Shore bombardment is too strong.

[vveedd]

Is it only me or you guys think the same? It is ok to naval units make shore bombardment but to destroy unit completely? I strongly recommended for future patch that shore bombardment can weak unit but never destroy it.

[Retributar]

vveedd ...you may very well be correct!.

However,...not in WW2,...but in the war in IRAQ...when the Mini-Surveilance aircraft which were launched to give the Battleships eyes to see their Iraqui target's were spotted by the Iraqui's,...a sea of white flags and high raised arms appeared on the monitoring screens by those who were controlling these mini surveilance aircraft!. These Iraqui's knew that not to surrender immediately meant that they would soon die immediately!.

What this tell's me is that,...Battleship 'shore bombardment' just might be quite effective!,...however it would be much more effective in the present day as compared to WW2!.

[vveedd]

Originally posted by Retributar:

vveedd ...you may very well be correct!.

However,...not in WW2,...but in the war in IRAQ...when the Mini-Surveilance aircraft which were launched to give the Battleships eyes to see their Iraqui target's were spotted by the Iraqui's,...a sea of white flags and high raised arms appeared on the monitoring screens by those who were controlling these mini surveilance aircraft!. These Iraqui's knew that not to surrender immediately meant that they would soon die immediately!.

What this tell's me is that,...Battleship 'shore bombardment' just might be quite effective!,...however it would be much more effective in the present day as compared to WW2!.

I absolutely agree. Today, maybe, shore bombardment can destroy whole units but in WWII I don’t think so. Also we are talking about corps and army size units in SC2. How can you destroy whole army with shore bombardment? Impossible.

[Blashy]

The most you do is 1-2 points of damage and 1 ship represents a group so I can see it happening if you have a str 1-2 unit who gets killed off.

Starts at 10, gets attacked by AFs or ground troops, the unit has lost morale and readiness, as well as entrenchment, ships come close and strike with the big guns finishing off the totally disorganised troops.

[Exel]

As discussed in another thread, the destruction of a unit doesn't necessarily represent all of its personnel being KIA'd. The unit only becomes combat-ineffective and is withdrawn/dissolved (it does go back to the unit pool).

In this context, a previously weakened unit - be it by ground, air or naval attacks - may suffer the critical blow from a devastating naval barrage hitting its positions. Thus the unit will break, rout or whatever.

[vveedd]

Originally posted by Blashy:

The most you do is 1-2 points of damage and 1 ship represents a group ....

I thought this also but then I saw Bismarck ship (for example). This unit represent group of ships with same name? :cool:

Originally posted by Exel:

As discussed in another thread, the destruction of a unit doesn't necessarily represent all of its personnel being KIA'd. The unit only becomes combat-ineffective and is withdrawn/dissolved (it does go back to the unit pool).

In this context, a previously weakened unit - be it by ground, air or naval attacks - may suffer the critical blow from a devastating naval barrage hitting its positions. Thus the unit will break, rout or whatever.

As much as I like improvisation and abstract view this is too abstract for me. I had very negative example in one of my first PBEM game. Opponent player managed to reach UK shores with Italian and German navy and then he bombed to hell every available corps unit. Because of map scale and lots of shore tiles it looked like that he bombed 90% of UK territory and this is not what you can call shore bombardment.

[ June 06, 2006, 03:57 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

[Blashy]

Yes it does. In WW2 when they were looking for the Bismark it was not just the Bismark, it had a small escort, but they called it "Bismakr".

It's like the HQs, they have names but they represent a whole support unit, vehicles, colonels, captains, logistics, the works, but we give it a name for flavor .

[vveedd]

Originally posted by Blashy:

Yes it does. In WW2 when they were looking for the Bismark it was not just the Bismark, it had a small escort, but they called it "Bismakr".

It's like the HQs, they have names but they represent a whole support unit, vehicles, colonels, captains, logistics, the works, but we give it a name for flavor .

And all this escort vessels have big guns for shore bombardment?

[Blashy]

Yes and no, it only had one heavy cruiser with him.

But in SC2 terms all units do not represent ONE unit but a group. That is how I've always seen it.

After all, the Germans had more than 3 subs.

[markpoll]

Originally posted by Exel:

As discussed in another thread, the destruction of a unit doesn't necessarily represent all of its personnel being KIA'd. The unit only becomes combat-ineffective and is withdrawn/dissolved (it does go back to the unit pool).

In this context, a previously weakened unit - be it by ground, air or naval attacks - may suffer the critical blow from a devastating naval barrage hitting its positions. Thus the unit will break, rout or whatever.

I don't think that was the experience of say the marines at Tarawa or say the US at Omaha, despite laying down some of the heaviest air and sea bombardmentspossible with the technology of the time. I think it's fair to say that naval bombardment in WWII could at best be expected to cause some casualties and reduce entrenchment and supply.

Also, the bombarding unit should not take casualties, just have it's supply level reduced for ammo consumption.

[ June 06, 2006, 05:29 AM: Message edited by: markpoll ]

[jon_j_rambo]

@vweeed --- Weed, are you smoking weed? If you're not in an entrenchment or some serious cover when the US Navy comes by, you're going to get popped.

[vveedd]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

@vweeed --- Weed, are you smoking weed? If you're not in an entrenchment or some serious cover when the US Navy comes by, you're going to get popped.

I get popped by Italian and German navy and that's what worries me.

Originally posted by Blashy:

Yes and no, it only had one heavy cruiser with him.

But in SC2 terms all units do not represent ONE unit but a group. That is how I've always seen it.

After all, the Germans had more than 3 subs.

My point exactly.Group of submarines have same combat abilities, Bismarck group have one battleship, one cruiser and a few support vessel. It is not the same isn’t it?

[hellraiser]

No you're not Sitting with just the sky above your head is the best option - ship guns, air raids will target entrenchments first

[Exel]

Originally posted by markpoll:

I don't think that was the experience of say the marines at Tarawa or say the US at Omaha, despite laying down some of the heaviest air and sea bombardmentspossible with the technology of the time. I think it's fair to say that naval bombardment in WWII could at best be expected to cause some casualties and reduce entrenchment and supply.

At least in Normandy most of the naval bombardment never hit its targets. They overshot because they were too afraid to risk hitting their own troops. Hence most of the beach fortifications were intact when the barges hit the shore...

That said, of course a battleship should not be able to destroy an army on its own. But they don't. Or have you witnessed a full-strenght unit been destroyed by a single BB attack? The only way they can decimate a unit is if the unit has already been severely weakened.

[Major Spinello]

I have no problems with how shore bombardment is handled right now. However I find it a bit ridiculous that ships are close to immune to bombardment while in harbour ...

[jon_j_rambo]

June 6th, 1944 --- The ships didn't do "alot of damage" because the Buntas had strong fortifications. If the Allies would have shore bombarded w/o landing troops, YES, we would have be able to break them down...but we didn't want to give away the landing positions. Overated Rommel was too busy with his wife's shoes, had all the troops at the wrong spot!

[Rolend]

I would not mind seeing shore bombardment changed so that it reduces readyness and entrinchment instead of doing damage as long as you cahnge it so the navy unit does not take damage in return. Other wise just leave it as it is.

I think the Navy needs a lot of work from subs to carriers to surface fleets but at this point a major rework should be pushed off to SC 3 if there is going to be another.

[jon_j_rambo]

Dude, the U.S. Navy headcracked people with shore bombardment, it's as simple as that. I like you guys, but in this case, you're wrong.

[Exel]

Harbors on the other hand shouldn't give as much protection from attacks as they do now. Not from aerial attacks anyway. Pearl Harbor anyone?

[Rolend]

LOL yea Rambo and ALL GI's are Rambos and the US are UBER military men that roll over anyone that gets in their way I think you have watched one too many movies. By the way this is coming from a proud American Vet. I have been part of the U.S. military so I have seen first hand just how UBER they are LOL. Just ask any GI that went ashore after a major bombardment how effective they thought the bombardment was.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Rolend --- Son, it's because I wasn't in charge or Patton for that matter.

[jon_j_rambo]

The best shore bombardment dude ever was Mr. Farragout!

[guinty1]

Originally posted by Blashy:

Yes and no, it only had one heavy cruiser with him.

But in SC2 terms all units do not represent ONE unit but a group. That is how I've always seen it.

After all, the Germans had more than 3 subs.

in that case the UK fleet strength at 1939 is vastly under represented in hte game ,it had .. 7 aircraft carriers,15 battleships,66 cruisers,184 destroyers and 60 submarines.Also it had 100s of small torpedo boats,"armed" merchant ships ect.

[BuddyLee]

I have to play SC2 some more to make an opinion on the strength of the bombardment.

I have played enough to form the opinion that troops in unprepared positions should not cause damage to a naval unit when it gets targeted for a bombardment.

Prepared positions (Sevastopol, Gibralatar, areas prepared by engineers) maybe, unprepared no.

[Exel]

Yes, damage to ships from bombing coastal tiles should definitely go. It's enough that carriers take damage from attacking (actually, too much).