Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock

[Lowpe]

July 17th, 1944

Allied bombers pound Honshu...targeting strategic VPs.

No faux invasion bombardments. Yesterdays weren't as damaging as ones prior, but they do more combat damage (which I don't think he knows).

Rail line cut west of Haiphong.

Holding for now at Camh Ranh Bay.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Looks like he is landing supplies from a lone APD to trigger an Amphibious landing bombardment instead of a regular bombardment. If this is somehow more advantageous then doing a regular bombardment I would call it "creative use of the game engine".

To be honest I kind of did something similar in my game with Erik. You can´t place all those cool gun and rocket LCIs in a bombardment TF but you can place them in an amphibious. But I didn´t do it to get a better result. I just wanted to use the cool LCIs. Didn´t work very well though! [:D]

I have been waiting for those to show up.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: MBF

He may be using the APD for asw purposes - although this late in the war he should have plenty of DD/DE ships around

No,he is dropping supply with them.

Good thing Allies are methodical because he may stop doing them given the last two days events.

[Lowpe]

A banner day, despite the bombing, the Allies only gain less than 400 victory points, and I finally get my long awaited 8cm to 12cm AA gun TOE upgrade.

Woohoo.[:)]

[Lowpe]

Obligatory look at Nagoya's defenders.

The Armor all has 0 disruption, as the 47mm rapid fire cannon AT units.

A few more days of no amphibious bombardments should let the regiments/brigades and splinters get back to 0 disruption.

In less than 2 weeks I get another division, the 4th Tank Division (with tanks), and the rocket artillery starts showing up. Banzai![:'(]

[Lowpe]

Better flak will only increase Allied plane losses.

[Drakanel]

I certainly don't claim to be an expert or anything, but let's be honest here. Those are not amphibious TFs, and the amount of supply dropped is negligible. Those are just Bombardment TFs with one single APD attached. If he had 10 APD per TF I'd say "yes, he's dropping supplies". But with just one, no he's not doing that for the supplies.

It is my opinion that he thinks there is some merit in doing that. For example, I don't know, he may thinks that the ships involved get to shoot more or something like that...

Whether or not that is to be considered an exploit, I don't know. I don't know, for example, if he is actually benefiting from this or not... But I think the intent to gain an advantage is unmistakable.

[Encircled]

But he thinks it gives him an advantage. He would only do that if he knows it is an advantage (sandbox or previous game).

Not great.

[Lowpe]

Generally speaking amphibious bombardments use up more ammo, especially when there is counter battery fire.

Of course he is doing it for advantage. It is war![:D]

Hopefully, all he is going on is the losses caused, and doesn't see the targeting. I won't be able to hold Nagoya if half his bombardments are Amphibious day in and day out.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Drakanel

I certainly don't claim to be an expert or anything, but let's be honest here. Those are not amphibious TFs, and the amount of supply dropped is negligible. Those are just Bombardment TFs with one single APD attached. If he had 10 APD per TF I'd say "yes, he's dropping supplies". But with just one, no he's not doing that for the supplies.

It is my opinion that he thinks there is some merit in doing that. For example, I don't know, he may thinks that the ships involved get to shoot more or something like that...

Whether or not that is to be considered an exploit, I don't know. I don't know, for example, if he is actually benefiting from this or not... But I think the intent to gain an advantage is unmistakable.

I agree, and I think it is an exploit.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

Is the faux amphibious bombardment a serious problem requiring an HR, or can it be counteracted? Maybe you can show us some combat results of that.

Cheers,
CC

The only way I can think of that this is advantageous to just doing a direct bombardment attack is that the "amphibious" TF will (mostly) just shoot back at the units shooting at it - so essentially targeting the units with guns. This may happen anyway in a bombardment attack, and shots aren't "wasted" on AF/port/industry facilities.

That could be significant. There's a nameless AAR out there (OPSEC) that suggests shore bombardments only disrupt support, not combat, units.

Cheers,
CC

I think this came up in either this thread or Lowpe's other AAR thread, although is perhaps not the thing you are referring to, where we covered what gets shot at under each type of bombardment (ground/sea/air) and why. I think earlier in this thread. I know that one of my opponents is of the opinion that non-combat units only get hit by bombardments, but I have seen plenty of shore bombardments that shoot at combat troops at the base. The line in the combat report is "XX ship firing at 48th Division", for example. Happy to provide examples if necessary.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

There is no reason for any HR,unless it is some kind of bug. Which I doubt.

But here you can see the Amphibious TF clearly target art and my heretofore hidden splinters and regiments.

Given that it's at Nagoya, where you have no forts, I'm honestly not sure from the posted results if it's causing more damage than a bombardment or not. Bombardments could shoot at those troops anyway. I guess if anything, maybe it's spreading the damage more evenly instead of concentrating it in just the artillery units.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
The line in the combat report is "XX ship firing at 48th Division", for example. Happy to provide examples if necessary.

I see that too, plenty of times, but it is normally a very large unit. With the amphibious bombardment the ships will target anyone shooting back like my regiments and splinters and less on support style units, or units with high disruption that don't fire.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Generally speaking amphibious bombardments use up more ammo, especially when there is counter battery fire.

Of course he is doing it for advantage. It is war![:D]

Hopefully, all he is going on is the losses caused, and doesn't see the targeting. I won't be able to hold Nagoya if half his bombardments are Amphibious day in and day out.

OK, one more reply about this.

It depends on the number and strength of the ships in amphibious TFs, as well as the shore resistance, but oftentimes my amphibious TF's big guns will be down to their emergency supply of 2 shots per device after just one day of unloading. In some cases they appear to have dropped that low after just one phase (in the later phases, they fire less), but I can't tell because it's mid-replay.

Maybe it's a pseudo exploit, but I honestly don't think it's mattering in this case. Also, there are disadvantages to trying to bombard with an amphibious TF as opposed to a real bombardment TF. Real bombardment TFs will function as a SCTF in all other cases, but an amphibious TF won't...

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
The line in the combat report is "XX ship firing at 48th Division", for example. Happy to provide examples if necessary.

I see that too, plenty of times, but it is normally a very large unit. With the amphibious bombardment the ships will target anyone shooting back like my regiments and splinters and less on support style units, or units with high disruption that don't fire.

Mine have fired at 15-squad SNLF units [:'(].

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Bombardments could shoot at those troops anyway. I guess if anything, maybe it's spreading the damage more evenly instead of concentrating it in just the artillery units.

Bombardments could shoot at those troops, but 20 for 20 haven't.

The amphib bombardment is spreading the damage among units that fire back at the APD. Armor for example is untouched. Heavily disrupted units that don't fire are untouched.

So, used in conjunction with normal bombardments, it is very effective.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
The line in the combat report is "XX ship firing at 48th Division", for example. Happy to provide examples if necessary.

I see that too, plenty of times, but it is normally a very large unit. With the amphibious bombardment the ships will target anyone shooting back like my regiments and splinters and less on support style units, or units with high disruption that don't fire.

Mine have fired at 15-squad SNLF units [:'(].

Have they when there are 50 other units to chose from?

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Lowpe




I see that too, plenty of times, but it is normally a very large unit. With the amphibious bombardment the ships will target anyone shooting back like my regiments and splinters and less on support style units, or units with high disruption that don't fire.

Mine have fired at 15-squad SNLF units [:'(].

Have they when there are 50 other units to chose from?

No experience on that front.

[Alfred]

Lowpe,

May be it isn't your opponent's intention (hmn just saw a squadron of flying pigs from my window) but the faux amphibious invasions are a clear game exploit.  They are not, as JocMeister suggested in post #6779, a "creative use of the game engine".  Joc used the LCIs with guns/mortars/rockets as they are intended, and suffered the logical consequences.  But that is not the case here.

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:

[center]"is not long term naval support, one would have to bring up a bombardment TF for continued support after troops are all ashore."[/center] 

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.

2.  A normal Amphibious TF is comprised of many transport type ships (APs, AKs, landing craft,) often minewarfare ships to clear mines, combat ships to suppress shore guns etc.  Whilst the supporting non transport ships can be targeted by the shore guns, 4 out of the 5 minimum shore gun firing cycles focus on the abstracted (see point 4 below) troops in landing craft approaching the beach.  This means a BB, CA, DD in an Amphibious TF is much less often the target of shore guns than they are if they were in a proper Bombardment TF.  Look carefully at the CR posted and you will see the shore guns are not even attempting to shoot back at the combat ships, they are focussed almost exclusively on the sole APD.  This would not be the case if they were Bombardment TFs.

3.  Because the combat ships are not being targeted by the shore guns, they are not being damaged and can therefore maintain a much higher tempo of operations than otherwise would be the case.  This extremely high tempo of operations is causing both a huge drain on defender supply consumption (much higher than would otherwise be the case) and prevents defender recovery.  The number of defending shore guns which participate is dependent on their supply, morale, and undisrupted states.

4.  It is the "abstraction" which is the main game exploit here.  In fact it is bothering on it being a "cheat".  If there were no "abstraction" involved, one could not contemplate using the word "cheat".

What exactly is the "abstraction".

To quote Don Bowen from the same long post he made on this subject back on 30 November 2009


"From a purely code standpoint, remember that troops approaching the beach in landing craft is an abstraction, as are the landing craft themselves. They are not valid units and can not be referenced by code." 

Remember the key point which is being exploited, viz they are not valid units.

As said in point 2 above, the shore guns are focused on these abstracted approaching troops.  In a normal, dare one say properly constituted Amphibious TF, the expenditure of ammunition (aka supply) by the shore guns will inflict casualties on the landing troops.  Here they continue to shoot at the abstracted landing troops but are not getting any return for their efforts because there are no real troops being landed.  Again look at the CR and notice that although the CR says they are shooting at the APD (because that is a valid unit from a coding POV), what they are really shooting at are the abstracted troops on the abstracted landing craft on the water away from the APD.

5.  The net result of points 2 and 4 is that the shore guns are wasting their fire on "ghost" targets which cannot be damaged in any meaningful manner but the "bombarding" ships are able to get full bang for their bucks in complete safety.  And the most the Allies risk is a single APD and even then the odds are very low of any hits being achieved on the APD. The ships can shoot to suppress any shore gun which targets the abstracted landing troops.  Here it means they can concentrate their fire on Japanese units which would not necessarily be the target of a Bombardment TF.  It is all akin to populating a barrel with only one type of fish species and then shooting at the fish in the barrel.

Alfred

[witpqs]

In fact it is bothering on it being a "cheat".

I think you meant "bordering on"?