RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor

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: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/10/2010 2:17:42 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grunt

I have read the first 4 or 5 pages of this thread closely and skimmed the rest...so sorry if this has been done and commented upon already; but I loaded up the first turn of scen 1 as IJN and, using the forces destined for Kuantan, formed an invasion TF similar to this PH invasion in composition. I then set Bataan as the destination. Bataan, of course, has some serious CD defenses. I saw similar results in that the escorts (PBs, SCs and some DDs...9 or 10 total) soaked up almost all of the fire. Only one xAKL was hit out of approx 60 transports. Did the same with scen 2 and saw the same thing. In each case troops got ashore easily and captured Bataan with the first shock attack.

Definitely apparent to me that the firing routines for CD guns are to target the escorts. Six PBs took multiple heavy caliber hits but remained afloat with 95-99 flt damage.

good example and it further proves that the CD routine is surely not working to bring up realistic or plausible results. And I doubt that the devs think the results would be ok.

_____________________________

(in reply to Grunt)

Post #: 391

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/10/2010 2:23:39 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

So all those results showed so far, you attack PH, Bataan or Singapore wihtout taking considerable losses to your ships and even worse, the only "losses" during the landings to the troops are from accidents. lol, what an obviously not working system.

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 392

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/10/2010 2:47:59 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

So would it be considered "gamey" to put together a massive invasion fleet and take Bataan and Singapore on December 8? Or will someone finally acknowledge that the CD/invasion routines aren't working as intended?

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 393

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/10/2010 3:02:53 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

So would it be considered "gamey" to put together a massive invasion fleet and take Bataan and Singapore on December 8?� Or will someone finally acknowledge that the CD/invasion routines aren't working as intended?

I'll admit it. It's totally FUBAR'ed! Unfortunately I'm not among those who can do anything to correct it.

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 394

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/10/2010 3:40:33 PM

WITPPL

Posts: 290
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline

OK,

Blue has proposed to continiue with an invasion so after turning back time for 2 days we have turned it back and forth again.

We continiue original path.
I will open an AAR of this.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 395

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/10/2010 4:21:10 PM

Drambuie

Posts: 80
Joined: 8/18/2004
Status: offline

Hmm this is one case where I think i'm glad I'm playing the AI!

The thought of a game where you can't rely on anywhere - including the major bases etc- being relatively secure from an amphib operation is not something I'd relish much.

Actually what stops the AI from trying this? Is it hard coded routines of invasion priorities and targets or does it assess targets based on their AV or defense values (especially later in the game)and this calculates that CD defenses etc are too tough to attack?

(in reply to WITPPL)

Post #: 396

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/10/2010 4:29:37 PM

WITPPL

Posts: 290
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline

AAR started
"Pearl and Beyond"

R

(in reply to Drambuie)

Post #: 397

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/10/2010 4:40:37 PM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drambuie

Hmm this is one case where I think i'm glad I'm playing the AI!

The thought of a game where you can't rely on anywhere - including the major bases etc- being relatively secure from an amphib operation is not something I'd relish much.

Actually what stops the AI from trying this? Is it hard coded routines of invasion priorities and targets or does it assess targets based on their AV or defense values (especially later in the game)and this calculates that CD defenses etc are too tough to attack?

Unless Japan wins by taking Pearl, all the allied play has to do now is cut the Japanese supply line to Pearl and it's a slow death!

You would have to create an AI script(s) to get the AI to do this.

(in reply to Drambuie)

Post #: 398

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/10/2010 5:48:05 PM

stuman

Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grunt

I have read the first 4 or 5 pages of this thread closely and skimmed the rest...so sorry if this has been done and commented upon already; but I loaded up the first turn of scen 1 as IJN and, using the forces destined for Kuantan, formed an invasion TF similar to this PH invasion in composition. I then set Bataan as the destination. Bataan, of course, has some serious CD defenses. I saw similar results in that the escorts (PBs, SCs and some DDs...9 or 10 total) soaked up almost all of the fire. Only one xAKL was hit out of approx 60 transports. Did the same with scen 2 and saw the same thing. In each case troops got ashore easily and captured Bataan with the first shock attack.

Definitely apparent to me that the firing routines for CD guns are to target the escorts. Six PBs took multiple heavy caliber hits but remained afloat with 95-99 flt damage.

As a Japanese player this thread is definately food for thought. I have to admit that I would never have considered sending a large TF immediately to Bataan.

btw Grunt, if you do not mind my asking, who is your Avatar a sketch of ?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Grunt)

Post #: 399

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/10/2010 6:13:43 PM

stuman

Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

So would it be considered "gamey" to put together a massive invasion fleet and take Bataan and Singapore on December 8?� Or will someone finally acknowledge that the CD/invasion routines aren't working as intended?

Well it is not gamey when I do it to my brother in a PBEM we are about to start, but right after that I think it is ridiculous !

_____________________________

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

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 400

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/10/2010 7:02:10 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

Well, the developers wanted players to have all sorts of options other than what happened historically. I guess this is one of those situations. It does make me wonder why any Japanese player would bother with the "historical" routes to both Bataan and Singapore, though, now that it's been shown that just redirecting their invasion fleets to those bases works just as effectively as advancing down Luzon and Malaya. Not only is this strategy faster, it cuts off the defenders from their main supply base and frees up units for other offensives.

(in reply to stuman)

Post #: 401

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/10/2010 9:13:20 PM

treespider

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Well, the developers wanted players to have all sorts of options other than what happened historically.� I guess this is one of those situations.� It does make me wonder why any Japanese player would bother with the "historical" routes to both Bataan and Singapore, though, now that it's been shown that just redirecting their invasion fleets to those bases works just as effectively as advancing down Luzon and Malaya.� Not only is this strategy faster, it cuts off the defenders from their main supply base and frees up units for other offensives.

And it gets all of the PB's sunk that will be needed later as escorts when the torpedoes finally start connecting ...

_____________________________

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 John Lansford)

Post #: 402

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/10/2010 11:14:16 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Well, the developers wanted players to have all sorts of options other than what happened historically.� I guess this is one of those situations.� It does make me wonder why any Japanese player would bother with the "historical" routes to both Bataan and Singapore, though, now that it's been shown that just redirecting their invasion fleets to those bases works just as effectively as advancing down Luzon and Malaya.� Not only is this strategy faster, it cuts off the defenders from their main supply base and frees up units for other offensives.

No..., it isn't. It's an abortion that either crept in or was never recognized during testing. Makes about as much real sense as putting an "I win" button on the screen to reduce playing time...

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 403

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/11/2010 1:31:38 AM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

Mike,

I was being sarcastic; I'm with you and the others feeling like the CD routines are majorly screwed up.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 404

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/11/2010 5:04:47 AM

JeffroK

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

I'd go for the CD process to be not working, its too often all bad (as in the PH Invasion being scratched) or all bad as follows.

IMHO, each CD unit gets to shoot at just about every target, as you can see I had at least 2 BB and probably 8 DD screening. I had also hit the base(Saipan) for 2-3 days with BB, CA & CV aircraft. At one point I had Gambier Bay bombarding with its 5".

Theres something wrong, at least have a good hard look at it. (Give CD units an arc to cover,and allow the attacker to chose the direction of their attack.)

Pre-Invasion action off Saipan - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

132 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
BB New Mexico
BB Idaho, Shell hits 8
DD Fullam
xAK Antoine Saugrain, Shell hits 2, heavy fires
xAK Admiral Wiley, Shell hits 2
LCI(G)-82, Shell hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
LCI(G)-81, Shell hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
LCI(G)-80, Shell hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
LCI(G)-79, Shell hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
LCI(G)-78, Shell hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
LCI(G)-77, Shell hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
LCI(G)-76, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
LCI-70
LCI-69, Shell hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
LCI-68
LCI-67, Shell hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
LCI-66, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
LCI-65, Shell hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
LCI-64, Shell hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
LCI-61, Shell hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
LCI-444, Shell hits 2
LCI-443, Shell hits 5

Japanese ground losses:
504 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 36 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 27 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 6 (1 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Vehicles lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)

BB New Mexico firing at 43rd Division
BB Idaho firing at Saipan Naval Fortress
DD Fullam firing at 150th Infantry Regiment
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Antoine Saugrain at 12,000 yards
BB New Mexico fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards
8cm T88 DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Admiral Wiley at 12,000 yards
BB New Mexico fires to suppress enemy troops at 12,000 yards
LCI(G)-82 firing at enemy troops
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-82 at 1,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-82 at 1,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-82 at 1,000 yards
8cm T88 DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-82 at 1,000 yards
LCI(G)-81 firing at enemy troops
20cm Short Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-81 at 1,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-81 at 1,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-81 at 1,000 yards
LCI(G)-80 firing at enemy troops
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-80 at 1,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-80 at 1,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-80 at 1,000 yards
8cm T88 DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-80 at 1,000 yards
LCI(G)-79 firing at enemy troops
20cm Short Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-79 at 1,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-79 at 1,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-79 at 1,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-79 at 1,000 yards
LCI(G)-78 firing at enemy troops
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-78 at 1,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-78 at 1,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-78 at 1,000 yards
8cm T88 DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-78 at 1,000 yards
LCI(G)-77 firing at enemy troops
20cm Short Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-77 at 1,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-77 at 1,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-77 at 1,000 yards
8cm T88 DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-77 at 1,000 yards
LCI(G)-76 firing at enemy troops
20cm Short Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-76 at 1,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-76 at 1,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-76 at 1,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI(G)-76 at 1,000 yards
LCI-70 firing at enemy troops
8cm T88 DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-70 at 1,000 yards
LCI-69 firing at enemy troops
20cm Short Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-69 at 1,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-69 at 1,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-69 at 1,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-69 at 1,000 yards
LCI-68 firing at enemy troops
8cm T88 DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-68 at 1,000 yards
LCI-67 firing at enemy troops
20cm Short Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-67 at 1,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-67 at 1,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-67 at 1,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-67 at 1,000 yards
8cm T88 DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-67 at 1,000 yards
LCI-66 firing at enemy troops
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-66 at 1,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-66 at 1,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-66 at 1,000 yards
LCI-65 firing at enemy troops
20cm Short Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-65 at 1,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-65 at 1,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-65 at 1,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-65 at 1,000 yards
8cm T88 DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-65 at 1,000 yards
LCI-64 firing at enemy troops
20cm Short Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-64 at 1,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-64 at 1,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-64 at 1,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-64 at 1,000 yards
8cm T88 DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-64 at 1,000 yards
LCI-61 firing at enemy troops
20cm Short Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-61 at 1,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-61 at 1,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-61 at 1,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-61 at 1,000 yards
8cm T88 DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging LCI-61 at 1,000 yards
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 405

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/11/2010 7:55:28 AM

WITPPL

Posts: 290
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline

Check out my AAR, I am going to reinforce PH from Lahaina by large TFs of barges. I wonder what will happened.

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 406

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/11/2010 7:59:10 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

Check out my AAR, I am going to reinforce PH from Lahaina by large TFs of barges. I wonder what will happened.

with or without escorts?

_____________________________

(in reply to WITPPL)

Post #: 407

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/11/2010 8:20:18 AM

JeffroK

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

Check out my AAR, I am going to reinforce PH from Lahaina by large TFs of barges. I wonder what will happened.

with or without escorts?

With a flotilla of row boats which will absorb the fire of 14", 8", 6' Guns and shield the barges from return fire.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 408

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/11/2010 8:28:22 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

Check out my AAR, I am going to reinforce PH from Lahaina by large TFs of barges. I wonder what will happened.

with or without escorts?

With a flotilla of row boats which will absorb the fire of 14", 8", 6' Guns and shield the barges from return fire.

don�t be so sarcastic

_____________________________

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 409

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/11/2010 8:33:32 AM

JeffroK

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

Check out my AAR, I am going to reinforce PH from Lahaina by large TFs of barges. I wonder what will happened.

with or without escorts?

With a flotilla of row boats which will absorb the fire of 14", 8", 6' Guns and shield the barges from return fire.

don�t be so sarcastic

We really need a sarcastic smiley!

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 410

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/11/2010 8:36:06 AM

WITPPL

Posts: 290
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline

Without. 4 TFs as were created by AI in Lahaina. I want to see whats up.

Already there but Ive sent them as barges not landing crafts so they wont unload.
Funny thing is: If you will accidentaly cross Baatan or Sing You would be hammered by CD. You can go to Pearl and nothing will happened (but I think that a straits of Sing and Baatan got to do something with it)

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 411

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/11/2010 9:49:12 AM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

I had the same thing happen to my landing craft at Saipan in a WitP game; since the LCI's and LST's have to go right up to the shore, apparently the CD routine lets them have it with everything in the toolbox even if there are escorts trying to shield them.

(in reply to WITPPL)

Post #: 412

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/11/2010 4:19:24 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oddball_France

reserved for day 2

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 08, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion Support action off Singapore - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Singapore (50,84)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 38575 troops, 369 guns, 234 vehicles, Assault Value = 1262

Defending force 15091 troops, 235 guns, 120 vehicles, Assault Value = 217

Japanese adjusted assault: 599

Allied adjusted defense: 163

Japanese assault odds: 3 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Singapore !!!

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
No Allied losses

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), preparation(-), morale(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
953 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 43 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 76 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 17 disabled
Vehicles lost 11 (0 destroyed, 11 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
13976 casualties reported
Squads: 234 destroyed, 47 disabled
Non Combat: 1204 destroyed, 116 disabled
Engineers: 86 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 213 (209 destroyed, 4 disabled)
Vehicles lost 154 (154 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 13
Units destroyed 2

Assaulting units:
114th Infantry Rgt /1
4th Ind. Engineer Regiment
42nd Infantry Rgt /1
5th Engineer Regiment
55th Infantry Rgt /1
15th Naval Guard Unit
23rd Ind. Engr Rgt /1
15th Ind. Engineer Regiment
5th Recon Rgt /2
41st Infantry Regiment
12th Engineer Regiment
16th Naval Guard Unit
11th Infantry Regiment
1st Tank Rgt /1
56th Infantry Rgt /1
21st Infantry Rgt /1
5th Field Artillery Regiment
84th JAAF AF Bn
18th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
11th Shipping Engineer Regiment
5th JAAF AF Coy
8th JNAF Coy
53rd Const Co
34th Field AA Battalion
21st JAAF AF Bn
5th Field AF Construction Battalion
20th AA Regiment
54th Const Co
3rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
18th JAAF Base Force
3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
6th JNAF Coy
55th Const Co
25th Army /2

Defending units:
2nd Malay Battalion
1st Manchester Battalion
3rd Cavalry Regiment
2nd Gordons Battalion
2/17 Dogra Battalion
SSVF Brigade
1st Malay Battalion
2nd Loyal Battalion
Singapore Fortress
24th NZ Pioneer Coy
224 Group RAF
Singapore Base Force
2nd HK&S Heavy AA Regiment
Malaya Army
Malayan Air Wing
1st Indian Heavy AA Regiment
22nd Indian Mountain Gun Regiment

and that's it

HR needed, i guess

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, and I don't want to load up a whole new game to check, but does Singapore start the game at 0 forts? If the attack knocked them down to zero, why isn't there a combat report line saying that? (If it does start with zero forts, it shouldn't, especially as this attack came from the sea side, not land, but even the land side should have been considered to be somewhat fortified. Wire, OPs, something, right, all you Singapore experts?)

With zero forts, this is a garden-variety 3:1 attack on an un-reinforced, peacetime Singapore.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Oddball_France)

Post #: 413

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/11/2010 4:46:36 PM

USSAmerica

Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline

I noticed the same thing, Moose. I just checked, and at least for Scen 1, Singapore starts with lvl 0 forts.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 414

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/11/2010 4:47:57 PM

witpqs

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

IIRC Singapore starts at 0 forts.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 415

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/11/2010 5:00:56 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

I noticed the same thing, Moose.� I just checked, and at least for Scen 1, Singapore starts with lvl 0 forts. �

Got to admit, I just got back from starting a new game just to check too. This to me is the problem, not the CD. With zero forts, and 15K of odds & ends LCUs, and a horrible HQ CO, it isn't hard to get enough Japanese combat power ashore through the mines and CD to take SIngapore on 12/8. A zero fort level means no wire, no foxholes, no log bunkers, nothing on the sea side? Really? I thought the sea side of Singapore was like the Atlantic Wall? That was the whole basis of the British idea of Fortress Singapore--nobody can approach by land, and we've made an impassable wall by sea.

Jack the forts up to something reasonable--even a 3-4, and see how it goes.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 1/11/2010 5:01:29 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to USSAmerica)

Post #: 416

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/11/2010 5:32:50 PM

treespider

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

I noticed the same thing, Moose.� I just checked, and at least for Scen 1, Singapore starts with lvl 0 forts. �

Got to admit, I just got back from starting a new game just to check too. This to me is the problem, not the CD. With zero forts, and 15K of odds & ends LCUs, and a horrible HQ CO, it isn't hard to get enough Japanese combat power ashore through the mines and CD to take SIngapore on 12/8. A zero fort level means no wire, no foxholes, no log bunkers, nothing on the sea side? Really? I thought the sea side of Singapore was like the Atlantic Wall? That was the whole basis of the British idea of Fortress Singapore--nobody can approach by land, and we've made an impassable wall by sea.

Jack the forts up to something reasonable--even a 3-4, and see how it goes.

So when the Japanese do come overland...

...maybe we can have the - "Percival Surrenders on Day 5 of the actual Japanese entry into the hex" Rule

_____________________________

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 Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 417

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/11/2010 6:22:12 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

I noticed the same thing, Moose.� I just checked, and at least for Scen 1, Singapore starts with lvl 0 forts. �

Got to admit, I just got back from starting a new game just to check too. This to me is the problem, not the CD. With zero forts, and 15K of odds & ends LCUs, and a horrible HQ CO, it isn't hard to get enough Japanese combat power ashore through the mines and CD to take SIngapore on 12/8. A zero fort level means no wire, no foxholes, no log bunkers, nothing on the sea side? Really? I thought the sea side of Singapore was like the Atlantic Wall? That was the whole basis of the British idea of Fortress Singapore--nobody can approach by land, and we've made an impassable wall by sea.

Jack the forts up to something reasonable--even a 3-4, and see how it goes.

So when the Japanese do come overland...

...maybe we can have the - "Percival Surrenders on Day 5 of the actual Japanese entry into the hex" Rule

It's an inherent problem with the ground combat model, and maybe Singapore is the only case on the map with Huge (tm) sea-facing defenses, and no land-facing. By making Singapore a zero forts the devs seem to assume that human Japanese players will always take the slow land route. By February, when the historical final assault began, it's trivial to have 3-4 forts in place and lots of at-will evacuaitons already done.

But, if you "average" sea and land-facing on 12/8 to be 3-4 forts, you make a sea invasion very costly, but you give a huge construction head-start to the land-facing forts, which could be 5-6 by February if retreating LCUs are put to work.

HR seem like the way to go, or else just play the system as is, lose Singapore on Day 2, and maybe then stage a cost-free retreat of the whole Commonwealth force structure, except Singapore's 15K, into India to wait for help. Certainly a different game if the Japanese have a huge repair yard, huge airfield, and huge supply stack at a critical choke point on Day 2 of the war . . .

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 418

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/12/2010 7:05:50 AM

skrewball

Posts: 305
Joined: 12/10/2000
From: Belgium
Status: offline

Has there been any "official" word on this issue?

Would it be just a simple hotfix to change the targeting/firing routines of the CDs?

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 419

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/12/2010 8:20:41 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: skrewball

Has there been any "official" word on this issue?

Would it be just a simple hotfix to change the targeting/firing routines of the CDs?

couple of "officials" commented already so I guess it�s in their discussion process. I�m sure that there�s no doubt that there�s something wrong, the question only is how and to what extend fix it.

_____________________________

(in reply to skrewball)

Post #: 420