RE: Naval Bombardments

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: Naval Bombardments - too weak?

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: Naval Bombardments - too weak?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/17/2010 9:33:36 PM

lolz

Posts: 149
Joined: 11/22/2004
Status: offline

gotta agree,naval bomb. are just fine

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 31

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/17/2010 11:15:43 PM

HHI

Posts: 59
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline

Although it's been tweaked several times, the bombardment concept goes all the way back to UV to enable the Japanese to bombard Henderson and get out without being blasted by aircraft. It has oscillated in effectiveness all these years. It does not accommodate the bombardments carried out by the USN at all well, being designed to model the hit and run tactics required at Guadalcanal by the Japanese. US BB's still fire off all available ammunition in two shoots, even if set to 'remain on station', one night, one day. I have no idea how that compares to actual ammunition expended, since I don't know what a unit of fire is in A/E. My thought is that it is considerably short in comparison to reality.

I was not aware of the impact of DL on the bombardment results, but it makes sense. I'll recon my next target very thoroughly.

Actual US bombardment results were very poor to very good. Tarawa's bombardment was woefully short, but much was learned through testing of emplacements built like those found on Tarawa. The bombardments at Kwajalein/Roi-Namur were devastating to the extent that the Japanese did not attempt to defeat landing at the beach after that. Iwo's bombardment was far short of that requested by the assault force, but probably would not have been effective in any event.

In my opinion, a sustained bombardment (whether Naval, air or artillery) should reduce the fortification level of the target and destroy guns. Daylight bombardment should be far more effective than night bombardment.

_____________________________

HHi

(in reply to lolz)

Post #: 32

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/18/2010 2:25:50 AM

jackyo123

Posts: 697
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline

someone suggested a new bombardment mode, to go along with the 'nightime shoot n scoot' mode - 'day long sustained' - a great idea really.

Expectations? Well, on a size one or 2 airfield, packed with close to a hundred planes, I would think 5 BB's would be able to wreck a lot of aircraft.... I picture a size 1 airfield as no more than a dirt strip and some fueling drums alongside - sort of like 'fighter 1' was at Henderson when it was first used.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 33

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/18/2010 3:34:08 AM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Most player's expect the kind of destruction associated with a days-long deliberate fire exercise. But they want it all done in the safety (to them) of a high-speed in and out under cover of darkness. I've always wished the game had made the differentiation and offered both---"Day-Long Spotted Shoot" and "Night-Time Shoot and Scoot". Though even the first was a failure at Tarawa...

Agree with this as it pertains to troops. But not airfields. They were fixed locations, easily recon'd. There should at least be some significant airfield damage and plane damage. Easily repairable by the Allies and less so by the Japanese.

As for troops, even if the casualties are correctly low, the disruption should be signifcant.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 34

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/18/2010 3:44:03 AM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

The "guarantee" of safety provided by the game's "shoot and scoot" bombardment mission would have been an interesting concept to the skipper of HIJMS Kinugasa amongst others (Kinugasa was the biggest ship but by no means the only ship sunk by planes from Henderson Field after one of those RL IJN bombardments).

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 35

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/18/2010 9:05:05 AM

mike scholl 1

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Most player's expect the kind of destruction associated with a days-long deliberate fire exercise. But they want it all done in the safety (to them) of a high-speed in and out under cover of darkness. I've always wished the game had made the differentiation and offered both---"Day-Long Spotted Shoot" and "Night-Time Shoot and Scoot". Though even the first was a failure at Tarawa...

Agree with this as it pertains to troops. But not airfields. They were fixed locations, easily recon'd. There should at least be some significant airfield damage and plane damage. Easily repairable by the Allies and less so by the Japanese.

Not all that easy Mynok. Henderson Field was over a mile inland into the jungle of Guadalcanal..., so while the Japanese knew exactly where it was on a map, they still had to determine exactly where they were in relation to it to fire effectively. And figure it out at high speed, on a dark night, from several miles worth of identical-looking jungle coast. I wouldn't call it "easy"...

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 36

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/18/2010 3:04:32 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Most player's expect the kind of destruction associated with a days-long deliberate fire exercise. But they want it all done in the safety (to them) of a high-speed in and out under cover of darkness. I've always wished the game had made the differentiation and offered both---"Day-Long Spotted Shoot" and "Night-Time Shoot and Scoot". Though even the first was a failure at Tarawa...

Agree with this as it pertains to troops. But not airfields. They were fixed locations, easily recon'd. There should at least be some significant airfield damage and plane damage. Easily repairable by the Allies and less so by the Japanese.

Not all that easy Mynok. Henderson Field was over a mile inland into the jungle of Guadalcanal..., so while the Japanese knew exactly where it was on a map, they still had to determine exactly where they were in relation to it to fire effectively. And figure it out at high speed, on a dark night, from several miles worth of identical-looking jungle coast. I wouldn't call it "easy"...

Just use GPS!

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 37

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/18/2010 8:27:09 PM

jackyo123

Posts: 697
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline

they used float plane flares to designate the field. Probably had spotters as well on Mt Austen

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 38

RE: Naval Bombardments - too weak? - 2/18/2010 8:36:07 PM

John Lansford

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

I thought the whole point of putting larger warships in the amphibious TF's was to simulate the NGFS ships firing at the defenses to soften them up. IIRC that was how it was described before AE came out when we were asking for a new Invasion Support mission, rather than the one or two hour "bombardment raid" we have now.

The ships in the amphibious TF's now, though, appear to just respond to CD fire, and not a general "fire to keep their heads down" mission.

(in reply to jackyo123)

Post #: 39