COASTAL GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[shawn118aw]

Game Ver: 1.8.0.6
Scenario: 15
Allied—Computer, Japan-Me

Game Date: 31 Dec 1943

I HAVE HAD IT! I WILL NEVER PLAY THIS GAME again until the MAJOR flaw in the game gets fixed—COASTAL GUNS!

Here is the same old story from many other games about this same problem in the game. I (as the Japanese Player) landed on the island of Kiska on 7 May 1943 with a small for that some how survived the American Coastal Guns mauling and over the months I increased my forces by running reinforcements by subs onto the island, with the occasional fast transport of CA and DD’s. For the past 3 months (95 days) I have hit the island with over 100 bombers per day, 18+ recon flights per day, 36-72 fighter sweeps per day, and had a task force (5 BB, 5 CA, 6 DD’s) Naval Bombard the island over 53 times. Enough to reduce the US forces from 72,000+ to under 16,000 by 30 Dec 1943. By now I have over 31,000 troops on the island and I try to land another 28,000 (all 100% prior prepared for Kiska), with 34 AP’s 5 CA, and 6 DD, plus 35,000 tons of supplies. By the way the port and airfield have had 100% damage for over 20 days. AND WHAT HAPPENS----------------------my landing forces get slaughtered---over 10,000+ eliminated, 12 ships sinking or sunk. WHAT THE HECK, OVER!!!

As I said to start, I am done with this game. Why not just write in the game manual that “no matter what you do you will lose about 50% of your landing force period.”

I don’t know why the Japanese every built and ships or aircraft or troop formations, they could have won the war by just building Coastal Gun Units.

FIX THE PROBLEM. [:@][:@][:@]

[rtrapasso]

What did you have in your landing TF? Did you put in any CAs or BBs?

How long did it take to unload them?

If a player attacks an atoll where someone has concentrated enough CDs (5-7) - it is going to be h3ll to land there no matter what. The trick is to bypass such a stronghold.

EDIT: When you say >10,000 eliminated, how did you come up with this number? Was it 10,000 casualties, or did you actually figure out the number of eliminated troops? If the former, then they are not all eliminated, but probably most are disabled.

[VSWG]

Give us more details. Load the Allied side and take a look at those CD units. How many guns have they left? Are they still in supply? You are aware that all guns (not only from CD units) can fire at ships landing troops?

[John 3rd]

I just want to say..."rewind and play."  See my B.S. Power of CD Thread....
 

[saj42]

I have reservations about the effectiveness of guns against an amphibious landing.

My game is a BigB scenario, game patched to 1.806
Allies landed at Tavoy. Defender was ONE baseforce. Base was 40% Port and 70% A/F damage, Troops attacked for two days by 150+ 2e bombers and 2 bombardments by 4 BBs and 3 CAs.
Invasion TF had 50+ AP/AK with 4 CLAAs and 6 PGs. After completing the landing in two days (playing 2 day turns) I took the following damage:
3 AP/AK sunk
10 AP/AK Sys dam in RED
20 AP/AK Sys dam in ORANGE
2 PG sunk
All other ships sys dam in green
5K landing casualties

My only failing was not having enough escorts in the TF - but 900+ defensive coastal gun shots in the first landing phase was a real shocker.

I think these figures are near enough correct - I am dreading an opposed landing in the Pacific [:(]

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: shawn118aw

Game Ver: 1.8.0.6
Scenario: 15
Allied—Computer, Japan-Me

Game Date: 31 Dec 1943

I HAVE HAD IT! I WILL NEVER PLAY THIS GAME again until the MAJOR flaw in the game gets fixed—COASTAL GUNS!

Here is the same old story from many other games about this same problem in the game. I (as the Japanese Player) landed on the island of Kiska on 7 May 1943 with a small for that some how survived the American Coastal Guns mauling and over the months I increased my forces by running reinforcements by subs onto the island, with the occasional fast transport of CA and DD’s. For the past 3 months (95 days) I have hit the island with over 100 bombers per day, 18+ recon flights per day, 36-72 fighter sweeps per day, and had a task force (5 BB, 5 CA, 6 DD’s) Naval Bombard the island over 53 times. Enough to reduce the US forces from 72,000+ to under 16,000 by 30 Dec 1943. By now I have over 31,000 troops on the island and I try to land another 28,000 (all 100% prior prepared for Kiska), with 34 AP’s 5 CA, and 6 DD, plus 35,000 tons of supplies. By the way the port and airfield have had 100% damage for over 20 days. AND WHAT HAPPENS----------------------my landing forces get slaughtered---over 10,000+ eliminated, 12 ships sinking or sunk. WHAT THE HECK, OVER!!!

As I said to start, I am done with this game. Why not just write in the game manual that “no matter what you do you will lose about 50% of your landing force period.”

I don’t know why the Japanese every built and ships or aircraft or troop formations, they could have won the war by just building Coastal Gun Units.

FIX THE PROBLEM. [:@][:@][:@]

Okay... Stop playing the game then. That attitude will get you nowhere fast...[:-]

[rtrapasso]

If you are playing AI on "very hard" - the AI is not affected by supply shortages, and this MIGHT have a drastic effect on the effectiveness of its artillery (including CD guns).

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

If you are playing AI on "very hard" - the AI is not affected by supply shortages, and this MIGHT have a drastic effect on the effectiveness of its artillery (including CD guns).

Thanks, I did not know this was the case.

[Nomad]

If you want an eyeopener - play the Marianas senario as Allies versus AI on very hard. You can easily lose three divisions in 4 days or so.

[mlees]

In naval combat, there is the "kung fu" effect.
 
Is there one with CD's versus amphib landings? (By that, I mean, if you attempt to land using oodles of ships, and if each CD gun gets a chance to shoot at each ship, then you end up with oodles of hits and casualties...)
 
This would need to be tested out... If there is a CD Kung-fu, Is it better to attempt invasions with smaller, more numerous TFs than one monster TF?

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: mlees

In naval combat, there is the "kung fu" effect.

Is there one with CD's versus amphib landings? (By that, I mean, if you attempt to land using oodles of ships, and if each CD gun gets a chance to shoot at each ship, then you end up with oodles of hits and casualties...)

This would need to be tested out... If there is a CD Kung-fu, Is it better to attempt invasions with smaller, more numerous TFs than one monster TF?

This has been looked at a number of times - if you look at the number of shots/gun over the course of 1 phase (12 hours) - it comes out extraordinarily low ( usually a few rounds per gun per hour - at least for landings. Usually most CD vs bombarding TF have only 0-60 total "rounds" fired, which doesn't come out to that many per gun.

[mlees]

Ok, I was just "thinking out loud".

[trollelite]

See the data sheet of allies and Jap coastal gun and u understand everything. Jap CD is shit doesn't means CD on otherside is equally useless.  

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: trollelite

See the data sheet of allies and Jap coastal gun and u understand everything. Jap CD is shit doesn't means CD on otherside is equally useless.  

I´ve seen Allied TFs being shot up at least as often as I´ve seen Japanese TFs being shot up by CD. But in all cases it was more or less the "lucky" die roll for the defender. If you get that lucky die roll what do you think one of the dedicated Japanese CD gun units with 4 dozen 5,5 and 4,7 inch guns will do to your invasion TF of 75 APs, AKs, MSWs and a couple of CAs? glug glug...

[akdreemer]

Here some questions no one seems to ask. What amphip commander would ever place the bulk of their transports within range of coast guns? In all of the amphip operations of the war,both sides, how many transports/cargo ships were damaged/sunk by CD? Off hand I would say very few.

Except in some extreme cases after being pummeled by bombs and shells, most CD guns will be severely limited to how far they can shoot. This being at something the that of the line of site from the gun mount. This is especially valid on atolls where elevation is non-existent.

[JeffroK]

imho, a major problem is that every gun can fire at the invaders. Surely there is a percentage that are sited at other beaches or cannot get  a shot at the attackers.
 
In addition to AW's comment above were most ships would be out of range of the lighter ordnance, not all ships replicate the River Clyde.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

imho, a major problem is that every gun can fire at the invaders. Surely there is a percentage that are sited at other beaches or cannot get  a shot at the attackers.

In addition to AW's comment above were most ships would be out of range of the lighter ordnance, not all ships replicate the River Clyde.

No, not every gun can shoot at the invaders - and if you look at the number of shots fired in a 12 hour period, the numbers of shots fired per gun per hour are extraordinarily low in almost all cases - usually not exceeding a few rounds per hour.

Most people interpret this a being a few guns (the ones in good position) firing more shots, and most guns firing none.

The game engine is limited in not being accurately able to model small boats/landing craft very well - it appears that most of the casualties caused by GUNS in landing are due to fire on these vaguely modeled boats. Sometimes, especially in heavily fortified places, the landing ships themselves are shot to pieces, though.

However, this is leaving the realm of "technical problems" and entering that of game/scenario design, i think.