Question about previous campaigns

[kondi754]

If I understand correctly this is an editor issue?
Should the Japanese fleet have a destination point set closer to the island's shores, more to the south of the map?
Forgive me, I have absolutely no knowledge of editing the behavior of units on a map, I can only do simple things in the editor.
That's why my description was straight from some AAR

Well, you know how it is with "should" and "could"...

But yeah, it all depends on the AI orders set in the scen editor. Similar situations can happen on land maps, as I've shown on many examples: blocking a hex with mines that the AI needs to capture in order to advance. If it can't capture the hex, all follow-up orders in the triggers are ignored and the AI units just "dance around" some hex and do nothing (unless attacked).
Or just do not capture some city hex to not trigger an AI counterattack... and so on. There are just too many editor/scen design "exploits" on either land and naval maps - and if you know them, you can use them, like you did.

Same thing here. The ships were send to that location, because it's where usually the player's forces should be...

Ok, I know now what you mean
So it doesn't really take much to fix it, just move that point 2 hexes lower on this map?

[GabeKnight]

So it doesn't really take much to fix it, just move that point 2 hexes lower on this map?

Honestly, I don't know. You'll have to ask the designer how the scen is supposed to play. Maybe the fleet was intended to not engage the player? I don't know how it should play historically...

But specifically in YOUR case: yes.

[kondi754]

Okay, but that's not all of Nelson's strategy, there was another group of ships
However, that was actually a bad example
I'm not a naval historian, I probably drew the wrong conclusions from what I once read

EDIT. But no, this tactic was T I'm right
Look at battle map you posted - this is even a double T, because when cutting the French formation, Nelson's ships crossed the letter T both for the French ships arriving from the south (British South Column) and for the French ships sailing north, which were at the fore (British North Column)

Read this post, it clearly shows Nelson crossed the T ultimately during Trafalgar
"However, once Nelson broke through the Allied lines he in fact crossed the T of the Allied rear line."
https://www.reddit.com/r/history/commen ... aving_his/

Below the best axample of crossing the T tactics during II world war, battle in the Surigao Strait during the landing at Leyte (Philippines) in the fall of 1944, so please don't write that this is an outdated tactic and no one used it...
BTW, battle in the Surigao Strait is a part o Leyte scn in US Pacific campaign

EDIT. BTW, At the same time, in the north of the Leyte beachhead, an incredible battle was fought by US aircraft carriers against Japanese battleships

Surigao_straight.jpg (179.43 KiB) Viewed 2738 times

[kondi754]

So it doesn't really take much to fix it, just move that point 2 hexes lower on this map?

Honestly, I don't know. You'll have to ask the designer how the scen is supposed to play. Maybe the fleet was intended to not engage the player? I don't know how it should play historically...

But specifically in YOUR case: yes.

Thanks Gabe

[kondi754]

Great Marianas Turkey Shoot

great marianas turkey shoot.jpg (955.63 KiB) Viewed 2707 times

[kondi754]

In my opinion it was a turning point in the Pacific, then the Japanese were terrified by the power of the US NAVY

(Yes, definitely, it wasn't a battle, it was a showcase of the power of the "new" US NAVY )

[prestidigitation]

Okay, but that's not all of Nelson's strategy, there was another group of ships
However, that was actually a bad example
I'm not a naval historian, I probably drew the wrong conclusions from what I once read

EDIT. But no, this tactic was T I'm right
Look at battle map you posted - this is even a double T, because when cutting the French formation, Nelson's ships crossed the letter T both for the French ships arriving from the south (British South Column) and for the French ships sailing north, which were at the fore (British North Column)

Read this post, it clearly shows Nelson crossed the T ultimately during Trafalgar
"However, once Nelson broke through the Allied lines he in fact crossed the T of the Allied rear line."
https://www.reddit.com/r/history/commen ... aving_his/

I was assuming you were joking until you linked an arr history post. Nelson's focus wasn't raking fire and he wouldn't have described his plan of action that way, it was close quarters combat in a mixed melee with orders for every captain to close with and defeat the enemy using his own initiative. Hence Trafalgar is full of boardings and short range broadsides including with an absolutely absurd number of carronades (large caliber shortened cannons full of shot aka giant shotguns) used to clear enemy decks. Victory rather famously used a frontal attack with her bow mounted 68lbr carronades to clear the deck of a French ship of the line facing her broadside. The exact opposite of raking fire yet wildly effective.

Raking fire is not and never has been the be all end all of naval tactics, and its importance is often overestimated by people with little understanding of the period and it is a frustratingly common refrain.

Below the best axample of crossing the T tactics during II world war, battle in the Surigao Strait during the landing at Leyte (Philippines) in the fall of 1944, so please don't write that this is an outdated tactic and no one used it...
BTW, battle in the Surigao Strait is a part o Leyte scn in US Pacific campaign

EDIT. BTW, At the same time, in the north of the Leyte beachhead, an incredible battle was fought by US aircraft carriers against Japanese battleships


Surigao_straight.jpg

I'm tired of explaining naval combat to you and having you do weird stuff like this, so I'm just gonna quote wiki since that's where you pulled your image from...

"It was also the last battle in which one force (in this case, the U.S. Navy) was able to "cross the T" of its opponent. However, by the time that the battleship action was joined, the Japanese line was very ragged and consisted of only one battleship (Yamashiro), one heavy cruiser, and one destroyer, so that the "crossing of the T" was notional and had little effect on the outcome of the battle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... ober_1944)

The decisive element here was the repeated torpedo attacks head on by destroyers and PT boats as the Japanese were moving to attack which sank the majority of the Japanese ships which you can see clearly depicted in the image you posted................

[kondi754]

We can go into the nuances of battles endlessly, in many sources I have found information that the Battle of Surigao is an example of the use of this tactic.
As I wrote earlier, I don't think that destroying the enemy fleet is the primary goal of this tactic. It seems to me that its main purpose is to take a favorable position at the beginning of the fight. The final effect for the fate of the battle is not important, the fact that the US Navy is grouped in this way is important.
When it comes to Wikipedia, it is a good/average source of knowledge for me, I myself found a lot of distortions and a lot of outdated information there, correlating it with contemporary historians' research, although it related to land operations, I'm definitely not a specialist in naval tactics, it is not mine main field of interest.

EDIT. Of course, it doesn't matter, I'm probably wrong, it is probably an archaic tactic and I'm definitely not an expert in naval battles, but such a tactic has worked for me several times in OoB. I don't count Guadalcanal scn because there was no battle there due to a game bug

[kondi754]

Leyte '44

leyte.jpg (878.67 KiB) Viewed 2629 times

[terminator]

[Boot Camp] Island Hopping

US Airborne'42 in 1941

[Boot Camp] Island Hopping(1).jpg (471.38 KiB) Viewed 2570 times

[kondi754]

My historical core before Okinawa

3x Marines 44
5x Inf 45
2x Engineers
Australian Commandos (bonus unit)
Greyhound
Willys MB .50Cal
Sherman 76(W) HVSS
Sherman Calliope
Sherman Zippo
M5A1 Stuart
M3 Satan
M8 75mm HMC
M7 Priest
155mm Long Tom
105mm Howitzer
2x 40mm Bofors AA

okinawa.jpg (754.9 KiB) Viewed 2550 times

[kondi754]

Such firepower crushes everything in its path.

+ average fleet ( 1 battleship, 3 heavy cruisers, mass of destroyers, 1 fleet carrier, 2 escort carriers, 2 submarines, all models 43/44)
+ quite decent air force ( Hellcats, Corsairs, Lightnings, Helldivers, Avengers, Dauntless)

okinawa 4 turn.jpg (907.7 KiB) Viewed 2543 times

[plaudern]

Do you guys remember the old naval battle mechanics? The defending vessel would return fire similar to air and land units.
I miss this....

I had forgotten this, and I was just about to make a post suggesting this as a new mechanic for the game. I very very much would like to see this mechanic return to naval combat in IMO, it would improve naval combat immensely.

A couple of possible nuances that might make things more interesting.

1) Allow the return fire to happen only once (or twice) a turn. This would add some extra viability to the tactic of several ships ganging up on one ship. It would also add some help to torpedo attacks as those ships would not suffer from return fire, perhaps making up in part for the long “cool down” requirements in torpedo combat.

2) Don’t allow defending naval vessels to reorient their heading when returning fire, combine this with making their return fire less effective in the forward and rearward cone, for the obvious reasons.

This last point brings up my own comment regarding crossing the T tactic in naval warfare, which I make in a different post, so as to not prejudice discussions.

[terminator]

Do you guys remember the old naval battle mechanics? The defending vessel would return fire similar to air and land units.
I miss this....

I had forgotten this, and I was just about to make a post suggesting this as a new mechanic for the game. I very very much would like to see this mechanic return to naval combat in IMO, it would improve naval combat immensely.

A couple of possible nuances that might make things more interesting.

1) Allow the return fire to happen only once (or twice) a turn. This would add some extra viability to the tactic of several ships ganging up on one ship. It would also add some help to torpedo attacks as those ships would not suffer from return fire, perhaps making up in part for the long “cool down” requirements in torpedo combat.

2) Don’t allow defending naval vessels to reorient their heading when returning fire, combine this with making their return fire less effective in the forward and rearward cone, for the obvious reasons.

This last point brings up my own comment regarding crossing the T tactic in naval warfare, which I make in a different post, so as to not prejudice discussions.

I don’t remember, but it could be a possible future naval specialization ?

[plaudern]

Since, like most humans, I feel everyone is entitled to my opinion, I feel compelled to weigh in on the “crossing of the T” discussion.

I disagree with the statement that crossing the T has been an outmoded tactic for several hundred years. I think the examples given of Tsushima and Surigao Straight provide excellent evidence (even if not necessary for victory). The relevant admirals at the time tried to achieve such positioning in gunnery combat. Jellicoe’s performance at Jutland provides another example.

The geometry of naval gunnery shows that a “modern” BB, BC, CA, CL etc. has less firepower to the fore and aft compared to the broadside. Also, the zone of plunging fire vulnerability is greater for a ship whose T has been crossed compared to the other ship. (I suspect this second sentence is of minor importance, but true none the less.)

However, I do agree that crossing the T is not “the be all and end all” of naval tactics. The examples of Nelson’s battles making an excellent point. After all no captain can do badly by placing his ship next to the enemy. To mangle Nelson’s quote. Of course it helps to have ship crews that are far superior to the opponent.

[kondi754]

Since, like most humans, I feel everyone is entitled to my opinion, I feel compelled to weigh in on the “crossing of the T” discussion.

I disagree with the statement that crossing the T has been an outmoded tactic for several hundred years. I think the examples given of Tsushima and Surigao Straight provide excellent evidence (even if not necessary for victory). The relevant admirals at the time tried to achieve such positioning in gunnery combat. Jellicoe’s performance at Jutland provides another example.

The geometry of naval gunnery shows that a “modern” BB, BC, CA, CL etc. has less firepower to the fore and aft compared to the broadside. Also, the zone of plunging fire vulnerability is greater for a ship whose T has been crossed compared to the other ship. (I suspect this second sentence is of minor importance, but true none the less.)

However, I do agree that crossing the T is not “the be all and end all” of naval tactics. The examples of Nelson’s battles making an excellent point. After all no captain can do badly by placing his ship next to the enemy. To mangle Nelson’s quote. Of course it helps to have ship crews that are far superior to the opponent.

Be my guest
Thanks for support
Almost every battle in the waters around Guadalcanal was about finding a suitable position that would turn off at least some of the enemy's batteries
I don't think that modern ships are so perfect that they always shoot effectively from any position in relation to the opponent, but I'm not an expert

[kondi754]

BTW, bug-tactic works, and with more powerful air force Japanese have no chance to survive

okinawa last raid of Yamato.jpg (764.69 KiB) Viewed 2468 times

[plaudern]

If I understand correctly this is an editor issue?
Should the Japanese fleet have a destination point set closer to the island's shores, more to the south of the map?
Forgive me, I have absolutely no knowledge of editing the behavior of units on a map, I can only do simple things in the editor.
That's why my description was straight from some AAR

Well, you know how it is with "should" and "could"...

But yeah, it all depends on the AI orders set in the scen editor. Similar situations can happen on land maps, as I've shown on many examples: blocking a hex with mines that the AI needs to capture in order to advance. If it can't capture the hex, all follow-up orders in the triggers are ignored and the AI units just "dance around" some hex and do nothing (unless attacked).
Or just do not capture some city hex to not trigger an AI counterattack... and so on. There are just too many editor/scen design "exploits" on either land and naval maps - and if you know them, you can use them, like you did.

Same thing here. The ships were send to that location, because it's where usually the player's forces should be...

Ok, I know now what you mean
So it doesn't really take much to fix it, just move that point 2 hexes lower on this map?

This provides a nice segue to my post viewtopic.php?f=264&t=101533 regarding randomizing aspects of the AI, in order to reduce the impact of the existence of such “magic” hexes on replay for human vs AI games.

I actually try not to memorize such hexes, of course the subconscious makes note at times.

I’m an advocate of randomization of AI setup and goals where reasonable. I do recognize the increase in scenario/campaign development that this implies, even if the engines currently allows relatively easy implementation; obviously this can mean huge amounts additional time if actual code writing is required.

[GabeKnight]

This provides a nice segue to my postregarding randomizing aspects of the AI, in order to reduce the impact of the existence of such “magic” hexes on replay for human vs AI games.

You can easily change that with the existing triggers. Just enter some patrol route, or change the AI task to seek&destroy or something...
It's just one of the scen design flaws IMO.

[kondi754]

This provides a nice segue to my postregarding randomizing aspects of the AI, in order to reduce the impact of the existence of such “magic” hexes on replay for human vs AI games.

You can easily change that with the existing triggers. Just enter some patrol route, or change the AI task to seek&destroy or something...
It's just one of the scen design flaws IMO.

Definitely Guadalcanal and Okinawa have a bug
Yamato and rest of destroyers attacked later BUT I moved my units to them

BTW, I only took 3 destroyers as cover for this battle, the rest I left at the shore for US Army support