"Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Probably you are right...re SF combats I read a lot about them too I believe my composition was good. I rather suspect now that bad weather and low moonlight is better for the Allies now - even if it is said it would be better for the IJN. Seems radar and fast ships reverses this.Plus bad luck-dice rolls. I have no further ships to waste vs. inferior Allied fleets (as most know IJN gets a bunch of DDs and a meager 3 weak light cruisers as reinforcements, plus if ones choses Musashi if one wants to spend the shipyard points on her rather than on DDs or CVs).

Speed and manoeuvrability is a big factor, as is radar. If the IJN can't get sufficient DL via night naval search, then they'll really struggle in night engagements given the influence of radar.

Well Guadalcanal, Normandy, Sizily etc. were also not atolls and still these were MEGA operations to have them succeed...but most know that I hope

Worth considering what the game is trying to represent with amphibious invasions on atolls versus regular hexes: with atolls it's trying to represent cases where the geography is such that the attacking troops effectively need to land right on top of all the defending troops.

That wasn't the case in Guadalcanal, Normandy, or Sicily, where the geography allowed for more dispersed landing options away from enemy defensive concentrations (f.e the difference between the landings on Utah and Omaha).

Well in the end I am to blame for it: I thought I would have more time to react before a lot of AV gets shore. knowing the Allies in this game lost "some" APs (I mean the navy ones not civilian ones) and do not get the APA/AKA ships in masses mid 43 already.

As has always been the case, much easier to stop an amphibious invasion when it's still at sea.

But as shown these ships are not as important as many claim. Like they say hit these ships rather than enemy CVs, but if xAP can serve simmilar good from which Allies have tons there is no reason to put such an importance on the LSD/APA/AKA/AP type ships, except they have better AA guns and may be a bit faster. Ofc sinking anything with important troops on board is valid enough regardless what ships carry these troops/tanks.

The last point is an important one to realise. xAP/xAK ships are at a significant disadvantage in any combat situation because of low crew experience, generally poor quality leadership and token armament.

Yes, quantity has a quality all of it's own, but using these ships instead of the dedicated amphib type vessels has considerable risks involved.

[Alpha77]

Re, the issue about "X" ships making Blitzkireg landings I was correct as confirmed even by the dev Symon (link above). However it will not be changed so we need to live with it. Or impose a house rule.

Re, night search this seems often to occure AFTER night SF battles are fought so seems to have no impact on D/L for a battle that occures before the night search phase

Re, D/L I wonder is D/L tracked for individual ships (outside of a battle) eg, if a recon plane gets 9/10 D/L on ships in port than a TF is formed from these ships will they still have the 9/10 D/L on them. Which in turn makes them vulnerable in battle occuring right after ?

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Re, the issue about "X" ships making Blitzkireg landings I was correct as confirmed even by the dev Symon (link above). However it will not be changed so we need to live with it. Or impose a house rule.

Correct.

Thinking about it from a whole-game perspective, it's a challenge to properly represent the early IJ amphibious operations where xAP/xAK type ships featured heavily without later allowing the Allied significantly enhanced capabilities.

As said previously, using these ships in amphibious operations is not always desirable.



For your other questions, see s.10 of the manual, with particular reference to MDL levels.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Re, the issue about "X" ships making Blitzkireg landings I was correct as confirmed even by the dev Symon (link above). However it will not be changed so we need to live with it. Or impose a house rule.

Re, night search this seems often to occure AFTER night SF battles are fought so seems to have no impact on D/L for a battle that occures before the night search phase

Re, D/L I wonder is D/L tracked for individual ships (outside of a battle) eg, if a recon plane gets 9/10 D/L on ships in port than a TF is formed from these ships will they still have the 9/10 D/L on them. Which in turn makes them vulnerable in battle occuring right after ?

It would be a good hr to limit amphibious landings to amphibious shipping, the problem in the game will be that one or two failed operations means no amphib landings for the next 12 months at least. xAP and xAK work the same in the game as amphib shipping, the only difference is their load/unload speed but you make up with numbers. That's the old story about the game and reality, in the game these ships work perfectly fine and in real life, these ships wouldn't work at all. As you've said, never going to be changed.

Found it a good idea to have the xAK(t) that came with AE, while those ships aren't really comparable to real amphib shipping anyways you at least have to spend some time in the yard to convert them.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

@fcooke: Do you know the concept of syncronisity as coined by CG Jung? If not, read about it. I experience that a lot also with numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

Forts are 5.

@BBfanboy: True fire control might be an issue, but IIRC also the Dutch CD units do not have SS radar and they certainly can deal a lot of damage to several ships even if weaker than the CD units I have here. Eg. I remember having a bigger fleet blundering due to error in the Soerabaja hex more than half of the fleet was wiped out by guns and mines.

Edit, to be fair, previous bombardments disrupted the Shortland CDs quite a lot. However they still were combat effective.

What I was getting at is that the Japanese artillery accuracy is lower in the database because they lacked those capabilities.
As for the Dutch, I think Soerabaja has a true naval fortress with optical rangefinders dispersed for triangulation but coordinated through a control center for accurate fire. That would be reflected in their CD gun accuracy.
And of course, ships slowed by mine hits are much easier targets.

CD gunfire has always been a bit wonky in the game, going all back to WITP and I doubt anything has been changed in AE. Even after a decade, players are still afraid of big style CD like Singapore, Corregidor or the big ones on Japan and it's like [X(] when a Japanese player starts naval bombardments with BBs in early Dec 41 at Singapore. The real threat there would be the mines, not the big guns. Questionable if any fleet would have ever attempted something like this in real life.

Have seen too many invasions in hexes with big CD units that have not been reduced earlier and literally nothing happens. On the other hand you get each and every minesweeper blown out of the water by even more or less destroyed CD units. These same units do nothing against static, unloading freighters and transports though. That's why I call it wonky.

In WITP I once tested landing at Singapore, two out of three times the CD gunfire wrecked havoc on lightly escorted amphib convoys. The third time they did literally nothing at all. Then I was putting six BBs and halve a dozen cruisers into the amphib TF and I didn't lose a single freighter landing several divs right into Singapore using the amphib bonus. Also non of the BBs or cruisers was sunk by Singapore's CD but a couple of them needed 1-3 months of yard time.

[Yaab]

I think that in RL no commander would object to using xAK for unloading supplies in an amphibious TF. You just unload at a slower rate from a ship that has a weaker complement of surface/AA guns compared to AK ships. On the other hand, unloading troops from xAPs could raise some eyebrows. Actually, it would be nice to have a PP cost for doing this like 10 PPs for an xAP loaded with troops for amphibious assault or something.

Other thing is adding empty xAK/xAP to such TFs just to draw CD fire to those ships. I dont think in RL, a land-based fire director would fire on ships that are visibly not unloading anything, treating them as a bait. The whole thing would require some testing to check if the code targets biggest ships in a TF or ships that actively unload troops/supplies during assault.

[HansBolter]

Limiting amphib operations to dedicated military shipping is about as dumb as limiting all fuel transport to tankers.

Time and time again I hear these so called rational arguments for limiting fuel shipping to tankers because no nation could have built enough fuel barrels to make it possible. They could and did. A nation capable of manufacturing hundreds of ships, thousands of airplanes, thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of trucks is just as capable of manufacturing millions of fuel barrels. They did. Try googling WWII Fuel Barrels and see how many pictures you can find of stacks of thousands upon thousands of them.

Non-military ships were used in amphib operations. Why should the game seek to not model history? No side, even the Americans, will ever have enough military transports to be able to accommodate the the second and third waves bringing support units. The game provides sufficient incentives to players to prioritize the use of military transports for first wave landings. There will always be a need to use non-military transports for follow up waves.

[BBfanboy]

That makes sense Hans. There is a scene in "Mr. Roberts" when, after being strafed by a Japanese fighter a crew member has to go into the hold to find a fuel drum that was holed and leaking gasoline. The entire hold was filled with barrels to within a couple of feet of the hold's top. That small ship was also a naval vessel, not an xAKL.

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Limiting amphib operations to dedicated military shipping is about as dumb as limiting all fuel transport to tankers.

Time and time again I hear these so called rational arguments for limiting fuel shipping to tankers because no nation could have built enough fuel barrels to make it possible. They could and did. A nation capable of manufacturing hundreds of ships, thousands of airplanes, thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of trucks is just as capable of manufacturing millions of fuel barrels. They did. Try googling WWII Fuel Barrels and see how many pictures you can find of stacks of thousands upon thousands of them.

Non-military ships were used in amphib operations. Why should the game seek to not model history? No side, even the Americans, will ever have enough military transports to be able to accommodate the the second and third waves bringing support units. The game provides sufficient incentives to players to prioritize the use of military transports for first wave landings. There will always be a need to use non-military transports for follow up waves.

Very good post!

[witpqs]

I favor the Babes scenario with reduced cargo, et al capacities. As mentioned in another thread, I self limit by not loading fuel into cargo spaces (don't use "load fuel" except if ship on has fuel capacity like AO or TK, use "load supply" instead). In that thread I didn't mention that I also self limit by not using xAK/xAP/etc in any amphib TF, not just for invasions. That limits the movement of stuff too.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Limiting amphib operations to dedicated military shipping is about as dumb as limiting all fuel transport to tankers.

Time and time again I hear these so called rational arguments for limiting fuel shipping to tankers because no nation could have built enough fuel barrels to make it possible. They could and did. A nation capable of manufacturing hundreds of ships, thousands of airplanes, thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of trucks is just as capable of manufacturing millions of fuel barrels. They did. Try googling WWII Fuel Barrels and see how many pictures you can find of stacks of thousands upon thousands of them.

Non-military ships were used in amphib operations. Why should the game seek to not model history? No side, even the Americans, will ever have enough military transports to be able to accommodate the the second and third waves bringing support units. The game provides sufficient incentives to players to prioritize the use of military transports for first wave landings. There will always be a need to use non-military transports for follow up waves.

Very good post!

I self limit that way not out of a quest for realism but rather as a further counter on the games optimistic performance in that area.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Limiting amphib operations to dedicated military shipping is about as dumb as limiting all fuel transport to tankers.

Time and time again I hear these so called rational arguments for limiting fuel shipping to tankers because no nation could have built enough fuel barrels to make it possible. They could and did. A nation capable of manufacturing hundreds of ships, thousands of airplanes, thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of trucks is just as capable of manufacturing millions of fuel barrels. They did. Try googling WWII Fuel Barrels and see how many pictures you can find of stacks of thousands upon thousands of them.

Non-military ships were used in amphib operations. Why should the game seek to not model history? No side, even the Americans, will ever have enough military transports to be able to accommodate the the second and third waves bringing support units. The game provides sufficient incentives to players to prioritize the use of military transports for first wave landings. There will always be a need to use non-military transports for follow up waves.

Liquid transport is a completely different kettle of fish entirely.

See comment #13 from Symon - https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3742111

[HansBolter]

Read that thread long ago and simply have never agreed with Symon.

Players placing self limits to reduce the incredibly non-historical pace of the game is a completely different ball of wax than imposing House Rules that potential opponents are forced to agree to in order to get a competitive game.

I don't play competition games so its no skin off my ass either way, just standing up for what I believe is right.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Read that thread long ago and simply have never agreed with Symon.

Players placing self limits to reduce the incredibly non-historical pace of the game is a completely different ball of wax than imposing House Rules that potential opponents are forced to agree to in order to get a competitive game.

I don't play competition games so its no skin off my ass either way, just standing up for what I believe is right.

I was referring to the section on what supply represents in game, versus what fuel represents.

You could no doubt refuel a battleship from 200 gallon drums, but it would take a lot of people a very long time.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Read that thread long ago and simply have never agreed with Symon.

Players placing self limits to reduce the incredibly non-historical pace of the game is a completely different ball of wax than imposing House Rules that potential opponents are forced to agree to in order to get a competitive game.

I don't play competition games so its no skin off my ass either way, just standing up for what I believe is right.

I was referring to the section on what supply represents in game, versus what fuel represents.

You could no doubt refuel a battleship from 200 gallon drums, but it would take a lot of people a very long time.

Sorry, thought you were referring to his advocacy for limiting fuel transport to tankers.

Yes, it would take a considerable time. Just like it would to unload thousands upon thousands of barrels at a minimal port facility.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Read that thread long ago and simply have never agreed with Symon.

Players placing self limits to reduce the incredibly non-historical pace of the game is a completely different ball of wax than imposing House Rules that potential opponents are forced to agree to in order to get a competitive game.

I don't play competition games so its no skin off my ass either way, just standing up for what I believe is right.

I was referring to the section on what supply represents in game, versus what fuel represents.

You could no doubt refuel a battleship from 200 gallon drums, but it would take a lot of people a very long time.

Sorry, thought you were referring to his advocacy for limiting fuel transport to tankers.

Yes, it would take a considerable time. Just like it would to unload thousands upon thousands of barrels at a minimal port facility.

I take his point. The game is quite clear about what fuel does - it's for ships and industry.

Everything else is abstracted in supplies, including fuel for tanks, trucks and aircraft. Some design decisions need to be balanced against other considerations.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Limiting amphib operations to dedicated military shipping is about as dumb as limiting all fuel transport to tankers.

Time and time again I hear these so called rational arguments for limiting fuel shipping to tankers because no nation could have built enough fuel barrels to make it possible. They could and did. A nation capable of manufacturing hundreds of ships, thousands of airplanes, thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of trucks is just as capable of manufacturing millions of fuel barrels. They did. Try googling WWII Fuel Barrels and see how many pictures you can find of stacks of thousands upon thousands of them.

Non-military ships were used in amphib operations. Why should the game seek to not model history? No side, even the Americans, will ever have enough military transports to be able to accommodate the the second and third waves bringing support units. The game provides sufficient incentives to players to prioritize the use of military transports for first wave landings. There will always be a need to use non-military transports for follow up waves.

Sorry Hans, but then you don't get the difference between fuel, oil and supply in the game and I think you actually do though. Fuel is used to fuel BB Yamato and not a Zero. The "fuel" for a Zero is coming from a barrel (supply in the game), the fuel for Yamato is surely not coming from a barrel and no nation ever fueled real ships from barrels. You can fuel a PT boat from barrels but you can't fuel a tanker, freighter, transport, cruiser or battleships from barrels, no matter how much your nation has produced of this or that.

I'm not advocating for this hr in the game because I think it just won't work but it's the same with the xAP/xAK, they weren't used for amphib operations because they DIDN'T work for that kind of operation. And I'm not thinking about D-day +5, when people are talking about amphib operations they always think about the first wave in the game.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Read that thread long ago and simply have never agreed with Symon.

Players placing self limits to reduce the incredibly non-historical pace of the game is a completely different ball of wax than imposing House Rules that potential opponents are forced to agree to in order to get a competitive game.

I don't play competition games so its no skin off my ass either way, just standing up for what I believe is right.

So if you don't agree with Symon you say you believe it's right to refuel an Iowa class BB from barrels?


That's not an Iowa and I took the first pic on the net but why didn't they just lob a couple of dozen barrels from xAKs over to the BB? You really think it would just take a considerable time to refuel a BB from barrels?[&:]

[rustysi]

You can fuel a PT boat from barrels

Technically they use supply not fuel.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Limiting amphib operations to dedicated military shipping is about as dumb as limiting all fuel transport to tankers.

Time and time again I hear these so called rational arguments for limiting fuel shipping to tankers because no nation could have built enough fuel barrels to make it possible. They could and did. A nation capable of manufacturing hundreds of ships, thousands of airplanes, thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of trucks is just as capable of manufacturing millions of fuel barrels. They did. Try googling WWII Fuel Barrels and see how many pictures you can find of stacks of thousands upon thousands of them.

Non-military ships were used in amphib operations. Why should the game seek to not model history? No side, even the Americans, will ever have enough military transports to be able to accommodate the the second and third waves bringing support units. The game provides sufficient incentives to players to prioritize the use of military transports for first wave landings. There will always be a need to use non-military transports for follow up waves.

Liquid transport is a completely different kettle of fish entirely.

See comment #13 from Symon - https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3742111

I too read that thread back in the day, and I do agree with Symon.