Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

[sfbaytf]

I agree with you in some ways, but the initial Japanese naval landing advantage should be suspended for invading Oahu. Still I gotta admire it.

He's some more fuel for the fire-not completely applicable to what happened here, but still some good points:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/pearlops.htm

[John Lansford]

The discussion about how difficult a landing on Oahu on 12/7/41 seems applicable to a January 42 landing, though.  Those 11 divisions are still being used in January and if Oahu doesn't fall quickly, the invasion risks becoming a massive resource sink for no good return, while oil and resource stockpiles continue draining down and down and down...

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

I think that this might be important:
I have loaded forces very, very carefully. It took weeks. They were loaded to a TFs equal to their troop capacity about +20%. Thats a lot of ships but they unload in one go. That was a plan.

WITPPL. As I said before, I'm not knocking your play or your planning. Your opponent seems to have bungled badly, and your scheme was inventive and well carried out.

Nevertheless, you should have been butchered if the game's programming had been up to the task. Not your fault..., and you may have uncovered a loophole big enough to drive a tank through. So thanks for your efforts..., and the ball is now in the designer's court for correction.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


and the ball is now in the designer's court for correction.

Maybe, if they agree.

[sfbaytf]

WIPPL is a very nasty player who knows how to exploit the system. Don't mean that in a negative way. I learned a few tricks from the whipping I got.

He'd make a good playtester. I'm sure he can find many of the flaws.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

I think that this might be important:
I have loaded forces very, very carefully. It took weeks. They were loaded to a TFs equal to their troop capacity about +20%. Thats a lot of ships but they unload in one go. That was a plan.

WITPPL. As I said before, I'm not knocking your play or your planning. Your opponent seems to have bungled badly, and your scheme was inventive and well carried out.

Nevertheless, you should have been butchered if the game's programming had been up to the task. Not your fault..., and you may have uncovered a loophole big enough to drive a tank through. So thanks for your efforts..., and the ball is now in the designer's court for correction.

[bradfordkay]

"If those guns in the open in the 1920s picture are the same as 1941, I wonder if they were maintained through the Depression, and when the last time that 49,000 yards was tested. "

The Coast Artillery was THE elite branch of the army between the wars, so you can be assured that the proper maintenance was performed.

[Rob322]

The logical thing to do is re-run the invasion and see if the CD guns focus on the PB's ang ignore the transports. If we really have a problem then like any good experiment it should be repeatable. I would hope the developers wouldn't make wholesale changes on the basis of one instance.

[WITPPL]

Yeah, If Blue will Agree I might go for a retest with different composition of TFs.

I was not looking for an exploit; I went there to land my troops. Few escorts for over 70 transports per TF is not that much.
I have up to 15 escorts in my Resources trains in DEI!

I think that the problem is with PBs NOT sinking during shelling but I have to check it out.

There are another "routines" I do not like.

- Subs in Bases full of ASW and Surface TFs shelling my transports on surface.
but.. It is a 40 nm hex so it is possible.

Results of a landing: 99% of all loaded troops and 100% of all Art units were on shore. Even heavy pieces... thats ridiculous I know.

Bottom line is: If a IJN player will load troops properly and lose (troop cap of TF = or > than troop load cost of a unit (I used +10 to +20%)) and with a large port invasion he will unload even a tank division with one go ie one impulse!

Impulse! not even a day or a turn but impulse!

it is ridiculous.

In my opinion several heavy equipment pieces should be restricted to transport and strategic deployment rather than combat invasion. That is a good idea for a HR.

It looks like script routine take port size of an invaded base into consideration. Just a blind shoot.

I think that invasion model needs to be looked in details by Devs as an Air model was.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: castor troy


So I guess you would have to test it first if an invasion TF wouldn´t be 100% whiped out on the other side if non of the crappy escorts would be in the TF, as I would consider whiping out 100% of the transports completely off too.

I for one would strenuously object to any change that forced me to sail an invasion TF 1000 miles with no escorts, just so those escorts wouldn't be shell sponges at the other end. Tasking a surface TF to Follow, even at 0 hexes, is not the same in the code as organic escorts if that transport TF is jumped in transit.

you can drive the TF to the target with as many escorts as you want, just land without them... but it´s like I´ve said, a very poor work around and if it would result in the TF 100% whiped out it´s no work around at all

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: castor troy

would say yes. Why? Because most of them were put in not even a dozen PBs. So what´s wrong then? Not the number of shots but the target routine? Or the damage routine that keeps a PB afloat after being hit by shells of 5-16 inch? Something is wrong, at least in my world of thinking when all that is lost are a dozen ships out of 350 and the troops get ashore completely unharmed. And yes, I definetely call this unharmed.

I don't know what the right answer is, but I recall some of the more famous WITP AARs with 60, 70, 80 ships hit and sunk, or with major damage, by CD fire in big, late-war invasions, and the howling over it. And WITP had hundreds of fictional Allied transports, so many it got tiresome to manage them and I left hundreds sitting in ports all over the world. Logistics were easy there, and the carnage was do-able. Lose 60 or 70 xAKs per invasion now and see how far the war gets.

I agree with you and am not saying WITP was correct. But AE in this case is even more incorrect.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

This whole "I'm bombarding at night" arguement is pretty silly anyway.  If the moonlight is bright enough for you to spot your "reference points", it's bright enough for those big spotting scopes in the base end stations to spot your funnel glow and or your wake (if not the ship itself).  And those PB's have got to be in close to even begin to bombard anything with their popguns.  The whole arguement is nonsensical.

don´t know how much such PBs were really used for "invasion support" in real life, perhaps they took part in some invasions and fired a couple of shells onto some beach but what I know for sure is that they were not suited to surpress anything that could be called a coast defense. Let alone something that is a stationary 6 inch gun... or bigger...

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn

Looking at the big picture from the information presented in this thread i'd say that the result is not that unrealistic. The allies have been getting steamrollered
through the pacific and there have been indications of an attack on Pearl Harbour and yet the Japanese still managed to gain strategic and tactical suprise for
their operation. There was even a operation going on to distract the allies - which worked. Sounds like a pretty much optimal situation for the Japanese. A well
planned an executed operation.

Also i think it is neccessary that the place can be invaded, keeps the allies honest, sweating about keeping their most important assets safe, forcing the allies to protect em [;)]

what does steamrolling throught the Pacific have to do with the invasion result of a place with a strong CD? Nothing IMO to be honest[&:] Not a really strong argument to say the CD didn´t work because the Allied have lost their basese 5.000 miles to the west.

[WITPPL]

Yop,

Checked.
PBs were not sinking during shelling. NADA.
They were sys: 99 Fld: 99 Eng: 0-1 Fire: 99 but still afloat after combat.

Ridicculous I know but I didnt know that this will happened.

This issue should be looked and changed. My DDs were in much better shape. None sunk i think.


to sum this up:
- theres no sinking in invasion model.
EDIT: Not true, minor dmg was done. I wander how a PB with 999999 is still able to fire back. Its a Hollywood propaganda style thats it [- there is no armanent destuction on vessels (and land batteries?) in invasion model. All PBs have all arms unscratched.]

All above has created a loop of artillery duels between, adding to a fact that I was able to unload in just one impulse not a turn gave us the results.

I dont know why but invasion model is different from Naval model. Should be replaced i think.

Invasions should have 2 phases within an impulse:

1) Fighting - naval model fits here (with mod for shore gun batteries)
2) Unloading - I do not think that a size of an invaded base should help to unload (looks like it does) and i dont think that heavy equipment like tanks and large guns should be allowed to make amphibious assaults.

Mistery unsolved i think

[WITPPL]

OH LORD,

Knowing the Rules of a game and its mechanics is not an exploit.

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

WIPPL is a very nasty player who knows how to exploit the system. Don't mean that in a negative way. I learned a few tricks from the whipping I got.

He'd make a good playtester. I'm sure he can find many of the flaws.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

I think that this might be important:
I have loaded forces very, very carefully. It took weeks. They were loaded to a TFs equal to their troop capacity about +20%. Thats a lot of ships but they unload in one go. That was a plan.

WITPPL. As I said before, I'm not knocking your play or your planning. Your opponent seems to have bungled badly, and your scheme was inventive and well carried out.

Nevertheless, you should have been butchered if the game's programming had been up to the task. Not your fault..., and you may have uncovered a loophole big enough to drive a tank through. So thanks for your efforts..., and the ball is now in the designer's court for correction.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

Yop,

Checked.
PBs were not sinking during shelling. NADA.
They were sys: 99 Fld: 99 Eng: 0-1 Fire: 99 but still afloat after combat.

Ridicculous I know but I didnt know that this will happened.

This issue should be looked and changed. My DDs were in much better shape. None sunk i think.


to sum this up:
- theres no sinking in invasion model.
- there is no armanent destuction on vessels (and land batteries?) in invasion model. All PBs have all arms unscratched.

All above has created a loop of artillery duels between, adding to a fact that I was able to unload in just one impulse not a turn gave us the results.

I dont know why but invasion model is different from Naval model. Should be replaced i think.

Invasions should have 2 phases within an impulse:

1) Fighting - naval model fits here (with mod for shore gun batteries)
2) Unloading - I do not think that a size of an invaded base should help to unload (looks like it does) and i dont think that heavy equipment like tanks and large guns should be allowed to make amphibious assaults.

Mistery unsolved i think

good we´re going to get on the way to find out that there´s something "wrong".

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

OH LORD,

Knowing the Rules of a game and its mechanics is not an exploit.

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

WIPPL is a very nasty player who knows how to exploit the system. Don't mean that in a negative way. I learned a few tricks from the whipping I got.

He'd make a good playtester. I'm sure he can find many of the flaws.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl




WITPPL. As I said before, I'm not knocking your play or your planning. Your opponent seems to have bungled badly, and your scheme was inventive and well carried out.

Nevertheless, you should have been butchered if the game's programming had been up to the task. Not your fault..., and you may have uncovered a loophole big enough to drive a tank through. So thanks for your efforts..., and the ball is now in the designer's court for correction.

it can be an exploit. For example, someone knows that the CD routine is screwed (with the PBs absorbing immense CD gunfire and ending up with 99/99 damage but not sinking) and therefore he knows ANY landings against no matter what CD is possible without taking much damage. As everyone in the game can see and as you´ve pointed out also, not even the ground troops take damage from those landings as they aren´t shot at. The invasion/CD routine is bullocks in AE, completely bullocks.

[WITPPL]

If we want community to grow we should work out to limit mistery knowledge ie exploits.

I know that thanks to this forum and a team of Devs it is possible.

Everybody: It have to be retested but it looks like we have a black whole here. Big one.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

If we want community to grow we should work out to limit mistery knowledge ie exploits.

I know that thanks to this forum and a team of Devs it is possible.

Everybody: It have to be retested but it looks like we have a black whole here. Big one.

definetely agreed!

[WITPPL]

To the President of US&A
from The Poet - so called Emperor of The Empire of Japan (nice nick dude!).

"Due to a fatal flaw in our world model programming I do propose to turn back a clock for a few days.
area around Hawaii should be anounced no flying zone for 2 days.
No combat patrols should happened for 2 days also.

P.S.
Can you send me some NY hot dogs plz? I like splashes of ketchup on my poetry pages. Gets me high.

[John Lansford]

I wonder if these amphibious landing results took place due to the most recent patch.  In my CG, the AI has attempted forced landings at two of my bases, Port Moresby and Dutch Harbor.  Both resulted in transports and escorts taking shore based gunfire, and both only had a small amount of troops landing.  After the first day at PM, for example, I got the message that the landing troops surrendered to the defenders since the TF could not re-embark the troops.

At DH, when it became apparent that the landing force was way too small to defeat my dug in BF, infantry regiment, multiple AA units and a CD unit, the AI re-embarked the survivors and ran off.  In both landings the escorts and transports took damage from shorebased gunfire.  At DH the escorts were severely damaged and transports attempted to suppress the CD guns, with little effect.  IIRC both landings were tried prior to the new hotfix patch being applied.