Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olorin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olorin
The problem seems to be that you can disband 1000 ships in very low level ports and make them immune from naval search and especially enemy surface forces.

It's not a problem. It's a feature.

It's a problem because it's a feature.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


Not quite certain I have understood fully your question so this may not be on point.

1. In game terms a ship can be located in only two places. Either within a Task Force or disbanded inside a port.

2. A Task Force can only be attacked by a squadron tasked with the "Naval Attack" mission. Targets for this mission are chosen by the computer.

3. A ship disbanded inside a port can only be attacked by a squadron tasked with the "Port Attack" mission. As this mission is primarily focussed on a terrestrial target, the target can be chosen by the player. The attacking aircraft focus on port facilities first with attacking disbanded ships a secondary consideration.

4. When the game was initially released, only the devs could assign varying bomb loadouts based on type of mission. A couple of years after release this capability was greatly simplified and opened up for modders. In the intervening time and subsequently there was no code rewrite to accommodate verying loadouts for "Port Attack" missions.

5. The clear design intention is found on page 150 of the manual where it is clearly stated that Port Attacks use only bombs whereas Naval Attack uses both bombs and torpedoes.

One does not drop torpedoes to destroy fuel farms, or damage shipyards and wharfs. Consequently the default position is that aircraft on a "Port Attack" mission use bombs. There would be howls of protest if 100 bombers, carrying only torpedoes on a "Port Attack" mission, found no disbanded ships but proceeded to destroy the port facilities or alternatively returned to base without attacking at all because no ships were found.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


Not quite certain I have understood fully your question so this may not be on point.

1. In game terms a ship can be located in only two places. Either within a Task Force or disbanded inside a port.

2. A Task Force can only be attacked by a squadron tasked with the "Naval Attack" mission. Targets for this mission are chosen by the computer.

3. A ship disbanded inside a port can only be attacked by a squadron tasked with the "Port Attack" mission. As this mission is primarily focussed on a terrestrial target, the target can be chosen by the player. The attacking aircraft focus on port facilities first with attacking disbanded ships a secondary consideration.

4. When the game was initially released, only the devs could assign varying bomb loadouts based on type of mission. A couple of years after release this capability was greatly simplified and opened up for modders. In the intervening time and subsequently there was no code rewrite to accommodate verying loadouts for "Port Attack" missions.

5. The clear design intention is found on page 150 of the manual where it is clearly stated that Port Attacks use only bombs whereas Naval Attack uses both bombs and torpedoes.

One does not drop torpedoes to destroy fuel farms, or damage shipyards and wharfs. Consequently the default position is that aircraft on a "Port Attack" mission use bombs. There would be howls of protest if 100 bombers, carrying only torpedoes on a "Port Attack" mission, found no disbanded ships but proceeded to destroy the port facilities or alternatively returned to base without attacking at all because no ships were found.

Alfred

Thank you - if you didn't understand my question fully, your answer made me understand the problem. So, to be reasonably sure
to get at all ships in a port one should sortie simultaneous different attacks with both "naval, port" and "port" missions.
Or thrust that a single "naval, port" mission - loaded with torpedoes (and bombs loaded by the game) takes care of both.

Since you used the word "docked" earlier I suppose undocked (anchored) task forces are eligible to attacks by torpedo-loaded
planes, but a docked (or disbanded) task force are not.

Fred

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

Care to nominate the real world instances of aircraft dropping torpedoes on docked ships? This was an extremely rare occurrence in WWII. For very sound military reasons.

Really, Alfred? You read much about the Pacific War and/or WW2 in general?

Operation Hailstone saw US torpedo bombers hit Truk Lagoon extensively with torpedoes.

British attack on Italian Fleet docked in Taranto were torpedoes.

There were others, so before being so flippant educate yourself on WW2

I'm pretty sure that at both Taranto and Truk the ships were not docked and behind torpedo nets, but moored out in the harbour roadstead. In the case of Truk, the "lagoon" was something like 100 miles wide and there were ships scattered all over it, presumably delivering to the many islands that make up the atoll. There are likely lots of deep areas too, just beyond where the ships were anchored. The Japanese did not prepare for the torpedo attack because they presumed Truk was untouchable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

"Naval, Port" is an either/or situation. If no TF ships are found to attack in the morning phase, the port attack can occur (weather permitting, etc.) in the afternoon phase. So setting the squadron loadout to torpedoes before the turn runs does not mean you get a mix of torpedoes and bombs during the port attack; the game will switch to bombs for the whole squadron to conduct the port attack. And, of course, if the morning sees a naval attack strike but the range is too far for torps you will see bombs used then too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

...To return to the actual question. If I get a confirmation that the attackng planes can carry torpedoes (naval, port and
a marked port confirms that) - is it to say that not all of the dispatched planes shall carry torpedoes, but bombs instead?
I mean, is the game taking this decision on its own? If so, one might as well specify bombs and use "port" attack.


What is the difference between "Naval, port" and "Port" attack?

Fred

Not quite certain I have understood fully your question so this may not be on point.

1. In game terms a ship can be located in only two places. Either within a Task Force or disbanded inside a port.

2. A Task Force can only be attacked by a squadron tasked with the "Naval Attack" mission. Targets for this mission are chosen by the computer.

3. A ship disbanded inside a port can only be attacked by a squadron tasked with the "Port Attack" mission. As this mission is primarily focussed on a terrestrial target, the target can be chosen by the player. The attacking aircraft focus on port facilities first with attacking disbanded ships a secondary consideration.

4. When the game was initially released, only the devs could assign varying bomb loadouts based on type of mission. A couple of years after release this capability was greatly simplified and opened up for modders. In the intervening time and subsequently there was no code rewrite to accommodate verying loadouts for "Port Attack" missions.

5. The clear design intention is found on page 150 of the manual where it is clearly stated that Port Attacks use only bombs whereas Naval Attack uses both bombs and torpedoes.

One does not drop torpedoes to destroy fuel farms, or damage shipyards and wharfs. Consequently the default position is that aircraft on a "Port Attack" mission use bombs. There would be howls of protest if 100 bombers, carrying only torpedoes on a "Port Attack" mission, found no disbanded ships but proceeded to destroy the port facilities or alternatively returned to base without attacking at all because no ships were found.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
Or a jungle coming right up to the water, so crew can camouflage a ship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
Or a jungle coming right up to the water, so crew can camouflage a ship.

Oh, yes - that would have been nice - a dedicated knob for "camouflage your ship?"....

quote:

The Japanese took full advantage of this cover [coastal foliage] in hiding their landing barges and machine gun emplacements. In an attack by the gun-boat 70, the barges were so well hidden that the native guide, brought on board ship for the purpose of pointing out their positions, was believed to be in error. At a distance of 40 yards they were absolutely indistinguishable from the surrounding foliage. After opening fire on their positions, and being fired upon in return, there was little doubt as to their presence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

This, in a way, is the same problem with the game that an air mission cannot be set to return to a different base than the one it departs from. (Except for carrier-based units when diverting). Ships can. I have suggested here before that this would have been a nice feature. It did occasionally happen in RL and can be useful for extending the range of a bombing mission.

Fred

quote:

ORIGINAL: PetrOs
Going for a forward base, refuel there, make a strike, and then return back with a stopover on the forward base was a common mission in WW2, too, used by russians and brits in the desert at least...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hghx-0

I appreciate all the answers, i can probably understand all except the unlimited docking capability, too abstract and can be easily exploited in my opinion..

quote:

ORIGINAL: PetrOs

Actually camoflage would be a nice feature for the game. As a ship model maker, I have taken alot of effort to understand the camo measures of the US ships. Some were designed to reduce ship visibility from air, some from sea, some against tropical island green background, some against temperate green background, some were highly visible but very disruptive, some being good at night, some at daylight...

In game, it could be a good feature - apply a new camo measure to a ship. Each measure has modifiers in terms of air visibility, surface visibility, night air visibility, night surface visibility, coastal visibility, disruption, that could be both positive and negative. For example air visibility would reduce a chance of ship being spotted from the air or overlooked by a strike air group, surface visibility would increase the chance to let it slip away in surface combat, coastal visibility affects both air and sea visibility in coastal hex, and also acts as disruption value in coastal hex, and disruption reduces the chances that the ship is hit by gun or torpedo...

Repaint requires a port, a few days offline and some supplies.

A good camo could be decisive in reality - IJN barges used it very extensively, and during invasion of Green island (quoting Alan Raven's article from http://shipcamouflage.com/5_2.htm)

quote:

The Japanese took full advantage of this cover [coastal foliage] in hiding their landing barges and machine gun emplacements. In an attack by the gun-boat 70, the barges were so well hidden that the native guide, brought on board ship for the purpose of pointing out their positions, was believed to be in error. At a distance of 40 yards they were absolutely indistinguishable from the surrounding foliage. After opening fire on their positions, and being fired upon in return, there was little doubt as to their presence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I did see a picture of a US CA that had been torpedoed moored very close to the shoreline with cam nets over it, presumably while it made patch repairs before it moved on to a port that could help stabilize it. My question is - where did they get the cam netting to cover a ship that big? Surely it was not carried as standard equipment - space and tonnage on a ship is precious! My guess is that nearby land units provided the nets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

...To return to the actual question. If I get a confirmation that the attackng planes can carry torpedoes (naval, port and
a marked port confirms that) - is it to say that not all of the dispatched planes shall carry torpedoes, but bombs instead?
I mean, is the game taking this decision on its own? If so, one might as well specify bombs and use "port" attack.


What is the difference between "Naval, port" and "Port" attack?

Fred

Not quite certain I have understood fully your question so this may not be on point.

1. In game terms a ship can be located in only two places. Either within a Task Force or disbanded inside a port.

2. A Task Force can only be attacked by a squadron tasked with the "Naval Attack" mission. Targets for this mission are chosen by the computer.

3. A ship disbanded inside a port can only be attacked by a squadron tasked with the "Port Attack" mission. As this mission is primarily focussed on a terrestrial target, the target can be chosen by the player. The attacking aircraft focus on port facilities first with attacking disbanded ships a secondary consideration.

4. When the game was initially released, only the devs could assign varying bomb loadouts based on type of mission. A couple of years after release this capability was greatly simplified and opened up for modders. In the intervening time and subsequently there was no code rewrite to accommodate verying loadouts for "Port Attack" missions.

5. The clear design intention is found on page 150 of the manual where it is clearly stated that Port Attacks use only bombs whereas Naval Attack uses both bombs and torpedoes.

One does not drop torpedoes to destroy fuel farms, or damage shipyards and wharfs. Consequently the default position is that aircraft on a "Port Attack" mission use bombs. There would be howls of protest if 100 bombers, carrying only torpedoes on a "Port Attack" mission, found no disbanded ships but proceeded to destroy the port facilities or alternatively returned to base without attacking at all because no ships were found.

Alfred

The correct response would have been,"Thanks, I didn't know that!" Instead of engaging in CYA.

But intellectual honesty isn't your forte now, is it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros


Thank you, Alfred, I wasn't sure he meant you or me. Anyway, I reported his posting - for what it is worth. I was equally
appalled at the unnecessarily unfriendly tone.

Keep up the good work.

Fred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Docked=In Port as far as this game goes. I can't hit Japanese ****s in port at Truk, docked or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

...

What is the difference between "Naval, port" and "Port" attack?

Fred

quote:

I use these toggles constantly when my TFs are headed to forwards bases so that they do not soak up valuable fuel needed for combat TFs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

I use these toggles constantly when my TFs are headed to forwards bases so that they do not soak up valuable fuel needed for combat TFs.

But these 'toggles' don't seem to work with 'CS' convoys. This is why I stopped using them. Or am I missing something?