Un-Historical Strategy!

Carriers At War is Strategic Studies Group famed simulation of Fleet Carrier Air and Naval Operations in the Pacific from 1941 - 1945.

Moderators: Gregor_SSG, alexs

Post Reply
User avatar
Toby42
Posts: 1630
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 11:34 pm
Location: Central Florida

Un-Historical Strategy!

Post by Toby42 »

How's this for stroking historical play as the US!

Transfer all of your carrier planes to land bases and conduct all of your strikes from there!!! Move all of your carriers out of harms way. You lose no ships and your airfields can't be sunk. I tried this with the Wake Scenario and it works??? Gamey, but un-real...
Tony
User avatar
LarryP
Posts: 3300
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: Carson City, NV

RE: Un-Historical Strategy!

Post by LarryP »

ORIGINAL: Treale

How's this for stroking historical play as the US!

Transfer all of your carrier planes to land bases and conduct all of your strikes from there!!! Move all of your carriers out of harms way. You lose no ships and your airfields can't be sunk. I tried this with the Wake Scenario and it works??? Gamey, but un-real...

Did you have to put your carriers by the land bases to lure the Japanese in so they would be within reach?
User avatar
Toby42
Posts: 1630
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 11:34 pm
Location: Central Florida

RE: Un-Historical Strategy!

Post by Toby42 »

No. I ran as fast as I could away from the base. The Japanese Ships came in close and I was able to get three strikes in easily. Kinda of fun, but not very historical... especially with the anemic results when you attack a landbase ???
Tony
fabforrest
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:38 am

RE: Un-Historical Strategy!

Post by fabforrest »

"especially with the anemic results when you attack a landbase"

boy, that is for sure.
OldBoney
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 8:32 pm

RE: Un-Historical Strategy!

Post by OldBoney »

Probably there should be a limit to the # of squadrons you can base at Wake (or any place for that matter). Carriers have a max planes but I don't see the same for land bases. That apart I'm not sure how a-historical it is - Sara was delivering Buffalos to Wake in the real world Wake. I think Henderson field got some similar use.

It's a good way to get some use out of the Devastators in the Wake Scenario. The invasion force is drawn into torpedo range and your guys may get some hits. The only problem I see is how did they come to have all those tin fish stashed on the island.
User avatar
greg_slith
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 2:58 pm

RE: Un-Historical Strategy!

Post by greg_slith »

What am I doing wrong? I can't seem to get a/c to transfer to another airbase.  I've picked a squadron, hit the transfer command and... nothing.  Either from airfields or damaged (but still operational) CV's. What's the secret?
User avatar
Toby42
Posts: 1630
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 11:34 pm
Location: Central Florida

RE: Un-Historical Strategy!

Post by Toby42 »

Apparently there is a limit for landbases. I just ran the scenario again and I tried to transfer planes from all three US carrier's and I could only transfer two. I transferred the two and parked the third north of Wake. The empty carriers ran for Midway. I launched numerous srtikes over two days and another US Decisive Victory!! The Japanese ships get to within 20 miles of the island and I'm able to launch 100 plus plane strikes at them. The Japanese ability to bomb Wake with any results is meaningless....
Tony
User avatar
Richard III
Posts: 714
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:16 pm

RE: Un-Historical Strategy!

Post by Richard III »

ORIGINAL: ecwgcx

What am I doing wrong? I can't seem to get a/c to transfer to another airbase.  I've picked a squadron, hit the transfer command and... nothing.  Either from airfields or damaged (but still operational) CV's. What's the secret?


You need to click on the small grayed out icon that looks like a bomb under the Air Group AC on the blue bar in the strike screen, once that`s lit it turns into a Target and the Strike/Launch button will be available, hit it and they will fly to the base.

It only took me several hours of playing with this poorly documented Game and unsupported Game Forum to figure out how to do that......................
“History would be a wonderful thing – if it were only true.”

¯ Leo Tolstoy
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: Un-Historical Strategy!

Post by decaro »

ORIGINAL: Treale
How's this for stroking historical play as the US!
Transfer all of your carrier planes to land bases and conduct all of your strikes from there!!! Move all of your carriers out of harms way. You lose no ships and your airfields can't be sunk. I tried this with the Wake Scenario and it works??? Gamey, but un-real...

This "gamey" tactic provoked a lot of controversy over at the UV forum! However, historically the escort carrier USS Long Island -- which was almost worthless as a carrier -- did ferry a squadron of F4F Wildcats (VMF-223) to Henderson Field on Guadalcanal in '42. The very next day the squadron straffed Japanese troops.
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
GoodGuy
Posts: 1506
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 5:36 pm
Location: Cologne, Germany

RE: Un-Historical Strategy!

Post by GoodGuy »

ORIGINAL: Treale

[]...You lose no ships and your airfields can't be sunk....[]
Phew, thanks for sharing your hint, I really had a hard time when I tried to keep my airfields afloat. I think I'll manage to do that now. [;)] j/k !

Seriously now, another "gamey" strat for IJN is to ignore the airports in the Pearl scenario, send the support TGs right into the harbor, just to launch the a/c waves. If you keep fleeing from surface battle (with your support TGs) until the anchored enemy TGs have been reduced by your a/c strikes, you can "clean" Pearl. I killed ALL ships (40?) in the harbor that way, with the last going down 10 mins (game time) before the scenario ended, that is unreal.

The game does allow quite a few gamey strats, that's a pity.
"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006
User avatar
Adam Parker
Posts: 1848
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2002 8:05 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

RE: Un-Historical Strategy!

Post by Adam Parker »

ORIGINAL: Treale

How's this for stroking historical play as the US!

Transfer all of your carrier planes to land bases and conduct all of your strikes from there!!!

Easy to fix this. Change the airbase capacity to "small dirt" or have a flag included "land based air only".

Or don't do it the AI won't. IIRC the ability exists, to automatically save planes without a mother carrier from crahing into the sea if in the vicinity.
User avatar
alexs
Posts: 417
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 3:54 pm
Location: Sydney
Contact:

RE: Un-Historical Strategy!

Post by alexs »

Hi Guys,
We've found and fixed the issue which a strike against a landbase wouldnt cause casualties to the squadrons housed there. This should eliminate the transferring of all squadrons to the landbase tactic. Whilst we do our best to remove the usefulness of these gamey tactics, it's hard to foresee them all before the game is released. We fixed many during development, but you know what they say about building a better mousetrap. . .
User avatar
JD Walter
Posts: 235
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 7:26 am
Location: Out of the Silent Planet

RE: Un-Historical Strategy!

Post by JD Walter »

Thanks, Alexs.

SSG's dedication to fixing broken aspects of its titles is well-known. I am glad to see it once again in action here for CAW.

I greatly look forward to the patch, and appreciate your company's efforts in this regard! [:)]
jazman
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:03 am
Location: Crush Depth

RE: Un-Historical Strategy!

Post by jazman »

Now we're all looking forward to the patch. How long??
BS, MS, PhD, WitP:AE, WitE, WitW
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Un-Historical Strategy!

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

ORIGINAL: alexs

Hi Guys,
We've found and fixed the issue which a strike against a landbase wouldnt cause casualties to the squadrons housed there. This should eliminate the transferring of all squadrons to the landbase tactic. Whilst we do our best to remove the usefulness of these gamey tactics, it's hard to foresee them all before the game is released. We fixed many during development, but you know what they say about building a better mousetrap. . .

You should have recruited more beta testers. It took me or my opponents like 30 minutes to discover some of the gamey and/or buggy stuff that should have been cleared in the alpha stage of game development.

One of the first things every human player does (and AI does that rarely or never) is to rush all his squadrons to forward airfields. It's a no brainer, and it takes like 5 minutes of H2H play to experience [8|]
GoodGuy
Posts: 1506
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 5:36 pm
Location: Cologne, Germany

RE: Un-Historical Strategy!

Post by GoodGuy »

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

You should have recruited more beta testers. It took me or my opponents like 30 minutes to discover......
Nah, it's a matter of focus not number of testers. If the main focus is put on let's say SP or SP-scenario design, there are chances that another part of a game may have some dud torpedos on board.
"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006
Post Reply

Return to “Carriers At War”