action, he will gain an operational advantage that he should not enjoy.

Regarding land combat, some of the movement issues I agree are problems (some are just bugs it seems). The other land combat issues I am less qualified to comment on.

For now we have what we have. I do wish it were better.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 163

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 7:46:17 AM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

So if your Warspite fires and you check following turn and she has 5 points left she fired 4 points 4x11=44 rounds. This is an approx since WITP does not track specific ammo (but a BB will never fire more then 3 rounds against land targets on bombardment mission)

Sounds like a pretty thin hair!

In the first sentence you say that each point equals 11 rounds ...yet in the second sentence you say WitP doesn't track specific ammo.

Don't get me wrong i'm in favor of looking at the Zen of the game and not the details and will not play with animations on as they only provide a false impression... I was just pointing out that your above comments seem to be splitting a pretty fine hair.

< Message edited by treespider -- 3/18/2006 7:48:29 AM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 164

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 3:28:11 PM

tsimmonds

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

quote:

(but a BB will never fire more then 3 rounds against land targets on bombardment mission)

My experience is that BBs of both sides will normally use 6 rounds per gun on a single bombardment mission.

< Message edited by irrelevant -- 3/18/2006 3:31:47 PM >

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 165

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 3:32:21 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Interesting I normally have 7 rounds left after a bomberment mission if there is no surface action the same turn. I'll have to ask dadman to track his ammo in our game (he is the one currently conducting bombardment missions and he has a history of hitting 2 nights in a row. )

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 166

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 3:49:45 PM

tsimmonds

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

Yet another bombardment; Maryland before.....

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 167

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 3:51:07 PM

tsimmonds

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

....and Maryland after.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 168

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 3:57:08 PM

tsimmonds

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

Pennsylvania before.....

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 169

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 3:57:58 PM

tsimmonds

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

.....Pennsylvania after.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 170

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 4:00:50 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

Were these single ship bombardments?
Were escorts bombarding on or off?

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 171

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 4:06:51 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Before

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 172

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 4:07:14 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, After

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 173

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 4:07:56 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, I wonder why we get different results here. How are you bombarding and not using any fuel? Maybe if you are based in the target hex you fire more ammo?

< Message edited by Mogami -- 3/18/2006 4:10:27 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 174

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 4:08:50 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

Were these single ship bombardments?

Were escorts bombarding on or off?

< Message edited by treespider -- 3/18/2006 4:09:16 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 175

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 4:10:23 PM

tsimmonds

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Were these single ship bombardments?

No.

quote:

Were escorts bombarding on or off?

This one was "off", but I have another TF in the same hex doing the same thing with escorts bombard "on", it makes no difference.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 176

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 4:11:56 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

I see one difference - The US endurance did not drop. Presumably they are parked in the hex laying waste all day long

Whereas the Endurance on Yamato dropped presumably from a shoot and scoot.

< Message edited by treespider -- 3/18/2006 4:12:32 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 177

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 4:12:26 PM

tsimmonds

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I wonder why we get different results here. How are you bombarding and not using any fuel? Maybe is you are based in the target hex you fire more ammo?

Indeed; it's interesting. I don't remember ever having a bombardment that only used 2 rounds. I do remember once I had one use only 4.

How far is your TF steaming to do the bombardment? I am normally bombarding a hex adjacent to where I am steaming from; I never zoom in from far away. Perhaps it is a factor of op points available.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 178

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 4:13:07 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Maybe. Is that a single bombardment? Is it day or night. Mine is a night run in and out mission.
I've never had a TF that had a target 1 hex away. And if the enemy was sending TF from 1 hex away I would do something drastic to stop it.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 3/18/2006 4:14:29 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 179

RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat - 3/18/2006 4:13:51 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I wonder why we get different results here. How are you bombarding and not using any fuel? Maybe is you are based in the target hex you fire more ammo?

Indeed; it's interesting. I don't remember ever having a bombardment that only used 2 rounds. I do remember once I had one use only 4.

How far is your TF steaming to do the bombardment? I am normally bombarding a hex adjacent to where I am steaming from; I never zoom in from far away. Perhaps it is a factor of op points available.

See my post just before yours

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 180

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat