Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

[WITPPL]

No, but it is unrelevant. I hade Your results way before patch 2.

[WITPPL]

The clock it turning back...
all of this has never happened...

but: The problem stays!

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Indeed. Should test this with game started under latest patch. I have smashed one atoll landing too with CD in my campaign game vs. IJ AI.

I have noticed that people seem to get quite strange results sometimes with games started with older version and then patched while ongoing. I still think that CD/landing routines need bit of checking, though. Problem is that program has to be able to be used in wildly different circumstances, so fixing one thing may well break another etc.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

OH LORD,

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

NO..., but knowing where the rules "break down" and using that knowledge to win IS an exploit. Your analysis in your post above shows that you have probably correctly identified a major breakdown in the programming during opposed invasions. That's good, and to your credit. But if you understood that weakness before you planned your "Oahu Adventure", then that was certainly "exploiting" a rules loophole. I hope that was not the case...

[WITPPL]

Mike,

It was NOT. Damn it!

Enough.

[WITPPL]

BTW:

I have NOTICED that LCUs with 100 preparation for ie Pearl Harbour will lose MUCH less during landing at ie San Diego that LCUs with a small preparation for San Diego.

It has not been tested but I am going to use this knowlege from my expierience with this game. Exploit or not.

[:'(]

[John Lansford]

I've got some units prepped to go after the garrison and defense unit located at Baker Island in my CG.  Since I'm running the newest hotfix patch, I'll post my results here when I launch the attack to see how it works with the latest fix running.

[Chickenboy]

Wait a minute...before redoing the invasion itself and setting the clock back a couple days, please let us know if your invasion was successful or not.  My bet is that your landed force is insufficient to the task.  Can you two please work out the next couple days and let us know how they turned out?

[WITPPL]

Unfortunately No.


Every turn takes around 4 hours o my time. I am a working father with the cutiest 2,5 years old lady home.

PLUS: It will still be a very interesting game. No doubt about it.

P.S.
My troops are very well supplied. Whole island chain have best supplies in the whole pacific region.
Troops were disorganized thanks to weeks spent on board of ships. This is why I have been so quiet for last two days. Coming very fast down (like 50 points down in 2 days).
With no loses, No fatigue (Nearly all set in a reserve mode), No disorganisation...
I would have taken this base. No doubt.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

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.

You mean just for the Japanese, right?
Because the Allies unloaded tanks during amphibious invasions all the time. D-Day is a classic case, but there are many others. Heavy landing craft were designed specifically to carry tanks, while some tanks were made amphibious (only in theory in some sad cases) with add-on kits. Also, beached LSTs could unload in the midst of heavy beach fighting. They didn't, but they could, if losses were accepted.

Again, I would join others in cautioning throwing the baby out with the bath water. The game's balance, with all the new stuff like loading/unloading limits, is based on the current rules offering a speed of advance to each side that is further balanced against VP targets and victory conditions. I woudn't want amphibious invasions made so "realistic" by ham-stringing ship types, making CD guns into laser guided bombs, etc. that summer 1945 found me still on the approaches to Saipan when I otherwise played a smart, tight game.

All of the game's processes support or cancel others. The proper question should be whether the overall war effort for either side leads to overall balanced results, not whether any sub-phase is balanced against one historic fact set or other.

[John Lansford]

If someone can invade Oahu without taking heavy losses in ships and men, though, simply by putting some minor escorts with the transports, something is wrong with the game.  That's not balanced, that's messed up.

[WITPPL]

AFV - fron not specialized ships.
Art and other heavy equipment - transport only.

Just my 2 cents.

It looks broken - It looks like a code wnet into a loop. Thats it.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

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.

You mean just for the Japanese, right?
Because the Allies unloaded tanks during amphibious invasions all the time. D-Day is a classic case, but there are many others. Heavy landing craft were designed specifically to carry tanks, while some tanks were made amphibious (only in theory in some sad cases) with add-on kits. Also, beached LSTs could unload in the midst of heavy beach fighting. They didn't, but they could, if losses were accepted.

Again, I would join others in cautioning throwing the baby out with the bath water. The game's balance, with all the new stuff like loading/unloading limits, is based on the current rules offering a speed of advance to each side that is further balanced against VP targets and victory conditions. I woudn't want amphibious invasions made so "realistic" by ham-stringing ship types, making CD guns into laser guided bombs, etc. that summer 1945 found me still on the approaches to Saipan when I otherwise played a smart, tight game.

All of the game's processes support or cancel others. The proper question should be whether the overall war effort for either side leads to overall balanced results, not whether any sub-phase is balanced against one historic fact set or other.

[WITPPL]

A humble person here got the problem now: HOW to invade Pearl...
[8|]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

If someone can invade Oahu without taking heavy losses in ships and men, though, simply by putting some minor escorts with the transports, something is wrong with the game.  That's not balanced, that's messed up.

The actions by the Allied player to allow 350+ ships to arrive undetected at Oahu, with apparently massive air and logistic suppport already next door in the Hawaiian Islands, is what's "wrong." The systematic destruction of Allied power is what's "unbalanced", and that was accomplished by a better player playing well.

"Doctor, the stress test killed the patient."
"No, nurse, it was the 145,000 cheeseburgers he ate over the last thirty years."

I posted some results from my own game where CD guns ate up both transports and escorts, both DDs and a BB. I've seen a variety of suppression effects in dozens of invasion operations, both by me and the AI against me. I think playing with CD code too cavalierly could severely break the game. It's far too early to hysterically run about, scream and shout, that the game is "broken" based on this one, MASSIVELY outlying correlation of forces.

[Bluebook]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
The actions by the Allied player to allow 350+ ships to arrive undetected at Oahu, with apparently massive air and logistic suppport already next door in the Hawaiian Islands, is what's "wrong." The systematic destruction of Allied power is what's "unbalanced", and that was accomplished by a better player playing well.

What has that got to do with the combat routine for amphibious assaults?

I have been trying to avoid getting into these discussions because I really dont see what relevance they have to the question if the results of the amphibious assault is reasonable or not. Is it reasonable to be able to invade Pearl Harbor, without any prior bombardment from air or sea, with 350+ ships, land 75 000 men in one impulse, and only lose 1000 causualties and a handful of PBs?

What relevance has Wake, Midway or Johnston Island to that question? And the Jap ships were spotted before they invaded.

[Bullwinkle58]

[quote]ORIGINAL: WITPPL

AFV - fron not specialized ships.
Art and other heavy equipment - transport only.

[quote]ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


USN AKA-class ships, available in 1943, carried LCM landing craft (Landing Craft, Mechanized) specifically designed to deliver armor to invasion beaches, while fighting was underway. These were not "specialized" amphibious assault ships like LSTs or LSDs. They were cargo haulers. Removing their armor-delivery capability from Allied invasions would severely reduce the Allies' abilty to successfully conduct invasions, especially those with mandatory shock attacks.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
The actions by the Allied player to allow 350+ ships to arrive undetected at Oahu, with apparently massive air and logistic suppport already next door in the Hawaiian Islands, is what's "wrong." The systematic destruction of Allied power is what's "unbalanced", and that was accomplished by a better player playing well.

What has that got to do with the combat routine for amphibious assaults?

I have been trying to avoid getting into these discussions because I really dont see what relevance they have to the question if the results of the amphibious assault is reasonable or not. Is it reasonable to be able to invade Pearl Harbor, without any prior bombardment from air or sea, with 350+ ships, land 75 000 men in one impulse, and only lose 1000 causualties and a handful of PBs?

What relevance has Wake, Midway or Johnston Island to that question? And the Jap ships were spotted before they invaded.

A different question:

What would have been the invasion results if you had placed three surface TFs in the PH hex continaing, in total, 6-8 CAs, 5 CLs, and 30 DDs?
Whining about CD results, when other results are obtained elsewhere with different force balances, misses the point. When you rely on CD to stop an invasion, you've already lost.

[Bluebook]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
A different question:

What would have been the invasion results if you had placed three surface TFs in the PH hex continaing, in total, 6-8 CAs, 5 CLs, and 30 DDs?

That is indeed a different question. One that has got nothing whatsoever to do with the question about the amphibious assault combat routine. Which of cource makes it completely irrelevant and pointless in this discussion. Get it?

Whining about CD results, when other results are obtained elsewhere with different force balances, misses the point. When you rely on CD to stop an invasion, you've already lost.

Funny though that everyone seems to agree that the CD results are BS. And that was the entire point of this thread and discussion. IS there a problem with the CD-routine? Most tend to agree there is. Your posts about other irrelevant stuff really does not contribute to that discussion at all.

[Bluebook]

And just to put the "they were not spotted"-discussion to rest once and for all. (Not that it is in any way relevant to the topic, but anyway)

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
A different question:

What would have been the invasion results if you had placed three surface TFs in the PH hex continaing, in total, 6-8 CAs, 5 CLs, and 30 DDs?

That is indeed a different question. One that has got nothing whatsoever to do with the question about the amphibious assault combat routine. Which of cource makes it completely irrelevant and pointless in this discussion. Get it?

Sorry, but I refuse to accept that your failure to play well results in a conclusoin that the code is broken.

Get it?