Naval Units at Close Range

[K K Rossokolski]

Pretty well all the points made here are correct, but I think one word has been underemphasised...Tarawa. The reason the shells, fired at shorter range and hence flatter trajectory, skidded is because Tarawa is flat, as is Kwajalein and the other atolls. Very little "geometric verticals" to stop the shell. Not so islands such as the Okinawa group, the Marianas, nor further west .....Italy.
The major problem at Tarawa was that it was the first of the great amphibious assaults...much was still to learn. I agree with Ed's view...this is a matter of little import, based seemingly on information from one report relevant to a specific place with certain unvarying geographic shape.
It ain't broke, therefore why fix it? Change for change's sake, seems like to me.

[umbro]

I know the positive effects that the destroyers off the coast of Normandy provided to the Americans through their direct fire. I also know the lack of effect of the bombardments at Tarawa and Iwo Jima.
How could both be modeled?

By Normandy the lessons of Tarawa had been learned and changes made. 5" shells from destroyers did not suffer from the same effect as the 8"+ from Cruisers and battleships. My suggestion was that the soft target atk str of larger vessels (larger than destroyers) or large calibre naval guns (8"+) be reduced to 0 at short ranges (<2000yds say). Thus, if you want to use naval bombardment then you are forced to stand further off (the tactic that was adopted after Tarawa).

Iwo Jima was a different kettle of fish, and luckily we have the cave terrain to simulate the lack of effect of naval bombardment in that conflict.

In fact, I am using caves on Tarawa to simulate the concrete bunkers that were buried under sand which made them almost impervious to shore bombardment. Pillbox/bunker+cave is a tough nut combo.

umbro

[Mike Abberton]

I guess the other question is, do any of the scenarios use naval units at an atoll at ranges closer than 8-10 hexes? Unless the water side of the map was really small, I don't see this affecting off-board naval artillery too often.

And realistically how many scenarios are going to use the new on-board "bathtub navy" on an atoll battle where the unit may approach closer than 8-10 hexes anyway? Would stripping the soft attack factor rob them of some legitimate uses, say firing at unarmored (i.e. soft) landing craft or barges?

It seems to me like a very minimal issue to me. We should probably just consider Tarawa an outlier result that is outside the purview of the game (like really mechanically faulty Panthers at Kursk).

[K K Rossokolski]

These are very good points, Mike.

[umbro]

Would stripping the soft attack factor rob them of some legitimate uses, say firing at unarmored (i.e. soft) landing craft or barges?

My understanding is that secondary armaments were intended to be used in such a role, and tertiary armaments in the AA role.

Given that units have only one weapon rating what you probably should have for a multi-weapon platform is a blend of those weapons over each of their effective ranges.

It seems to me like a very minimal issue to me.

Well yes, it certainly is. But do we have any big issues left to tackle?

Perhaps I shouldn't ask that question!

umbro

[Mike Abberton]

Would stripping the soft attack factor rob them of some legitimate uses, say firing at unarmored (i.e. soft) landing craft or barges?

My understanding is that secondary armaments were intended to be used in such a role, and tertiary armaments in the AA role.

Given that units have only one weapon rating what you probably should have for a multi-weapon platform is a blend of those weapons over each of their effective ranges.

You're probably right. Direct fire by 8+-inch main guns against barges and landing craft would probably be a little overkill.

Well yes, it certainly is. But do we have any big issues left to tackle?

Perhaps I shouldn't ask that question!

umbro

Oh man!! Duck!!!! :eek1:

[Herr Straße Laufer]

My understanding is that secondary armaments were intended to be used in such a role, and tertiary armaments in the AA role.

Given that units have only one weapon rating what you probably should have for a multi-weapon platform is a blend of those weapons over each of their effective ranges.

Well yes, it certainly is. But do we have any big issues left to tackle?

Perhaps I shouldn't ask that question!

umbro

If I recall correctly 5" and less were used in the AA role. A multi weapon platform would be interesting but, as Mike stated, why go through the trouble for such a small return?

Fixing the extreme assault rules and/or making a "milder" or "medium" assault rule as a third option might be a better use of time? :rolleyes:

Or, how about a drag and drop scenario OOB editor?
A unit integrity "checker" to ensure that units are in the proper order in the OOB editor?

A better variety of terrain choices;
I think someone asked for heavy forest?
How about more variety in buildings? etc.

Or, is that just a graphics "thingy"?

But, I've gotten too far off topic. ;)
Just remember, change for changes sake will only create a further ripple effect (or butterfly effect) of unintended consequences?

Regards,

Ed

[umbro]

If I recall correctly 5" and less were used in the AA role.

Dependent upon the ship class, some were high trajectory, others secondary armament batteries.

why go through the trouble for such a small return?

Though my question was rhetorical, there is a interesting point in here. There is only one coder working on the project right now, and he would be required for all the changes you suggest (even the terrain additions, unfortunately :-( ). However, unit value tweaks can be performed by any other members of the development team.

umbro

[K K Rossokolski]

If I recall correctly 5" and less were used in the AA role.

Dependent upon the ship class, some were high trajectory, others secondary armament batteries.

why go through the trouble for such a small return?

Though my question was rhetorical, there is a interesting point in here. There is only one coder working on the project right now, and he would be required for all the changes you suggest (even the terrain additions, unfortunately :-( ). However, unit value tweaks can be performed by any other members of the development team.

umbro

I hope you are not using this staffing issue as an argument for changing all the unit values. A bit like the bloke who was asked by the insurance company why he burned his house down...."Because I had a box of matches."

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Dependent upon the ship class, some were high trajectory, others secondary armament batteries.

Though my question was rhetorical, there is a interesting point in here. There is only one coder working on the project right now, and he would be required for all the changes you suggest (even the terrain additions, unfortunately :-( ). However, unit value tweaks can be performed by any other members of the development team.

umbro

Yes, about the ship armament. It varied per ship and when the ship was launched or "retooled" in the shipyard, per battle requirements, as the lessons of warfare were learned.

Yikes, on the one coder issue.
If he is tied up with the modern wars development then we can see that any coding support for CS will be a back burner issue.
Too bad that the code could not be "given" to another who could work on the changes to terrain, et al. Even if the "assistant coder" would simply be there to bear some of the workload and pass the code upgrades to the "master coder"? :smoke::chin:

For some reason I saw terrain as a graphics issue that others could handle.
I'm not a "code geek", so I would not dare to comment on how things could be done. I just see the lack of specific concentrated effort into CS by a lone coder, and the "value tweaking" by all others to be something that is not "good" for the game itself.
In my opinion, what the game needs to improve it could only be handled by the lone coder. :(:chin:

Thanks for the enlightenment.



Ed