Shore bombardment question.

[OLDTIMER]

Hi all,

when attacking into a province without landing beaches my navy could not bombard the enemy there.

Neither automatically nor by orders. When ordered to bombard only provs with landing beaches showed up.

IMHO if you can`t land somewhere doesn`t mean you can`t shoot at targets there.

If it`s a bug please squash, if a WAD reconsider.

Rgds, Oldtimer

 

[piratefish]

I agree with you, Oldtimer. Unfortunately, I think this is WAD.

There are a lot of little things like this that I find a bit annoying and that I wish would be corrected (like being able to move garrisons or issue orders to "restricted" garrisons like the ones Germany gains on certain events). I don't think they should be treated any differently than other infantry-type forces with respect to movement and/or retreat. And to just have some garrisons sitting at half strength, unable to even perform anti-partisan duty along the coast of western Europe, seems to me to be a terrible waste. (I can understand restricting the use of these particular garrisons somewhat - like requiring that they remain in their native countries for duty, but to disallow growing them to full strength or assigning them anti-partisan missions just doesn't make sense to me).

 

[quintelosky]

Is WAD

piratefish : ...I wish would be corrected (like being able to move garrisons or issue orders to "restricted" garrisons like the ones Germany gains on certain events)...

With arma-iron cross you can put orders to locked garrisons, and the team will not change the locked garrisons. The event is 'clear' : you accept, you recieve coastal garrisons (and for this beachs), like you recieve coastal forts, AA,... and you can't move this improvements. This garrisons are the 'army' of this defenses

 

[OLDTIMER]

Hi,

Quintelosky, care to explain why WAD for shore bombardment?

Seems illogical to me.

Rgds, Oldtimer

 

[Hupie]

It seems pretty logical to me though. Why would enemy units be sitting at the shoreline when there can be no invasion in that spot?

 

[OLDTIMER]

It seems pretty logical to me though. Why would enemy units be sitting at the shoreline when there can be no invasion in that spot?

Hi,

you sure?

Maybe there are threats from adjacents provinces that need consideration. Which was my case, I attacked into a coastal prov without beaches and could not get fire support from my warships.

Rgds, Oldtimer

 

[piratefish]

The US army uses ANGLICO (Air Naval Gunfire LIason COmpanies), and has for some time. These specialized units act as forward observers for aircraft and for naval gunships sitting off the coast (no beach required to bombard enemy units as long as they are in range).

Given that many of the capital ships' maximum firing ranges are only about 45 to 50 km (28 to 31 miles, roughly), it is no surprise that shore bombardment would be severely restricted for purposes of gameplay in provinces without beaches. It is not very likely that large troop concentrations would be near enough to the shore to be in range and also be accurately sighted for naval gunfire - there is no reason for them to be that close to shore 99% of the time.

I think the assumption is that on provinces with beaches, there are concentrations of troops (assuming the province has a division present) very near the shore. How else would they be expected to repel an invasion (think D-Day)? Then, of course, naval gunfire would be effective in such an instance; you've got soldiers posted all along the beach in easy sight of the navy.

 

[piratefish]

Is WAD

piratefish : ...I wish would be corrected (like being able to move garrisons or issue orders to "restricted" garrisons like the ones Germany gains on certain events)...

With arma-iron cross you can put orders to locked garrisons, and the team will not change the locked garrisons. The event is 'clear' : you accept, you recieve coastal garrisons (and for this beachs), like you recieve coastal forts, AA,... and you can't move this improvements. This garrisons are the 'army' of this defenses

Really? I can understand not being able to move buildings (fortifications/improvements, etc), but people? Come on. We all have feet and are perfectly capable of mobility.

I can see not allowing these coastal garrisons to do anti-partisan duty, since that would require them to move significantly inland and thus not be able to defend the shoreline. But to disallow this type of mission for the landlocked garrisons (like in Paris and Brussels), why should this be so? What is the logic there?

And regularly produced garrisons should be able to retreat like regular infantry. It happens all the time...a garrison starts to get overrun and the men will retreat. No reason they should be forced to surrender when other infantry can retreat.

 

[OLDTIMER]

The US army uses ANGLICO (Air Naval Gunfire LIason COmpanies), and has for some time. These specialized units act as forward observers for aircraft and for naval gunships sitting off the coast (no beach required to bombard enemy units as long as they are in range).

Given that many of the capital ships' maximum firing ranges are only about 45 to 50 km (28 to 31 miles, roughly), it is no surprise that shore bombardment would be severely restricted for purposes of gameplay in provinces without beaches. It is not very likely that large troop concentrations would be near enough to the shore to be in range and also be accurately sighted for naval gunfire - there is no reason for them to be that close to shore 99% of the time.

I think the assumption is that on provinces with beaches, there are concentrations of troops (assuming the province has a division present) very near the shore. How else would they be expected to repel an invasion (think D-Day)? Then, of course, naval gunfire would be effective in such an instance; you've got soldiers posted all along the beach in easy sight of the navy.

Hi,

this seems a valid explanation.

Rgds, Oldtimer