Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit


I think that some of us don’t understand your fetish for daylight bombardment.
Bombardment is what it is because it was designed that way.

Most of us assume that you want to learn the game as designed.
We can help you with that but we cannot help you with anything that was not designed into the game.

From personal experience I have no evidence that day bombardment produces better results
Than night bombardment when the total game parameters are considered.
Questions like that tend to travel into the realm of personal superstition.

Be advised that you will find more things similar to this in the game as designed.
The “unsatisfactory”, “heavily flawed” is entirely up to you as it is with all games.

You will just drive us crazy with “Why is the earth not flat?” type questions.

The real question for you is:
Can you learn, play and enjoy the game as designed or can you not?
If not then maybe this is not the game for you.

There are some very good Chess clubs on the net.

Then the question for you is:
Can you play the game of Chess as designed or can you not?

Such a reaction is difficult to understand;

Because one feature or characteristic is seemingly not proper, but easy to be corrected, can't it be recognized?

everything has , mandatorily, to be perfect?

You mentioned fetishism, but here may be possible to speak about taboos (in a pretty tangible way sometimes) either; one may think that the public here has "suffered"(?) in the past by venomous remarks or the sort of, and therefore developed a strong idiosincrancy to any of them;

cannot grasp it meanwhile;

are we comparing this wargame to chess? Under what aspects?

Chess is a very ancient game, which bears with it hundreds and towsends of gameplay, insight , research related books;
how much time did it take to consildate its rules? is it susceptible to changes, or corrections, patches, or new versions?

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit


I think that some of us don’t understand your fetish for daylight bombardment.
Bombardment is what it is because it was designed that way.

Most of us assume that you want to learn the game as designed.
We can help you with that but we cannot help you with anything that was not designed into the game.

From personal experience I have no evidence that day bombardment produces better results
Than night bombardment when the total game parameters are considered.
Questions like that tend to travel into the realm of personal superstition.

Be advised that you will find more things similar to this in the game as designed.
The “unsatisfactory”, “heavily flawed” is entirely up to you as it is with all games.

You will just drive us crazy with “Why is the earth not flat?” type questions.

The real question for you is:
Can you learn, play and enjoy the game as designed or can you not?
If not then maybe this is not the game for you.

There are some very good Chess clubs on the net.

Then the question for you is:
Can you play the game of Chess as designed or can you not?

Such a reaction is difficult to understand;

Because one feature or characteristic is seemingly not proper, but easy to be corrected, can't it be recognized?

everything has , mandatorily, to be perfect?

You mentioned fetishism, but here may be possible to speak about taboos (in a pretty tangible way sometimes) either; one may think that the public here has "suffered"(?) in the past by venomous remarks or the sort of, and therefore developed a strong idiosincrancy to any of them;

cannot grasp it meanwhile;

are we comparing this wargame to chess? Under what aspects?

Chess is a very ancient game, which bears with it hundreds and towsends of gameplay, insight , research related books;
how much time did it take to consildate its rules? is it susceptible to changes, or corrections, patches, or new versions?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

Gentlemen:
We're in a situation here that we don't understand, perhaps because adarbrauner doesn't know the proper nomenclature (jargon) to alert us to the problem he has discovered. If only he could post an alert to us that we could recognize!
I'd suggest he post something similar to 'naval bombardment is borked' (mebbe in allcaps!), that last word 'borked' (our jargon) would surely alert us to the horrible problem he faces, surely we would then all drop what we're doing & bend every effort to un-bork his troubles. If we all work together, we'll be able to modify the game-engine so that adarbabrauner's daytime BombTFs can steam unimpeded to their targets and nuke them to his satisfaction!
That'll be wonderful for him! Then, we will anxiously await his requirements for how we might mod the game to improve his use of many other game-functions, such as ASW or CAP.
Oh, if only adarbababrauner could learn our insular patois, what wonderful results he could acheive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

Is there any advantage/disadvantage relative to daytime vs night bombardment ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

Is there any advantage/disadvantage relative to daytime vs night bombardment ?

With good recon of the hex I see slightly better results during the day. If you set to remain and make sure the float planes are set for day recon of the target, it works best. I also set regular recon as well, but it will fly in after the morning bombardment.

This option means the TF will stay in the hex (to allow for the air phases to get a shot at it, as they should in the daylight).

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

Gentlemen:
We're in a situation here that we don't understand, perhaps because adarbrauner doesn't know the proper nomenclature (jargon) to alert us to the problem he has discovered. If only he could post an alert to us that we could recognize!
I'd suggest he post something similar to 'naval bombardment is borked' (mebbe in allcaps!), that last word 'borked' (our jargon) would surely alert us to the horrible problem he faces, surely we would then all drop what we're doing & bend every effort to un-bork his troubles. If we all work together, we'll be able to modify the game-engine so that adarbabrauner's daytime BombTFs can steam unimpeded to their targets and nuke them to his satisfaction!
That'll be wonderful for him! Then, we will anxiously await his requirements for how we might mod the game to improve his use of many other game-functions, such as ASW or CAP.
Oh, if only adarbababrauner could learn our insular patois, what wonderful results he could acheive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

Is there any advantage/disadvantage relative to daytime vs night bombardment ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

There's another issue here worthy of some consideration. Is either day or night bombardment superior to close support of an amphib landing? Add the surface units to the amphib TFs as escorts and they will perform counterbattery fire etc.. They will also conserve their ammunition and may be available to counter enemy surface TFs.

I'm forgetting whether I figured this out or not. I used to have the problem that if I ordered a TF to do a bombardment it would, once the mission was accomplished, run home. Now it could have at least provided some flak support if it remained in the target hex, even if it had expended its large caliber ammo in the bombardment. Maybe I figured out how to do both (bombard and defend) but I generally don't use bombardment as a support for an amphibious landing, rather employ the naval artillery in close support.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Isn't the detection level issue mitigated or negated by setting bombardment TF floatplanes to night reconnaissance of the targets?

My experience is that bombardment TFs at night (using floatplanes for recon) can have a devastating impact. There hasn't been a single occasion in the game where I felt the need to orchestrate a daylight bombardment, and I don't think that my results have suffered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
I think that "effect" (if it is an effect and not a total figment of my imagination) disappears with time, but I'm not sure how long is needed to "reset." Sometimes bombardments on days two and three still seem to suffer from the hangover of the big bombardment on day one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

You have already been told, in your own created thread, how to do a daylight bombardment.

It doesn't work.

OK, I get like 3 to 4 different colored bands with F4 ..... The inner green band I'm assuming is the 1 turn movement band, what about the others ?

It can be done.
You just don’t know what you are doing.

Some things in this game have to be done in a certain sequence.

What you want is a tactical picture just like the one below.
Use the F4 key to show the naval movement range circles.

I like to run in surface Task forces and then change to bombardment when I have the correct tactical picture.

You want to be two movement phases to the target as shown.
Then, first change the destination to the target.
Then change the mission to bombardment.
Set the Task Force to remain on station and run the turn.

The task force will move to the target and bombard in daylight.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

You have already been told, in your own created thread, how to do a daylight bombardment.

It doesn't work.

OK, I get like 3 to 4 different colored bands with F4 ..... The inner green band I'm assuming is the 1 turn movement band, what about the others ?

It can be done.
You just don’t know what you are doing.

Some things in this game have to be done in a certain sequence.

What you want is a tactical picture just like the one below.
Use the F4 key to show the naval movement range circles.

I like to run in surface Task forces and then change to bombardment when I have the correct tactical picture.

You want to be two movement phases to the target as shown.
Then, first change the destination to the target.
Then change the mission to bombardment.
Set the Task Force to remain on station and run the turn.

The task force will move to the target and bombard in daylight.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I am not aware of any difference between the effectiveness of daylight and nighttime bombardments.

The only reason I can think of that I would "want" to arrange a daytime bombardment is to avoid the possibility that my opponent might send in an enemy surface combat TF during nighttime hours to interdict my TF (bombardment TFs perform at a disadvantage to combat TFs).

Over the years, I have come to use bombardment TFs only sparingly until the Allies have achieved a certain dominance where the risks of enemy intervention (by air or sea) are low. Early in the game, these situations are relatively rare. Sometimes, though, you have a very strong feeling for whether you've caught the enemy unaware. Then it's fun to use a bombardment TF.

Too, we're all familiar with how bombardment runs sometimes go astray, hanging up at the target hex and getting clobbered by air attack during daylight hours. Bombardment carriers a pretty high risk factor, so generally I prefer not to risk high-value ships on tactical missions early in the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I am not aware of any difference between the effectiveness of daylight and nighttime bombardments.

The only reason I can think of that I would "want" to arrange a daytime bombardment is to avoid the possibility that my opponent might send in an enemy surface combat TF during nighttime hours to interdict my TF (bombardment TFs perform at a disadvantage to combat TFs).

Over the years, I have come to use bombardment TFs only sparingly until the Allies have achieved a certain dominance where the risks of enemy intervention (by air or sea) are low. Early in the game, these situations are relatively rare. Sometimes, though, you have a very strong feeling for whether you've caught the enemy unaware. Then it's fun to use a bombardment TF.

Too, we're all familiar with how bombardment runs sometimes go astray, hanging up at the target hex and getting clobbered by air attack during daylight hours. Bombardment carriers a pretty high risk factor, so generally I prefer not to risk high-value ships on tactical missions early in the game.

It just happened to me to stumble over this report, of an over and amply known situation to all (hopefully), thus I felt it normal to post it on the wave of some recent replies on the subject;

" 03:00 on 6 June 1944, Texas and the British cruiser Glasgow entered the Omaha Western fire support lane and into her initial firing position 12,000 yd (11,000 m) offshore near Pointe du Hoc at 04:41,[clarification needed] as part of a combined total US-British flotilla of 702 ships, including seven battleships and five heavy cruisers.[44][45][A 8][47] The initial bombardment commenced at 05:50, against the site of six 15-centimetre (6 in) guns, atop Pointe du Hoc.[11] When Texas ceased firing at the Pointe at 06:24, 255 14-inch shells had been fired in 34 minutes—an average rate of fire of 7.5 shells per minute, which was the longest sustained period of firing for Texas in World War II.[44] While shells from the main guns were hitting Pointe du Hoc, the 5-inch guns were firing on the area leading up to Exit D-1, the route to get inland from western Omaha. At 06:26, Texas shifted her main battery gunfire to the western edge of Omaha Beach, around the town of Vierville. Meanwhile, her secondary battery went to work on another target on the western end of "Omaha" beach, a ravine laced with strong points to defend an exit road. Later, under control of airborne spotters, she moved her major-caliber fire inland to interdict enemy reinforcement activities and to destroy batteries and other strong points farther inland.[11]
By noon, the assault on Omaha Beach was in danger of collapsing due to stronger than anticipated German resistance and the inability of the Allies to get needed armor and artillery units on the beach. In an effort to help the infantry fighting to take Omaha, some of the destroyers providing gunfire support closed near the shoreline, almost grounding themselves to fire on the Germans. Texas also closed to the shoreline; at 12:23, Texas closed to only 3,000 yd (2,700 m) from the water's edge, firing her main guns with very little elevation to clear the western exit D-1, in front of Vierville. Among other things, she fired upon snipers and machine gun nests hidden in a defile just off the beach. At the conclusion of that mission, the battleship attacked an enemy anti-aircraft battery located west of Vierville.[44]
On 7 June, the battleship received word that the Ranger battalion at Pointe Du Hoc was still isolated from the rest of the invasion force with low ammunition and mounting casualties; in response, Texas obtained and filled two LCVPs[48] with provisions and ammunition for the Rangers.[47]:131 Upon their return, the LCVPs brought thirty-five wounded Rangers to Texas for treatment of which one died on the operating table. Along with the Rangers, a deceased Coast Guard sailor and twenty-seven prisoners (twenty Germans, four Italians, and three French) were brought to the ship. The prisoners were fed, segregated, and not formally interrogated aboard Texas, due to the ship bombarding targets or standing by to bombard, before being loaded aboard an LST for transfer to England.[49] Later in the day, her main battery rained shells on the enemy-held towns of Formigny[50] and Trévičres to break up German troop concentrations. That evening, she bombarded a German mortar battery that had been shelling the beach. Not long after midnight, German planes attacked the ships offshore, and one of them swooped in low on Texas's starboard quarter. Her anti-aircraft batteries opened up immediately but failed to hit the intruder. On the morning of 8 June, her guns fired on Isigny, then on a shore battery, and finally on Trévičres once more.[11]
After that, she retired to Plymouth to rearm, returning to the French coast on 11 June. From then until 15 June, she supported the army in its advance inland. By 15 June, the troops had advanced to the edge of Texas's gun range; her last fire support mission was so far inland that to get the needed range, the starboard torpedo blister was flooded with water to provide a list of two degrees which gave the guns enough elevation to complete the fire mission. With combat operations beyond the range of her guns on 16 June, Texas left Normandy for England on 18 June."

4 days of sustained land bomrbadment.

Without being forced to move away for one day, and retry the following day having care to reach the beach at daylight ONLY, and even so for one day bombardment only.

And that's because it's not a Gualdalcanal like situation wehre enemy air activity would make it prohibitive if not during night hours.


Even though this has been amply discussed before, there are still some cheap sarcastic comments here and there (not of canoerebel) on the issue, but for me is fine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I am not aware of any difference between the effectiveness of daylight and nighttime bombardments.

The only reason I can think of that I would "want" to arrange a daytime bombardment is to avoid the possibility that my opponent might send in an enemy surface combat TF during nighttime hours to interdict my TF (bombardment TFs perform at a disadvantage to combat TFs).

Over the years, I have come to use bombardment TFs only sparingly until the Allies have achieved a certain dominance where the risks of enemy intervention (by air or sea) are low. Early in the game, these situations are relatively rare. Sometimes, though, you have a very strong feeling for whether you've caught the enemy unaware. Then it's fun to use a bombardment TF.

Too, we're all familiar with how bombardment runs sometimes go astray, hanging up at the target hex and getting clobbered by air attack during daylight hours. Bombardment carriers a pretty high risk factor, so generally I prefer not to risk high-value ships on tactical missions early in the game.

It just happened to me to stumble over this report, of an over and amply known situation to all (hopefully), thus I felt it normal to post it on the wave of some recent replies on the subject;

" 03:00 on 6 June 1944, Texas and the British cruiser Glasgow entered the Omaha Western fire support lane and into her initial firing position 12,000 yd (11,000 m) offshore near Pointe du Hoc at 04:41,[clarification needed] as part of a combined total US-British flotilla of 702 ships, including seven battleships and five heavy cruisers.[44][45][A 8][47] The initial bombardment commenced at 05:50, against the site of six 15-centimetre (6 in) guns, atop Pointe du Hoc.[11] When Texas ceased firing at the Pointe at 06:24, 255 14-inch shells had been fired in 34 minutes—an average rate of fire of 7.5 shells per minute, which was the longest sustained period of firing for Texas in World War II.[44] While shells from the main guns were hitting Pointe du Hoc, the 5-inch guns were firing on the area leading up to Exit D-1, the route to get inland from western Omaha. At 06:26, Texas shifted her main battery gunfire to the western edge of Omaha Beach, around the town of Vierville. Meanwhile, her secondary battery went to work on another target on the western end of "Omaha" beach, a ravine laced with strong points to defend an exit road. Later, under control of airborne spotters, she moved her major-caliber fire inland to interdict enemy reinforcement activities and to destroy batteries and other strong points farther inland.[11]
By noon, the assault on Omaha Beach was in danger of collapsing due to stronger than anticipated German resistance and the inability of the Allies to get needed armor and artillery units on the beach. In an effort to help the infantry fighting to take Omaha, some of the destroyers providing gunfire support closed near the shoreline, almost grounding themselves to fire on the Germans. Texas also closed to the shoreline; at 12:23, Texas closed to only 3,000 yd (2,700 m) from the water's edge, firing her main guns with very little elevation to clear the western exit D-1, in front of Vierville. Among other things, she fired upon snipers and machine gun nests hidden in a defile just off the beach. At the conclusion of that mission, the battleship attacked an enemy anti-aircraft battery located west of Vierville.[44]
On 7 June, the battleship received word that the Ranger battalion at Pointe Du Hoc was still isolated from the rest of the invasion force with low ammunition and mounting casualties; in response, Texas obtained and filled two LCVPs[48] with provisions and ammunition for the Rangers.[47]:131 Upon their return, the LCVPs brought thirty-five wounded Rangers to Texas for treatment of which one died on the operating table. Along with the Rangers, a deceased Coast Guard sailor and twenty-seven prisoners (twenty Germans, four Italians, and three French) were brought to the ship. The prisoners were fed, segregated, and not formally interrogated aboard Texas, due to the ship bombarding targets or standing by to bombard, before being loaded aboard an LST for transfer to England.[49] Later in the day, her main battery rained shells on the enemy-held towns of Formigny[50] and Trévičres to break up German troop concentrations. That evening, she bombarded a German mortar battery that had been shelling the beach. Not long after midnight, German planes attacked the ships offshore, and one of them swooped in low on Texas's starboard quarter. Her anti-aircraft batteries opened up immediately but failed to hit the intruder. On the morning of 8 June, her guns fired on Isigny, then on a shore battery, and finally on Trévičres once more.[11]
After that, she retired to Plymouth to rearm, returning to the French coast on 11 June. From then until 15 June, she supported the army in its advance inland. By 15 June, the troops had advanced to the edge of Texas's gun range; her last fire support mission was so far inland that to get the needed range, the starboard torpedo blister was flooded with water to provide a list of two degrees which gave the guns enough elevation to complete the fire mission. With combat operations beyond the range of her guns on 16 June, Texas left Normandy for England on 18 June."

4 days of sustained land bomrbadment.

Without being forced to move away for one day, and retry the following day having care to reach the beach at daylight ONLY, and even so for one day bombardment only.

And that's because it's not a Gualdalcanal like situation wehre enemy air activity would make it prohibitive if not during night hours.


Even though this has been amply discussed before, there are still some cheap sarcastic comments here and there (not of canoerebel) on the issue, but for me is fine.