ORIGINAL: Bearcat2
Yamato
Upgrade on 1/45 YES
Upgrading Yamato in Sapporo?
Well, no, and no, and no!!! [:D]
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
ORIGINAL: Bearcat2
Yamato
Upgrade on 1/45 YES
Upgrading Yamato in Sapporo?
ORIGINAL: Lowpe
ORIGINAL: obvert
[font="Times New Roman"]Dec 30, 1944[/font]
Wakkanai continues to struggle against the daily unloading TFs that spark the auto-bombardments, which are much more damaging to the defenders than anything else.
In one of my games the Allies would set up amphibious invasion forces of 3 BB, several cruisers and lots of DD, DE and one APD to offload supply to trigger the amphibious bombardment instead of the normal bombardment routine.
Alfred pointed out in several posts this was clearly a game exploit, the developers never fixed it and by sharing those posts with my Allied counterpart he stopped using them.
Nice air strikes, and you should be able to save Yamoto I think. The counter flooding should pump out very quickly once in pierside mode and then her speed will increase substantially. That is if you can maintain air superiority.[;)]
ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
It’s surprising she lived through 7 torpedoes. Rarely does any ship live past 2. What is truly estonishing is the 86 day estimated repair time. What level shipyard are you in? I’ve seen Allied BB’s after Pearl Harbor that have take 420 days to fix. I expect this game will go well past 86 days (I think you have a shot at 1946 if you get some breaks) so there is some chance she may live to fight again.
ORIGINAL: FOW
Yes that 86 days repair time in pier-side mode will just clear the system damage, maybe a point or two of minor engine/flood.
I'm really surprised she made it to port [&o] but then they were aerial torps not sub launched?
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Anyone wanna lay dollars to doughnuts that Sapporo's ports get body slammed from on high within the next 86 days? Because I think they will. If Yamato is still there, damage will continue to accrue.



ORIGINAL: Lowpe
In one of my games the Allies would set up amphibious invasion forces of 3 BB, several cruisers and lots of DD, DE and one APD to offload supply to trigger the amphibious bombardment instead of the normal bombardment routine.
Alfred pointed out in several posts this was clearly a game exploit, the developers never fixed it and by sharing those posts with my Allied counterpart he stopped using them.
Nice air strikes, and you should be able to save Yamoto I think. The counter flooding should pump out very quickly once in pierside mode and then her speed will increase substantially. That is if you can maintain air superiority.[;)]
ORIGINAL: Lowpe
ORIGINAL: obvert
[font="Times New Roman"]Dec 30, 1944[/font]
Wakkanai continues to struggle against the daily unloading TFs that spark the auto-bombardments, which are much more damaging to the defenders than anything else.
In one of my games the Allies would set up amphibious invasion forces of 3 BB, several cruisers and lots of DD, DE and one APD to offload supply to trigger the amphibious bombardment instead of the normal bombardment routine.
Alfred pointed out in several posts this was clearly a game exploit, the developers never fixed it and by sharing those posts with my Allied counterpart he stopped using them.
Nice air strikes, and you should be able to save Yamoto I think. The counter flooding should pump out very quickly once in pierside mode and then her speed will increase substantially. That is if you can maintain air superiority.[;)]
ORIGINAL: adarbrauner
ORIGINAL: Lowpe
In one of my games the Allies would set up amphibious invasion forces of 3 BB, several cruisers and lots of DD, DE and one APD to offload supply to trigger the amphibious bombardment instead of the normal bombardment routine.
Alfred pointed out in several posts this was clearly a game exploit, the developers never fixed it and by sharing those posts with my Allied counterpart he stopped using them.
Nice air strikes, and you should be able to save Yamoto I think. The counter flooding should pump out very quickly once in pierside mode and then her speed will increase substantially. That is if you can maintain air superiority.[;)]
Honestly I see this practice as a correction of a game loop, why can't a bombardment fleet concentrate its fire on shore batteries instead of airfield, pot or others, according to preset orders? So this technic is a way to bypass such limitation;
ORIGINAL: Alfred
ORIGINAL: Lowpe
ORIGINAL: obvert
[font="Times New Roman"]Dec 30, 1944[/font]
Wakkanai continues to struggle against the daily unloading TFs that spark the auto-bombardments, which are much more damaging to the defenders than anything else.
In one of my games the Allies would set up amphibious invasion forces of 3 BB, several cruisers and lots of DD, DE and one APD to offload supply to trigger the amphibious bombardment instead of the normal bombardment routine.
Alfred pointed out in several posts this was clearly a game exploit, the developers never fixed it and by sharing those posts with my Allied counterpart he stopped using them.
Nice air strikes, and you should be able to save Yamoto I think. The counter flooding should pump out very quickly once in pierside mode and then her speed will increase substantially. That is if you can maintain air superiority.[;)]
Memory refresher time.
The two most relevant threads in that AAR were post #6799 and #6803 on page 227
tm.asp?m=3549450&mpage=227&key=
I haven't looked closely at what Canoerebel is doing (has Obvert posted full Combat Reports of the amphibious operations?) but the impression is that he isn't quite as far out in his tactical approach compared to Lowpe's opponent. That was a clear cut case of loophole exploitation. From a coding POV, not an easy loophole to close.
Alfred
Firstly, the game design is most definitely not intended to be exploited in this manner. On 30 November 2009, Don Bowen, who for AE coded the bombardment actions of amphibious task forces and the shore response, specifically stated that the bombardment action of an amphibious TF:
"is not long term naval support, one would have to bring up a bombardment TF for continued support after troops are all ashore."
Secondly, I'll show you the benefits which your opponent is gaining from not using proper bombardment TFs.
1. These faux invasions have only a single non combat ship in them. Specifically they have a single APD, every other ships is at least a DD sized combat warship. APDs can be inserted into a Bombardment TF, so quite unlike what JocMeister did, your opponent is deliberately using an Amphibious TF instead of a Bombardment TF because it benefits him and disadvantages the defender, not because it is the only way to involve APDs into the action.
ORIGINAL: obvert
The first info screen of 45. The Japanese ahead by about 14k right now.
![]()


ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
I fail to see the problem.
No offense taken. I was commenting that I didn't see a problem with the way this is modeled in the game, nor do I believe that CR (or other players using this technique) is gaming the system in this context.ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Sorry, I wasn't implying there was a problem. I was implying that the armed LCI are performing their designed function: shore bombardment/counter-battery during landing of stuff, just as DDs/CLs/CAs(/BBs) would do.

