Ok, lets talk about surface ships.

[crsutton]

I am well into three solid campaigns of UV and would like to offer up the following comments for discussion. I am interested to hear other opinions on this subject.

It seems to me that surface ships are overmodeled and have too great an impact on the game. In scenarios 17 and 19, Japanese surface ships can dominate Allied land based air with careful and systematic use of the "shuttle bombardment". The use of shuttle bombardment by the Japanese surface forces will in effect shut down any major port and airbase with sustained damage. In the face of superior Japanese carrier assets, it is very difficult for the allies to counter this and Allied land based air asset have little chance to respond to these bombardments as the Japanese fleets hit at night and are out of range by morning. By pairing BBs and sending them in in sucession, an American base is efffectively pounded out of action in about three turns. Forcing the Americans to commit either weaker surface units or carrier units to the fight or accepting the loss of the base. Anyone who has played the "Four weeks in Hell" scenario as the Allies knows the frustration involved here.

I have no argument with these tactics, as well placed naval bombardments make sense and are needed to soften up a base for invasion. However, I contend that the repeated use of surface forces for this purpose by either side was an imposibility and this should be modeled in the game. The first issue of course was the severe limitations of fuel stocks that the Japanese were faced with. However, more important and not reflected in the game is the severe strain on a capital surface ship that even one sustained action would have.

My point is that capital ships were in fact very fragile and could only be used in limited amounts. Two factors come into play. The first is that heavy caliber guns had a very limited useful life.

Here is a coment on the USS Houston which give us a rare and useful study of a major surface ship that experienced prolonged action without service or refit.

"The life of an 8-inch gun of that time was about 300 rounds. By the end of the afternoons battle (Java Sea), the guns of turret 1 had fired 261 salvos since thier installation, including 97 salvos that afternoon alone......Before long, our main battery would be practically useless....Because the main battery fire had been very rapid over a sustained period, the liners of the gun barrels had crept out of the guns an inch or more".

So in effect, a capital ship that had been in say, two bombardments and one surface action in game terms should in effect, be about useless as far as guns are concerned.

My second point is that the wear and tear from action was not just to the guns. Big gun ships of the era, no matter how well built, underwent incredible stress to systems and structure when firing main gun armament. The japanese heavy cruisers and American treaty cruisers were actually too light for their main armament. A prolonged gun duel, even without taking enemy damage would, just about wreck a ship. Again I quote from the Houston's experience.

"The Houston was a wreck. During the battle turrets 1 and 2 had fired 199 salvos of ammunition for a total of 597 8-inch shells. Concussions fromt the main batteries had played havoc with the ships interior......The glass windows on the bridge were shattered. Steel plates along the ship's sides, already weakened by near hits in previous bombing attacks, were now badly sprung and shipping water....."

After an major action, above deck equipment such as radar, AA mounts, foat planes, boats could be completely smashed up just from the concussion of the main arament.

In her surface action with the Bismark. The HMS Rodney's 16-inch guns so damaged her superstructure and frame, that she had to be put in an American shipyard for a major overhaul.

Now in our game, there is no real penalty other than the normal system wear for overusing surface assets. You can base your BBs at Shortland, gas them up, and sent them down the slot night after night to pound Lunga.

Historically, this was just not a reality and it should be reflected in this fine game. How do we do this? The answer I think is simple. Place fairly substantial system damage on capital surface ships after each major action. A good Japanese player can still use his overwhelming suface forces to knock out a major base, however, at a cost. The intense use of surface ships will force either player to eventually have to send his ships back to Pearl or Tokyo for refit. This I think will bring the use of surface assets back into the real of historical reality.

Bear in mind that historically, land based air held the advantage over surface units in the South Pacific. This should be reflected in our game. Because of fuel and wear limitations, both sides had to measure when to use surface units. With the exception of certain critical times, superior Japanes surface forces were held in check by Allied ground air. As it is now, I think that equation is a little out of balance in the game.

I welcome your comments.

[Mr.Frag]

Your comments are quite true, but remember you are not playing the historical battle by playing scenario 17 or 19, since both presume that Midway, the turning point in the war, did not happen. Without all the CV's puttering around that are in 17/19 things certainly will play out exactly as your post would indicate as the concept of having multiple battleships shoot down the slot night after night can only happen under the heavy protection of a substancial CV fleet playing guard.

I suggest you take a look at scenario 16, where Japan has only 1 real CV available and feel just how different one treats those lumps of steel without 100+ aircraft flying overhead. Japan, without airpower is forced to completely play the night game, creaping around in barge size ships, fearing the allied fleet catching any ships out at sea and sending them to the bottom. There is no way that Japan will send it's BB's out without knowing for sure that (a) it must be done and (b) the Allied CV's are well out of reach.

It is nice that SYS damage does increase at very high rates when running fast transport or bombardment style missions, and will burn out ships in no time.

[zed]

when I am playing IJN "shuttle bombardment " s accurate. when playing the allies it is incorrect and historically inaccurate. I make a subtle distinction depending on the context.

[Drex]

Didn't Henderson Field undergo nightly bombardments? I think the attempt to simulate "combat wear & tear" is already in the game. Your problem is how to prevent bombardment TFs from destroying your airbases and methods for doing that have been offerred in other threads. Maybe the solution is to reduce the bombardment effect if others have that concern. For myself bombardment fleets are not always successful.

[CapAndGown]

Originally posted by crsutton
As it is now, I think that equation is a little out of balance in the game.

I welcome your comments.

No, it is not out of balance. Unless you seriously reduce the accuracy of allied level bombers, or force them to fly at historical altitudes, then this is a game leveler.

Also, Kirishima and many of the cruisers Japan used in its Tokyo express made repeated runs. Not allowing the Tokyo express to take place would be even more ahistorical.

[Grumbling Grogn]

I think the man's main point was that currently the game does not simulate this type of wear and tear at all.

Now, I have no idea how much wear and tear a DD/CA/BB would undergo using its main guns. But, a short round trip from Shortland to Lunga will incur the same system damage as a bombardment mission to/from the same hexes. Even a naval novice like me can see that this is not a good simulation of the wear and tear he is talking about assuming that this wear and tear was really as bad in reality as his post indicates (and I have no idea if it was or not).

What I do take exception to is the entire idea that by making this area of the game "unrealistic/unhistorical" in this regard is somehow a "balance" to another area of the game (one btw which is completely possible historically).

[SoulBlazer]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, GG. Of course the original poster is right in saying that the Japanese can do a lot more in the game as opposed to RL because of factors such as wear and tear on ship, lack of fuel and supplies, and no Midway happening. But it's always been my understanding Matrix made these changes to try to give the Japanese a better chance at operations in this theratre then they did historicaly, and make it a more 'balanced' and enjoyable game. Japan had a snowballs chance in hell of winning in the Solomons in RL, at least in this game they have a chance, and they were given those chances by making changes such as increased supply and fuel stocks, less wear and tear on the ships, etc.

Did I totally misread you here?

[mjk428]

Originally posted by cap_and_gown
No, it is not out of balance. Unless you seriously reduce the accuracy of allied level bombers, or force them to fly at historical altitudes, then this is a game leveler.

Also, Kirishima and many of the cruisers Japan used in its Tokyo express made repeated runs. Not allowing the Tokyo express to take place would be even more ahistorical.

I agree with the original poster that the bombardment TF's are somewhat overpowered. I certainly hope this is not for "game balancing", as I thought this was an historical simulation not Risk. Game balancing should be done through victory points.

The Kirishima never successfully bombarded Henderson Field. The first attempt was driven back (at great cost to the USN). The second attempt resulted in her loss.

The IJN succesfully bombarded Henderson with BB's only one time (10/13/42 - Haruna & Kongo) and that bombardment group was covered by 5 CV's as part of a blockade. This was a major push by the Japanese to keep the US forces from being resupplied during their ground offensive.

From what I've read, the most common form of bombardment of Henderson field was Tanaka's fast transport missions that took the opportunity to lob a few shells at the field after delivering supplies and troops.

[Yamamoto]

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
I But, a short round trip from Shortland to Lunga will incur the same system damage as a bombardment mission to/from the same hexes.

Not true. Bombardment missions run at max speed and incur significantly MORE system damage on their ships than normal movement. If you use bombardment task forces every night you will quickly run those ships into the high teens of system damage. If the enemy ever does show up to stop you, your ships are already fighting at a disadvantage and are 1/6 to 1/5 of the way to being sunk before the combat even starts.

Yamamoto

[Grumbling Grogn]

Originally posted by Yamamoto
Not true. Bombardment missions run at max speed and incur significantly MORE system damage on their ships than normal movement. If you use bombardment task forces every night you will quickly run those ships into the high teens of system damage. If the enemy ever does show up to stop you, your ships are already fighting at a disadvantage and are 1/6 to 1/5 of the way to being sunk before the combat even starts.

Yamamoto

No, what I posted is very much true.

You do not have to plot a bombardment mission to get your surface combat TFs to move at full speed... :rolleyes:

[Grumbling Grogn]

Originally posted by SoulBlazer
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, GG. Of course the original poster is right in saying that the Japanese can do a lot more in the game as opposed to RL because of factors such as wear and tear on ship, lack of fuel and supplies, and no Midway happening. But it's always been my understanding Matrix made these changes to try to give the Japanese a better chance at operations in this theratre then they did historicaly, and make it a more 'balanced' and enjoyable game. Japan had a snowballs chance in hell of winning in the Solomons in RL, at least in this game they have a chance, and they were given those chances by making changes such as increased supply and fuel stocks, less wear and tear on the ships, etc.

Did I totally misread you here?

I hope and I seriously doubt what you say.

If I thought that the game was handicapped to assist one side or the other I would never have bought it (just as I passed on BoB). Like another poster said: "That is what victory points are for".

[Yamamoto]

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn

You do not have to plot a bombardment mission to get your surface combat TFs to move at full speed... :rolleyes:

You are right if the surface group has "retirement allowed" checked and is within 25 hexes of its destination. Since I rarely use "retirement allowed" for my surface groups, my groups usually go cruising speed.

For bombardment groups you almost always use "retirement allowed" because you want to get away from the air power of the base you are bombarding. Therefore, bombardment groups are more likely to suffer operational damage than groups doing regular surface missions. The same goes for fast transport vs regular transport missions.

Yamamoto

[SoulBlazer]

But the game IS 'fixed' to remove some of the handicaps that Japan had in RL, GG -- the biggest being limited fuel and supply to run as many bombardment missions as they want, reduced wear and tear on ships, and no huge losses at Midway. Would you want to play Japan under the EXACT conditions that they had in the war? I would'nt, and I doubt many people would. It's not fun. I don't mind these changes because they just make for a more balanced game while still keeping all of the historical value and accuracy, it just makes it a little more of a 'what if' simulation. Surly you knew this before you bought the game? If so, then why are you still playing it? Don't you think Japan had to be adjusted SOME in order to make it a good simulation? I'm not sure if it was possible to make a PERFECT simulation, and I doubt many would find it enjoyable. Instead, Matrix made SMALL changes in order to balance it out a little.

Am I making sence in what I'm trying to say? Does anyone agree or disgaree with me?

[CapAndGown]

Originally posted by mjk428
The Kirishima never successfully bombarded Henderson Field. The first attempt was driven back (at great cost to the USN). The second attempt resulted in her loss.

The point is that the Kirishima was involved in two surface actions right in a row. The Japs had no problem recommiting the ship right after she had been involved in a heavy battle. Yet the original poster is saying we should not be able to do this.

[CapAndGown]

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
What I do take exception to is the entire idea that by making this area of the game "unrealistic/unhistorical" in this regard is somehow a "balance" to another area of the game (one btw which is completely possible historically).

Bombing at 1000 feet was NOT possible historically because of prevailing doctrine. Unless you model in US airforce doctrine, then the game is not historical. Nor do I believe the the accuracy at 1000 feet is realistic even if the US had tried it.

[Grumbling Grogn]

Originally posted by Yamamoto
You are right if the surface group has "retirement allowed" checked and is within 25 hexes of its destination. Since I rarely use "retirement allowed" for my surface groups, my groups usually go cruising speed.

For bombardment groups you almost always use "retirement allowed" because you want to get away from the air power of the base you are bombarding. Therefore, bombardment groups are more likely to suffer operational damage than groups doing regular surface missions. The same goes for fast transport vs regular transport missions.

Yamamoto

This entire exchange is pointless. It has zero bearing on the man's point.

The system damage incurred by doing what you say has NOTHING to do with the ships using their main guns and is solely based upon movement...WHICH IS MY POINT.

[mjk428]

Originally posted by cap_and_gown
The point is that the Kirishima was involved in two surface actions right in a row. The Japs had no problem recommiting the ship right after she had been involved in a heavy battle. Yet the original poster is saying we should not be able to do this.

You had made the statement that Kirishima made "repeated runs". I attempted to put that in context. Repeated runs was actually 2 unsucessful runs and when it was all over she was dead.

My impression of the original posters concern was regarding continuous runs that would be several more than 2.

Finally, IF as you say, allied level bombers are too effective than they should be once again adjusted as Matrix deems necessary. However, I would hope that the incredible effectiveness of the Betty "Backfire" bomber would be looked into as well.

[mjk428]

Originally posted by SoulBlazer
But the game IS 'fixed' to remove some of the handicaps that Japan had in RL, GG -- the biggest being limited fuel and supply to run as many bombardment missions as they want, reduced wear and tear on ships, and no huge losses at Midway. Would you want to play Japan under the EXACT conditions that they had in the war? I would'nt, and I doubt many people would. It's not fun. I don't mind these changes because they just make for a more balanced game while still keeping all of the historical value and accuracy, it just makes it a little more of a 'what if' simulation. Surly you knew this before you bought the game? If so, then why are you still playing it? Don't you think Japan had to be adjusted SOME in order to make it a good simulation? I'm not sure if it was possible to make a PERFECT simulation, and I doubt many would find it enjoyable. Instead, Matrix made SMALL changes in order to balance it out a little.

Am I making sence in what I'm trying to say? Does anyone agree or disgaree with me?

I disagree with you; without malice of course.

It's my hope and belief that Gary Grigsby wants his games to be as accurate as he can make them. Balancing is done through victory points. The "fun to play the Japanese" scenarios would be "what if" type scenarios such as #19. Although it can also be fun to play as the Japanes in an historically accurate scenario with the goal being to do better than they did historically.

[Mr.Frag]

What Japan did historically is really only valid when playing scenario #16, which has the historical losses taken into account. Being in a fairly hopeless situation having missed the US CV fleet at Pearl Harbour then taking horrible losses at Midway forced them into committing ships in a manner that probably would not have happened had these two events not had the outcome they did.

Japan *should* have caught the carriers at Pearl, and even failing this, Midway *should* have been a success for Japan. Luck played a very strange role in both of these battles. Had either of these two events happened differently, the fight could have taken place at PH instead of Guad and we would not be playing UV...

I'd like to see a CV's caught at Pearl scenario to make for a real turnabout of play. While it is fun to play the "what if" Midway hadn't happened versions that offer Japan a chance, it would be just as interesting to see a "what if" Pearl had accomplished the real goal and the CV's had not been out playing catch that day. Perhaps a Scenario #20 could be done up presuming the loss of the US CV's that should have been in Pearl

[XPav]

Bombardment missions cause large amounts of system damage. That doesn't bother me.

The most major unrealistic point of UV that affects everything is the unlimited fuel supply at Truk.

Now, one would of course point out that without that, the Japanese player wouldn't really have a fun game, and that's a very very important point. However, I do think that for the ultra-grognards sake, there really should be a switch to reduce Truk (and Noumea and Brisbane, of course) to realistic supply/fuel replenishment levels.

But its not going to happen.