Jeff Heidman Posted June 19, 2002 Share Posted June 19, 2002 Makes no sense in a strategic game at this scale. Like a battleship is going to destroy 10% of a Panzer corps by lobbing a few shells at a beach some 50 klick away. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbellamy Posted June 19, 2002 Share Posted June 19, 2002 without shore bombardment you are never going to invade places like Malta, or anywhere the defender can place corps along the entire shoreline, as there is no way to amphibiously land in an opposed hex sure you can blow the defender away with airfleets, but this would limit invasions to 6 hexes from friendly airbases i believe battleship/cruiser groups are too strong vs air attack in terms of caualties they inflict on the attacking air fleets during the battle of france i see the french player frequently place his brest fleets along the low country shoreline to inflict some shore bombardment damage, and the german player is forced to bomb them, with casualties to his air fleets which I feel are not commensurate with the damage dealt [ June 19, 2002, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: blackbellamy ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted June 19, 2002 Author Share Posted June 19, 2002 Shore bombardment will never actually destroy a unit, so it doesn't allow an invasion where it would otherwise be impossible. I could see designating specific hexes as valid target for shore bombardment though, like Malta and Gibraltar. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted June 19, 2002 Share Posted June 19, 2002 Ideally, shore bombardment and air bombardment should be much less effective (-30% ?) if there are no ground units adjacent to the target hex, ie, no spotters to direct fire. Ground units offshore on transports waiting to land could count as spotters. Now that sounds real "tactical", but would address some of the concerns here. Whether Hubert can code in combat modifiers based on the presence of adjacent ground units is another issue, but should be possible. I wouldn't want to get rid of shore bombardment completely, but agree it needs to be toned down some. I also get a kick out of ground units inflicting counter-damage on fleets at sea during bombardments, like that's going to really happen. Ground units should not be able to attack naval units at sea, only in port. Another related issue is air attacks on naval units at sea. Carrier air should have an advantage over ground-based air, based on training and doctrine. They're different. Likewise, carrier air attacks on ground units should be at a disadvantage. Not sure what Hubert has in the guts of his combat code, but this is something to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbellamy Posted June 19, 2002 Share Posted June 19, 2002 "Shore bombardment will never actually destroy a unit" i've had the Brest garrison wiped out several times due to marauding UK/FF fleets while my air fleets were busy in Russia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted June 19, 2002 Author Share Posted June 19, 2002 I like the fact that ground units can inflict casualties on sea units bombarding them. Since bombardment doesn't make any sense to begin with, at least there is *some* negative to it. Call it an abstract representation of minor air and sea units attritting the shore bombardment fleet, which must make itself vulnerable to them by coming in close enough to bombard the ground unit. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straha Posted June 19, 2002 Share Posted June 19, 2002 I like the shore bombardment and do not want to have it removed at all. The big naval guns were always *meant* to do stuff like that (and not just sink each other). However, I fully agree that the bombardment should be less effective. The return damage is one thing I can't understand at all. Is this supposed to be CD guns? But where do theses suddenly come from? IMO the ships are already vulnerable enough with respect to landbased a/c attacks. Straha PS: As we are at the issue of return damage: I'm a bit more concerned with certain forms of return damage in CV attacks, actually. I really hope this will be somewhat more refined in the final game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDog Posted June 19, 2002 Share Posted June 19, 2002 I think the return damage makes sense. Sure land based artillery for the most part (with the exception of German super guns) doesn't come close to the maximum range of ship guns, but to be effective, the ships had to come in relatively close to conduct shore bombardment. Certainly within the range of the artillery that would make up a corps or army - that's a LOT of artillery, and yes, I think it could cause a significant amount of damage if someone was stupid enough to bring their ships in that close to an undamaged infantry unit. I think I've only had one ship sustain damage when I used it for shore bombardment, in about 25 games. The infantry units don't seem to do too well if you soften them up with a few air strikes first, as would be done historically. My vote is to leave it as is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorski Posted June 19, 2002 Share Posted June 19, 2002 I second that vote. Bill Macon's spotter idea sounds good if it's easy to add. Gorski [ June 19, 2002, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: gorski ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Posted June 19, 2002 Share Posted June 19, 2002 Just so you guys know, the way the game is now, land units do not defend against attacking naval units, not unless that land unit is in a city. Also, naval units can only be damaged if they are in port. I don't think it is possible for naval attacks to destroy a ground unit on one turn. Now, if you have several turns without unit reenforcement, that is another story. I also like the way it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
husky65 Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: I like the fact that ground units can inflict casualties on sea units bombarding them. Since bombardment doesn't make any sense to begin with, at least there is *some* negative to it. Call it an abstract representation of minor air and sea units attritting the shore bombardment fleet, which must make itself vulnerable to them by coming in close enough to bombard the ground unit. JeffI assume that you dont know about the allied ships that were lost or damaged doing shore bombardment at normandy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straha Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Shore bombardment indeed was a prerequisite of almost all naval invasions. Even DDs were used, not only heavy ships. In these cases, they of course suffered from return fire from coastal defense guns (sometimes from other ships, airplanes and submarines) etc. The question is how this should be represented in the game as we do not have CD gun installations on the map. Otto says that there is only return fire when units are in cities. I can live with that as we may assume that there are CD guns in the vicinity of the city/port. On the other hand, a corps marching along a coast hex which just happens to be in reach of some BBs should not be able to actively defend against shelling, as they do not bring the right kind of equipment for this (and neither are oriented towards the coast). But, of course, the same corps should not suffer extreme amounts of casualties from such a bombardment, either. Hmm, maybe we could have a rule that a unit sitting on a coast and having a high entrenchment level is actually preparing to defend the coast, which may involve some coastal defense batteries (to get the high entrenchment level, the corps has to be there for a while), but this is probably too detailed to implement now ... Straha [ June 19, 2002, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: Straha ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Hill Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by Bill Macon: I also get a kick out of ground units inflicting counter-damage on fleets at sea during bombardments, like that's going to really happen. Ground units should not be able to attack naval units at sea, only in port.Actually, any corps and/or army will definitely include at least one artillery battalion (usually, more than one within each division of all/any corps-sized or larger force), and any artillery battalion will contain long range artillery pieces (i.e. Howitzers) capable of returning fire on naval ships bombarding the shore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Heck - what game are you guys playing?? Successive shore bombardments can certainly destroy a unit in a single turn - had it done to me and done it to teh computer myself. But I do think it is over-rated. I'd like to see shore bombarment affecting ONLY fortification and entrenchment levels. There is no doubt that shore bombardment could cause huge amounts of actual damage (panzers ripped apaprt and tossed up-side-down spring to mind post D-Day), but realistically that was not all that much in the SC scale of things IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Another thought on this - the invasion mechanism requires empty hexes to get troops ashore. How will it affect game balance if naval can't help clear the hexes? I think the game would have to change to allow units to assault "from ship", or allow disembarkation onto partial land/sea hexes? IMO either would be more realistic than the current system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: Heck - what game are you guys playing??Strategic Command Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyrhic Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 I think that damage on both sides is likely unrealistic at the scale the game is modelled on. The territory that a given hex represents and the fact that there is no unit stacking would mean that the unit is likely very well spread out and couldn't suffer the kinds of losses suggested by bombardment. Probably the best way to deal with it would be to, as suggested, have onshore bombardment reduce fortification levels. Combine that with ability to launch an amphib attack and that should settle matters from both realistic and playability viewpoints. Another impact might be to restrict the mobility of bombarded units in the turn following the bombardment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genghis Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Had to bring this old topic again since I was thinking about the effectiveness of shore bombardment in SC. While playing the Russians, it was too easy to destroy whole armies on the Black sea and in the baltic. I do agree with most views expressed here that it's way too effective in destroying units. Ships should be able to only lower the entrenchments and/or lower readiness of units by killing off supply. Anyone else have any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Genghis Excellent choice as the whole issue just came up again. It's good having an official archiver. [ January 19, 2003, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Shore bombarbment works to break up coastal defenders, Though any smart coastal defender knows build your defenses beyond the guns range. Also coastal guns??? Hello anyone, all armies had big guns and coastal guns were built into the side of mountains and cliffs to be used on oncoming enemy ships in places like calais, saipan, etc..... Mines... and not only that planes would utterly massacre ships if not for interdictions. On average an ally kills about 20-100 infantry strength points with me only with ships... That reflects history??????? No way in hokie dokie hell. We need a forced retreat option, and offshore bombardment maybe softens defenders defence not really damaging them. Pushing back defenders 1 hex after so much bombardment. Though retreat has been talked about other places... In the Pacific, big guns were a lot more effective so were navies... Because you're fighting on many Islands and some weren't more than 20 miles across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Liam Agreed the game definitely needs a retreat function and coastal defense is a a good example of why. In the Pacific many Japanese held Islands were pulverized by both Battleship bombardment and aireal strikes, but the Japanese always seemed to be there firing like mad when the amphibious craft and Higgins boats hit the beaches. It's difficult to determine how many Japanese were killed in bombardments as there was so little post battle interrogation with most of the defenders either being killed fighting or committing suicide when seriously wounded. On a game scale retreat in most Pacific campaigns would not have been possible. [ January 20, 2003, 02:00 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genghis Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Aye I just hate using gamey tactics considering now I know how powerful shore bombardments are. Even though it's fun blowing away panzer corps along the Black sea If I'm defending France from seaborne invasion, I wouldn't bother putting units on coastline hexes where they can be touched by BB or CA units. Liam/JerseyJohn - I'm not even sure how effective shore bombardment was even in France on D-Day 1944. I think all it did was to create smoke and haze and allow at least some protection for the Allies when they landed. Certainly on Omaha beach, the Allies just got killed on the beaches where the BB's and CA's artillery just overshot the beach defenders and hit harmlessly in the bocage countryside. DD's had to come in and shoot at bunkers at point blank range in several cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaWolf_48 Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 What would Martin Luther King say about you guys talking about war on his Birthday. The question is not how much damage or what happens if ships bombard units on shore. The real question is, is this a computer game or is this a historical war game. I think SC is a computer game, and that's what the builders of this game want! If this is a historical game then all the things we feel couldn't happen, like a ship or a plane unit destroying a ground unit could never happen. Units would retreat when taking heavy damage, not just set there and die (Hitler would be so proud). Also the map would be more like Europe and not like what we have. Or maybe SC is alittle of both? Which makes no one happy except the designers of the game and the players who don't care about historic realism. Instead of going towards the new war movies about history, Saving Private Ryan, and Band of Brothers, maybe we should be thinking about Spider Man, and Crouching Tiger. I'm trying to like the game as a game, and not trying to redo history as General Stuelpnagel, I guess? [ January 20, 2003, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 SeaWolf_48 A very good point and well said. That was why in one of the much earlier Forums Hueristic and myself were trying to drum up some interest in a wargame generator incorporating the SC system, where players could create hypothetical wars or use the system to attempt Pacific scenarios or projects like the Korean War , Arab-Israeli wars or anything else they had in mind. For that purpose there would have to also be the ability to rename countries (Korea, Isreal, Japan, etc.) and redraw maps. We also felt a random map generator would be good. In that framework everyone using the item would have to consider it only as a game and be limited to whatever history they could incorporate into it. Genghis A great point. A lot of the naval and air preparation at Normandy did little more than create holes, often as usefull to the Germans as they were for the Americans and British, soley as hiding places. Some of it was also very effective; it varied from beach to beach. The worst preparation was probably at Tarawa In the Pacific where the Marines landed to face a Japanese garrison that had been neither reduced nor deprived of their strong emplacements. The Shells had either smothered themselves in soft sand or fragmented harmlessly against coral. The fighting was at such close quarters that naval guns couldn't be zeroed in for fear of killing as many Marines as Japanese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demoss Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 The fighting was at such close quarters that naval guns couldn't be zeroed in for fear of killing as many Marines as Japanese. US Navy support doctrine also included an irrational fear of hitting friendly aircraft with naval bombardment at this time, I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts