Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Losing AP's during invasion

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Losing AP's during invasion Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Losing AP's during invasion - 5/28/2010 6:44:24 PM   
Kwik E Mart


Posts: 2448
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline
Some of the threads on this forum mention losing AP's during invasions due to shore fire. It made me curious if the US (or any other nation) ever lost any AP's in RL during an invasion due to shore fire. Anyone know?

_____________________________

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

Post #: 1
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/29/2010 4:34:38 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
Its a good point as in most cases the stand of distance ( and hence disruption) would just increase.   I know at Wake Japan lost 2 APDs to CDs  but these were going to land on or near the beach anyway.

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to Kwik E Mart)
Post #: 2
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/29/2010 5:27:48 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8667
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
Wiki says that no US APs were lost to shore batteries in WW2, for what it is worth.

We lost five APs to German U-boats during Torch, it seems and three to Kamikaze attacks as the next highest cause of loss.

It appears that 2 DDs were sunk by German shore batteries at Normandy and one DD was lost to Japanese shore batteries after grounding off Okinawa (interestingly, it appears that the Japanese let it sit grounded until the tug showed up to pull it off and then they opened up on it). Those are the only large vessels (larger than an LST) lost to shore batteries in the war that I can find on short notice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Navy_losses_in_World_War_II


_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 3
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/29/2010 5:38:04 AM   
CarnageINC


Posts: 2222
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: Rapid City SD
Status: offline
This information leads back to the issue of CD being to powerful that was discussed awhile ago.  Maybe landings should have higher infantry losses instead of hits on ships?  It always annoys me that AP's get nailed so hard, they should be well back from any battery fire.

_____________________________


(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 4
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/29/2010 5:53:13 AM   
Sredni

 

Posts: 705
Joined: 9/30/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
Whenever you see war movies the landing ships are like down the horizon (or nearly) from the beach and the only ships making the run are little landing boats.

It does feel odd with AE where it seems the AP's are practically beaching themselves to land troops or something.

(in reply to CarnageINC)
Post #: 5
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/29/2010 9:14:41 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
Not sure troop losses should be higher but imho disruption should be higher and a force shock attack if it is a contested landing.

Speaking of which was the worst landing in History ?

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to Sredni)
Post #: 6
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/29/2010 11:02:48 AM   
Walker84


Posts: 848
Joined: 7/5/2009
Status: offline
I would tend to agree that CDs are too powerful in the game. A typical outcome when invading Ambon as the Japanese - after softening up the defenders with air bombardment - will see several APs heavily damaged together with supporting PBs - even a couple sunk. In one PBEM I had a sorry armada limping back to Kendari where more succumbed to fire damage and sank. I am all in favour of CD being a deterrent to weakly supported landings and also dont mind scoring some damage but this feature of the game does not seem all that balanced to real life experience. Its tough for Japan as they do not get a lot of replacement ships of these types. That said, once you are aware of it you learn to find ways of mitigating the worst effects so I don't feel it matrs the overall experience of a fantastic, deep operational game.

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 7
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/29/2010 2:13:53 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 6498
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
I would agree CDs are overrated; they should do very little to ships, except in places like Corregidor or the strait between Singapore and Sumatra, where the guns are meant to control a narrow body of water.

They should, though, take a toll on landing troops, which was what they did IRL. The Germans had alot of CD guns at Normandy, and they didn't do much to the US Navy, but they did take out alot of landing craft and otherwise caused alot of casualties.

_____________________________


(in reply to Walker84)
Post #: 8
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/29/2010 2:13:59 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
Think of the AP damage in a Witp-Zen sort of way...as an abstraction that helps to slow the pace of operations.

The damage could be considered to represent damage to the inherent landing craft that the player does not see. So the landing craft would need to be replaced (ie the AP needs to be repaired) prior to the next operation.



_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Walker84)
Post #: 9
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/29/2010 4:34:47 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8162
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

When designing the Amphibious Invasion process for AE, we went to the trouble of looking up the line of departure distance for several major invasions in the Pacific. The AE functions will generate transport ranges (from shore) well within these historical ranges. Transport locations and line-of-departure would of course be set for the shortest reasonable run in for the landing craft.


(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 10
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/29/2010 6:51:33 PM   
usersatch

 

Posts: 400
Joined: 6/1/2005
Status: offline
I think sinking APs to represent sinking LC/Higgins boats is not accurate, because the APs are taken completely out of the transport chain from the West Coast to wherever. If there were task forces of LCs running troops across the Pacific, then I could see the parallels. I've lost damn near 20 APs at Mili and Ponape alone, with the joyous Saipan looming in the near future. I think CinCPac would have a real issue with losing the transport capacity of two divisions at two piss-ant islands.

Would it be possible to have LCs added in to the mix without the huge micro-management effort normally required? Perhaps, each AP and AK has an option to "load" them like they do troops. When you are loading your troops at base, you also load landing craft. So you dont have to form a TF with 99 LC--it's automaticly done in the background of the game--limited by the LC resources you have available at that port. Your amphib TF pulls up off shore, and the troops hit the beach at a rate of how many ever LCs you have previously loaded. Now, the LCs get hammered, as in real life, and the APs stay relatively safe, as in real life.

BTW-how DID they get the small LCs to the battle? Were they towed behind the APs or were they carried in other ships?

Nevermind, answered my question here:

http://www.ussrankin.com/id34.htm

< Message edited by usersatch -- 5/29/2010 8:00:24 PM >

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 11
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/29/2010 7:13:37 PM   
Zemke


Posts: 422
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
APs were hardly ever sunk during the war and should not be in the game.  I also agree that the landing troops should suffer much more than the ships.  

Another improvement would be to allow an order for a TF to do multi-day bombardments, currently it is a one shot deal and the bombardment TF sails away.

_____________________________

"Actions Speak Louder than Words"
"Give me liberty, or give me death"
"Pass the salt, please"

(in reply to usersatch)
Post #: 12
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/29/2010 7:31:54 PM   
d0mbo

 

Posts: 579
Joined: 8/21/2009
From: Holland
Status: offline
I think WWI gallipoli (sp?); although i dont think it was the landing itself that went terribad......


(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 13
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/29/2010 7:39:08 PM   
usersatch

 

Posts: 400
Joined: 6/1/2005
Status: offline
Wasn't Dieppe a bad landing for the Royal Navy? I know it was for the grunts.

Wasn't Tarawa was the worst for the USN in the Pacific (besides kamikazees off of Okinawa)?

(in reply to d0mbo)
Post #: 14
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/29/2010 8:08:17 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5517
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Not sure troop losses should be higher but imho disruption should be higher and a force shock attack if it is a contested landing.

Speaking of which was the worst landing in History ?


From memory, I would nominate two landings which probably would not be nominated by others on this forum.

1. Kublai Khan's second invasion of Japan, the one which was visited by the divine "Kamikaze" wind but the invasion had already been defeated before the storm broke over the fleet.

2. The sea landing (IIRC in December 1914) in German East Africa which was defeated on the "beach".

In both instances the landings were complete failures, being unable to even remain on the beach and being forced to reembark. Although the casualties suffered by the British/Indian troops in East Africa was only a fraction of that of Kublai Khan's, in terms of site selection and planning, that has to be a leader in the most incompetent category.

Dieppe was only a raid. On Gallipoli the beaches were secured on day 1 (both the April and August landings) - they ran into difficulties inland but were never in danger of being pushed off the beaches. Anzio was similar to Gallipoli, although early on there was concern that the Germans might have broken through to the beachhead.

Alfred

< Message edited by Alfred -- 5/29/2010 8:11:25 PM >

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 15
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/29/2010 9:08:56 PM   
CarnageINC


Posts: 2222
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: Rapid City SD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


When designing the Amphibious Invasion process for AE, we went to the trouble of looking up the line of departure distance for several major invasions in the Pacific. The AE functions will generate transport ranges (from shore) well within these historical ranges. Transport locations and line-of-departure would of course be set for the shortest reasonable run in for the landing craft.



So even though very few AP's were lost in all the invasions you feel that this is WAD when you designed it? I understand that CD fire go after the escorts mostly but don't you think that the losses suffered in the overall picture of invasions by AP's is to high? Whats your thoughts on loss ratio of the AP's versus escorts now when looking at the data in AAR's? Thanks for any response

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 16
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/29/2010 10:12:19 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8162
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


When designing the Amphibious Invasion process for AE, we went to the trouble of looking up the line of departure distance for several major invasions in the Pacific. The AE functions will generate transport ranges (from shore) well within these historical ranges. Transport locations and line-of-departure would of course be set for the shortest reasonable run in for the landing craft.



So even though very few AP's were lost in all the invasions you feel that this is WAD when you designed it? I understand that CD fire go after the escorts mostly but don't you think that the losses suffered in the overall picture of invasions by AP's is to high? Whats your thoughts on loss ratio of the AP's versus escorts now when looking at the data in AAR's? Thanks for any response


You know, I did not say that I thought it was working as designed. I said that we considered historical stand off distanes when setting the distance from shore that the transports would unloading into landing craft.

I am no longer directly involved in support - just stick my nose in with a comment once in a while. But I do think it is universally recognized that CD and Naval Bombardment need some tuning.

Also, having once been an IBM trained manager, I have been trained in and have come to absolutely detest the "position as question" method of debate.

(in reply to CarnageINC)
Post #: 17
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/29/2010 10:14:14 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: d0mbo

I think WWI gallipoli (sp?); although i dont think it was the landing itself that went terribad......




no. The defenders had no CD defenses. MG's and rifles in those places where the landing was opposed. Gallipoli did witness the first dedicated (through conversion) landing ship attempt aka "The River Clyde" She was retrofitted with troop disembarking ramps and had sandbagged MG installations to cover the men as they disembarked.

I would mention that part of the reason, a big part, that no AP's were lost was because the Allies chose their locations with care and brought an overwhelming weight of support along with them. They tended to avoid assaulting places with heavy CD defenses. lol....first it was complained that CD's were too anemic....now they're overpowered.

_____________________________


(in reply to d0mbo)
Post #: 18
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/29/2010 10:35:25 PM   
CarnageINC


Posts: 2222
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: Rapid City SD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


When designing the Amphibious Invasion process for AE, we went to the trouble of looking up the line of departure distance for several major invasions in the Pacific. The AE functions will generate transport ranges (from shore) well within these historical ranges. Transport locations and line-of-departure would of course be set for the shortest reasonable run in for the landing craft.



So even though very few AP's were lost in all the invasions you feel that this is WAD when you designed it? I understand that CD fire go after the escorts mostly but don't you think that the losses suffered in the overall picture of invasions by AP's is to high? Whats your thoughts on loss ratio of the AP's versus escorts now when looking at the data in AAR's? Thanks for any response


You know, I did not say that I thought it was working as designed. I said that we considered historical stand off distanes when setting the distance from shore that the transports would unloading into landing craft.

I am no longer directly involved in support - just stick my nose in with a comment once in a while. But I do think it is universally recognized that CD and Naval Bombardment need some tuning.

Also, having once been an IBM trained manager, I have been trained in and have come to absolutely detest the "position as question" method of debate.


I meant no offensive nor I'm I trying to debate you. I value the opinion of anyone who has worked on AE had no idea you were not involved in the game anymore.

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 19
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/29/2010 10:54:30 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8162
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


When designing the Amphibious Invasion process for AE, we went to the trouble of looking up the line of departure distance for several major invasions in the Pacific. The AE functions will generate transport ranges (from shore) well within these historical ranges. Transport locations and line-of-departure would of course be set for the shortest reasonable run in for the landing craft.



So even though very few AP's were lost in all the invasions you feel that this is WAD when you designed it? I understand that CD fire go after the escorts mostly but don't you think that the losses suffered in the overall picture of invasions by AP's is to high? Whats your thoughts on loss ratio of the AP's versus escorts now when looking at the data in AAR's? Thanks for any response


You know, I did not say that I thought it was working as designed. I said that we considered historical stand off distanes when setting the distance from shore that the transports would unloading into landing craft.

I am no longer directly involved in support - just stick my nose in with a comment once in a while. But I do think it is universally recognized that CD and Naval Bombardment need some tuning.

Also, having once been an IBM trained manager, I have been trained in and have come to absolutely detest the "position as question" method of debate.


I meant no offensive nor I'm I trying to debate you. I value the opinion of anyone who has worked on AE had no idea you were not involved in the game anymore.


No worries. Been on the project a long time and we're just tired of each other.

(in reply to CarnageINC)
Post #: 20
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/29/2010 11:20:41 PM   
cap_and_gown


Posts: 2691
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

APs were hardly ever sunk during the war and should not be in the game.  I also agree that the landing troops should suffer much more than the ships.  

Another improvement would be to allow an order for a TF to do multi-day bombardments, currently it is a one shot deal and the bombardment TF sails away.


Use "remain on station".

(in reply to Zemke)
Post #: 21
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/30/2010 12:05:43 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10372
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: usersatch

I think sinking APs to represent sinking LC/Higgins boats is not accurate, because the APs are taken completely out of the transport chain from the West Coast to wherever. If there were task forces of LCs running troops across the Pacific, then I could see the parallels. I've lost damn near 20 APs at Mili and Ponape alone, with the joyous Saipan looming in the near future. I think CinCPac would have a real issue with losing the transport capacity of two divisions at two piss-ant islands.

Would it be possible to have LCs added in to the mix without the huge micro-management effort normally required? Perhaps, each AP and AK has an option to "load" them like they do troops. When you are loading your troops at base, you also load landing craft. So you dont have to form a TF with 99 LC--it's automaticly done in the background of the game--limited by the LC resources you have available at that port. Your amphib TF pulls up off shore, and the troops hit the beach at a rate of how many ever LCs you have previously loaded. Now, the LCs get hammered, as in real life, and the APs stay relatively safe, as in real life.

BTW-how DID they get the small LCs to the battle? Were they towed behind the APs or were they carried in other ships?

Nevermind, answered my question here:

http://www.ussrankin.com/id34.htm


The game engine does not allow ships to carry another ship/boat item from the game. Historically, PT boats were lashed to the deck of ships and delivered to the base they would defend that way. Midget subs were carried on the mother sub. Don came up with a work around to pair up midgets and the mother sub carrier, but it wasn't really possible to load any kind of craft representing in the game onto another ship.

The landing craft you do get for short range barge operations already fill up a lot of slots in the ship table. Including all the LCs in the game as the US had in real life would be more than the ships table can take.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to usersatch)
Post #: 22
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/30/2010 1:11:28 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3670
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Wiki says that no US APs were lost to shore batteries in WW2, for what it is worth.


The same is true for LST's, I don't think any were lost to hostile fire in the war. They were not allowed to move into shore until the beach was secured, but in game they get shredded every time.

Jim

_____________________________


(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 23
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/30/2010 9:12:08 PM   
Bomber

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 4/6/2010
Status: offline
Faster unloading wouldnt hurt either if you have so many CD fire stages during a turn.
I am at the point in my game where the Japanese have the amphib bonus and suffer 4 CD attacks (or more) per turn with unbelievable accuracy from minor defending elements. It is taking me an average of 3-4 turns to disembark from the AP/AK's to the hex. That means I have to suck on 100+ CD hits before even being able to attack with the LCU at full or leave with the TF.

(in reply to Kwik E Mart)
Post #: 24
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 5/31/2010 7:39:46 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12370
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Wiki says that no US APs were lost to shore batteries in WW2, for what it is worth.


The same is true for LST's, I don't think any were lost to hostile fire in the war. They were not allowed to move into shore until the beach was secured, but in game they get shredded every time.

Jim



But that´s true for all shipping in the game, I guess every PBEM sees x times more Allied shipping losses than what happened in real life. Not saying that´s a fault of the game.

_____________________________


(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 25
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 6/1/2010 7:11:08 PM   
Kwik E Mart


Posts: 2448
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


When designing the Amphibious Invasion process for AE, we went to the trouble of looking up the line of departure distance for several major invasions in the Pacific. The AE functions will generate transport ranges (from shore) well within these historical ranges. Transport locations and line-of-departure would of course be set for the shortest reasonable run in for the landing craft.




interesting...so the line-of-departure is somewhat randomized for each invasion?


_____________________________

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 26
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 6/1/2010 7:14:47 PM   
Kwik E Mart


Posts: 2448
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I would mention that part of the reason, a big part, that no AP's were lost was because the Allies chose their locations with care and brought an overwhelming weight of support along with them. They tended to avoid assaulting places with heavy CD defenses.


yes, or they would select the line of departure that would guarentee no shore fire could reach them (the AP's). from don's response, it seems in AE the LOD can sometimes be within that range (obviously, if people are losing AP's in invasions).


_____________________________

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 27
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 6/1/2010 7:46:19 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8162
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

To answer a couple of questions:

The Line of Departure is randomly selected within the range of historical distances. We checked a number of the major amphibious invasions in the Pacific and tallyed up the line of departure data that we could find. A patern developed and we set up a random distance calculator to approximate it. Quite an interesting thread on it in the development forum.

I suspect that higher than historical losses are largely caused by non-historical invasions. I would cite lack of proper preparation, too weak amphibious TFs, improper ships for the job, and target locations that are either over developed by the opponent or a difficult historical choice.

It is entirely possible that additional tuning might be required. However, it is the process in AE (and other games that I know of) to use some sort of random to generate different results each time the game is played. Randoms also give the "benefit" of a chance of unusual outcomes - the outnumbered winning, etc. Simply put, it's a bitch to tune random events. Besides, the amphibious invasion routines are just meant to emulate the process, not duplicate history to the finest detail.




(in reply to Kwik E Mart)
Post #: 28
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 6/1/2010 8:23:19 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


To answer a couple of questions:

The Line of Departure is randomly selected within the range of historical distances. We checked a number of the major amphibious invasions in the Pacific and tallyed up the line of departure data that we could find. A patern developed and we set up a random distance calculator to approximate it. Quite an interesting thread on it in the development forum.

I suspect that higher than historical losses are largely caused by non-historical invasions. I would cite lack of proper preparation, too weak amphibious TFs, improper ships for the job, and target locations that are either over developed by the opponent or a difficult historical choice.

It is entirely possible that additional tuning might be required. However, it is the process in AE (and other games that I know of) to use some sort of random to generate different results each time the game is played. Randoms also give the "benefit" of a chance of unusual outcomes - the outnumbered winning, etc. Simply put, it's a bitch to tune random events. Besides, the amphibious invasion routines are just meant to emulate the process, not duplicate history to the finest detail.



I've seen some LOD data for LSTs in mid-late war that is on the order of 3000 yards when using amtracs. The exposure time and seasickness factor had to be measured against threat to the LSTs. I figure APAs were probably a bit farther out when using larger L-class landing variants.

My experience with (now ) many opposed invasions isn't that the LOD needs tuning, but rather, simply, when the player DOES do everything right, especially pre-bombardment and use of CAS assets, that the CD units be more suppressed than they are now. I think those LSTs could come into 3000 yards and survive because the gunners ashore in non-casemated open mounts were either dead or in bunkers.

I don't know how randoms work in the naval bombardment and air-to-port attack routines, but perhaps just a bit more chance to knock the CD units back/disrupt on the day of the landing would balance things out. I think that Japanese CD LCUs with the "fortress" descriptor might be immune to this, while garden-variety CD units could take more of a beating from a solid force of BBs in 1943-45.

Perhaps this could be accomplished with fewer coefficient or random number changes than any tuning of LOD code?

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 6/1/2010 8:24:08 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 29
RE: Losing AP's during invasion - 6/2/2010 8:33:37 PM   
greycat

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 5/30/2008
From: England
Status: offline
I'm no expert on this subject but it seems to me that, historically, there was a distinction between coastal defence guns and beach defence guns; I don't know if this is modelled in the game. The former were intended to engage ships far out to sea and for this purpose required complicated range-finding and gun laying equipment. (In occupied Europe they were controlled by the German Navy; the Army was responsible for the beach defence guns.) True coastal defence batteries were usually sited to protect naval bases, major ports and strategic waterways from seaborne attack; for this reason, amphibious forces usually avoided such places like the plague! (Imagine if the Allies had tried to launch a direct assault on Le Havre, for example.) In WitP the hexes are 40nm across, so an attacker could be some distance from the base and still be in the same hex. I still think the CD gun effects in the game are about right, however, in that they discourage invasions of major enemy bases without adequate preparation.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Losing AP's during invasion Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.176