|
AceRimmer posted:Right, I meant the switch to using deck guns during the high dud phase. Or is it more that using a deck gun is always a thing in favorable circumstances to conserve torps? Ah, yeah, I don't know the exact logic it uses. Presumably its some combination of having an unarmed target, plus maybe missing a few shots or having duds? I think the aggressiveness of the captain plays a role as wel. pthighs fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Jan 21, 2016 |
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
AceRimmer posted:Right, I meant the switch to using deck guns during the high dud phase. Or is it more that using a deck gun is always a thing in favorable circumstances to conserve torps? Not having any torps left to shoot will also make them use their deck gun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
What's up with battle reports that indicate the sub captain shooting like 70 rounds into an xAK? Is it the sub captains aggressiveness or what?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Because when all you have is a small deck gun, thats how many shots it can take to sink a freighter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:What's up with battle reports that indicate the sub captain shooting like 70 rounds into an xAK? Is it the sub captains aggressiveness or what? Gaj posted:Because when all you have is a small deck gun, thats how many shots it can take to sink a freighter. Small deck gun or machine guns. A .50 cal MG will get counted as "Shell", which skews some results. Also, for those curious, that TK Esso Richmond was seen and torpedo'd before. Edit: Specifically on New Year's Day Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:What's up with battle reports that indicate the sub captain shooting like 70 rounds into an xAK? I know! It's amazing what you can sink with just 70 .50 cal rounds i81icu812 fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Small deck gun or machine guns. A .50 cal MG will get counted as "Shell", which skews some results. Ahhh but then the question is does this game model the possible use of a sub's AA ordinance against surface targets?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Gaj posted:Ahhh but then the question is does this game model the possible use of a sub's AA ordinance against surface targets? If it's within range? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Also, off memory, that's about what it took for Uboats to get a kill. Turns out boats don't sink easy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Gaj posted:Ahhh but then the question is does this game model the possible use of a sub's AA ordinance against surface targets? Yes and the game doesn't tell you what type of shell hit. For the exception that proves the rule, atom bombs read as "bomb hit(s): 1" and twenty lines of boilerplate later: "atom bomb" with nothing to show after it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
One of this game's big disappointments is it doesn't allow you to properly do a nuke-supported Operation Downfall 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
TheDemon posted:One of this game's big disappointments is it doesn't allow you to properly do a nuke-supported Operation Downfall Lack of modeling war crimes in games is sure disappointing! Really though, is it not possible? You can nuke Japan though it costs you pretty heavily in victory points, and I don't see why you couldn't combine that with a land invasion. Come to think of it, has there ever been an LP or AAR where the Allies invaded the Home Islands? I know Grey took Hokkaido in his Allied LP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
pthighs posted:My math class in school I took a class on Japan at war and one of the books we read, it might have been Saburo Sakai's, claimed leading up to the war the entire populace was militarized to such an extent that they actually taught trigonometry to grade schoolers using artillery and torpedo plotting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
Drone posted:Lack of modeling war crimes in games is sure disappointing! Isn't how the A-bombs work, they don't cost you points but rather simply move the victory type down one step for every nuke beyond the two hystorical ones? As in, if you score a major allied victory with 3 nukes, it gets turned into minor or whatever the denomination is?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
That's right - if you haven't won yet after using two atomic bombs and fire off a third, your "victory level" moves down one notch, even if it was the third that takes you over the finish line. Every succeeding atomic bomb after that costs another notch. Operation Downfall was supposed to use multiple atomic bombs to clear the beaches of defenders, and you can't really do that in this game because A. you won't have enough bombs to do it B. the bombs, as modeled, won't deal enough damage to ground troops for it to be worth it C. it's going to completely tank your victory level Drone posted:Come to think of it, has there ever been an LP or AAR where the Allies invaded the Home Islands? I know Grey took Hokkaido in his Allied LP. I've seen at least one AAR before where the Allied player against the Japanese AI landed on the Home Islands and took Tokyo by force. Casualties were in the simulated hundreds of thousands. The player went out of their way to not "win" the game before that happened, though. In most cases you're going to trigger the victory condition by points before you ever need to touch the Home Islands, and any scenario where the Japanese player is good enough to drag the war past Sep 1945 is probably going to be one where the Allies are in no good position to invade Honshu anyway. I suppose Grey's game could have gone on longer if he didn't use the A-bomb, but in a parallel of "firebombings are just as bad as nukes", he would have destroyed enough industry via conventional munitions to score the points needed win even without needing a land invasion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 11:04
|
|
|
Drone posted:Come to think of it, has there ever been an LP or AAR where the Allies invaded the Home Islands? I know Grey took Hokkaido in his Allied LP. There was a two-player AAR on the Matrix forums, an expert Japanese player versus a new Allied player. The Japanese player was winning handily (mostly because of the Allied player having to learn to play the game as they were playing it), so the Allied player went "gently caress it" and launched an invasion of Hokkaido. It turned out the Japanese had overextended because of overconfidence, so the Allied conquered all of Hokkaido in a few days. Then in a stroke of luck / skill he launched an invasion of Honshu and managed to sink the huge carrier/battleship combined TF the Japanese had rallied to fight off the invasion. Then the game ended because of "save file corruption" on the Japanese side.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
Mikl posted:Then the game ended because of "save file corruption" on the Japanese side. Sheesh, who still uses that excuse when an LP is not going your way? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 12:42
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Sheesh, who still uses that excuse when an LP is not going your way? You are backing up this one regularly, right? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Sheesh, who still uses that excuse when an LP is not going your way? Hahaha.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:You are backing up this one regularly, right? Yep! and its a new computer that does not yet know what it's in for!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
How do you even have saved game corruption? I've been playing a game with goon ElBrak for a year (?) now and if a file goes bad wouldn't you just pick up from the previous turn, which you'd have archived over the hundreds and hundreds of back-and-forth emails? Understandable for Grey Hunter playing single-player, but in a PBEM? C'mon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
Mikl posted:There was a two-player AAR on the Matrix forums, an expert Japanese player versus a new Allied player. The Japanese player was winning handily (mostly because of the Allied player having to learn to play the game as they were playing it), so the Allied player went "gently caress it" and launched an invasion of Hokkaido. It turned out the Japanese had overextended because of overconfidence, so the Allied conquered all of Hokkaido in a few days. Then in a stroke of luck / skill he launched an invasion of Honshu and managed to sink the huge carrier/battleship combined TF the Japanese had rallied to fight off the invasion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:How do you even have saved game corruption? I've been playing a game with goon ElBrak for a year (?) now and if a file goes bad wouldn't you just pick up from the previous turn, which you'd have archived over the hundreds and hundreds of back-and-forth emails? Turns out I was misremembering, here's the AAR on the Japanese side. Here is about where he invades Hokkaido. Then he tried to land at Akita after conquering Hokkaido, and succeeds after murdering the battleship/cruiser force the Japanese player had sent to stop him (this is what I was remembering). Then the Japanese player "lost" the savegame, the turn was replayed, and the battleship/cruiser force was fine and the landings were repelled (from the thread: "about 9000 AV was moved to Akita almost overnight before the attack"). After that the Allied player changed tactics, conquered Sadogashima, and later on got a lot of his air force murdered on the ground in Hokkaido (in the thread they called "overstacking on the Japanese side" but I have no clue what that means), and his CVs a little earlier than that. Then a while after that the game came to a stalemate, they got tired and called it quits. Mikl fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Probably overloading the hex with airgroups to game the outcome of the attacks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Mikl posted:Then the Japanese player "lost" the savegame, the turn was replayed, and the battleship/cruiser force was fine and the landings were repelled (from the thread: "about 6000 AV was moved to Aomori almost overnight before the attack"). Holy poo poo where do you get off being that much of a cheating dick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Holy poo poo where do you get off being that much of a cheating dick. To be fair, the Allied player didn't call the Japanese player out on this, and he could have just re-sent him the turn. So it's possible that he did lose the turn, or it was corrupted, and they didn't save the earlier turns from the PBEM.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Why? A few panthers - an above average but not war-changing tank by any means - aren't going to do the Japanese a lick of good. Historically, the Japanese had pretty good reasons not to develop tanks much. The terrain in much of the theater isn't well suited for them, and Japan had rather limited supplies of raw resources, manpower, and especially fuel. I know! I'd still like to see it in a game as detailed as WITP, or an Gary Grigsby title really. Even if it is literally 15 tanks. I mean, ffs think of some of the equipment that they bothered to model.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
A single unit of Panthers starting the war in the Mongolian Gobi. Your mission is to somehow keep them fuelled and repaired long enough for them to abuse Chinese infantry's near complete lack of AT weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:So far as I am aware, the only combatants of WWII that developed guided weapons were the US and Germany. The US abandoned their guided torpedo projects (guided air-to-ground and bombs were successfully developed at the same time or slightly earlier than the German ones but saw little combat use due to a lack of worthwhile targets late-war) because it wasn't likely to produce a usable weapon during the current war, while the Germans made a workable but dangerous (it was very easy to have the weapon lock on to the launch craft) weapon out of it. As far as I know, the British didn't deploy homing torpedoes until after WWII, and Japan didn't develop their own until the 1980s (with the JSDF using American ones until then). If I am not mistaken. The Germans used the Fritz X to sink the Roma right after the Italian Armistice. It was a guided anti-ship missile that worked pretty well in this one instance. Generally though, as I recall, the bomb actually fell at near supersonic velocities and often passed completely through a ship without exploding as a result. Now being hold like that sucked for a ship, but not as much as actually having the thing explode inside the ship. ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:If I am not mistake. The Germans used the Fritz X to sink the Roma right after the Italian Armistice. Correct. The US "Bat" and "Azon" weapons were in late testing at the same time, but hadn't yet been certified for operational use. In general, Wikipedia has a lot of flaws when it comes to cutting-edge weaponry - in at least some pages it claims that the US guided weapons projects were reactions to the German weapons, but these projects predate US involvement in the war by at least a year, and the main reason they didn't get into service first is that (much like Britain's jet fighters) research was not prioritized. Similarly, both the Bazooka and Panzerschreck pages (correctly) state that the German weapon was an enlarged clone of the American one, but the High Explosive Anti-Tank Warhead article strongly suggests that the Germans had the idea first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
   She's not sunk yet, so we finish the job.   I reactivate the bombers, thinking they will strike Jahor, but no, they fly outside of escort range all the way down here, and get butchered.  This is more what I expected, but I forgot to drop the height.  We get a hit, and confirm they have troops aboard.  Malacca falls to our forces. With nowhere to retreat to, the enemy forces surrender.   We begin to clear enemy troops out near Singyang – this is one where the destroyed squads is important, not the raw loss numbers.   We begin the final attacks on Manilla. This drops the AV to 35.   We are Jahore now, and will begin the attacks tomorrow. We took heavy air losses, but the Allies lost nearly a hundred points in army loss points.  Mine now.  21 days for repairs. Oh well, that's not bad for ending up in combat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Oh wow, they fixed her up quick. It must have been almost entirely superstructure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Maybe they just welded some 1/4 inch plate over the holes or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
goatface posted:Oh wow, they fixed her up quick. It must have been almost entirely superstructure. Note this is just one of the 2 carriers Grey got damaged, the other one was in worse shape. Nice to see my lucky ship will be back in action soon though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Oh right, it's the Ryujo that's limping 2000 miles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
goatface posted:Oh right, it's the Ryujo that's limping 2000 miles. Get it, sub skippers. Get it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
I forgot, have we gotten a carrier sinking in this LP yet? I don't think so, but I could've missed it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Holy poo poo where do you get off being that much of a cheating dick. I think this was the same AAR where the Japanese player also gamed the air combat mechanics so hard that the game's dev team actually included a nerf/fix for whatever he did in the next patch. It wasn't patched before the Allied player lost 3/4 of his carriers over the course of about two turns, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Slippery42 posted:I think this was the same AAR where the Japanese player also gamed the air combat mechanics so hard that the game's dev team actually included a nerf/fix for whatever he did in the next patch. It wasn't patched before the Allied player lost 3/4 of his carriers over the course of about two turns, though. It had something to do with a maximum number of shots that a CAP could take. So despite having something like 1500 late war US fighters in the area they got held up by a few hundred early war japanese fighters that were left overs and something like 500 torpedo planes got through unscathed and slaughtered the carriers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
Slippery42 posted:I think this was the same AAR where the Japanese player also gamed the air combat mechanics so hard that the game's dev team actually included a nerf/fix for whatever he did in the next patch. It wasn't patched before the Allied player lost 3/4 of his carriers over the course of about two turns, though. Apparently (heard early in the last Grey thread) the Allied player unwittingly did that earlier in the game, though it was well before the AAR took off due to the Hokkaido invasion. shalafi4 posted:It had something to do with a maximum number of shots that a CAP could take. That's it exactly, there was a limit on how many passes CAP could make, so a bunch of old japanese fighters on escort were basically ablative armor and allowed the entirety of the bomber force through the massive allied CAP, without any disruption so like the whole carrier force was easily hit. The escorting fighters got absolutely destroyed but there's nothing that could be done to combat the tactic and really only presents itself in late-game play, so it wasn't noticed before. I think AA was also somewhat anemic in the early days and there's mods that try to bring it up to more reasonable levels. I think you could also quickly run out of AA ammo during these massive attacks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 19:26
|
|
