shore bombardment

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: shore bombardment

Post by Alfred »

There are some really fundamental misunderstandings held by those who do not like the results they are seeing.
 
1.  In post #34 I drew attention to the spotting rules listed in the manual, which is absolutely fundamental to understanding this issue.  I therefore find it astonishing that subsequently it has been suggested that maybe a bombardment TF gets a DL when it enters the hex.  This is just wishful thinking of what the code might do and is no substitute for reading the manual which states what the code actually does.
 
2.  A CD unit will fire if it passes a die roll.  That call is made once only at the start of the naval bombardment.  It is not made every time there is an exchange of gunfire.  IOW, if the die roll is not made at the start, it is completely irrelevant if subsequently the bombardment TF moves in closer to shore.  Ergo all this angst about not firing back at 4k yards or less is irrelevant and another example of wishful thinking displacing what the code actually does.
 
3.  The devs have never provided exact details of what factors are taken into account in the die roll.  There is no doubt however that the DL of the bombardment TF is the single most important factor.  A bombardment TF which has a zero DL on it, which is the case here, is not going to be fired upon by CD units.  I refer back to my previous post on spotting which directed readers back to the relevant section in the manual.
 
4.  Range of weapons is very relevant when the die roll is successfully passed.  Readers should read my comments in this thread.
 
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3546521&mpage=1&key=bombardment%2Crange&#3557171
 
5.  The bottom line is that the OP has received useful advice from several people.  None of that advice appears to have been implemented so it comes as no surprise to me that the same outcome continues.
 
Alfred
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5041
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: shore bombardment

Post by Yaab »

Alfred, points well taken. Don't want to "Castor Troy" this thread, but the OP has three CD units in the hex, and his reward for the well-placed units is, well, nil. Maybe only CD units that are *static* can hit anything, and those that can be moved, do not?
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: shore bombardment

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Alfred, points well taken. Don't want to "Castor Troy" this thread, but the OP has three CD units in the hex, and his reward for the well-placed units is, well, nil. Maybe only CD units that are *static* can hit anything, and those that can be moved, do not?

You don't seem to be readin gwhat people are saying. They do fire depending on die rolls. None of us know all of the factors here including leaders, DL, distances from shore and all that. It is the way it is and it's not going to change. Right?

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: shore bombardment

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

OK, I see 4,000 yards. If you are playing against the AI - I mean this quite sincerely - don't whine, because as you get up to speed on the game the AI will need all the help it can get to give you an enjoyably competitive game.

If you are playing against another player, it works the same for both sides. Allies take it on the chin from bombardments early, and deliver loads and loads of payback later on. See my own AAR for examples, or many others.

If you take the time to search the forum for older threads on this topic, you will see that we have gone through this many times. The answers you are getting are only so quick because they have been hashed out before. This is what we got.

My distant memory is that the range spinner was patched in pretty early but didn't ship with the original build. In the base game you just ordered a bombardment and watched it.
The Moose
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: shore bombardment

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: wegman58

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I thought that mooses ate carrots! [:D]

When we can get them. The Cub Foods is frequently out, however. [:'(]

You're shopping at the wrong Cub.

Cake eater! [:'(]
The Moose
User avatar
John B.
Posts: 3985
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:45 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

RE: shore bombardment

Post by John B. »

Ah, it appears that there are fundamental misunderstandings by people who don't like what they're reading from people who are registering a concern. :-)

I actually have 4 CD units in the hex and in the course of more than 5 bombardments (I've lost track) one gun has fired one shot. If these guns are with good training (level 60), undisrupted and with good morale keep failing their die rolls then I humbly and with great trepedation (and with great tugging of my forelock) suggest that maybe perhaps, just possibly the system is not giving a good result. In this case, by good I mean something that appears to align with what units are there for. If planes never ever rose to fly CAP despite good weather, undamaged airfields and good leaders then I would make a similar comment because units would not be doing what they appear to be designed to do.

The bombardments do more than dash in, launch a single salvo and dash out. Henderson Field bombardment lasted more than an hour with a liberal use of star shells by the IJN BBs. The opening day of the bombardment of Gallipoli lasted, well, most of the day (with significant damage to a number of entente capital ships).

I've been playing this system for a long long time (I had the original War in the South Pacific). It's very good and entertaining.

But, Alfred, to address you directly, you are right, I have received some good advice from people which I have implemented including extra searches and putting naval units into the hex. I have fewer naval units now, [:)], but, alas, the CD guns still don't shoot. Again, you're right, I don't like the results that I'm seeing. But, to be very clear, it's not the bombardments I object to, what I don't like is that the CD units don't fire. You did explain DL to me and you were kind to do so but, if it's all DL, then in line with my original posts I think that's a mistake that leads to a skewed result. The code may be what it is, but in this case the code is not good enough, IMHO. Hmmm, is that a lightening bolt I see headed my wa . . . [:D]




John Barr
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: shore bombardment

Post by witpqs »

No one has suggested that bombardments are a single salvo. We have also been discussing nighttime bombardments, so damage done in daytime at Gallipoli is irrelevant. Deliberately mischaracterizing what people are saying to you does not further anything.
User avatar
Anthropoid
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Secret Underground Lair

RE: shore bombardment

Post by Anthropoid »

Task forces move, shorelines do not move.
The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ ... playnext=3
User avatar
CaptBeefheart
Posts: 2513
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 2:42 am
Location: Seoul, Korea

RE: shore bombardment

Post by CaptBeefheart »

In a few games against a computer IJ, I've had bombardment TFs consistently take fire from bases such as Shortlands which have CD units. It's enough return fire that it's usually a good idea to keep escorts from bombarding and to move out the range to avoid too much damage to cruisers and BBs.

Cheers,
CC
Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.
User avatar
John B.
Posts: 3985
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:45 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

RE: shore bombardment

Post by John B. »

Witpqs,

I am mystified by your post. Alfred said that whether or not a CD unit fires is determined at the start of combat. My response is that combat does not work that way IRL. It's not a single shot decision. If I was inarticulate in conveying that point that is certainly my problem but how you can make the leap that I am deliberately misconstruing what people say seems a bit, overboard, if you'll excuse the topical pun. [:)]

In any event, I agree with you that the damage done at Gallipoli is irrelevant.

But, this topic is about the fact that the CD guns don't shoot at all. Here from my original post (#1 in this chain)

"The problem is that they [CD units] did not fire a single shot at the bombarding fleet. Not one shot from four units and this has happened with previous encounters."

The point is that at Gallipoli the coastal artillery shot. CD units shot at the allied invasion fleet before dawn at Normandy. One can presume for all the historical evidence that the Germans had a zero DL level on that fleet and we know the Ottomans had no air search capability. If there are numerous instances of CD guns not fired back when under bombardment then I'm wrong it's as simple as that. But I don't know if that is a typical occurrence and no one on this site, and there is a lot of military historical knowledge on this site, has made the argument that CD guns don't at least shoot in an historical context.

Let me put it this way. In every surface engagement I've had that I can think of my ships have always shot back (well, unless they get blasted right away). They shoot back if they are surprised and the enemy TF had a zero DL and my ships are damaged with bad leaders and poor crews on moonless nights. They with regularity shoot back. They get smashed (all too frequently alas) as it should be, but they at least fired their guns. Again, as it should be. The fact that CD units don't fire back may be the code then the model is flawed in that regard. It's still a great game, I still tell my friends to buy it, and it is much more sophisticated than anything I can do, but in this aspect it's flawed.

John Barr
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: shore bombardment

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

There's at least two things going on here which may be driving the responses you're getting.

1. You don't like how the game handles shore bombardments. But the game is finished, has been for a long time except for bugs. The old-timers know that and have been listening to folks demand the core game be altered for years. It won't be.

DL is driving your problems. DL is at the heart of many game mechanisms. There are no sensor models in the game; DL stands in. Alfred offered the manual section that covers DL.

CD does have a random chance to fire on shore bombardments. You can't conflate that event with an invasion response. In the game they're different things. You seem to want the odds to be higher. They're what they are. They're zero if DL is zero I believe.

2. Historically there is almost no data for the type of hit & run, night bombardments the game models. Henderson Field and . . . ? I'm not a bombardment expert, so if there are many please enlighten me. The USN's history is almost all, or all (not sure) in support of amphibious landings. Very different animal in RL and the game.

In the game, if you want to reduce the effects of him doing this, raise DLs and provide naval responses. There's not much more to say.
The Moose
User avatar
John B.
Posts: 3985
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:45 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

RE: shore bombardment

Post by John B. »

Bullwinkle,

Thanks for your post. I'm not demanding anything most especially as I'm not in a position to demand. :-) I've been playing since 2011 or so and as I've noted before, I enjoy the game a great deal. I've had other problems with the game mainly due to my own learning the system. This is the first time when I've felt that something was really skewy (sp?) enough to warrant this type of discussion. Pretty darn good for something as complex as I'm sure the programming is.

As for historical precedents, most of the ones I can think of take place in the wooden ships age (Baltimore in the war of 1812 and Charleston in the civil war come to mind as non-invasion bombardments) and not even I am willing to try to streeeetch the analogy that far. I guess that there was the attempt to suppress the shore batteries at Cherbourg in 1944 (a couple of weeks after the invasion) but that just gives us two or three examples.

They do a bit more than just fix bugs as I've seen some productive tweaks in past upgrades so, I figure it can't hurt to put in my two cents and maybe they'll make a change. And, if not, I'll still be having fun playing the game. FYI, I do appreciate everyone who has responded to my original topic. It's a very nice community here.
John Barr
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: shore bombardment

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: John B.

I actually have 4 CD units in the hex and in the course of more than 5 bombardments (I've lost track) one gun has fired one shot.

If you don't like their performance, you should really try midget subs! Now there is something to complain about![:D][:D]

You haven't given us nearly enough information on your new tactics at increasing the detection levels of the enemy ships bombarding other than to simply guess. If you detection levels are high, you should be getting night naval bombing runs (or at least strays) for such juicy targets. Are you?
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: shore bombardment

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: John B.

Witpqs,

I am mystified by your post. Alfred said that whether or not a CD unit fires is determined at the start of combat. My response is that combat does not work that way IRL. It's not a single shot decision. If I was inarticulate in conveying that point that is certainly my problem but how you can make the leap that I am deliberately misconstruing what people say seems a bit, overboard, if you'll excuse the topical pun. [:)]

In any event, I agree with you that the damage done at Gallipoli is irrelevant.

But, this topic is about the fact that the CD guns don't shoot at all. Here from my original post (#1 in this chain)

"The problem is that they [CD units] did not fire a single shot at the bombarding fleet. Not one shot from four units and this has happened with previous encounters."

The point is that at Gallipoli the coastal artillery shot. CD units shot at the allied invasion fleet before dawn at Normandy. One can presume for all the historical evidence that the Germans had a zero DL level on that fleet and we know the Ottomans had no air search capability. If there are numerous instances of CD guns not fired back when under bombardment then I'm wrong it's as simple as that. But I don't know if that is a typical occurrence and no one on this site, and there is a lot of military historical knowledge on this site, has made the argument that CD guns don't at least shoot in an historical context.

Let me put it this way. In every surface engagement I've had that I can think of my ships have always shot back (well, unless they get blasted right away). They shoot back if they are surprised and the enemy TF had a zero DL and my ships are damaged with bad leaders and poor crews on moonless nights. They with regularity shoot back. They get smashed (all too frequently alas) as it should be, but they at least fired their guns. Again, as it should be. The fact that CD units don't fire back may be the code then the model is flawed in that regard. It's still a great game, I still tell my friends to buy it, and it is much more sophisticated than anything I can do, but in this aspect it's flawed.

While many aspects of the game could be improved in various ways in theory, in practice it's a lot more difficult to a) still meet certain criteria they have always had, and b) getting a particular change done. Dealing with b first, getting a change done is very dependent on the particulars. Things that are deep inside the core engine often require the programmer spend a lot of time simply to ferret out all the ramifications. Some changes could require extensive changes 'here and there' because they change some paradigm, something that many other places also depend on. Making the change itself has whatever level of difficulty to get it right, and then it must be tested. And all of that assumes that the (or a) correct nature of the change can be figured out, because that is not always easy given whatever inter-relationships exist. It's my understanding that many such changes get hashed out in communications between developers. As for the basic criteria they work to, they include playability on hardware that is far, far, behind state of the market. That imposes certain constraints for turn resolution/playback, and constraints for code executed while entering orders.

My own list (I don't maintain a running list) of things I 'would like' so see changed in AE is pretty long, some small, some large. I'm pretty sure the same is true of most players and most developers. Actually going there requires going through the process above or even a total rewrite, a hefty assignment for a Coy of developers. Just consider the size of the volunteer team that made WITP-AE out of WITP.

I don't have any links for you, but if you do take the time to search the forum (maybe using Google with "site:matrixgames.com " before your search terms) you should find some of the prior discussions on CD-ship gunfire. I was (and am) very critical of certain aspects of the implementation. I've also come to question whether some of the more criticized aspects are as wrong as being portrayed. You mention the nighttime bombardment of Henderson by the battleships, but I don't know if there was/were a CD unit(s) present and if it(they) fired. The same for the many cruiser and destroyer bombardments (many were early on and I think there were no CD in place). The point there is that even to start getting a picture of a desired model, one has to have some type of truly representative survey of what took place IRL.
User avatar
John B.
Posts: 3985
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:45 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

RE: shore bombardment

Post by John B. »

Lowpe,

Oddly I think that the midget subs work just fine. [:D]

I tried the night air searches (this might be hampered by the fact that they are not yet night trained) and keeping ships in the hex. Alas, this has led to many fewer ships in the British arsenal. I also have subs on the run in hexes on the theory that if they see the bombardment TF that will increase the DL. Scott has a LOT of a/c on ASW so my own subs have high DLs which, I'm sure, makes it less likely that they will run into the TFs but it's worth a shot. Chittagong won't let me build PT boats which I suspect may be a result of the fact that it's a British base but, I could be wrong on that. the button to build them does not illuminate. I may try to work some AMs or MTBs over from Colombo but that will take awhile as they have to sneak up the coast from port to port to avoid the KB which lurks everyday at Cox's Bazar.

Good idea on the night naval bombing. It can't hurt to try that too!

FYI, my kevetching about CDs should not take away that Scott is beating me up fair and square. Ah, the agonies of being the allies in 1942.
John Barr
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: shore bombardment

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: John B.

Lowpe,

Oddly I think that the midget subs work just fine. [:D]

I tried the night air searches (this might be hampered by the fact that they are not yet night trained) and keeping ships in the hex. Alas, this has led to many fewer ships in the British arsenal. I also have subs on the run in hexes on the theory that if they see the bombardment TF that will increase the DL. Scott has a LOT of a/c on ASW so my own subs have high DLs which, I'm sure, makes it less likely that they will run into the TFs but it's worth a shot. Chittagong won't let me build PT boats which I suspect may be a result of the fact that it's a British base but, I could be wrong on that. the button to build them does not illuminate. I may try to work some AMs or MTBs over from Colombo but that will take awhile as they have to sneak up the coast from port to port to avoid the KB which lurks everyday at Cox's Bazar.

Good idea on the night naval bombing. It can't hurt to try that too!

FYI, my kevetching about CDs should not take away that Scott is beating me up fair and square. Ah, the agonies of being the allies in 1942.
I don't think there is any pilot night training per se, now. Search skill and radar equipped planes are what to look for.
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: shore bombardment

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: John B.

Lowpe,

Oddly I think that the midget subs work just fine. [:D]

What, they sink! The sink all the time from silly things like batteries exploding, or grounding, or foundering, or they hit underwater obstacles, and not to mention from depth charges etc.

How is that working I ask you?[:)]

Get the night search up, get planes as close as you can without jeopardizing them, and you should get night air attacks, and that in turn should cause a substantial improvement in your CD guns. Willing to bet the farm on that, especially given that you have scarce navS pilots.

The DL will drive the improvement in the CD guns, the night air attacks verification that your DL are good.

One other thing, have those subs drop mines. Egads, I can't tell you how many times I blunder into those things. Nothing quite like a freshly laid minefield, dropped at night by sub, for when the bombardment shows up. If you have three subs, drop three minefields each from a different TF. Go nuts, if have you 5 subs use them for that.[X(]

No PT boats at a British base. In my game the US invaded and took Ramree, and now there are dozens of PT boats in theatre.






User avatar
Symon
Posts: 1885
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:59 pm
Location: De Eye-lands, Mon

RE: shore bombardment

Post by Symon »

witpqs is very smart. He says much in small words.

A simple explanation is you have CD “Units” and guns that qualify as CD because they are land-based Naval Guns. So why not make every unit with Naval Guns in it a CD Unit?

Because that would screw every single SNLF unit after ’43 (and many in 1942); because that would screw every single IJ Naval Guard unit; because that would screw every single USMC Defense Bn. They may all have Naval Guns, but their Unit Types are Infantry or Artillery. Would you screw all that up just to have “pretty” CD units?

On Guadalcanal, the coast sector was assigned to 1st Special Weapons Bn. The guns shooting back at the DDs and Subs, were two sections of 90mm M1A1 AA guns with out of scale ammo. Hello, knock, knock.

So, a dark, moonless night, and all of a sudden the sky lights up with starshell. Maybe, just maybe you can get a twinkle off the ship firing, but that’s just a visual bearing, so fire up the battery scope so you can get a range and vector; if they are still shooting and you are still alive.

So you get a vector, and what do you do? You are on an AA gun. You have some decent ammo, but nothing that would light up a cruiser. What you do is what the Arty School teaches you to do. Shoot everything you got, everything, whatever’s in the box, you shoot it. Maybe you will get lucky.

That, is life, the universe and everything. Sorry, just can’t get on board with the CD stuff.
Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.
tiemanjw
Posts: 606
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:15 am

RE: shore bombardment

Post by tiemanjw »

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: John B.

Lowpe,

Oddly I think that the midget subs work just fine. [:D]

What, they sink! The sink all the time from silly things like batteries exploding, or grounding, or foundering, or they hit underwater obstacles, and not to mention from depth charges etc.

How is that working I ask you?[:)]


I, too, don't see the problem here.[:)]


User avatar
John B.
Posts: 3985
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:45 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

RE: shore bombardment

Post by John B. »

@Lowpe, I confess that my outrage is entirely situational. I only play the allies out of affinity and, more importantly, a desire to never have to learn the Japanese production system. So, if the midget subs spontaneously combust or get carried off by a demon from hell that's all entirely historical as far as I'm concerned. [:)]

@Witpqs, thanks for the tip about the night training. I had been training the night fighter units at night as they came in but those might be good ones for naval searches. And, I completely understand about how difficult it can be to tweak this whole system (and I appreciate all the hard work that everyone does on it). I figure it can't hurt to ask. If it can be fixed great, and, if not, well, then I guess I"m stuck with a very fun game and lots of interesting people with whom to chat on these message boards. No downside as far as I'm concerned.

@Symon. I think we might be on the same page on an important issue. As you note, if you get a vector you shoot everything you got and you hope you get lucky or at least spoil the other guy's aim. Here it's been a matter of no shooting at all.

One thing that occurs to me that perhaps one of the reasons why there are not a lot of historical precedents for this type of activity except in regards to an invasion is that admirals were not real wild about putting expensive floating ships in a duel with unsinkable shore batteries. In Frank's Guadalcanal (a very good book) he states that "Kurita protested fervidly that the risks to his ships [of the Henderson bombardment] far outweighed the potential gains, but Yamamoto silenced these objections with the threat to do the job personally if Kurita balked." On the other hand, the allied admirals did not seem to raise objections to the use of their ships to take on German shore batteries at Cherbourg.

For those who are interested, here's an article from Wikipedia re: the cherbourg bombardment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Cherbourg
John Barr
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”