RE: shore bombardment

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: shore bombardment

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 >> The War Room >> RE: shore bombardment

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: shore bombardment - 3/22/2015 4:55:28 PM

panzer cat

Posts: 165
Joined: 10/2/2011
From: occupied Virginia
Status: offline

Hello. Im johns opponent, he's given me the o.k. to look in. The t.f he has spotted was not the bombarding t.f. That might answer why the 3rd bombardment was not fired upon. The first t.f. that sat off Chittagong was spotted, rookie mistake on my part. I agree that the first should have been fired upon. The second bombardment wasn't planned the ships where pulled from multiple groups.

Back to the WAHOO's

scott

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 31

RE: shore bombardment - 3/22/2015 10:09:25 PM

John B.

Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline

@Yaab, we're playing the campaign game (scenario 1).

@Lowpe, those are good ideas!

@ Bill given what Scott said it makes me wonder. If you have a base within one impulse sail could you sail BBs there in TF A, disband the TF, then, start a TF B with the same ships the next day and sail to bombard without ever having a DL since there would be no air phase before the new TF did the bombardment? As I've said, I can see low DL having a big effect on the quality and quantity of the response, but since my CDs just don't seem to fire it seems odd. But, thanks for your responses thus far.

(in reply to panzer cat)

Post #: 32

RE: shore bombardment - 3/22/2015 10:27:01 PM

panzer cat

Posts: 165
Joined: 10/2/2011
From: occupied Virginia
Status: offline

first tf was a planed bb bombardment. 2nd was a cruiser covering force at aykab(sp) I believe I added ships to it as I felt the first bombardment was ineffective. The 3rd was a planed bb bombardment also ineffective in my opinion. The 4th is on it's way.

(in reply to John B.)

Post #: 33

RE: shore bombardment - 3/23/2015 2:30:50 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John B.

@Yaab, we're playing the campaign game (scenario 1).

@Lowpe, those are good ideas!

@ Bill given what Scott said it makes me wonder. If you have a base within one impulse sail could you sail BBs there in TF A, disband the TF, then, start a TF B with the same ships the next day and sail to bombard without ever having a DL since there would be no air phase before the new TF did the bombardment? As I've said, I can see low DL having a big effect on the quality and quantity of the response, but since my CDs just don't seem to fire it seems odd. But, thanks for your responses thus far.

Read s.10.1.1.1 of the manual and you will see how easy it is for a bombardment TF to have a DL of zero. Your opponent has no need to go to the above measures to have minimise his DL.

It is up to you to get the DL up.

Alfred

(in reply to John B.)

Post #: 34

RE: shore bombardment - 3/23/2015 11:58:43 AM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John B.

Lowpe,

I'm not sure. But, I did check out the IJA CD unit on Saipan (at least how it is on Dec. 7, 1941) and that had 34 support and needed 35 for more guns so the support for the Chittagong units seems in line with the Saipan CD unit that we know has at least fired twice and inflicted significant damage. It is a real puzzlement.

FWIW, and probably not much, but Japan has certain islands/CD installations labeled "fortresses." Saipan is one, there are a few in the Marshalls/Gilberts, etc. It has been my experience in AI games that these places are far more effective than the garden-variety CD installations. I don't know if there's an EXE tweak or if it's my imagination, but I try to avoid those places.

To your original question about how to stop Japan's bombardments I would say meet naval with naval. Bombardments try to happen at night. Air won't help, mines are problematic due to how the code sees "fields", and PTs are finicky. If you want to stop his BBs use yours. Depending on era ten Fletchers can work pretty well too. Make it cost him and he'll choose his risks more carefully. If it costs you too, well, you get more ships.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to John B.)

Post #: 35

RE: shore bombardment - 3/23/2015 12:37:57 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: John B.

Lowpe,

I'm not sure. But, I did check out the IJA CD unit on Saipan (at least how it is on Dec. 7, 1941) and that had 34 support and needed 35 for more guns so the support for the Chittagong units seems in line with the Saipan CD unit that we know has at least fired twice and inflicted significant damage. It is a real puzzlement.

FWIW, and probably not much, but Japan has certain islands/CD installations labeled "fortresses." Saipan is one, there are a few in the Marshalls/Gilberts, etc. It has been my experience in AI games that these places are far more effective than the garden-variety CD installations. I don't know if there's an EXE tweak or if it's my imagination, but I try to avoid those places.

I've seen the same. A dozen 12cm DP guns in a normal LCU fire a few hundred shots. A dedicated CD LCU seems to fire a whole lot more and for a whole lot longer.

Again, no solid testing, I've merely been on the wrong end of several Fletcher bombardment runs.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 36

RE: shore bombardment - 3/23/2015 3:42:55 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I don't know if there's an EXE tweak or if it's my imagination,

They've been very clear that there is no exe tweak there - 'Fortress' is just part of the name and nothing more. Now CD units (including fortresses) are different than arty units or other units with guns and certainly do get treated differently. The issue with the 'Fortress' named units has to lie in the stats of the unit and its leader. If those bases started the campaign with good fort levels that would help too.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 37

RE: shore bombardment - 3/23/2015 4:08:26 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

+1 on using your surface ships to run and disrupt the bombardment...it does work wonders. Doesn't even need to be much 3-4 destroyers can really mess up the aim, expend the ammo, and might get lucky with a torpedo hit.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 38

RE: shore bombardment - 3/23/2015 4:51:37 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

When all else fails, send a massive invasion force to capture the base where they are rearming and refueling!

This was my thought as well. If the BBs are returning with such regularity, they must be rearming someplace nearby. A port raid by long-ranged Allied 4EBs will dissuade such proximity.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 39

RE: shore bombardment - 3/23/2015 10:05:48 PM

Phanatikk

Posts: 162
Joined: 10/22/2009
From: Nashville
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

the only times I find that mines work against a bombardment is when the mines are placed in a hex that the bombardment task force traverses BEFORE it reaches the bombardment hex.

So, bombarding Pearl on the 7th...? At BB ranges, of course.

(in reply to IdahoNYer)

Post #: 40

RE: shore bombardment - 3/24/2015 3:22:01 AM

pontiouspilot

Posts: 1127
Joined: 7/27/2012
Status: offline

In 2 ongoing or recent PBEM games I have pummelled IJN invasions with Aussie coastal artillery using these same guns. The units performed superbly and repeatedly. The Aussie units are bigger I believe; I had HQ units and other support and likely had reasonable detection levels.

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 41

RE: shore bombardment - 3/24/2015 2:41:19 PM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

I do not get it.

If you start scenario 1 and go the the in-game database for army weapons, you will see that 6", 9.2" and 15" navy guns have armor/soft ratings of 0/0. If you fire the Editor, the three type of guns also have ratings 0/0. However, if you load the turn into Tracker, the Tracker will show you all three types of guns have positive armor/soft ratings. I went through the patch notes to see if 6" Mk guns were in any way amended, but they were not. Maybe it is a bug?

< Message edited by Yaab -- 3/24/2015 3:42:30 PM >

(in reply to pontiouspilot)

Post #: 42

RE: shore bombardment - 3/24/2015 4:42:36 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

I do not get it.

If you start scenario 1 and go the the in-game database for army weapons, you will see that 6", 9.2" and 15" navy guns have armor/soft ratings of 0/0. If you fire the Editor, the three type of guns also have ratings 0/0. However, if you load the turn into Tracker, the Tracker will show you all three types of guns have positive armor/soft ratings. I went through the patch notes to see if 6" Mk guns were in any way amended, but they were not. Maybe it is a bug?

I don't know, but correlate them using slot number to be sure. Also, you can dump the scenario files to CSV files and look at them in a spreadsheet (LibreOffice does nicely and some people use MS Excel).

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 43

RE: shore bombardment - 3/24/2015 4:49:28 PM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

The device number is 1036. I was looking for a replicated device in the Editor and found none. Device 1036 is used both by Indian and Australian CD units.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 44

RE: shore bombardment - 3/24/2015 6:23:24 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

In the end, don't put a lot of stock or effort in improving the chances of your CD guns actually having much effect. This has been a problem since day one and I cried like a baby about it in the early days. It is just the way it is and you will have to live with it. As said earlier, as the Allied player you will get to pay it back in spades later in the game and your opponent will regret ever having rubbed you the wrong way.

The rinse and repeat naval bombardments allowed in the game have always been so out of whack. In reality repeated bombardment runs would just wear a major warship out. Your average BB would have about 300-400 shots from its big guns before needing a major refit. The barrel linings would have been worn out. A CA might have a few more shots in it but the same result would happen.I think the easiest solution would be to have much greater and faster sys damage accumulate on surface ships when in action. It was not just the barrel linings but even the best built capital ship took a beating all over from the impact of constant firing of the main guns. Run the sys damage up about 10 for each action and force the players to "rest" the ships for at least some time before the next bombardment.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 45

RE: shore bombardment - 3/25/2015 9:33:12 PM

John B.

Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline

Crsutton,

+1 on the bombardment issue. But, it's the way the game is so I'll deal with it. Thanks to everyone who took the opportunity to respond!

I have to say that my only disappointment is to learn that there is no option to choose "sleep by their guns." I thought this was a detailed game. ;-) Next you'll tell me that there is no option to increase morale at a base by setting your bombers to "ice cream production."

http://cookingwithlittlebuddy.com/making-ice-cream-on-a-combat-flying-mission/

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 46

RE: shore bombardment - 3/25/2015 11:02:12 PM

RogerJNeilson

Posts: 1277
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline

Recently read 'Rising Sun, Falling Skies' and came to the conclusion that every time you set sail from a port there ought to be a die roll to see whether the ship breaks down..... They did seem very prone to damage and problems - another reason for the rinse and repeat bombardment to be impossible - but as the Allies I have to say I just take my kicks and wait till I get the bigger boots with the steel caps on......

Roger

_____________________________

An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, Roger Neilson 3 previous posts 898+1515 + 1126 = 3539.....Finally completed my game which started the day WITP:AE was released

(in reply to John B.)

Post #: 47

RE: shore bombardment - 3/26/2015 1:24:47 AM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

If it was a bit easier to mod this game, one suggestion I'd put forward would be to crank the occurrence of system damage up several notches.

Ships should float about the mid-teens after about a week at sea.

Extended cruises should see ships into the low twenties.

Ships wandering about the North Pacific in winter should be looking at 30 system damage after a couple of days at sea.

It would be an interesting way to reach a realistic tempo of operations - no more ships constantly at sea.

(in reply to RogerJNeilson)

Post #: 48

RE: shore bombardment - 3/26/2015 1:28:52 AM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

It might slow the game down too much, but I like it.

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 49

RE: shore bombardment - 3/26/2015 2:14:14 PM

Encircled

Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

Can I just check something?

If I have a very high DL on a land unit in a coastal hex that isn't a base, can I still bombard from the sea?

_____________________________

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 50

RE: shore bombardment - 3/26/2015 4:10:31 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Can I just check something?

If I have a very high DL on a land unit in a coastal hex that isn't a base, can I still bombard from the sea?

The game does not display DL on land units that are not in bases, so you won't really know. I've tried lots of bombarding of units in coastal non-base hexes, and gotten either no results or so little I've forgotten about them. Stopped wasting the effort.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 51

RE: shore bombardment - 3/26/2015 5:04:57 PM

Symon

Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If it was a bit easier to mod this game, one suggestion I'd put forward would be to crank the occurrence of system damage up several notches.

Ships should float about the mid-teens after about a week at sea.

Extended cruises should see ships into the low twenties.

Ships wandering about the North Pacific in winter should be looking at 30 system damage after a couple of days at sea.

It would be an interesting way to reach a realistic tempo of operations - no more ships constantly at sea.

Didn't work quite that way IRL, but your thoughts in that regard are very well taken. Henderson Field Designs was given an established game algorithm set and did what it could do with the limited time available to us. Ships and **** was something on my and Don's plate, but it didn't get instituted. DaBabes tries to model the nonsense by the 30% cargo cap, and by restricting the (insane) endurance of cargo ships. But that's all we can do in the game environment.

Would like to have it be different, but you get what you pay for. Ciao. JWE

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la libert�! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 52

RE: shore bombardment - 3/26/2015 5:11:05 PM

Encircled

Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

Cheers Witpiqs

_____________________________

(in reply to Symon)

Post #: 53

RE: shore bombardment - 3/28/2015 12:17:06 AM

Michael Vail

Posts: 26
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline

This might be a bit OT because it's not about bombardment. But early I see John B. had units prepping for Chittagong while they were already there. My question is does it help, hurt, or make no difference to have units prep for a place they're already at and have no forseeable intention of leaving? For instance, I have 19th Aus. Batt. in Darwin and have no intention of moving. Does it matter if I set future objective to Darwin?

_____________________________

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 54

RE: shore bombardment - 3/28/2015 12:46:14 AM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

Michael I believe you want "preparation" or whatever it is actually called to be 100 for any location you are either attacking or defending. The closer that number is to 100, the better the unit will perform at that location, at least in terms of combat, but possibly in terms of other things too.

So yes, leaving prep to buid up to 100 in a unit that is already at that location is definitely a wise thing to do, unless you intend to use it somewhere else, in which case setting it to prep for that other location is wise.

That is my understanding anyway.

_____________________________

The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ328&feature=autoplay&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CocLGbd6tpbuQRxyF4FGNr&playnext=3

(in reply to Michael Vail)

Post #: 55

RE: shore bombardment - 3/28/2015 9:50:13 AM

John B.

Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline

I think that it's always a good idea to try to prepare for where you are or where you're going. I always try to even wtih support units on the theory that it can't hurt.

As for shore bombardment, I do think that this is a great game and I hate to criticize but I think that the CD units thing does not work. Here is yet another shore bombardment (42% moonlight) with no shots at all from the four CD units. At the start of the bomabardment none were disorganized. I appreciate that they may not sleep by their guns the first time, but after awhile you think that they would catch on the the IJN is coming in on a pretty regular schedule. :-) If it's all DL do you give TFs an automatic DL level when they enter an enemy hex to bombard? I don't know, but if units don't do what they're supposed to do at all then it skews the game. At least IMHO.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 56

RE: shore bombardment - 3/28/2015 10:39:42 AM

NigelKentarus

Posts: 207
Joined: 3/27/2015
From: OH, USN 20 yrs, & FL
Status: offline

I thought I saw somewhere that part of a naval bombardment mission was to suppress counter battery fire from shore guns. Could it be that the CD guns were suppressed and unable to fire because of the bombardment?

_____________________________

Fight like you're the 3rd monkey on the plank to Noah's ark. And brother, it's starting to rain.

(in reply to John B.)

Post #: 57

RE: shore bombardment - 3/28/2015 4:40:59 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John B.

I think that it's always a good idea to try to prepare for where you are or where you're going. I always try to even wtih support units on the theory that it can't hurt.

As for shore bombardment, I do think that this is a great game and I hate to criticize but I think that the CD units thing does not work. Here is yet another shore bombardment (42% moonlight) with no shots at all from the four CD units. At the start of the bomabardment none were disorganized. I appreciate that they may not sleep by their guns the first time, but after awhile you think that they would catch on the the IJN is coming in on a pretty regular schedule. :-) If it's all DL do you give TFs an automatic DL level when they enter an enemy hex to bombard? I don't know, but if units don't do what they're supposed to do at all then it skews the game. At least IMHO.

Go stand on a beach at sea level. Can you see 40 miles out to sea? Twenty miles? No? There you go.

Bombardments come in, do it, leave. Invasions stay and are close to shore. CD LCUs work well against invasions. If you want to stop bombardments put some navy there. CD units will never, ever work well for you in that role.

As far as the attackees "knowing" there's another bombardment coming based on history . . . You DO know the AI isn't alive, right? Right?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to John B.)

Post #: 58

RE: shore bombardment - 3/28/2015 5:10:28 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

That only BBs fired, it leads me to believe they did it from a distance. All BBs to my knowledge can outrange CD guns I believe or at least most of them. Although that is a lot of runway hits for a far bombardment.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 3/28/2015 6:11:20 PM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 59

RE: shore bombardment - 3/28/2015 5:39:37 PM

witpqs

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