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: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 5:15:35 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


The US 155mm Gun M1A1 and the M1918 that it replaced were both capable of use as coast defense weapons. The US Marine Defense Battalions traded in most of their 5/51 Naval CD Guns for 155mm M1A1 Guns, retaining their coast defense capabilities and also using the guns as traditional artillery.

I'm not 100% sure of the exact tradeoff between army weapon and naval gun but I believe the 155mm should retain it's CD capability and there should probably be a naval gun.




If some US army guns should be able to fire at ships, why, for example, IJA 150mm Howitzer should not? It was capable of direct fire. How it is possible that one gun can fire at ships while another can’t do it. Sorry I just can’t understand. I think there are must be two devices in database, 155mm Field gun for Army units and Long Tom Coastal artillery gun.

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 61
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 5:16:51 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

The 155mm Long Tom was used as both a heavy field artillery piece and a coast defense weapon and was emminently suitable for either role.


Yamato guns were also used as both naval and AA guns. There was even special AA projectile designed. The nature and the role of a particular unit should determine in what role that or another piece of equipment should be used. If it’s coastal artillery unit – naval gun, but if it is Army field artillery unit – field gun. WitP engine is not flexible enough here. In Normandy Germans used mortars to shell approaching landing crafts.. do you think 81mm mortar is a naval weapon?

_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 62
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 5:23:46 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

The gun was capable of use as a CD gun. That is an entirely different statement than saying it is correct to have regular artillery units units equipped with it sink ridiculous numbers of ships.


But that’s what happening in the game, regular artillery unit sink ridiculous number of ships...
Almost all rifles can be used as a sniper weapons. But can we say that every infantrymen is a sniper?

quote:

Use as a CD weapon and the ability to sink approaching vessels is within the design capability of the weapon. The large hex size and need for generalization within WITP make it impossible to specify that one unit with a 155mm Gun is CD capable and another is not.


Yes there are must be two 155mm guns, with two devises it’s really easy to specify what unit is CD capable (CD trained, has appropriate ammunition and well-prepared positions). Coastal defense units supposed to be deployed on the coast, army artillery units not, thus they’re not always within the effective range to fire at ships, their job is the fire support.

Another issue is Japanese ability to knock down those CD guns in non-CD units, IJN player has no chance to destroy those with port attacks he has to target ground units, and it extremely rare situation when air units go after artillery unit (if there are several units in hex), they usually choose most valuable units with biggest AV points and with largest supplies stockpiles.

I did several tests with modified tutorial scenario, XIV Army Art. Corps with 48 Long Tom 155mm field guns was transferred to Satawal. IJN bombardment TF (7 battlewagons, including Yamato and Musashi +12 heavy cruisers ) was knocking dust out of Satawahl for 11 turns (14 bombardment runs from Woleai). Results: 100 damage to port, 78 to airfield, 59 to facilities, XIV corps lost only 3 guns destroyed and 22 were disabled (not destroyed). There was no bomb.runs during next turn and XIV corps regained its might (thanks to huge supply stockpile and that ugly pipeline effect when supplies can be turned into everything needed despite the fact that place is actually under blockade, new squads new guns everything), it also got replacements for those 3 guns. So, when IJN invasion TF arrived next turn from Palau it was mauled by Long Toms, 5 DD and 9 AK sunk many more heavily damaged… and that’s after the core of Imperial Navy bombarded the place (microscopic atoll) 11 days. Such bizarre situation was possible because that army gun has CD capability by design, this “capability by design” makes some not-best WitP design choices even more evident.

quote:

It would be wholly inappropriate to remove an historical capability of a weapon because the game cannot accurately map that capability in all circumstances.



If the game cannot accurately model this capability and produce weird results then this capability should not be represented IMHO. This is a game first of all, not weapon database, playability should always be the primary goal…



_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 63
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 5:26:18 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
155mm field guns were used historically as CD and have that capability in game. In fact, if you look at many of the dedicated CD units from other nations a 155mm is a pretty decent size gun for this work.


So it was not a typo?The problem is not in caliber, size, nation etc. The problem is that these guns are naval but they’re not in CD units, and IJN player can hardly suppress them, you have to summon the entire IJN just to suppress one US art regiment… for day or two.

quote:

The "no escorts" bombard should help shut them down if you are concerned that the Allies might have them at an invasion site.


It is easier to say than to do, it’s hard to suppress ordinary CD units, units with Long Tom anti-ship missiles are practically invulnerable… Have you ever tried to shot Long Toms down with “casual” bombardment TF (not super-hyper-powerful TF with dozen BBs )? Any hints/tips would be appreciated cause I actually can’t do it

< Message edited by Subchaser -- 6/11/2005 5:28:54 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 64
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 6:25:25 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		" If some US army guns should be able to fire at ships, why, for example, IJA 150mm Howitzer should not? "

There's a difference between a "gun" and a "howitzer". Howitzers, while capable of direct fire, are actually designed for a higher trajectory and shorter range. "Guns", with their longer tubes, are designed for a higher velocity shell, and thus have better armour piercing capability. You will note that in the game there are US Army FA units equipped with a 155mm Howitzer as well as those equipped with the 155mm Long Tom.

Keep in mind that the 155mm gun is essentially a Six inch gun, thus capable of penetrating the armour on a light cruiser. If your enemy has these in a CD battery, then you had best keep your escorts out of range, as they will be quite vulnerable to these guns.

I have said before that I agree with the idea of having two seperate ratings on the 155mm gun, one for FA units and one for CD units. As long as there is only one rating, I cannot support the misguided idea that they should be prevented from being used against naval targets, since the majority of the units using them (at least in '42 and early '43) are CD units.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 65
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 7:14:39 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Subchaser
I did several tests with modified tutorial scenario, XIV Army Art. Corps with 48 Long Tom 155mm field guns was transferred to Satawal. IJN bombardment TF (7 battlewagons, including Yamato and Musashi +12 heavy cruisers ) was knocking dust out of Satawahl for 11 turns (14 bombardment runs from Woleai). Results: 100 damage to port, 78 to airfield, 59 to facilities, XIV corps lost only 3 guns destroyed and 22 were disabled (not destroyed). There was no bomb.runs during next turn and XIV corps regained its might (thanks to huge supply stockpile and that ugly pipeline effect when supplies can be turned into everything needed despite the fact that place is actually under blockade, new squads new guns everything), it also got replacements for those 3 guns. So, when IJN invasion TF arrived next turn from Palau it was mauled by Long Toms, 5 DD and 9 AK sunk many more heavily damaged… and that’s after the core of Imperial Navy bombarded the place (microscopic atoll) 11 days. Such bizarre situation was possible because that army gun has CD capability by design, this “capability by design” makes some not-best WitP design choices even more evident.


Those are interesting results - could you please post this test scenario for us? Thanks.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 66
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 7:37:17 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Thanks for your level headed approach to these and other weird happenings Erik.
A voice of moderation goes a long way, instead of the gang bang approach.

_____________________________


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 67
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 7:40:53 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

" If some US army guns should be able to fire at ships, why, for example, IJA 150mm Howitzer should not? "

There's a difference between a "gun" and a "howitzer". Howitzers, while capable of direct fire, are actually designed for a higher trajectory and shorter range. "Guns", with their longer tubes, are designed for a higher velocity shell, and thus have better armour piercing capability. You will note that in the game there are US Army FA units equipped with a 155mm Howitzer as well as those equipped with the 155mm Long Tom.

Keep in mind that the 155mm gun is essentially a Six inch gun, thus capable of penetrating the armour on a light cruiser. If your enemy has these in a CD battery, then you had best keep your escorts out of range, as they will be quite vulnerable to these guns.


Which raises the question how many US 155mm Field Artillery Units carried AP ammunition suitable for the purpose?

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 68
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 7:43:50 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Subchaser
...do you think 81mm mortar is a naval weapon?


It certainly is.... if it was ever used by an *Allied* unit in such role, even if only once, with negligible results.

</sarcasm off>

O.


_____________________________


(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 69
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 7:47:04 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		I always liked the Japanese "Knee Mortar". Just don't put it there when firing it.

_____________________________


(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 70
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 7:54:49 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		BTW there is "155mm CD gun" already in the database. Is that, actually, the same gun, employed in CD role, or some entirely different weapon?

O.


_____________________________


(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 71
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 7:59:27 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Lets expand the discussion!

For some more (pro Allied) weirdness lets analyze Home Islands forts units, designed to protect the Japanese cities and ports.

Their biggest gun is usually "240mm howitzer", yes howitzer.

One look at the database will show you it's actually an "army weapon" thus incapable of firing at ships.

I guess no Allied player ever tried to sneak in some major Japan city harbors with his BBs - had anyone actually tried it, I guess he will find he's immune to CD gunfire (as there is none ).

Who came up with 240mm howitzer as CD weapon anyway? IJN had some fine guns dedicated to that role (not to mention IJA arty units with their 150mm mud-stabilised guns ).

O.


< Message edited by Oleg Mastruko -- 6/11/2005 8:00:34 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 72
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 8:19:37 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Lets expand the discussion!

For some more (pro Allied) weirdness lets analyze Home Islands forts units, designed to protect the Japanese cities and ports.

Their biggest gun is usually "240mm howitzer", yes howitzer.

One look at the database will show you it's actually an "army weapon" thus incapable of firing at ships.

I guess no Allied player ever tried to sneak in some major Japan city harbors with his BBs - had anyone actually tried it, I guess he will find he's immune to CD gunfire (as there is none ).

Who came up with 240mm howitzer as CD weapon anyway? IJN had some fine guns dedicated to that role (not to mention IJA arty units with their 150mm mud-stabilised guns ).

O.



Sure enough Device #456 - 155mm CD Gun; Type: 18 - Naval gun

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 73
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 8:25:50 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Hey Oleg!
The reason I got involved in this discussion is because it appeared you were complaining the American army 155 was seldom (if ever) used as a CD gun.I offered at least 2 websites to show it was common practice,(one showing the wheeled units were employed as such by SOP of Macarthur humself!).
I do not know if other nations' hvy calibre guns are allowed to do this (in the game),but should be,as the Germans certainly used 155 for this,both direct and indirect against ships.(The guns which had been at Point Du Hoc were 155's and were still on their wheel mounts when the Rangers located them behind the beaches......)
Yes,compadre,I am pretty much into accurate history,(ref this game),but for me it's for both sides of the street.......Savvy??

_____________________________




(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 74
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 8:46:01 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay


There's a difference between a "gun" and a "howitzer"...


I understand that gun and howitzer are different types. But I see the problem not in characteristics of this gun but in deployment of this gun, if it’s US army field artillery units we should not see it engaging ships..

Just one fact…

quote:

A special mount for the gun was developed in 1943. "The 'Kelly Mount' was the equivalent of a transportable Panama Mount (155mm GPF) but made for the dimensions of the 155mm Gun M1. It was designed by Colonel Peter K. Kelly, then Regimental Executive Officer, Harbor Defenses of San Francisco, to enable the Long Tom to be used against moving seaborne targets . The Kelly Mount was officially designated as 155mm Firing Platform, T6E1. By the summer of 1944, the 155mm guns on the "Kelly Mount" were in action in the Pacific Theater of Operations by both US Army Coast Artillery units and US Marine Corps Defense Battalions. NO REGUALR ARMY ART UNITS The mount was officially adopted by the Coast Artillery and Ordnance Corps as the 155mm Gun Platform, M1, with a unit cost of $4,964.00.


Stop me if I am wrong but I think this means that Long Toms could not be very effective against ships without Kelly mount and as it was pointed out - only Coastal Artillery units and USMC defense battalions had those mounts,basically another version of Long Tom. US Army artillery regiments were not supposed to engage ships.

Once again, nobody insist that Long Tom could not be used as a CD gun, the problem is that CD guns should be with CD units. Can anybody tell me why any other similar weapon – field gun, Allied or Japanese, could not be deployed near the coast line and fire at ships?


_____________________________


(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 75
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 8:56:03 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: Subchaser
I did several tests with modified tutorial scenario, XIV Army Art. Corps with 48 Long Tom 155mm field guns was transferred to Satawal. IJN bombardment TF (7 battlewagons, including Yamato and Musashi +12 heavy cruisers ) was knocking dust out of Satawahl for 11 turns (14 bombardment runs from Woleai). Results: 100 damage to port, 78 to airfield, 59 to facilities, XIV corps lost only 3 guns destroyed and 22 were disabled (not destroyed). There was no bomb.runs during next turn and XIV corps regained its might (thanks to huge supply stockpile and that ugly pipeline effect when supplies can be turned into everything needed despite the fact that place is actually under blockade, new squads new guns everything), it also got replacements for those 3 guns. So, when IJN invasion TF arrived next turn from Palau it was mauled by Long Toms, 5 DD and 9 AK sunk many more heavily damaged… and that’s after the core of Imperial Navy bombarded the place (microscopic atoll) 11 days. Such bizarre situation was possible because that army gun has CD capability by design, this “capability by design” makes some not-best WitP design choices even more evident.


Those are interesting results - could you please post this test scenario for us? Thanks.

Regards,

- Erik


Of course I can post it Erik, but is it worth it? Only two things were changed - unit 3116 moved to location 673 and 48 field guns were added to this unit. Everything else as in original tutorial scenario. This is 3 min job...

_____________________________


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 76
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 11:41:18 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		IMO pretty much any artillery type weapon with a decent "throwing arm" ought to be able to engage ships. Those in CD units, because of their specialized mounts and perhaps unit ammo load out should be more effective in that role than normal field artillery.
The US CD units in Manila Bay included 10 or 12 inch mortars and they were apparently enough of a threat that the IJN didn't want to risk ships within their reach (speculation: although the time interval for a shell in flight is going to be longer for high trajectory fire, thus giving your target more of an opportunity to get out of the way, plunging fire from a mortar or howitzer is going to be much more effective in getting at a ship's vitals - I would guess that was the logic behind the IJA CD units equipping with a 240 mm howitzer as well).

Somewhere or other in these threads I read that all "guns" fire on invading forces. I don't have a problem with that. The game mechanics should allow for the suppression of all guns though.

Oh yeah, about that test, 14 bombardment runs of "flyspeck island" by 7 BBs and 12 CAs all staged out of another "flyspeck island" in the middle of nowhere. That's just like real too.

(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 77
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/12/2005 12:02:08 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		spence you're clouding the issue, and as Tristan would say "you're not helping"

quote:

IMO pretty much any artillery type weapon with a decent "throwing arm" ought to be able to engage ships. Those in CD units, because of their specialized mounts and perhaps unit ammo load out should be more effective in that role than normal field artillery.


Oh yes, please apply this change and you'd get all sorts of ridicolous results, with Allied fanboys coming first to cry when they invade some island loaded with IJA artillery. Certainly not the right way to solve the problem.

quote:

The US CD units in Manila Bay included 10 or 12 inch mortars and they were apparently enough of a threat that the IJN didn't want to risk ships within their reach


I see no problem with that. 12in CD *mortar* exists in game database and is used in some units, it is classed as "naval weapon" and it has CD capability. It works as intended.

240mm howitzer, however, DOES not have CD capability, it is NOT "naval weapon" in the game database, but a simple "army weapon". Translated - it means it will NOT shoot at ships. It will NOT function as CD gun. It is useless, except as simple land artillery. This is NOT what is intended, and makes IJ CD units equipped with that weapon useless to the point of being ridicolous.

quote:

Somewhere or other in these threads I read that all "guns" fire on invading forces. I don't have a problem with that.


On invading forces - maybe, but NOT on ships.

quote:


Oh yeah, about that test, 14 bombardment runs of "flyspeck island" by 7 BBs and 12 CAs all staged out of another "flyspeck island" in the middle of nowhere. That's just like real too.


You're cluding the main issue of this thread. If you have problem with 14 bomb runs staging from atoll I can understand that but it has nothing to do with army units being capable of sinking dozens of ships. Entirely different problem.

O.

_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 78
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/12/2005 12:58:36 AM   
Sharkosaurus rex


Posts: 467
Joined: 10/19/2004
From: under the waves
Status: offline 		If you read page 8 of the editor manual near the top:

"Type is the device type (naval gun, torpedo, vehicle, etc.) The only difference between a naval gun and an army gun is that units with naval guns are more likely to be targeted by bombardments. Dual purpose guns are treated as naval guns for targeting purposes as they have the ability to fire at aircraft as well. Some army weapons, however, may fire at ships based on their range.

this should cover it if it is working correctly.

_____________________________

Is Sharkosaurus rex the biggest fish in the sea?
Why don't you come in for a swim?

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 79
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/12/2005 1:19:54 AM   
sadja

 

Posts: 299
Joined: 8/1/2004
Status: offline 		The Kelly mount was used for travers. Normal FA I believe have about 20 degrees travers left or right. To fire on ships with trailer leg art, the whole piece would have to be moved if the ships got out of the 40 degree arc. The marines on the canal used it for CD but very limited. They could cover certain zones if pre planned. One of the main art doctrines for the US was to take thier RGt and scatter the batteries all over the place but have good commo and be able to put all the art in one spot on command. Most other nations needed to put them wheel to wheel to concentrate thier fire power.

Now as far as damaging MSW,DD or APs the 8" round high explosive was a very bad round. Against a BB,the soft structures were very vulnerable, but no aromour penatraions. As mentioned in WWI Dardandels naval attack, the british BBs were pummeled by turk 105 and 77mm howitzers. Nobody could move around on deck and all sorts of soft stuff was destroyed and the minesweepers could not advance with out being sunk. The BB's watertight integrety was not compromised untill they ran into one uncharted minefield (newly laid) of 15 mines. It sunk a French and British pre drednought and caused a QE BB to fall out of the battle line with a big hole in the bow. The big costal batteries were supressed but the little guns held the brits at bay along with 15 mines.

Now having said all this, unless you have MSW in your invasion force and the enemy has mines you should not be able to bombard or invade without tremendous loss as long as he has art to cover the mine fields. I know that sounds ridiculous and it is, I'm just saying this game can not model every event that can happen in WWII whether flying, landing or sub attacks.

BB TFs can not supress ART that has been dug in and well sited, Bombing and bomarding Iwo for weeks did little untill a pair of eyes was put on the target and all kinds of firepower can be directed.

D-Day all kinds of special training and resources were given to take out 6-8 155mm gund a Pt. Du Hoc, it was bombed and shelled and wasn't even there, untill located by the rangers who took them out with thermite grenades. Off the 4000+ ships many were minesweepers clearing lanes, and still ships hit mines. Many landings in the pacific mines wrecked landing craft and smaller ships. The game does as good as it can modeling invasions. You can count on one hand failed amphipious assults. Some were very bloody but almost all succeded. The 1st Wake attack they didn't even get ashore. The 2 attack if Cunningham had better como that may have failed also, most of the attackers were wiped out or contained. The 3"AA destoyed LC after LC comming ashore. The Japs were looking for the crew of one such gun, because they were going to be killed after the surrender because of all the damage it did.

Sadja

_____________________________

Your never Lost if you don't care where you are.

Tom Massie GPAA

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 80
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/12/2005 4:34:50 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

240mm howitzer, however, DOES not have CD capability, it is NOT "naval weapon" in the game database, but a simple "army weapon". Translated - it means it will NOT shoot at ships. It will NOT function as CD gun. It is useless, except as simple land artillery. This is NOT what is intended, and makes IJ CD units equipped with that weapon useless to the point of being ridicolous


I set up a single ARTY with just a few 155mm as a "ArmyWeapon" type ina base with no other LCUs. It did not attack any bombardment TF. And then invaded the hex with troops on an AK and 2 APs. Out of 10 "Coastal guns firing...", all attacked the landing troops but I also got one instance of the AK being attacked by the guns (no hits though).

According to the editor manual, army weapons might fire on the (invading?) ships.
Michael

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 81
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/12/2005 4:56:48 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
According to the editor manual, army weapons might fire on the (invading?) ships.
Michael


Great, then let 155mm "field gun" in hands of army men, fire like army weapon (it still might get a hit, but with much lower chances), and let 240mm coastal defence weapon in the hands of static CD fort, fire like CD weapon.

Right now we have exactly the opposite, producing skewed results.

O.

_____________________________


(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 82
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/12/2005 5:32:03 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

A special mount for the gun was developed in 1943. "The 'Kelly Mount' was the equivalent of a transportable Panama Mount (155mm GPF) but made for the dimensions of the 155mm Gun M1. It was designed by Colonel Peter K. Kelly, then Regimental Executive Officer, Harbor Defenses of San Francisco, to enable the Long Tom to be used against moving seaborne targets. ... The Kelly Mount was officially designated as 155mm Firing Platform, T6E1. By the summer of 1944, the 155mm guns on the "Kelly Mount" were in action in the Pacific Theater of Operations by both US Army Coast Artillery units and US Marine Corps Defense Battalions. The mount was officially adopted by the Coast Artillery and Ordnance Corps as the 155mm Gun Platform, M1, with a unit cost of $4,964.00.


Now, reading that it becomes kinda tough to say it is not capable of eating ships. Obviously the earlier version did not have the mobility, but in a prepared position, it would obviously by anti-ship capable as long as the ship was within it's movement arc.

It is the same gun, whether mounted on the M1 carriage or the newer mount.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 83
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/12/2005 5:53:48 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		It seems that people have misconstrued my arguments. Here is part of what I posted last:

"I have said before that I agree with the idea of having two seperate ratings on the 155mm gun, one for FA units and one for CD units."


I continued to say that if you do not make seperate ratings for the 155mm gun, then it has to be capable of firing against naval units, as most of the mobile (as opposed to static) CD units are equipped with this gun. What I find galling is the insistence on the part of some to castrate those CD units because there are two Field Artillery units (at least in the first two years of the game) that are also equipped with this weapon. If you do not have seperate listings for the M1A1 155mm gun (CD and FA), then you HAVE to allow to be used as a CD gun. Any claim otherwise is fanboyism at its worst.

Once again, let me reiterate my preference for two listings for the 155mm M1A1 gun. I believe that the other 155mm CD gun in the database is a european version. I know that it is in the Soerabaja CD batteries, as they proved quite effective in my attempted defense of Java (sank a few transports, but the island fell pretty quickly).

If there is a Japanese 240mm CD Howitzer that can't attack naval units, then by all means make sure that it can do so. After all, that is what CD units are for. I am, after all, one who prefers that the weapons in the game attempt to portray reality if at all possible.

I have every intention to play WITP on the Japanese side, once I have my fill of playing the allied side. I have so far refused to even open the game on the Japanese side so that I cannot gleen any intelligence that will help me in my present campaigns.

< Message edited by bradfordkay -- 6/12/2005 5:54:28 AM >

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 84
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/12/2005 1:27:23 PM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		Hi
looking through the devices, there actually are two entries for 155mm:
device #451 155mm Field Gun
device #456 155mm CD Gun
I am of course assumming that there refer to the same type of weapon.

As a modder, I personally would most likely make the 240mm Howitzer a NavalGun as part of the Fortress defences.

Michael

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 85
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/13/2005 7:04:40 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Subchaser
Of course I can post it Erik, but is it worth it? Only two things were changed - unit 3116 moved to location 673 and 48 field guns were added to this unit. Everything else as in original tutorial scenario. This is 3 min job...


You might be amazed how many other tasks I have currently that those three minutes could be used for. As a bonus, it lets me check with the same exact test you were using. If you have a moment, please send/post that file.

Regards,

- Erik


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 86
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/13/2005 7:10:10 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: Subchaser
Of course I can post it Erik, but is it worth it? Only two things were changed - unit 3116 moved to location 673 and 48 field guns were added to this unit. Everything else as in original tutorial scenario. This is 3 min job...


You might be amazed how many other tasks I have currently that those three minutes could be used for. As a bonus, it lets me check with the same exact test you were using. If you have a moment, please send/post that file.

Regards,

- Erik



Sorry Erik, no offend please. I will modify tutorial once again… for easier test set-up, and I will send it to you.

Regards


_____________________________


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 87
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/13/2005 7:16:15 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

It is the same gun, whether mounted on the M1 carriage or the newer mount.



Here is that naval gun again… on slightly modified mount.




_____________________________


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 88
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/13/2005 10:29:32 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Subchaser

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

It is the same gun, whether mounted on the M1 carriage or the newer mount.



Here is that naval gun again… on slightly modified mount.





Yep, would scare me if I was in a *tin* can and saw 16 of those pointed my way!

(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 89
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/14/2005 12:00:07 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Yep, would scare me if I was in a *tin* can and saw 16 of those pointed my way!


It would but that's not the point. You'd call your BB and CA buddies and this tracked vehicle would be gone in minutes.

It hardly qualifies as "naval gun" anyway.

I'm currently reading latest Osprey book (booklet is perhaps a better term) on Japanese island defences and fortifications. It says - quite predictably in fact - that when faced with imminent invasion, Japanese did shoot anything and everything at approaching ships. I guess that would include army guns as well - is this the argument to give them "naval" capability? I guess not.

O.


_____________________________


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.609