shore bombardment

[pontiouspilot]

In 2 ongoing or recent PBEM games I have pummelled IJN invasions with Aussie coastal artillery using these same guns. The units performed superbly and repeatedly. The Aussie units are bigger I believe; I had HQ units and other support and likely had reasonable detection levels.

[Yaab]

I do not get it.

If you start scenario 1 and go the the in-game database for army weapons, you will see that 6", 9.2" and 15" navy guns have armor/soft ratings of 0/0. If you fire the Editor, the three type of guns also have ratings 0/0. However, if you load the turn into Tracker, the Tracker will show you all three types of guns have positive armor/soft ratings. I went through the patch notes to see if 6" Mk guns were in any way amended, but they were not. Maybe it is a bug?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

I do not get it.

If you start scenario 1 and go the the in-game database for army weapons, you will see that 6", 9.2" and 15" navy guns have armor/soft ratings of 0/0. If you fire the Editor, the three type of guns also have ratings 0/0. However, if you load the turn into Tracker, the Tracker will show you all three types of guns have positive armor/soft ratings. I went through the patch notes to see if 6" Mk guns were in any way amended, but they were not. Maybe it is a bug?

I don't know, but correlate them using slot number to be sure. Also, you can dump the scenario files to CSV files and look at them in a spreadsheet (LibreOffice does nicely and some people use MS Excel).

[Yaab]

The device number is 1036. I was looking for a replicated device in the Editor and found none. Device 1036 is used both by Indian and Australian CD units.

[crsutton]

In the end, don't put a lot of stock or effort in improving the chances of your CD guns actually having much effect. This has been a problem since day one and I cried like a baby about it in the early days. It is just the way it is and you will have to live with it. As said earlier, as the Allied player you will get to pay it back in spades later in the game and your opponent will regret ever having rubbed you the wrong way.[;)]

The rinse and repeat naval bombardments allowed in the game have always been so out of whack. In reality repeated bombardment runs would just wear a major warship out. Your average BB would have about 300-400 shots from its big guns before needing a major refit. The barrel linings would have been worn out. A CA might have a few more shots in it but the same result would happen.I think the easiest solution would be to have much greater and faster sys damage accumulate on surface ships when in action. It was not just the barrel linings but even the best built capital ship took a beating all over from the impact of constant firing of the main guns. Run the sys damage up about 10 for each action and force the players to "rest" the ships for at least some time before the next bombardment.

[John B.]

Crsutton,

+1 on the bombardment issue. But, it's the way the game is so I'll deal with it. Thanks to everyone who took the opportunity to respond! [&o] I have to say that my only disappointment is to learn that there is no option to choose "sleep by their guns." I thought this was a detailed game. Next you'll tell me that there is no option to increase morale at a base by setting your bombers to "ice cream production."

http://cookingwithlittlebuddy.com/makin ... g-mission/

[RogerJNeilson]

Recently read 'Rising Sun, Falling Skies' and came to the conclusion that every time you set sail from a port there ought to be a die roll to see whether the ship breaks down..... They did seem very prone to damage and problems - another reason for the rinse and repeat bombardment to be impossible - but as the Allies I have to say I just take my kicks and wait till I get the bigger boots with the steel caps on......

Roger

[mind_messing]

If it was a bit easier to mod this game, one suggestion I'd put forward would be to crank the occurrence of system damage up several notches.

Ships should float about the mid-teens after about a week at sea.

Extended cruises should see ships into the low twenties.

Ships wandering about the North Pacific in winter should be looking at 30 system damage after a couple of days at sea.

It would be an interesting way to reach a realistic tempo of operations - no more ships constantly at sea.

[Lowpe]

It might slow the game down too much, but I like it.[:)]

[Encircled]

Can I just check something?

If I have a very high DL on a land unit in a coastal hex that isn't a base, can I still bombard from the sea?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Can I just check something?

If I have a very high DL on a land unit in a coastal hex that isn't a base, can I still bombard from the sea?

The game does not display DL on land units that are not in bases, so you won't really know. I've tried lots of bombarding of units in coastal non-base hexes, and gotten either no results or so little I've forgotten about them. Stopped wasting the effort.

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If it was a bit easier to mod this game, one suggestion I'd put forward would be to crank the occurrence of system damage up several notches.

Ships should float about the mid-teens after about a week at sea.

Extended cruises should see ships into the low twenties.

Ships wandering about the North Pacific in winter should be looking at 30 system damage after a couple of days at sea.

It would be an interesting way to reach a realistic tempo of operations - no more ships constantly at sea.

Didn't work quite that way IRL, but your thoughts in that regard are very well taken. Henderson Field Designs was given an established game algorithm set and did what it could do with the limited time available to us. Ships and shit was something on my and Don's plate, but it didn't get instituted. DaBabes tries to model the nonsense by the 30% cargo cap, and by restricting the (insane) endurance of cargo ships. But that's all we can do in the game environment.

Would like to have it be different, but you get what you pay for. Ciao. JWE

[Encircled]

Cheers Witpiqs

[Michael Vail]

This might be a bit OT because it's not about bombardment. But early I see John B. had units prepping for Chittagong while they were already there. My question is does it help, hurt, or make no difference to have units prep for a place they're already at and have no forseeable intention of leaving? For instance, I have 19th Aus. Batt. in Darwin and have no intention of moving. Does it matter if I set future objective to Darwin?

[Anthropoid]

Michael I believe you want "preparation" or whatever it is actually called to be 100 for any location you are either attacking or defending. The closer that number is to 100, the better the unit will perform at that location, at least in terms of combat, but possibly in terms of other things too.

So yes, leaving prep to buid up to 100 in a unit that is already at that location is definitely a wise thing to do, unless you intend to use it somewhere else, in which case setting it to prep for that other location is wise.

That is my understanding anyway.

[John B.]

I think that it's always a good idea to try to prepare for where you are or where you're going. I always try to even wtih support units on the theory that it can't hurt.

As for shore bombardment, I do think that this is a great game and I hate to criticize but I think that the CD units thing does not work. Here is yet another shore bombardment (42% moonlight) with no shots at all from the four CD units. At the start of the bomabardment none were disorganized. I appreciate that they may not sleep by their guns the first time, but after awhile you think that they would catch on the the IJN is coming in on a pretty regular schedule. If it's all DL do you give TFs an automatic DL level when they enter an enemy hex to bombard? I don't know, but if units don't do what they're supposed to do at all then it skews the game. At least IMHO.

[NigelKentarus]

I thought I saw somewhere that part of a naval bombardment mission was to suppress counter battery fire from shore guns. Could it be that the CD guns were suppressed and unable to fire because of the bombardment?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: John B.

I think that it's always a good idea to try to prepare for where you are or where you're going. I always try to even wtih support units on the theory that it can't hurt.

As for shore bombardment, I do think that this is a great game and I hate to criticize but I think that the CD units thing does not work. Here is yet another shore bombardment (42% moonlight) with no shots at all from the four CD units. At the start of the bomabardment none were disorganized. I appreciate that they may not sleep by their guns the first time, but after awhile you think that they would catch on the the IJN is coming in on a pretty regular schedule. If it's all DL do you give TFs an automatic DL level when they enter an enemy hex to bombard? I don't know, but if units don't do what they're supposed to do at all then it skews the game. At least IMHO.

Go stand on a beach at sea level. Can you see 40 miles out to sea? Twenty miles? No? There you go.

Bombardments come in, do it, leave. Invasions stay and are close to shore. CD LCUs work well against invasions. If you want to stop bombardments put some navy there. CD units will never, ever work well for you in that role.

As far as the attackees "knowing" there's another bombardment coming based on history . . . You DO know the AI isn't alive, right? Right? [:'(]

[Lowpe]

That only BBs fired, it leads me to believe they did it from a distance. All BBs to my knowledge can outrange CD guns I believe or at least most of them. Although that is a lot of runway hits for a far bombardment.

[witpqs]

Go stand on a beach at sea level. Can you see 40 miles out to sea? Twenty miles? No? There you go.

From Bowditch: