Naval bombardment, too good?

[Big Al]

anyone feel naval units blowing the crap out of land units is a bitch much?

[Strategiclayabout]

Hehe a "bitch" much, nice one Big Al .

- And to answer your question, only my opinion but so far, no I don't think it's too much.

Units in cities/towns, on ressources or fortified tiles are more or less protected and each point your ships lose is costly.

- Plus you can still have some tac bomber around with naval tech to hammer enemy ships (unless your opponent has a big air advantage).

- Can't say about ships with naval level 3 but it's quite hard/long to get so it seems ok.

[Big Al]

I had to meanings merged like peanut butter and chocolate.

"anyone feel naval units blowing the crap out of land units is a bitch!"

and

"anyone feel naval units blowing the crap out of land units is a bit much?"

I keep researching about naval bombardment and its lack of effectiveness. That unless its precisely directed they dont do much. I see ships simply blow away land units way too often, like the UK in the eastern med. I was thinking of a "0" soft attack and "0" de-entrench but add to moral busting for Brute Force.

[Strategiclayabout]

Only an idea but maybe you can do the same thing with tech as for tac bombers in gold 1.01 ?

Meaning: 0,5 soft attack & deentrench by naval tech level (say better targeting/firing rate), beginning at 0 for level 0.

So you'll need tech 2 to get noticeable effects for shore bombardment.

For morale, maybe a 10% loss by tech level (say more effective, powerful shells) with something like 10% for cruiser and 20% for BBs at level 0 ? Not sure.

[Big Al]

Yup I was going there with that. Of course there is a balance of fun vs reality. So Im torn. Fighting El Alamein with the UK bombarding you really doesnt make sense.

I did up land based air retaliation vs ship attacks. You want to get close to shore to bomb an airfield? You will be destroyed by land based air.

[SeaMonkey]

I like that Al, landbased air is the trump card for naval vessels, as well as CAGs. However, I do believe the de-entrenchment characteristic for naval bombardment is an accurate portrayal of real events. Consider it heavy artillery, even the 5 inch Destroyer guns are equal to 127 mm, surpassing the predominant 105s of most field batteries.

[Big Al]

its not the size of the ammo its the accuracy. Look at the shelling of D-Day. It basically didnt do **** to fortifications = entrenchment. Stalin grad was another case. Air bombing the city to rubble actually made it better to defend for the Russians.

I left de-entrench with CAGs. Still debating the best option.

Im having a good game with Amadeus. 2 games swapping where Im each side. Already caught some stuff I improved. Little bugs to balance the game.

[Strategiclayabout]

For D-Day, wasn't the naval shore bombing ineffective because they fired too much inland, above the fortifications ? I think I remember something like that.

[SeaMonkey]

I can definitely agree with Al's premise, but I think he missed my meaning. Sure, naval bombardment was ineffective, especially early, largely due to inaccuracy, inexperience and a proper doctrine(like land fire control parties). That does not preclude the potential, as the firepower of naval vessels can be a devastating weapon.

So, couple the ability to Naval Warfare levels and allow the naval units to build experience through the practice of shore bombardments. Now I'm not saying for them to become all powerful, but perhaps the dynamics we are witnessing now should be available later if a player concentrates on orchestrating such an ability.

[mcaryf1]

Hi Big Al

I guess part of the problem with shore bomardment is the scale of the map. Even with your "big map" there isn't a single location on Sicily that might not be reached by shore bombardment. This is plainly absurd for DD's and CA/CL and even a 16" gun would not be able to reach the centre of Sicily let alone target anything accurately.

Shore bombardment certainly did play a part but restricting it to reducing entrenchment and impacting morale would be more realistic even for shoreline fortifications. I guess that a German sitting on Mount Etna might be demoralised by observing a BB bombarding his supply routes even if the shells could not actually reach him.

Regards

Mike

[xwormwood]

Big Al,

yes, i agree.

My solution would be sea mined beach / coastal zones.

North Sea, Baltic Sea and parts of the med sea would be no go zones for naval units, at least as long as the enemy sea mine are out there.

It would be different in the pacific, island hopping would still be possible (too many isles, to little mines).

[xwormwood]

I can definitely agree with Al's premise, but I think he missed my meaning. Sure, naval bombardment was ineffective, especially early, largely due to inaccuracy, inexperience and a proper doctrine(like land fire control parties). That does not preclude the potential, as the firepower of naval vessels can be a devastating weapon.

So, couple the ability to Naval Warfare levels and allow the naval units to build experience through the practice of shore bombardments. Now I'm not saying for them to become all powerful, but perhaps the dynamics we are witnessing now should be available later if a player concentrates on orchestrating such an ability.

But it is a difference if there are mine belts or not.

If it is YOUR coast or not.

As far as i know German ports were never shelled, and there was a reason for this. Same for the UK, and France only when the largest armada EVER was at sea.

In the Baltic the same. German CAs shelled the russian red army in 1944 / 1945, but they were shelling coast which were for years under german control, so the knew where to go, and where to stay away.

[Big Al]

Ultimately naval bombardment should support invasions only IMO. But the engine doesnt allow that, so I have to improvise something reasonable.

[Strategiclayabout]

Hi Big Al ^^ ,

- If you go for supporting invasion, maybe:

* deentrench benefits switched from naval tech to amphibious tech (0,25 or 0,5 per level)

* shore bombardment reducing supply instead of entrench for naval tech (0,5 per level ?)

(not sure if game engine can allow that but ships already do it when hitting MPPs supply sources)

- Would simulate the fact that a naval shore bombardment "pin" a unit (destroying vehicles and supplies, blocking movements and reinforcements).

- Like some kind of naval "interdiction": a unit already with already low or limited supply (7-6) can be hampered or paralyzed if enough ships mob it.

[Baron]

I have posted on this subject many times before. Not only naval but air attacks also. I think there should be some physical damage but most of the damage should be reflected in supply readiness reduction and decreased entrenchment values.

I would also say that naval or air attacks should never be able to destroy the last factor of a ground unit - ever, period. It takes foot soldiers to take and hold ground which requires them to attack the said ground. Bombard the heck out of them but you then need to send in the troops to do the mop up - not the other way around which is often the case in the SC series. To many times in SC the defending unit is destroyed by air or sea units and the attacking ground unit moves through the now unoccupied tile with no restrictions. This is not how these things work in real life, especially with amphibious operations.

Not to get into the historical\"game" argument but never in history has a defender been totally destroyed by sea or air - it always requires ground troops. Even in current conflicts it took ground troops attacking and holding ground to defeat the enemy. How many years did it take to get OBL? When we did get it him it was by ground troops. This could manifest itself in many ways especially invasions where sea and air forces destroy a city and then a unit invades by sea and opens the port up to a flood of transports. On some maps the unit density makes this a game breaker. If that extra movement away from the port city (after it had been attacked and occupied) was different it could really change the game play.

Just my opinion.

[xwormwood]

Ultimately naval bombardment should support invasions only IMO. But the engine doesnt allow that, so I have to improvise something reasonable.

It is hard to find the right combination.

Naval bombardement started WW2 , and at least the german navy used big ships against the Red Army in 1945, with not even a single thought about an invasion to follow.

It is hard to find the right combination.

[Big Al]

Damnit Jim, Im a designer not a programmer!!

Cant change the engine just manipulate its functions.

There is also the fun factor of the game.

While true air units shouldnt be able to blow away units how boring would it be to have air power 0 factors. And lets say for effect I reduce it to zero.

Now land air will be too cost ineffective vs a 1 air defense.

Ok so reduce air defense to 0 for land units.

Well now the air plane will gain experience with no loss of units and you will have Rudels running all over the place.

The largest problem for me and putting back AAA for land units in tech is that the AI fills every single unit with AAA. And at times its just not needed.