Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


APs, AKs, xAPs, and xAKs do not beach themselves to disembark. They use landing craft ...all the little landing craft are represented abstractly by the unload rate....

Earlier in the thread it was mentioned that the TFs had 70ish transports each.... the units got offloaded quickly because each individual transport was not carrying very many devices...so the inherent and abstracted landing craft took the devices to shore quickly.

On top of that the Japanese receive a bonus to their unload rate early in the war abstractly representing dedicated shipping engineers that were detailed for the early invasions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I've been watching this thread with some interest. I have not yet had time to do any new testing on this - I did test the guns at PH and Manilla several times in early 2009 and bombardment fleets were 100% in all cases - these included multiple BBs, Cruisers, DDs.

On the one hand the example in the thread is complex because it exposes a number of very different issues: targeting of CD guns against large numbers of invading ships, damage caused by CD guns to ships in amphibious TFs, over saturation of shots against ships in amphibous TFs, overly rapid unloading of troops from amphbious TFs. Most of these issues have been with us since day-1 of WITP and are not new to AE.

But one fundamental point to make which is fairly simple, is that as with many if not most of the sub-systems within the game engine (both WITP and AE) if you scale things up far enough, you will be likely to break the sub-system. In WITP this was perhaps most glaringly true for the Air vs Air subsystem (the issue got called "Uber CAP"). We specifically targeted this issue for fixing in AE, and so far, it looks like this fix is holding. But many other sub-systems were not targeted for fixing, so there will still be scalability issues.

So, as to which, if any of these issues, we will ultimately address, we cannot say yet, this will require some testing to sort things out. In the mean time, just be aware that if you launch a very large Amphibous invasion as was done here, you will get outside the window were things work correctly.

And I might also add, that it still seems like to me that the defending base did not have any air force turned on and I haven't heard much about that - but I wonder what would be happening if PH had a large air force turned on during the landings - I would think that would have made a difference in the outcome - though I'm not actually sure what the out come is - I've missed some of the posts I'm sure.

But it is an interesting exercise in scaling things up beyond the engine's ability to handle, no doubt there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Since Japan never tried to invade Oahu, and Oahu never had to test its full CD system while under attack, what's "realistic"? It's all speculation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

I'm merely speculating , Don would have to confirm, but presumably the "algorithm" presumes the transports are for the most part "standing offshore" well outside the range of most of the "guns" used to fire...the PB's are presumed to be inside this envelope, and hence soak up much of the fire from the CD guns.

One other point that is missed is the landing LCU's themselves are attacked at the end of the turn sequence via a bombardment attack from the defenders...which gives me a thought...

quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek

there is a MASSIVE difference between getting ashore and taking the place - im standing on Pearl with 2700 AV against 850-900 - all forces have supplies coming out of their ears, i have attacked once - a shock - my AV was reduced to 700, Yanks AV was increased to nearly 5000!!!!!!!!!

standing in the sand is a lot different to taking it - dont sulk, blubber or argue until youve seen an attack go in which hasnt happened here yet - its nasty

quote:

ORIGINAL: jrlans

It seems to me the biggest thing is that small caliber guns from escorts are "suppressing" much larger CD guns. A 3" or 4" gun on a PB should not be suppressing a 10" 12" or 16" CD gun. If possible i would write a routine that only allows like size naval guns to suppress. Ie: battleship calliber guns (14", 16" 18" guns suppres CD guns of similar or smaller sizes.) As is now enough PBs can suppress and duel an entire CD fort, i just dont see that happening in RL.

Also if possible i would have CD guns disengage and go to a new target once a ship reaches heavy damage (the ship is no longer combat effective and not a threat any longer). This could be done with a random role so that its not definate and would represent the uncertinty of war.

The last thing is that the landing routine doesnt seem to model landing under fire very well. Against a heavily fortified and ocupied island entire landing boats should be lost to mortars. Soldiers disembarking landing craft should be ocationaly shreded by MG fire. IMO you just dont realy see that in the current model. If possible i would add a routine that takes island size (stacking limit) and the total number of heavy weapons into account (Ie if your landing on an atol your much more likely to hit an MG nest).

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

I'm merely speculating , Don would have to confirm, but presumably the "algorithm" presumes the transports are for the most part "standing offshore" well outside the range of most of the "guns" used to fire...the PB's are presumed to be inside this envelope, and hence soak up much of the fire from the CD guns.

One other point that is missed is the landing LCU's themselves are attacked at the end of the turn sequence via a bombardment attack from the defenders...which gives me a thought...

I also presume that the transports carried with them 2500 V-22 Ospreys to enable all the troops to land en masse? ;)

I think the concern about the CDs being so ineffective is quite justified and needs to be thoroughly examined but for me the biggest problem is being able to unload so quickly. My ships can't unload that quickly when docked, so I'm curious how the transports "standing offshore" can perform such feats. Even if the US had evacuated Oahu there is still no way the Japanese could land so much so quickly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I've been watching this thread with some interest. I have not yet had time to do any new testing on this - I did test the guns at PH and Manilla several times in early 2009 and bombardment fleets were 100% in all cases - these included multiple BBs, Cruisers, DDs.

On the one hand the example in the thread is complex because it exposes a number of very different issues: targeting of CD guns against large numbers of invading ships, damage caused by CD guns to ships in amphibious TFs, over saturation of shots against ships in amphibous TFs, overly rapid unloading of troops from amphbious TFs. Most of these issues have been with us since day-1 of WITP and are not new to AE.

But one fundamental point to make which is fairly simple, is that as with many if not most of the sub-systems within the game engine (both WITP and AE) if you scale things up far enough, you will be likely to break the sub-system. In WITP this was perhaps most glaringly true for the Air vs Air subsystem (the issue got called "Uber CAP"). We specifically targeted this issue for fixing in AE, and so far, it looks like this fix is holding. But many other sub-systems were not targeted for fixing, so there will still be scalability issues.

So, as to which, if any of these issues, we will ultimately address, we cannot say yet, this will require some testing to sort things out. In the mean time, just be aware that if you launch a very large Amphibous invasion as was done here, you will get outside the window were things work correctly.

And I might also add, that it still seems like to me that the defending base did not have any air force turned on and I haven't heard much about that - but I wonder what would be happening if PH had a large air force turned on during the landings - I would think that would have made a difference in the outcome - though I'm not actually sure what the out come is - I've missed some of the posts I'm sure.

But it is an interesting exercise in scaling things up beyond the engine's ability to handle, no doubt there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wpurdom

On the IRL side of the commentary, it seems to me that the effect of 16 inch guns is being overestimated. Forgive me for relying on memory rather than quotes, but I think I remember from the recent biography of Captain Evans of the USS Johnston, that at Leyte none of the (3?) battleship AP rounds that hit her did fatal damage - for an unamored ship the AP shells passed through the ship without detonation so it was a matter of chance whether fatal damage was done by the pass of the shell through the ship - and the ship could take multiple shells without immediately sinking. IIRC, it was the 6" light crusier shells that did her in. My fainter memory is something similar happened at the first Naval Battle of Guadalcanal with the 14" AP shells of the two Jap BB's - it was the secondaries that were brutal on the US ships below the CA level. So it may not be unreasonable for the ships to absorb multiple hits from the big guns.

In game terms, I'm not entirely convinced that this landing result would be inappropriate for a 1 in 100 outcome. Combat accuracy of troops in their first combat is often a pale fraction of wartime experience with target pratice when panic, excitment, etc. enter into play. (As a consistent outcome it does seem way off base). I can even come up with a story to explain it - the 16" guns fire a the wrong targets with the wrong ammo, the mobile guns misdeploy, and the co has a mental breakdown.
In the land model, I refought an AI turn once because I accidentally ended the term, and then decided to replay it 6 more times with reloads because of the disparate result. AI Jap attacked Chinese corps in jungle. I had 1 1-2 result, 3 1-1 results, 1 3-1 result (no allied retreat) 1 6-1 result and 2 hundreds to 1. The causalty results varied from higher Jap casualties to surrender of the Chinese force. That range of results seemed appropriate to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Interesting points, Joe. But I think one of the major problems revealed here is the "targeting routine". Against a bombardment TF, shooting at warships makes excellent sense..., but against an "Amphibious TF", the danger is from troops being landed; and AK's and AP's should be the #1 priority targets.

The PB's guns are no threat to Oahu, but the transports troops are. The AI's targeting priority is completely backward. The other thing that stands out is the ability of weak ships to absorb massive numbers of hits. U-Boats used to sink substantial-sized Allied Freighters with a half dozen well-placed hits from their 88mm's..., but in WITP 3,000 ton Japanese merchant rustbuckets absorb 5, 6, and even 8" shells like the Yamato. Those PB's should have blown up and sunk with 1-10 hits..., not been "99% damaged" from 50!

There seem to be a number of problems which converged in this example..., and I suppose we owe WITPPL a vote of thanks for trying something screwy enough to expose them all.

Picked up an interesting account of action on February 17, 1945 off of Iwo Jima entitled Iwo Jima Recon...the book details the activity of 4 UDTs in a final recon before the invasion...

12 LCI(G)s made a reconnaisance of Iwo Jima's defences supported by BB's Tennessee and Nevada, a cruiser and several destroyers. The LCI(G)s approached within 2000 yards of the shore...1 was sunk and 9 heavily damaged. 2 others moderately damaged.

LCI(G) 473 suffered as many as many as six 5 inch shell hits as it approached within 1500 yards of Suribachi...but did not sink.

This photo is of LCI(G) 450 which took a number of 8 inch shell hits...yet was still able to unleash its rockets....and did not sink.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

great pic! Looks like though that the shells went right through the vessel without detonating. What do you think like would have happened if just one of the 8inch shells would have exploded? This seems like a case when the defenders used wrong ammo type? Or was the ammo not working. Just canīt imagine that such a vessel would sustain anything like two exploding 5 inch shells when hit in the shown area on this pic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Interesting points, Joe. But I think one of the major problems revealed here is the "targeting routine". Against a bombardment TF, shooting at warships makes excellent sense..., but against an "Amphibious TF", the danger is from troops being landed; and AK's and AP's should be the #1 priority targets.

The PB's guns are no threat to Oahu, but the transports troops are. The AI's targeting priority is completely backward. The other thing that stands out is the ability of weak ships to absorb massive numbers of hits. U-Boats used to sink substantial-sized Allied Freighters with a half dozen well-placed hits from their 88mm's..., but in WITP 3,000 ton Japanese merchant rustbuckets absorb 5, 6, and even 8" shells like the Yamato. Those PB's should have blown up and sunk with 1-10 hits..., not been "99% damaged" from 50!

There seem to be a number of problems which converged in this example..., and I suppose we owe WITPPL a vote of thanks for trying something screwy enough to expose them all.

Picked up an interesting account of action on February 17, 1945 off of Iwo Jima entitled Iwo Jima Recon...the book details the activity of 4 UDTs in a final recon before the invasion...

12 LCI(G)s made a reconnaisance of Iwo Jima's defences supported by BB's Tennessee and Nevada, a cruiser and several destroyers. The LCI(G)s approached within 2000 yards of the shore...1 was sunk and 9 heavily damaged. 2 others moderately damaged.

LCI(G) 473 suffered as many as many as six 5 inch shell hits as it approached within 1500 yards of Suribachi...but did not sink.

This photo is of LCI(G) 450 which took a number of 8 inch shell hits...yet was still able to unleash its rockets....and did not sink.

great pic! Looks like though that the shells went right through the vessel without detonating. What do you think like would have happened if just one of the 8inch shells would have exploded? This seems like a case when the defenders used wrong ammo type? Or was the ammo not working. Just canīt imagine that such a vessel would sustain anything like two exploding 5 inch shells when hit in the shown area on this pic.

quote:

sure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn

From the gaming point of view, an invasion of Pearl Harbour is one of the great what ifs of the conflict, so it being possible makes the game better. Also if the CD is so effective that the Japanese cannot invade, then the allied players will use this knowledge in an ahistoric way. Choose your poison.

quote:

Scholl wrote:

Please note that virtually ALL the examples given are for JAPANESE shells striking Allied vessels. The Japanese Navy did not generally even issue an HE round to naval vessels or Naval guns in general..., the assumption being that they would be firing at naval (armored) targets in most cases. The use of AP rounds in virtually all instances led to a number of examples such as that described above, or the San Francisco at 1st Guadalcanal.

Even for the infamous "Bombardment of Henderson Field", a special run of 14" HE Incindiary rounds had to be produced and shipped to Rabaul. HE simply wasn't "standard issue" for Japanese Naval ordnance as it was in the US Navy. The doctrines, production, and planning were different.

Japan was a second-rate Industrial Power trying to impersonate a first-rate one, and corners had to be cut. Same problems led to the failure to implement the planned change-over of their standard infantry rifle even though they began the effort years before the war. You can only squeeze so much out of a narrow industrial base.

quote:



LCI(G) 441

At 1050, lieutenant (j.g.) Forrest W. bell gave the command to open fire with his 20mm and 40mm guns. His landing craft was proceeding to a point one thousand yards off the right flank of blue Beach One. 'At 1103, we baegan firing range raockets. About a minute later, we took a direct hit in the galley, from a five inch shell, which exploded instantaneously. It did extensive damage to the galley, set fire to the starboard ready box, and woounded two gunners on the 20mm after battery. At 1106, we fired a salvo of approximately one hundred rockets, which landed on the beach near the waterline. Just after the rockets were firedand we were turning prepatory to retiring to extinguish the fire, we received another large shell in the clipping space on the starboard side at main deck level. We proceeded out of range at flank speed, pursuing a zig-zag course.

The crew extinguished the fire and determined that the craft did not have any underwater damage. Bell ordered the craft back into the fight...

At 1143 LCI(G) 441 was hit on the forecastle just aft of number one 40mm, which demolished the vent and did some minor hull damage. Bell received an order to withdraw. 'just as i gave the cammand'all engines ahead flank and ' left 20 degrees rudder', we were hit by a large explosive shell on the starboard side gun deck, just aft of the number three 40mm. It killed and wounded the gunners and disabled the electric steering engine room.' The uncontrolled craft swung in a large circle, but gradually closer and closer to the beach.

One of the UDT swimmers, on his way back to the pickup point, was almost hit by the out of control LCI... As it passed by, he could see 'that the bridge was on fire and they were trying to get casualties out of there.' Marine Frank Schnell was aboard as an observer. 'As I went to the conning tower, we received a direct hit on the forward gun tube. About fifteeen seconds later we received another direct hit just aft of the first one. The LCI then began to withdraw....'

Bell ordered 'rudder amidships', which was relayed to the steering room by messenger. 'When my command was finally executed, we came out of our swing and were headed directly for the beach at flank spped! I shouted 'Hard left rudder' which was passed immediately. We now headed away from the beach at somewhat reduced speed. We got about 1500 yards from the beach, two very near misses landed a few feet from our stern. they threw a considerable amount of shrapnel over our decks, but did no further damage. We proceeded out of range and received no further hits or near misses.'

quote:


LCI(G) 450

...LCI(G) 450 commanded by W.A> Brady passed destroyers CApp, Luetze, and Henley, and headed for Red beach One at eight knots... ...At 1050 she opened up with her guns and prepared to bombard the beach. 'We were all set to let go with our rockets," Gerge Kern wrote, 'but just before we did, all hell broke loose!... ... First we got an 8 inch shell in the bow, and then we got another one in the center of the ship - and a third in the bow again. Two large mortars hit our well deck and knocked all our rocket launchers off. finally we got another 8 inch shell amidships. That gave us four holes, all at least three feet across.'

Brady wrote,"At 1055, the ship was hit with two large-caliber projectiles on the starboard bow, opening a large hole five feet by one foot in diameter, two crewmen were wounded.' two minutes later another hit by a large projectile on the port bow started a fire in the forwrad compartment....

quote:


LCI(G) 466

Initially assigned as a reserve boat, the 466 was called away to replace the 473, which was dead in the water. At 1106, We advised the destroyers Capp and Leutze that we were going to pass between them,' Lt. James j. Horovitz wrote in his report. 'As soon as we passed them, the LCI(G) 474 was observed retiring to seaward in sinking condition. At about 1112, the order to commence fire was given. Eleven minutes later, about 1200 yards from the beach we suffered at least three direct 6- to 8- inch enemy hits. The port and starboard 40mm guns were hit simultaneously, resulting in an explosin and fire in the gun tubs and heavy casualties among the gun crews. The third enemy hit demolished the interior of the pilothouse cutting off all communications between the conning tower and other parts of the ship.'

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Sounds like the Japanese had a stock pile of HE at Iwo... Its always interesting reading accounts from those who were there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

With the numbers of troops that were lost during unloading, I would suspect that these troops were not preparing for Pearl Harbor very long-I tend to lose more troops during unloading amphibious assault forces if I have not adequately prepared for a given target.

Given the speed of advance described in the first posts here, I think those invasion troops "might" have recieved up to a free drink coupon good at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel as they ran past their sergeant and into the landing boats.

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

quote:

They were loaded to a TFs equal to their troop capacity about +20%. Thats a lot of ships but they unload in one go. That was a plan.

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
Yes, some of the PG's could take several hits to sink,

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
I doubt it can be fixed without a rewrite of the land combat model to support in-hex combat. That's not in the cards for now.

quote:

.....ask your self why lighthouses have coded beams.....

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook
512 shell hits is nothing since 80-90 percent of those hits were on the same 8-10 PBs. I actually saw PBs obliterated by 16-inch gun hits only to be hit again and again by other guns after that. It seems that each escorting ship was engaged by all CD-guns at the same time, regardless of earlier hits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewKurtz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook
512 shell hits is nothing since 80-90 percent of those hits were on the same 8-10 PBs. I actually saw PBs obliterated by 16-inch gun hits only to be hit again and again by other guns after that. It seems that each escorting ship was engaged by all CD-guns at the same time, regardless of earlier hits.

They way I'm seeing it, this is the crux of the issue. Had the CDs engaged the troop ships after the PBs were obviously gone (as they would have IRL, if not before they were gone), then much of the force would have been destroy at sea.

The other issue in the combat reports I notice is that the number of CDs seem to drop dramatically each turn. What is destroying them? Blown out of the water PBs?

As I pointed out elsewhere, I don't see this as a land combat issue. It is a tweak to the CD logic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


And again i'm not saying that the routine is correct...just asking that we examine the reports more closely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewKurtz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook
512 shell hits is nothing since 80-90 percent of those hits were on the same 8-10 PBs. I actually saw PBs obliterated by 16-inch gun hits only to be hit again and again by other guns after that. It seems that each escorting ship was engaged by all CD-guns at the same time, regardless of earlier hits.

They way I'm seeing it, this is the crux of the issue. Had the CDs engaged the troop ships after the PBs were obviously gone (as they would have IRL, if not before they were gone), then much of the force would have been destroy at sea.

The other issue in the combat reports I notice is that the number of CDs seem to drop dramatically each turn. What is destroying them? Blown out of the water PBs?

As I pointed out elsewhere, I don't see this as a land combat issue. It is a tweak to the CD logic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

quote:

.....ask your self why lighthouses have coded beams.....

bsq, being the landlubber that I am, what do you mean by " coded beams " ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

quote:

.....ask your self why lighthouses have coded beams.....

bsq, being the landlubber that I am, what do you mean by " coded beams " ?