Concerning Naval Bombardments

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Only of one of us would be a retard. If one player achives control he can send TF. It is getting good results (destroying lots of AC on ground) that makes the defender stupid. He should know before the bombardment occurs that conditions exist for the enemy to pull one off. He knows because he can't provide defense to the base. The enemy is entitled to bombard you if he
1. Controls the air
2. has driven all your surface assets away
3. Has the supply and fuel and ships in place.
He can't do this in secret. You know when a base is exposed and it is time to clear out when that condition exists. Not sit there and take the pounding.

Kinugasa was hit by carrier planes. CV can defend a base by locating themselves to where their limited range covers the hex the enemy TF will be located at either the day prior or the morning after. In this case (Kinugasa) It was the morning after. Henderson was bombarded the night before by two IJN CA.
IJN CV do even better because their longer range allows them to sit further back.
After the improved USN torpdeo plane arrives in late 42 the USN CV do just as well.

If we are degenerating into name calling again .. I must be retard as well ... in 800+ PBEM campaign game turns of WITP ... and about the same number 800+ of UV PBEM campaign game turns .. I don't think I've ever seen a bombardment mission stopped by air ... especially at 6 hexes or less ... so I must be retard numero uno !


I still think system "protects" bombardment run ( especially at full speed ) task forces .. from strike ... I could be wrong ... I've only been playing the system since 2001 ...

[mogami]

Hi, In 1600 turns you have never launched a naval strike at enemy TF headed towards one of your bases? You've never said
"I've had all that I can stands I can't stands no more" and moved a CV TF to intercept the rascals? Never placed single engine bombers at Gili to stop TF heading to Port Moresby? Or Buna or any outlying base too small to be worth the risk (because of the larger neighbor)
You must never play Japan or if you are playing Japan not be realizing that those strikes at 11 hexes are hitting bombardment TF sent on suicide missions.
Must be something. I'll edit this post everytime I catch enemy TF or one of mine gets caught.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
... I don't think I've ever seen a bombardment mission stopped by air ... especially at 6 hexes or less ...

Playing only as Japan, I don't know if I have ever 'stopped' a bombardment mission, but I have wrecked some combat surface fleets (I don’t know they were on bombardment or not), and caused them to withdraw.

[pfnognoff]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Kind of sucks that the game gets blamed because people can't count past 6. You have to patrol the air out beyond 6 Hexes. The Japanese should never have a problem and the USN normal range is 9 for PBY.
How hard is it to understand you don't move into bases where you can't see farther then 6 hexes and launch strikes. Any bombardment TF is going to end movement 6 hexes out unless it has slow BB and then it has to end movement closer then that and this movement ends before the first airphase so the events will be two airphases before that night phase where TF moves in. (and then back out to same hex if undamaged)

When you count to six, do you take into account that if you set TF speed to full it can actually travel 12 hexes? What can be used against them apart from a CV TF?

Just curious...

[tabpub]

ORIGINAL: pfnognoff

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Kind of sucks that the game gets blamed because people can't count past 6. You have to patrol the air out beyond 6 Hexes. The Japanese should never have a problem and the USN normal range is 9 for PBY.
How hard is it to understand you don't move into bases where you can't see farther then 6 hexes and launch strikes. Any bombardment TF is going to end movement 6 hexes out unless it has slow BB and then it has to end movement closer then that and this movement ends before the first airphase so the events will be two airphases before that night phase where TF moves in. (and then back out to same hex if undamaged)

When you count to six, do you take into account that if you set TF speed to full it can actually travel 12 hexes? What can be used against them apart from a CV TF?

Just curious...

He is basing it on the desire of the naval units to sail in, do the shooting and be out of the neighborhood by dawn or so. If they do the full 12 to get to the target, that makes them real short range targets come morning....

[LargeSlowTarget]

Wow, where is the flame war when you need it - for the 'How do you get the starts filled in' thread [;)].

Couple of unrefined comments (big boss is watching from time to time - does he has nothing to do? [:@])

• I'm sure most players understand the need to protect bases from bombardments and how to achieve this - but not always are the necessary means at hand (because they got sunk or shot-up the day before). Minefields for example are next to useless against bombardments, keeping CVs in Betty or even Zero range while waiting for a bombardment TF might just not be an option, and some people refrain from abusing game mechanics like the sacrificial AK.
• What would help a lot to solve the issues of perceived thermonuclear night bombardments and impossible odds for invasions are two different bombardment missions - the nightly shoot'n'scoot to close an airfield and slow, deliberate bombardment during daylight against LCU, CD guns and fortification levels for invasion preparation. And allow capital ships in transport TFs (the TF selection needs some work anyway - if I select to form a tanker TF, why is the list full of AP and AKs? Either install proper filters or stop pretending that there is an option to form such TFs).
• I think there are some points in this thread that are valid regardless of someone's abilities to stop bombardments or not or whether they are too powerful or not.
  

  ORIGINAL: Apollo11
  port size 1-3 : ammo for all guns up to 5"
  port size 4-6 : ammo for all guns up to 8"
  port size 7-9 : ammo for all guns

  ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
  We have too many house rules as is to not adopt something like this and have it coded and made official. Heck, it was done for mines, torpedoes etc, why not for ammo? I'd go a little further. I'd make it a requirement that a naval base unit be present (give them something to do!) I'd limit certain ship sizes to certain size ports. IRL, who short of a fool would dock the Saratoga at Canton Is? Talk about sub bait!! Add operation point limits to ports and we are done. Too easy and it would fix a myriad of problems.

  
  The logistic chain and the base sizes are too simplified and this is the root of many distortions. And it's not even consistent, as Ron has pointed out. I'm not asking to break down supplies into hundreds of items - but just four basic categories would bring the game much closer to history: supplies, avgas, fuel, ammo (bombs, shells, torps, mines). Rules exist for torps and mines - why not for large shells (and bombs)? They were not more readily available than the other stuff. Give those AEs a real purpose. This would also put an end to the nonsense that a simple resource location can provide everything from food to 18" shells.
  Regarding port size I've already posted many times - operation points limits and stacking limits based on port size would help a lot - 100 ships should not unload in the same time as 10 ships do - they should not even fit into a small port all at once.
  
  Yes, if some malcontents like me want all this restricitions we can use house rules - but keeping track of all those house rules almost requires a staff. Uh, and btw, I love this game despite it's shortcomings. But I would love it even more without them.

[Tom Hunter]

jwilkerson

two points one is that just because you can send in the bombardment mission does not mean you should, or that it will be worth the price. A lot of really bad moves are possible in this game, many of them seem to get made, but that does not mean the game should be re-designed to protect people from thier own stupidity.

Today I watched a Japanese Cruiser force bombard Mersing during the night phase:

Naval bombardment of Mersing, at 23, 49

Japanese ships
DD Hagikaze
DD Arashi
DD Nowaki
DD Maikaze
CA Kumano
CA Suzuya
CA Mikuma
CA Mogami


I was, to your point, unable to stop this attack with air. The reason there is no casualty list is because, well, there were no casualties. That is because I saw this coming and I put all my airplanes in Singapore because it has mine fields and 15" coastal defense guns.

In the morning those planes took off and a swarm of Wildabeasts put torpedos into Suzaya and Mikuma. To you point, this still does not stop the bombardment, if the Japanese want they can stay and do it again.

But the cost is pretty damn high. In other games I have failed to stop the bombardment but sunk the BBs with beauforts the same day. In one instance a Japanese opponent started bombarding Akyab, the first time I was not ready and he blew up a good number of airplanes, the second time I had moved the airplanes and he blew up some runway, the third visit 3 R class BBs and a mixed force of DDs and cruisers cleaned his clock.

For me these results are typical, and I have seen them against both Allied and Japanese players over several games. We have already seen that the combat results shown after the bombardment are greatly inflated, and from where I sit the people who are being bombarded into defeat don't seem to be playing well. Ron's statement that BBs are more strategically important than CVs seems to be predicated on haveing an opponent with little or no understanding of the game.

If someone wants to leave his naked rear hanging out the window I want a game that allows me to spank it hard. Do we really want a game that protects our opponents from the negative effects of leaving large concentrations of troops and air power in exposed positions without defense or support?

I don't think a game where its impossible to hurt the enemy is actually going to be better.

[LargeSlowTarget]

"that does not mean the game should be re-designed to protect people from thier own stupidity"

This is one thing - and I agree that a player who is careless deserves to be punished. But the other thing Ron, Apollo11 and I are bitching about most is to re-design the game so it stays within the realm of physical restrictions without the need of adopting house rules - like not being able to stack undeveloped locations without proper port/service/storage facilities with unlimited amounts of ships, fuel and ammo. Bombardment misssions (and any other mission) can be staged too easily due to this simplified supply and base size system.

[medicff]

ORIGINAL: Mogami


Hi, I believe the rules state no TF can ever move more then 6 hexes in a phase (6.1.7). So you only need bombers with a range of 7 to protect a base. The Japanese with a Betty/Nell can ward off TF without CAP 15 hexes away (torpedo range) The ALlies with a B-17 have a normal range of 10
With escorts the Betty/Nell can go 11 hexes (range of A6M2) the normal range for A6M2 is 8 long enough that even TF with CAP can be attacked.
The Allies have fighters with a range of 7 even early in war. and they get longer ranged fighters later.
The best defense for any base is control of the air. If you have it you are immune to attack as long as you provide groups to maintain patrol and the weather does not desert you for multiple turns. That is where the backup plan of having a TF on patrol comes in. If you control the air this TF should not have to fight. Find bases within the range for reaction and base them there. This means the protecting TF can actually be farther back (away from enemy air)

I am sorry but the 500 lb bomb of the B-17 is pretty much useless vs the heavy armor of the Jap CA and BB. Torpedoes are the only way to sink them or get the 1000lbers to penetrate.[;)]

[mogami]

Hi, Again no TF can ever move more then 6 hexes in a single phase no matter what it's speed. They can't move 12 hexes. Bombing the TF will turn it around whether you hit anyships or not. In PBEM the player can of course turn it back around on his turn but it will once again be available as an air target.
The air attacks come after the last movement phase. Turns begin with the night movement phase so you'll always suffer the bombardment if it comesafter you have had an orders phase. (you'll see the TF coming give orders and then be bombarded so you should always be able to get transport ships and airgroups out of the base. If your patrol planses are not seeing the TF coming pickett the route with submarines. 3xPT and mines should be normal for every base where it is even a remote chance enemy TF will come.

[Tom Hunter]

LST

First I want to borrow your crew for my sailboat when I finally finish it.

On this subject I don't disagree with you completely, it probabley is too easy to reload. But the opening post was not complaining about reloading, it was complaining about combat results.

Aside from the unfortunate fact that the game allows ships to bombard airbases that are 40 miles inland I don't have problems with the bombardment attacks, I don't think they are that important to the game as a whole because if they are destroying a players defense then that player, by definition, has not built a strong integrated defense. If they score occasial big damage that is fine, it certainly happened. And the analysis on page 2 of this thread shows that the reported "big damage" is not that big after all.

I do think the game could be improved with a look at the logistics system. I also have strong suspicions that there are mechanical problems with the air to air and ship to ship combat systems, shore bombardment is one of the things that seems to work really well in the games I play giving a very wide range of results and coming at considerable risk to the player doing the bombarding.

[Ron Saueracker]

I say again, when the majority of players use their BBs on seemingly ceaseless bombardment missions (hey, didn't Xargun, a late beta tester no less, once suggest that the Allied player use Force Z to Bombard Palau and even Truk?) and achieve whacky results like wiping out level 9 airfields for a few days and all the aircraft through maybe 30 minutes of unspotted fire from BBs at night, there has to be a distortion of the truth in play .

Let's take Darwin for example. Here lie many distortions. Historically, this base was not deemed capable of performing as a main base of operations for an invasion of the DEI because of issues with supply, proximity to innumerable enemy air and naval bases...all things which made it less than suitable. Yet in WITP, all this changes as supply pours in along a fantasy infrastructure. The base therefore becomes quite massive and many players base bizarre numbers of aircraft there and attempt to bomb the DEI into sand...again, another distortion.

In the AAR Mogami and I had going (and soon will continue the gods of war permitting!!), by spring 1942 Darwin was substantial and sported a Hudson or Beaufort squadron, a fighter squadron, and rotated a BG of B-17s or B-24s. Timor had three bases (two of which were capable as 2E bomber bases). This modest concentration of LBA was enough for Mogami to opt for the shoot and scoot night bombardment mission over using KB which was in the area. Fair enough in the context of the game as there was alot more Allied LBA in the area than historically and Kendari, Makassar and Ambonia were generally untenable as bases as the BG of B-17s or B-24s would rotate bombing these targets.

So, the bombardment group, consisting of 2nd generation BBs like Ise and Hyuga, did the deed (not Kongos), managing to skoot in and out at a whopping 24 kts and evading the LBA despite being spotted (lots of PBYs and Dorniers on search, plus a squadron of B-17Ds). The LBA did not even attack the sighted BB group, despite being well within range. Darwin was plastered and the B24s there were all damaged and the airfield unservicable for a week. The BBs were strategically more effective than KB in this instance and perhaps Mogami thought it best not to risk a CV strike when the far safer and more effective bombardment was available and so easily repeatable given the logistics model.

That is the distortion I'm talking about....players opting for bombardments over air attacks because of the relative safety of the bombarding forces from Allied LBA and the effectiveness of the bombardments (especially when they can be repeated almost every 2nd night). It literally takes days to restock a BBs ammo IRL but in WITP just wiggle ones nose and voila.

[EUBanana]

I dunno. In my experience Beauforts are merciless to BBs that they get in range of.

I've sunk 5 of Spriors Jap BBs by mid 42, with either Swordfish or Beauforts, and all, as far as I can tell, because they were lingering too near bases they wanted to bombard.

BB Kirishima was sunk by Beauforts while attempting to bombard Madras only a couple of days ago in my AAR.

I've not done much better, I tend to be quite aggressive with heavy ships, and as a result almost all of them have been murderised. That said I think the Japs are much better at defending against this sort of thing than the Allies are, Allied LBA is extremely poor at battleship sinking compared to the Jap version. Beauforts or Betties? no contest.

Even if we say that battleships usually get away, they are expensive, rare, hard to repair and slow to deploy, assets, worth a lot of VPs if they end up in the bag, and so committing them to risky bombardment missions carries a high price when they eventually do get caught out, it seems to me.

When it comes to base reduction I'll take 50 Fortresses or even 50 Sallies over BB New Mexico any day. [;)]

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

jwilkerson

two points one is that just because you can send in the bombardment mission does not mean you should, or that it will be worth the price. A lot of really bad moves are possible in this game, many of them seem to get made, but that does not mean the game should be re-designed to protect people from thier own stupidity.

Today I watched a Japanese Cruiser force bombard Mersing during the night phase:

Naval bombardment of Mersing, at 23, 49

Japanese ships
DD Hagikaze
DD Arashi
DD Nowaki
DD Maikaze
CA Kumano
CA Suzuya
CA Mikuma
CA Mogami


I was, to your point, unable to stop this attack with air. The reason there is no casualty list is because, well, there were no casualties. That is because I saw this coming and I put all my airplanes in Singapore because it has mine fields and 15" coastal defense guns.

In the morning those planes took off and a swarm of Wildabeasts put torpedos into Suzaya and Mikuma. To you point, this still does not stop the bombardment, if the Japanese want they can stay and do it again.

But the cost is pretty damn high. In other games I have failed to stop the bombardment but sunk the BBs with beauforts the same day. In one instance a Japanese opponent started bombarding Akyab, the first time I was not ready and he blew up a good number of airplanes, the second time I had moved the airplanes and he blew up some runway, the third visit 3 R class BBs and a mixed force of DDs and cruisers cleaned his clock.

For me these results are typical, and I have seen them against both Allied and Japanese players over several games. We have already seen that the combat results shown after the bombardment are greatly inflated, and from where I sit the people who are being bombarded into defeat don't seem to be playing well. Ron's statement that BBs are more strategically important than CVs seems to be predicated on haveing an opponent with little or no understanding of the game.

If someone wants to leave his naked rear hanging out the window I want a game that allows me to spank it hard. Do we really want a game that protects our opponents from the negative effects of leaving large concentrations of troops and air power in exposed positions without defense or support?

I don't think a game where its impossible to hurt the enemy is actually going to be better.

I'm inclined to agree with this. BB bombardments do work, but the battleships are so rare and expensive, and its fairly easily countered. Is it worth getting a BB fleet mauled and giving the opponent 300 VPs in the bag, say, just to ding up a runway for a few days?
Usually the answer is no, I would hazard.

[Ron Saueracker]

I still think simply getting the logistics model anywhere near believable would solve most of these distortions. If warships required realistics base sizes and refuel/rearm/restock periods the conveyor belt bombardments would stop bringing the game more inline with what was historically doable.

Anyway, I grow weary of this contest.[8D]

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter
First I want to borrow your crew for my sailboat when I finally finish it.

I would trade all four of them for your Rita - they don't built them like that anymore... [:(]

On the subject - the opening posts tend to get hijacked for related and unrelated issues - I plead guilty. Yes, the combat results for individual shoot'n'scoot bombardments are variable and within reasonable limits - what is hurting is that they can be repeated so often with those unlimited supply of shells. Bombardments may not be of major importance for the game overall, but they might be decisive for a campaign.

Anyway, apparently the old strategy of whining long enough in order to get what you want doesn't work here [;)]. I'm just wondering why it does work when my 11-month-old son is using it on me? Whoever designed my neural system must have been a fanboy...

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I say again, when the majority of players use their BBs on seemingly ceaseless bombardment missions (hey, didn't Xargun, a late beta tester no less, once suggest that the Allied player use Force Z to Bombard Palau and even Truk?) and achieve whacky results like wiping out level 9 airfields for a few days and all the aircraft through maybe 30 minutes of unspotted fire from BBs at night, there has to be a distortion of the truth in play .

Let's take Darwin for example. Here lie many distortions. Historically, this base was not deemed capable of performing as a main base of operations for an invasion of the DEI because of issues with supply, proximity to innumerable enemy air and naval bases...all things which made it less than suitable. Yet in WITP, all this changes as supply pours in along a fantasy infrastructure. The base therefore becomes quite massive and many players base bizarre numbers of aircraft there and attempt to bomb the DEI into sand...again, another distortion.

In the AAR Mogami and I had going (and soon will continue the gods of war permitting!!), by spring 1942 Darwin was substantial and sported a Hudson or Beaufort squadron, a fighter squadron, and rotated a BG of B-17s or B-24s. Timor had three bases (two of which were capable as 2E bomber bases). This modest concentration of LBA was enough for Mogami to opt for the shoot and scoot night bombardment mission over using KB which was in the area. Fair enough in the context of the game as there was alot more Allied LBA in the area than historically and Kendari, Makassar and Ambonia were generally untenable as bases as the BG of B-17s or B-24s would rotate bombing these targets.

So, the bombardment group, consisting of 2nd generation BBs like Ise and Hyuga, did the deed (not Kongos), managing to skoot in and out at a whopping 24 kts and evading the LBA despite being spotted (lots of PBYs and Dorniers on search, plus a squadron of B-17Ds). The LBA did not even attack the sighted BB group, despite being well within range. Darwin was plastered and the B24s there were all damaged and the airfield unservicable for a week. The BBs were strategically more effective than KB in this instance and perhaps Mogami thought it best not to risk a CV strike when the far safer and more effective bombardment was available and so easily repeatable given the logistics model.

That is the distortion I'm talking about....players opting for bombardments over air attacks because of the relative safety of the bombarding forces from Allied LBA and the effectiveness of the bombardments (especially when they can be repeated almost every 2nd night). It literally takes days to restock a BBs ammo IRL but in WITP just wiggle ones nose and voila.

Hi
***See even a veteran and playtester fails to realize that bombers will NOT FLY AGAINST TARGETS WITH CAP WITHOUT ESCORTS He still has not figured out KB was providing CAP for those slow BB.*** HE SAW IT COMING TOO

[Ron Saueracker]

I realize the presence of the rule Mog. I was just trying to explain to those who think it NORMAL to use BB bombardments as strategic weapons instead of air are misinformed and/or mislead by the ease at which it is accomplished in the game. You at least kept these bombardments down to a believable pace and I thank you.[&o]

Getting into how and why aircraft sortie in the game is a whole 'nother can of Spam, one which has been discussed to death.[>:] CAP is even a bigger quandry.

[Tom Hunter]

EUBanana: "I'm inclined to agree with this. BB bombardments do work, but the battleships are so rare and expensive, and its fairly easily countered. Is it worth getting a BB fleet mauled and giving the opponent 300 VPs in the bag, say, just to ding up a runway for a few days?
Usually the answer is no, I would hazard. "

Actually I think for a majority of players the answer is yes, or rather they think the answer is yes until their ships get sunk. That is why I don't have a problem with the current rules, I don't make the kind of mistake Ron just quoted at Darwin very often, and when I do I lump it because its not the games fault that I got slapped, its mine.

[bradfordkay]

" LST

First I want to borrow your crew for my sailboat when I finally finish it."


Tom, I hope that their assets won't be hanging to their knees by the time you finish your sailboat! OT, what are you building? Are you planning a big trip?