Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101
...I can't speak for Castor but I think the issue here is that you have a bombardment from a single LCI(G) be more devastating than ten heavy cruisers. I think we can all agree that's not realistic.
ORIGINAL: Evoken
...Here is a base game 500 lb bomb , as you can see Soft attack is 1/10th of effect. Please dont spread missinformation without actually checking. I couldnt find anything else that uses these rockets in base game , there are some land based rockets that act as artillery but effect and soft attack values are pretty consistent on those
ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
So, I think there's two things to point out.
1. AS BBfanboy has noted, a rocket is not a shell, and thinking about it as such will lead to the wrong conclusions.
2. Is heavy saturation bombardment LCI craft causing large causalities (and critically for AE, massive disruption to units) ahistorical? It's not.
I mean, this is effectively what the LCI conversions were designed to do. Overwhelm the defenders with firepower and allow the landing infantry an easy time ashore.
Worth considering other factors in AE. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but atoll terrain functions like clear terrain. Not good for protection against bombardments of any kind...
I don't have an issue with #1. But if it is true that on an aggregate scale an LCI(G) is more effective than a dozen heavy cruisers in a bombardment then yes, I would definitely say that is ahistorical.
ORIGINAL: Evoken
Anti Soft value is a universal value , its pretty clear that these rocket boats are extremely op given that you wouldnt achieve these results even with extreme number of capital ships in a bombardementORIGINAL: mind_messing
So, I think there's two things to point out.
1. AS BBfanboy has noted, a rocket is not a shell, and thinking about it as such will lead to the wrong conclusions.
2. Is heavy saturation bombardment LCI craft causing large causalities (and critically for AE, massive disruption to units) ahistorical? It's not.
I mean, this is effectively what the LCI conversions were designed to do. Overwhelm the defenders with firepower and allow the landing infantry an easy time ashore.
Worth considering other factors in AE. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but atoll terrain functions like clear terrain. Not good for protection against bombardments of any kind...
ORIGINAL: Evoken
Oh one thing i didnt take into account is that they have only 1 round per device so they are not as effective as 13 CA's , sorry. They are probably equal to 1 CA each on firepower
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
So, I think there's two things to point out.
1. AS BBfanboy has noted, a rocket is not a shell, and thinking about it as such will lead to the wrong conclusions.
2. Is heavy saturation bombardment LCI craft causing large causalities (and critically for AE, massive disruption to units) ahistorical? It's not.
I mean, this is effectively what the LCI conversions were designed to do. Overwhelm the defenders with firepower and allow the landing infantry an easy time ashore.
Worth considering other factors in AE. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but atoll terrain functions like clear terrain. Not good for protection against bombardments of any kind...
I don't have an issue with #1. But if it is true that on an aggregate scale an LCI(G) is more effective than a dozen heavy cruisers in a bombardment then yes, I would definitely say that is ahistorical.
Why, exactly?
A heavy cruiser is an ocean-going warship designed with a specific purpose in mind - to sink other ships. It's capability at coastal bombardment is secondary to that (and you could probably argue that it's tertiary, with CV escort duties bumped up to the number two spot).
The LCI conversion riff-raff, on the other hand, were developed with the specific role of invasion support in mind. As a result, there are a number of factors, which when combined could lead you to expect their effectiveness to be greater than a given number of heavy cruisers.
Some examples to illustrate:
- barrel wear on 8inch guns
- overheating and warping the gun barrels
- sufficient number of shells for sustained bombardment
- the "shock" factor
To go in to greater detail on the last point (which IMO is key to actually understanding what the game is trying to represent), the thing that rocket artillery does well is cause serious, widespread damage across a large area in a very, very short space of time.
Essentially, it's a question of what is more damaging to troops on the ground: a cruiser blazing away at a hillside till the magazines are empty, or the entire hillside exploding effectively instantaneously?
I'd refer you to the evaluation of the Soviet rocket artillery units in WW2, as we're roughly in the same territory in that regard.
ORIGINAL: Evoken
Anti Soft value is a universal value , its pretty clear that these rocket boats are extremely op given that you wouldnt achieve these results even with extreme number of capital ships in a bombardementORIGINAL: mind_messing
So, I think there's two things to point out.
1. AS BBfanboy has noted, a rocket is not a shell, and thinking about it as such will lead to the wrong conclusions.
2. Is heavy saturation bombardment LCI craft causing large causalities (and critically for AE, massive disruption to units) ahistorical? It's not.
I mean, this is effectively what the LCI conversions were designed to do. Overwhelm the defenders with firepower and allow the landing infantry an easy time ashore.
Worth considering other factors in AE. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but atoll terrain functions like clear terrain. Not good for protection against bombardments of any kind...
Worth keeping in mind that while the value is universal, the application of that value will differ depending on the module (ie. land combat, naval combat, etc) and you will see different values depending on the module used.
As for the effectiveness question, I'd refer you to my comments above.
Naval artillery is, by design, precision weaponry. The unguided rockets of the period are area suppression.
This is all before we get into the nuances of the ballistic differences (where the high trajectory rockets will be at an advantage in dealing certain geographic or defensive features.
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
...Some things to note from the combat report:
- Limited CD gunfire from IJ troops (which in my experience tends to focus Allied fire on the CD unit and shield the combat units to some extent).
- Large number of disablements and relatively little actual squads destroyed, which would be what you'd expect from a large area suppression attack from rockets....
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
ORIGINAL: Evoken
M_M these boats seen widespread use irl , despite that most naval invasions were bloody and lengthy . These rockets have very limited range , they were used for beachhead supression for troops to land easier , not wipe out entire island garrisons in 1 day. Its pretty clear that they violate the effect/anti-soft value rules that are used everywhereelse and there is nothing else uses this device type. Unless you come with actual usefull data please stay away i am so done with you
Worth re-reading post #1437 again.
The entire garrison was not wiped out by the pre-invasion bombardment from the LCI craft on day 1.
They were heavily disrupted by the bombardment, to the point that they had zero effective assault value, but they were not wiped out until the Allied auto-shock attack took the base afterwards.
IJ defenders were alive and kicking when the auto-shock attack went in, they just weren't in a position to offer effective resistance (which is probably to be expected after the entire atoll has just been carpeted by rockets).
In other words, WAD.
As for the violation of the effect/anti-soft value rules, I'd be interested to know:
1. What the rules actually are
2. How these rocket devices violate above rules.
AFAIK, the formula behind the game values was never disclosed, so keen to see what insider info you have on this.
ORIGINAL: Evoken
...I would guess these rockets are working as a naval gun when put on ships....
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
...Without level 6 forts, the garrison would have been completely destroyed...
ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101
Can we please stop with the insults? Surely we can have an interesting discussion or even an argument without resorting to playground behavior? [:-]
M-M, I believe the primary point of contention that is being leveled here is not that these weapons are not effective, it's that they should not be more effective than other bombardment tools also present in the game to a point that is clearly ahistorical. I think we all know enough about the Pacific War to see that an LCI(G) should not be more effective than a dozen heavy cruisers in bombardment, but if you think differently could you please explain why the USN went to such lengths to bring in large numbers of heavy warships for sustained bombardments very late into the war if they could have simply used a score of these craft in a single run?
I have studied artillery effects quite extensively in my professional life. The latest project I did directly tied to the subject was a few years back when I looked at the 2014 Zelenopillya attack. The main weakness of standard rocket artillery is the lack of penetrating capacity. Especially when we are talking about WW2 rockets, they are great against units on the surface with little cover but are extremely inaccurate and are very weak against units in bunkers. I assure you they are not nearly as powerful against dug in forces, especially if concrete emplacements are available, as large caliber howitzer or gun shells.
ORIGINAL: WriterNotViking
This discussion is going nowhere, and I've been reading these forums long enough to recognize that some very old conflicts are being reiterated here. Discussions of game mechanics and whether or not something is working as designed are secondary to the question of whether this is a) historically accurate and, independently thereof, b) whether the ability to render fortified atoll garrisons entirely combat ineffective with a single turn's actions by LCI gunboats is balanced, purely in terms of gameplay. WITP:AE is a game, not a simulation, which means question b) can be debated without ever going under the hood to examine precise game mechanics. It is clearly understood by all that changes to the game will not be made, and no one is harmed if some reach the conclusion that a given mechanic or device is not balanced well. This is called a difference of opinion. We all already know the game is not perfect; we all love it anyway.
I find that this entire discussion was derailed at the start by the introduction of the straw man argument that the garrison was expected to drive the invaders into the sea (which Alfred bizarrely labeled a "very precise comment" [&:]) I think it's time everyone take a step back and remember that you're posting in someone else's AAR, and the author is fully entitled to rant or raise issues of game balance when presented with disappointing results. If you want to disagree, there are respectful ways to do that, as other posters have done in this AAR and others. Mind_messing's dripping condescension and Alfred's weird lament that someone else isn't available to be even more inappropriately harsh than he already is do not clear this bar.
This seems like an excellent opportunity to share a reminder that having knowledge beyond the average does not entitle you to be unpleasant.
ORIGINAL: Alfred
Very selective commentary here.
And frankly, of not much value.
This got derailed when it was claimed that the issue could be fixed by changing the data in the editor. A claim made by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. But having put it out there, it just encourages others to wreck the game.
No one can, nor did, dispute JWE/Symon's credentials. He would not have put up with this nonsense. Instead we have the usual suspects sprouting nonsense which is taken seriously as being valid.
Alfred
ORIGINAL: Alfred
ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101
Can we please stop with the insults? Surely we can have an interesting discussion or even an argument without resorting to playground behavior? [:-]
M-M, I believe the primary point of contention that is being leveled here is not that these weapons are not effective, it's that they should not be more effective than other bombardment tools also present in the game to a point that is clearly ahistorical. I think we all know enough about the Pacific War to see that an LCI(G) should not be more effective than a dozen heavy cruisers in bombardment, but if you think differently could you please explain why the USN went to such lengths to bring in large numbers of heavy warships for sustained bombardments very late into the war if they could have simply used a score of these craft in a single run?
I have studied artillery effects quite extensively in my professional life. The latest project I did directly tied to the subject was a few years back when I looked at the 2014 Zelenopillya attack. The main weakness of standard rocket artillery is the lack of penetrating capacity. Especially when we are talking about WW2 rockets, they are great against units on the surface with little cover but are extremely inaccurate and are very weak against units in bunkers. I assure you they are not nearly as powerful against dug in forces, especially if concrete emplacements are available, as large caliber howitzer or gun shells.
The cruisers are not being used in the same type of "bombardment". The results therefore should not be the same.
Alfred
ORIGINAL: WriterNotViking
This discussion is going nowhere, and I've been reading these forums long enough to recognize that some very old conflicts are being reiterated here. Discussions of game mechanics and whether or not something is working as designed are secondary to the question of whether this is a) historically accurate and, independently thereof, b) whether the ability to render fortified atoll garrisons entirely combat ineffective with a single turn's actions by LCI gunboats is balanced, purely in terms of gameplay. WITP:AE is a game, not a simulation, which means question b) can be debated without ever going under the hood to examine precise game mechanics. It is clearly understood by all that changes to the game will not be made, and no one is harmed if some reach the conclusion that a given mechanic or device is not balanced well. This is called a difference of opinion. We all already know the game is not perfect; we all love it anyway.
I find that this entire discussion was derailed at the start by the introduction of the straw man argument that the garrison was expected to drive the invaders into the sea (which Alfred bizarrely labeled a "very precise comment" [&:]) I think it's time everyone take a step back and remember that you're posting in someone else's AAR, and the author is fully entitled to rant or raise issues of game balance when presented with disappointing results. If you want to disagree, there are respectful ways to do that, as other posters have done in this AAR and others. Mind_messing's dripping condescension and Alfred's weird lament that someone else isn't available to be even more inappropriately harsh than he already is do not clear this bar.
This seems like an excellent opportunity to share a reminder that having knowledge beyond the average does not entitle you to be unpleasant.
ORIGINAL: Yaab
Remember this thread?
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3436371
Ideally, the turn should be re-done against level 7 (concrete) forts.
Also, think about saturation. If you have 100 Idas with 4 x 30 kg bombs each, and you arrive at once against a batalion of 50 devices, it means that ideally 400 bombs are dropped against 50 devices, which means ideally each devices can be hit 8 times, leading to battalion's disablement and destruction. But if Idas arrive in 4 waves of 25 bombers each due to rain/thunderstorms/bad leaders, you get 100 bombs against 50 devices, leading to no losses on the ground. I see it all the time in China.
ORIGINAL: Evoken
Ah classic devs were gods argument. We mere mortals cant possibly understand what our omniscient gods have written in the code , how dare us!!!!!!!. Bro game is 11 years old and it still has major bugs , you can teleport units from west coast to India in a couple days ffs. Yes we mere mortals do not know actual algorithms written in code but if you mess around with editor enough you can somewhat understand how to manipulate values to get results you want. My suggestion of nerfing the rockets might not be %100 accurate but its much more balanced than 28 rocket boats causing 6k casualties in a bombardement , when you cant achieve such a result with 20 BB's in 1 day in same conditions.
If you could tell us mere mortals how algorithm works on these LCI Alfred we could maybe come up with better ideas
