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 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 9:24:49 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

On the first wave I did have mixed troops and supplies. With the barges, I had only supplies, but they were so disrupted and sunk they never got anything ashore, even though the BB, and 2 CAs were still there supressing fire. One the third try, with the LSTs and DDs, I also had only supllies, and none got ashore either. It's possible I have a corrupted game by now, as it was started after Patch 1, and has now been updated four times. I've never seen LCUs which had supplies when they loaded all be at strict zero supply when they got off the ships.

Unless I just never noticed. Which is possible. But they were normally supplied at Tarawa when I loaded them up to go to Wotje.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 1/7/2010 9:55:22 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 181

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 9:34:20 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

would say yes. Why? Because most of them were put in not even a dozen PBs. So what�s wrong then? Not the number of shots but the target routine? Or the damage routine that keeps a PB afloat after being hit by shells of 5-16 inch? Something is wrong, at least in my world of thinking when all that is lost are a dozen ships out of 350 and the troops get ashore completely unharmed. And yes, I definetely call this unharmed.

I don't know what the right answer is, but I recall some of the more famous WITP AARs with 60, 70, 80 ships hit and sunk, or with major damage, by CD fire in big, late-war invasions, and the howling over it. And WITP had hundreds of fictional Allied transports, so many it got tiresome to manage them and I left hundreds sitting in ports all over the world. Logistics were easy there, and the carnage was do-able. Lose 60 or 70 xAKs per invasion now and see how far the war gets.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 182

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 9:36:34 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

It seems to me that the actual position of the guns matters not in a game where terrain is abstracted into 40 mile hexes. The arguments raging back and forth over what was where is irrelevant, the only relevant thing is the number of 'tubes'.

No matter where IRL a particular gun was doesn't matter, the game sees it as a 360 deg mount and will fire it where it will. The other thing is that they will have pretty substantial ammunition stocks - unlike their shipborne counterparts, so unless the invader gets in and out quickly, he will lose the duel.

The CD/Bombardment routines are a bit screwy to say the least and this is just a very spectacular example of this. Any one look to see the stock accuracy of the CD guns that were used on Oahu? Bet some aren't coded as much better than a few percent, yet as has been pointed out, once the range has been found, then the destruction commences.

The day night argument, ignores the fact that whilst you might safely throw shells ashore at night with relative impunity (not that you should hit much), you cannot unload troops at night, therefore during the day, the CD should destroy the troop ships and their consorts - in this AAR they appear not to have.

Finally for those of you who argue about navigational fixing at night to support your 'deadly accurate' night bombardment fantasies - ask your self why lighthouses have coded beams - cos like mountains and other bits of terrain, unless you know exactly where you are, you don't know what exactly you are looking at without some other clues.
So triangulation on terrain alone at night is not accurate cos they are just big black 2D silhouettes that change as you move and unless you know what they look like from every single angle, you're screwed.

If all we're going to argue about here is the game, it's going to be a lot smaller forum.

I try to keep the game separated from RL issues, perhaps not always successfully.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to bsq)

Post #: 183

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 9:42:37 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

Finally for those of you who argue about navigational fixing at night to support your 'deadly accurate' night bombardment fantasies - ask your self why lighthouses have coded beams - cos like mountains and other bits of terrain, unless you know exactly where you are, you don't know what exactly you are looking at without some other clues.
So triangulation on terrain alone at night is not accurate cos they are just big black 2D silhouettes that change as you move and unless you know what they look like from every single angle, you're screwed.

Well, I've posted some of my naval bona fides. You ever been to sea?

I'm not talking about taking cross fixes at NIGHT, fer crying out loud. Jeeze. Dusk, dawn, you know, when there's light? Dead-reckoning to get to full dark, then start shooting. The 16-inch emplacemnts I've found pictures of were over an acre in size just for the barrel clearance, and bigger with other equipment and structures. I think they could be hit. You don't. Fine. We'll never know. But please stop with the strawmen.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to bsq)

Post #: 184

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 9:46:26 PM

Smeulders

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

What happens now to the land combat is completely irrelevant to whether or not the CD gun routine is wrong.

It seems that the main problem is the targeting of the CD guns. Instead of completely gutting the landing ships, which should probably be the priority when you're being invaded, they hit the PB ships. Another strange thing is that the PB ships don't sink during the combat. Looking at the size of the guns and the number of hits, nearly every PB should have sunk. They probably did, but only after the combat, leaving them to soak up a lot of damage that would have otherwise destroyed many a landing transport.

Another problem is of course the Japanese unloading bonus. I know it's necessary to let the Japanese do their early war expansion and it's probably not that unrealistic in the DEI/PI were there was almost no opposition on the landing beaches, but it isn't here. If the ships would have had to stay under those guns for multiple days to unload everything without the bonus, there wouldn't have been much left of the IJN.

The success or failure of this invasion (the big picture) is about more than just the CD gun routine. Ability to deliver sufficient numbers of supplied, undisrupted troops to the fight to capture the objective is what I'm waiting to see.

Rest assured, those PBs sank. FOW is the only reason they're not on the ship sunk list at this point.

The IJN do get the unloading bonus-that's true. This bonus does nothing to reduce disruption or fatigue, only speed to unload, AFAIK. 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.

I would venture that those IJA troops on Hawaii now are low on supply, disrupted as heck, fatigued and low on prep. Let's see how the attack goes...The 'success' of this venture is not a given-without knowing more about both offensive and defensive settings (beyond the combat report generalities) I'd give it about a 40% chance of success, maybe less.

I agree completely with what you are saying, but you seem to have missed my first sentence. This discussion isn't about whether or not this action can take Hawaii, it is about the CD gun routine that has made it possible that he has that 40% change of taking the island instead of having a couple of divisions on the bottom of the sea.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 185

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 9:49:17 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

I also hear enough reports here of CD guns putting serious damage on an invasion fleet, but it is pretty obvious that the algorithm gets borked by something in this battle, most likely the huge mass of ships/escorts.

In my miserable time at Wotje I posted about up-thread, my BB, CAs and DDs took at least 50% of the CD fire. Is that weighted by tonnage/threat, ships' gun totals, or something else? Don't know. Can a smart player overwhelm or spoof the code by throwing 50 YPs into an invasion as shell sponges? Don't know. Somebody will soon see if they haven't already. Will trying to "fix" this part of the code bork up the whole CD effort? Could be.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 186

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 9:52:54 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

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.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 187

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 10:39:22 PM

bsq

Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

If all we're going to argue about here is the game, it's going to be a lot smaller forum.

I try to keep the game separated from RL issues, perhaps not always successfully.

With respect, the OP posted an observation about the game and how it looked that the results were way off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Well, I've posted some of my naval bona fides. You ever been to sea?

My Avatar look like a ship/boat to you?

Navigation principles are similar, we just move quicker.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I'm not talking about taking cross fixes at NIGHT, fer crying out loud. Jeeze. Dusk, dawn, you know, when there's light?

Sauce for the goose - light works both ways and by my reckoning those CD batteries are on the East/South East coast, which means that the sun works against you during at least one of those periods.

And once you have your fix even battlewagons get affected by tide and currents, so firing blind will soon get inaccurate - that much I do know.

My point was, as I was trying to make, is that you are looking at a simulation as if it behaves like real life. Come on, you know it doesn't

- therefore all that matters is that the results would have been achievable and my last post merely tried at the outset to point out that most of the discussion over real life dispositions are irrelevant as is talk about fixing etc. It all boils down to pK (or more properly hit probability) as determined by some numbers in the database. The accuracy of the coastal defence weapons varies between 18 and 58 % and for the naval weapons 20 - 100% (although if someone can tell me how a 16.1/45 3YT is more accurate than a 16" CD with its enhanced range finding etc, I'd be interested to know). So perhaps static CD in place at the start of the game should have greater accuracy than their naval counterparts.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 188

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 10:49:56 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

My point was, as I was trying to make, is that you are looking at a simulation as if it behaves like real life. Come on, you know it doesn't - therefore all that matters is that the results would have been achievable and my last post merely tried at the outset to point out that most of the discussion over real life dispositions are irrelevant as is talk about fixing etc. It all boils down to pK (or more properly hit probability) as determined by some numbers in the database. The accuracy of the coastal defence weapons varies between 18 and 58 % and for the naval weapons 20 - 100% (although if someone can tell me how a 16.1/45 3YT is more accurate than a 16" CD with its enhanced range finding etc, I'd be interested to know). So perhaps static CD in place at the start of the game should have greater accuracy than their naval counterparts.

All of this is a fair point, and brings up another point that probably belongs in its own thread.

I grew up on Usenet, where threads don't "belong" to the OP. They drift, they diverge, come back, don't come back, die, are resurrected. Every on-line space has rules and norms, and I've noticed that this moderated forum is not only tighter than Usenet (expected), but also seems to have more of an ownership culture with OPs. ("That stuff ISN'T what I started the thread for!!!")

What you say about CD code execution is true, relevant, and speaks to the OP's concerns. A lot of the posts have been on that, interlaced with a lot of real life speculation by me and others. I personally find both interesting, else I wouldn't have blown most of today watching it snow and posting here. Part of the trouble is this forum software that does a terrible job sub-threading compared to a Usenet newsreader. You can't ignore the tangents very easily. The Web is simply worse at handling text than pictures, and Usenet was much better for free-ranging discussions.

Anyway, if this needs to be about the game alone, I think we've all beat the status quo to death. Until and unless the players post the next moves I thnk we can agree that CD behavior in the invasion didn't agree with RL, did execute as written, and is what it is.

(But I enjoyed learning a lot about a place I used to live too.)

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to bsq)

Post #: 189

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 11:26:53 PM

Mike Scholl

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

This whole "I'm bombarding at night" arguement is pretty silly anyway. If the moonlight is bright enough for you to spot your "reference points", it's bright enough for those big spotting scopes in the base end stations to spot your funnel glow and or your wake (if not the ship itself). And those PB's have got to be in close to even begin to bombard anything with their popguns. The whole arguement is nonsensical.

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 190

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 11:33:18 PM

John Lansford

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Bullwinkle,

The long range 16" guns were emplaced in fortified caves at a position NW of Pearl Harbor and just north of Barber's Point.� Their coverage area extended from all up the west coast over to Waikiki; Barber's Point was no problem for them at all.� Besides, there were a lot more guns available closer to Barber's Point than 16" guns, most of them in disappearing mounts or barbettes.� When I get home I'll look up what was at Oahu in 1/42 and let you know; I'm fairly sure a sizable number of those 155mm mobile guns were already there.

I'd be interested. I spent a fair bit of time on NAS Barber's Point itself, and I'm not picturing where these would have been. Or how caves could have been dug into sheer lava cliffs, with access for 16-inch ammo. They weren't on the tour.

In the picture I posted, the caption in the link indicated those were Battery William at Fort Weaver, just barely west of Pearl Harbor itself.

Battery Williston, actually. Fort Weaver had two 16" guns with a 49,000 yd range. However, there was another battery, located at Fort Barrette, west of Pearl Harbor and directly north of Barber's Point. It was built with military personnel only and involved as much secrecy as the government could create. It was located on an ancient volcanic knob called Puu Kapolei and involved two 16" guns on open barbettes in Battery Hatch.

The book I'm getting this info from is called Fort Kamehameha, The Story of the Harbor Defenses of Pearl Harbor. It also lists 16 155mm mobile guns were present as of December 7, 1941 and deployed between the channel entrance and Barber's Point. There were also 9 240mm mobile howitzers, 8 12" railroad mortars, and 8 8" railroad guns.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 191

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 11:41:43 PM

Central Blue

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline

the technical discussion is interesting to those that are interested.

But since there is also interest in the details of what the two players have set up, maybe they should start separate threads in the AAR forum and promise not to peak on the other guy's details.

_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 192

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 11:46:18 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

The book I'm getting this info from is called Fort Kamehameha, The Story of the Harbor Defenses of Pearl Harbor. It also lists 16 155mm mobile guns were present as of December 7, 1941 and deployed between the channel entrance and Barber's Point. There were also 9 240mm mobile howitzers, 8 12" railroad mortars, and 8 8" railroad guns.

I think there may be variances between your book and the Historical Society Web site as to commissioning and decommissioning dates for some of the 155 and other auxiliary sites. Who knows?

If those guns in the open in the 1920s picture are the same as 1941, I wonder if they were maintained through the Depression, and when the last time that 49,000 yards was tested.

Thanks for the info though. A secret construction project on Oahu. Who knew? That culture loves to talk.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 193

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 11:49:34 PM

sfbaytf

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline

Don't know if its possible, but if the Japanese landing advantage could be disabled for PH and the defensers given a bouns this could make for better results that wouldn't be so out of kilter. As much as I applaud the skill and audacity, I do admit landing 75K troops and suffering just 1000 casualties sounds far too light.

It took the US Navy/Marines until 44 to get down amphibious invasions to the point where it was possible for the large scale landings that took place. Even in 44 had things been reversed I don't think the US Navy/Marines could have invaded a Japanese held Oahu with similar defenses that existed in 42 and taken only 1000 casualties landing should the Japanese have contested it.

But as others have said this is just a game/simulation and many things have to be generalized. PH is only 1 hex in AE scale. If you really wanted to accurately model a Japanese invasion, you'd need a completely different simulation with a much smaller scale.

Perhaps in WitP AE version 2020 we'll have a sim when you invade, you'll be taken to a tactical map where you can fight the ground battle in style. I remember a game some years-the 90's ago that was set in the Solomons and you had something like that happen.

Still its been fun speculating about all this...

< Message edited by sfbaytf -- 1/7/2010 11:52:47 PM >

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 194

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 11:56:41 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

Surfboards!

Charlie don't surf

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 195

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/8/2010 12:08:36 AM

John Lansford

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

According to my reference, the 16" guns were fired annually right up to 12/7/41. No more than three rounds annually though; in one exercise, they hit the target with the first round at 17,000 yds, and since the target was destroyed they had to stand down after that. They also fired subcaliber rounds more often for test purposes, though.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 196

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/8/2010 12:43:58 AM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

The 16" guns grab all the glory, the ones the invaders should have really feared were the naval mortars. I can't find the book yet but the accuracy of those things was frightening, and they were in 3 gun batteries. Any ampib with in range would be crying the blues when that 1000lb (i wish i could remember the exact size) shell plunged thru the deck. Hell I bet it would pass thru a freighter

_____________________________

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 197

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/8/2010 12:53:20 AM

PresterJohn001

Posts: 382
Joined: 8/11/2009
Status: offline

Looking at the big picture from the information presented in this thread i'd say that the result is not that unrealistic. The allies have been getting steamrollered
through the pacific and there have been indications of an attack on Pearl Harbour and yet the Japanese still managed to gain strategic and tactical suprise for
their operation. There was even a operation going on to distract the allies - which worked. Sounds like a pretty much optimal situation for the Japanese. A well
planned an executed operation.

Also i think it is neccessary that the place can be invaded, keeps the allies honest, sweating about keeping their most important assets safe, forcing the allies to protect em

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 198

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/8/2010 1:08:03 AM

John Lansford

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

The 16" guns grab all the glory, the ones the invaders should have really feared were the naval mortars. I can't find the book yet but the accuracy of those things was frightening, and they were in 3 gun batteries. Any ampib with in range would be crying the blues when that 1000lb (i wish i could remember the exact size) shell plunged thru the deck. Hell I bet it would pass thru a freighter

The mortars had a range of about 15,000 yds, but any enemy ship that close would be taking shellfire from nearly every other gun defending the island too, all the way down to the 5" and 6" guns.

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 199

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/8/2010 1:23:12 AM

WITPPL

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

INVASION COMPOSITION:

Main Force: 4th hex E of Lahaina
TF 99
CL
6xDD
2xE
9xPB
67 Transports

TF 122
7xDD
3xE
10xPB
3xDMS
71 Transports

TF 281
CL
6xDD
3xE
9xPB
5xDMS
74 Transports

Surface Patrol (set for PH) 1 hex, Direct, Absolute

CA
3xCL (including Kitakami and OI - went to lihue next turn, sunk Pennsylvannia)
6xDD

From KONA:

Surface Patrol TF (same settings as above)
8 BBs+DDs

Mine sweepers TF
2xDMS

ASW TF
4xPB

WSW of Kona, part of a screening force I mentioned before:

Surface TF (same settings as aboove)
4xDD

Mine sweepers (set as surface? have to check this one)
2xPB
2xDMS

Totals: 326 ships

PLUS TFs:
KB, mini KB, 3xASW, 2 or 3 x surface.
I am not counting subs here. Over 350 ships.

Such concentration of force was posible only thanks to:
-Quick Malaya Campaign. Mersing Landing, BLuebook was defending Johore not Sing. Lost nearly all army there during a rout.
-Severe loses to the Allied fleet defending Malaya
- Severe loses to a Pacific fleet during several naval engagments including one won carrier battle
- Wild card in the PI. I have assumed that my advisary as 90 % of Allied generals Ive met will be scared and passive. I bluffed and he has not checked. 1 IR sent plus lots of noise made but it was all I could afford.
- Several Diversions.
- Java landing I think that this sucked most of his assets. Several CAs and CLs noticed during some opening fighting before landing on Java.

I think that this might be important:
I have loaded forces very, very carefully. It took weeks. 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.

It is hard to say that 9PBs +6DDs is way to many to convoy 70 large transports....

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 200

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/8/2010 1:43:02 AM

sfbaytf

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline

I agree with you in some ways, but the initial Japanese naval landing advantage should be suspended for invading Oahu. Still I gotta admire it.

He's some more fuel for the fire-not completely applicable to what happened here, but still some good points:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/pearlops.htm

(in reply to PresterJohn001)

Post #: 201

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/8/2010 2:04:01 AM

John Lansford

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

The discussion about how difficult a landing on Oahu on 12/7/41 seems applicable to a January 42 landing, though. Those 11 divisions are still being used in January and if Oahu doesn't fall quickly, the invasion risks becoming a massive resource sink for no good return, while oil and resource stockpiles continue draining down and down and down...

(in reply to sfbaytf)

Post #: 202

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/8/2010 3:44:48 AM

Mike Scholl

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

I think that this might be important:
I have loaded forces very, very carefully. It took weeks. 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.

WITPPL. As I said before, I'm not knocking your play or your planning. Your opponent seems to have bungled badly, and your scheme was inventive and well carried out.

Nevertheless, you should have been butchered if the game's programming had been up to the task. Not your fault..., and you may have uncovered a loophole big enough to drive a tank through. So thanks for your efforts..., and the ball is now in the designer's court for correction.

(in reply to WITPPL)

Post #: 203

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/8/2010 3:47:45 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

and the ball is now in the designer's court for correction.

Maybe, if they agree.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 204

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/8/2010 4:05:42 AM

sfbaytf

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline

WIPPL is a very nasty player who knows how to exploit the system. Don't mean that in a negative way. I learned a few tricks from the whipping I got.

He'd make a good playtester. I'm sure he can find many of the flaws.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

I think that this might be important:
I have loaded forces very, very carefully. It took weeks. 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.

WITPPL. As I said before, I'm not knocking your play or your planning. Your opponent seems to have bungled badly, and your scheme was inventive and well carried out.

Nevertheless, you should have been butchered if the game's programming had been up to the task. Not your fault..., and you may have uncovered a loophole big enough to drive a tank through. So thanks for your efforts..., and the ball is now in the designer's court for correction.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 205

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/8/2010 4:30:25 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

"If those guns in the open in the 1920s picture are the same as 1941, I wonder if they were maintained through the Depression, and when the last time that 49,000 yards was tested. "

The Coast Artillery was THE elite branch of the army between the wars, so you can be assured that the proper maintenance was performed.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 206

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/8/2010 5:48:57 AM

Rob322

Posts: 578
Joined: 8/16/2004
Status: offline

The logical thing to do is re-run the invasion and see if the CD guns focus on the PB's ang ignore the transports. If we really have a problem then like any good experiment it should be repeatable. I would hope the developers wouldn't make wholesale changes on the basis of one instance.

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 207

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/8/2010 8:23:42 AM

WITPPL

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

Yeah, If Blue will Agree I might go for a retest with different composition of TFs.

I was not looking for an exploit; I went there to land my troops. Few escorts for over 70 transports per TF is not that much.
I have up to 15 escorts in my Resources trains in DEI!

I think that the problem is with PBs NOT sinking during shelling but I have to check it out.

There are another "routines" I do not like.

- Subs in Bases full of ASW and Surface TFs shelling my transports on surface.
but.. It is a 40 nm hex so it is possible.

Results of a landing: 99% of all loaded troops and 100% of all Art units were on shore. Even heavy pieces... thats ridiculous I know.

Bottom line is: If a IJN player will load troops properly and lose (troop cap of TF = or > than troop load cost of a unit (I used +10 to +20%)) and with a large port invasion he will unload even a tank division with one go ie one impulse!

Impulse! not even a day or a turn but impulse!

it is ridiculous.

In my opinion several heavy equipment pieces should be restricted to transport and strategic deployment rather than combat invasion. That is a good idea for a HR.

It looks like script routine take port size of an invaded base into consideration. Just a blind shoot.

I think that invasion model needs to be looked in details by Devs as an Air model was.

(in reply to Rob322)

Post #: 208

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/8/2010 8:23:45 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

So I guess you would have to test it first if an invasion TF wouldn�t be 100% whiped out on the other side if non of the crappy escorts would be in the TF, as I would consider whiping out 100% of the transports completely off too.

I for one would strenuously object to any change that forced me to sail an invasion TF 1000 miles with no escorts, just so those escorts wouldn't be shell sponges at the other end. Tasking a surface TF to Follow, even at 0 hexes, is not the same in the code as organic escorts if that transport TF is jumped in transit.

you can drive the TF to the target with as many escorts as you want, just land without them... but it�s like I�ve said, a very poor work around and if it would result in the TF 100% whiped out it�s no work around at all

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 209

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/8/2010 8:25:42 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

would say yes. Why? Because most of them were put in not even a dozen PBs. So what�s wrong then? Not the number of shots but the target routine? Or the damage routine that keeps a PB afloat after being hit by shells of 5-16 inch? Something is wrong, at least in my world of thinking when all that is lost are a dozen ships out of 350 and the troops get ashore completely unharmed. And yes, I definetely call this unharmed.

I don't know what the right answer is, but I recall some of the more famous WITP AARs with 60, 70, 80 ships hit and sunk, or with major damage, by CD fire in big, late-war invasions, and the howling over it. And WITP had hundreds of fictional Allied transports, so many it got tiresome to manage them and I left hundreds sitting in ports all over the world. Logistics were easy there, and the carnage was do-able. Lose 60 or 70 xAKs per invasion now and see how far the war gets.

I agree with you and am not saying WITP was correct. But AE in this case is even more incorrect.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 210

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

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

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 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

1.094

Slitherine

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results