Something Very Peculiar

[augustinus]

Preparing for an upcoming PBEM game playing Scenario One against the AI, I noticed something very peculiar -- at least to me. I noticed that carrier air operations with missions to bomb island airbases and ports only attack once in a day, while squadrons assigned naval attack are allowed two attacks in a day. I couldn't find the reason in the manual (not suggesting that it is not there), and just wondering if anyone knows why? Thanks for any input.
I want to add that the action I am referring to takes place on Dec. 12, 1941, a carrier raid by Lexington and Enterprise on Roi Namur and Kwajalein in the Marshals. Purpose, to hopefully render considerable damage to Kwajalein's port and sink ships, especially, all or any submarine tenders (since Kwajalein is a major base for Japanese subs) and to force subs back to a farther base. The attack on the airfield at Roi Namur is to neutralize the Nells based there bombing Wake. Until I was in range for the Devastators to help against the two islands, I had them set for naval attack, which they accomplished against the IJN TF that had just landed troops on Makin. The point being that the TBs made two attacks (morning/afternoon) against this IJN TF, but Lexington DB squadrons against Roi Namur and Enterprise DBs against Kwajalein only made one attack, all in the morning. Nothing was flown in the afternoon. My question: is this a matter of the program or is it my mishandling of the forces at hand?

[Alfred]

WAD.

Your air units will only fly one offensive mission per day. Applies to both land and sea based air units. Has always been the case.

The sole exception is naval attack. Naval attack can be flown in both the AM and PM phase if the requisite conditions are met.

Alfred

[augustinus]

Thanks Alfred, I suppose that is in the manual and I must have overlooked it. Too bad, though, I think I would have put Kwajalein out the war for a little while if I had been allowed an afternoon attack. Best wishes.

[augustinus]

I've been reflecting a bit, Alfred, but you did not really answer my question. I wanted to know the reason that kept carrier operations against land bases to only one attack per day in AE. We know from the history of WWII, that carrier air groups attacked enemy bases more than once in a day. One example is the carrier strikes against Truk on February 16, 1944 when Enterprise launched its air group in a morning and afternoon attack. If it weren't for the American sinking of KB on June 4, 1942, Nagumo would have launched a second air attack against Midway. I just want to understand the reasoning of the game designers and programmers. Bu the way my carrier strike force was only 160 miles from Roi Namur and Kwajalein, giving plenty of time for round trip travel to accommodate two attacks. I can understand why a B-17 strike against Rabaul from PM or Iron Range in Australia would only allow one attack, but I'm having a problem understanding the restriction on carrier raids against land bases.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: augustinus

I've been reflecting a bit, Alfred, but you did not really answer my question. I wanted to know the reason that kept carrier operations against land bases to only one attack per day in AE. We know from the history of WWII, that carrier air groups attacked enemy bases more than once in a day. One example is the carrier strikes against Truk on February 16, 1944 when Enterprise launched its air group in a morning and afternoon attack. If it weren't for the American sinking of KB on June 4, 1942, Nagumo would have launched a second air attack against Midway. I just want to understand the reasoning of the game designers and programmers. Bu the way my carrier strike force was only 160 miles from Roi Namur and Kwajalein, giving plenty of time for round trip travel to accommodate two attacks. I can understand why a B-17 strike against Rabaul from PM or Iron Range in Australia would only allow one attack, but I'm having a problem understanding the restriction on carrier raids against land bases.

There's a standard excuse I learned from the Marine Corps--"It seemed like a good idea at the time." I think it applies here to the game design.

[Puhis]

Who knows the reason, but it has been like that since Uncommon Valor. It's about 10 years old rule.

[augustinus]

OK, let's chalk up the reason to Tradition and I'll get back to the game and begin revamping my carrier tactics apropos raids on Japanese land/island bases. Thanks to those who contributed remarks.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: augustinus

I've been reflecting a bit, Alfred, but you did not really answer my question. I wanted to know the reason that kept carrier operations against land bases to only one attack per day in AE. We know from the history of WWII, that carrier air groups attacked enemy bases more than once in a day. One example is the carrier strikes against Truk on February 16, 1944 when Enterprise launched its air group in a morning and afternoon attack. If it weren't for the American sinking of KB on June 4, 1942, Nagumo would have launched a second air attack against Midway. I just want to understand the reasoning of the game designers and programmers. Bu the way my carrier strike force was only 160 miles from Roi Namur and Kwajalein, giving plenty of time for round trip travel to accommodate two attacks. I can understand why a B-17 strike against Rabaul from PM or Iron Range in Australia would only allow one attack, but I'm having a problem understanding the restriction on carrier raids against land bases.

augustinus.

I'm not a dev nor am I privately privately privy to their design philosophy, so what follows is pure speculation. I thinkly soundly based, but speculation none the less.

It appears that you believe air operations in the game has been structured contrary to what was the praxis in WWII. I think you are completely wrong and the only reason why naval attack is the only offensive mission which

(a) can be flown in both the AM and PM phase, and
(b) allows for an alternative secondary mission,

is precisely because of standard USN WWII operations.

IMHO, you are not taking into account neither the "bigger" picture nor coding issues/difficulties.

Take the "bigger" picture. Firstly, in game there is a clear distinction between land based and sea based planes. This is evidenced by there being two separate global air unit lists; press "A" and up comes a screen showing all the units currently on land, press "N" up comes a screen showing all the units on ship.

Secondly, look at the primary ordnance carried by aircraft models and who operates them. Any plane whose default ordnance (= primary ordnance) is a torpedo, clearly was designed with naval operations foremost in mind. If a plane is carrying anti vessel/boat radar, again its design was meant for it to understake primarily naval operations. If a plan's primary ordnance is a single big armour piercing bomb, I would again say that naval operations were foremost in mind. If a plane is equipped so that it can land on water, or be launched by ships, it too would have been designed with naval operations being foremost in mind. That being so I would say that in this game, planes designated as TB, DB, FF, PA and FP are viewed primarily as naval planes. When you then take into account the replacement/production rate of these "naval" planes, which nationality is the single major producer of them (no marks awarded for guessing the USN which surely must be considered to be predominantly a "naval" nationality), combined with the weight in the airframe park these planes represent, I would argue these airplane models are intended primarily for naval operations. In the game's offensive bomber mission terms, that means "naval attack" whether high, low or torpedo focussed.

With the conclusion that "naval attack" is for naval operations whereas airfield, port or ground attack are all primarily land operations (note how there is no separate airfield or port skill, they both subsumed within ground skill), the fact that "naval attack", as previously mentioned is the only offensive bomber mission which can occur in both day phases, or allows for an alternative mission in the event that the primary mission fails to locate an enemy TF, means that your comments should be seen in a new light.

As to why a carrier TB can only bomb a port once per day, I believe the answer basically stems from coding issues/difficulties. Remember the underlying game engine and philosophies go back a long way, not just to Uncommon Valour but at least back to PacWar in the early 1990s (and probably back even earlier to Carrier Strike +). To me it is quite plausible that offensive bomber operations which are primarily land focussed are coded for 1 operation per day whereas those primarily naval focussed have separate code to allow for 2 operations per day specifically to reflect USN carrier operations in WWII. When your carrier TB is given a port to attack either as its primary or secondary mission, it calls upon the land focussed code and it is too difficult/out of scope to have modified the code.

So once again, I think we have a case where the devs stand accussed of being ahistorical/not knowing their stuff, when in reality they have come up with an acceptable compromise and it is the claimer who discloses their own lack of understanding of the real world issues which force compromise upon the devs.[:)]

Alfred

[augustinus]

Alfred, thanks for your comments.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: augustinus

I've been reflecting a bit, Alfred, but you did not really answer my question. I wanted to know the reason that kept carrier operations against land bases to only one attack per day in AE. We know from the history of WWII, that carrier air groups attacked enemy bases more than once in a day. One example is the carrier strikes against Truk on February 16, 1944 when Enterprise launched its air group in a morning and afternoon attack. If it weren't for the American sinking of KB on June 4, 1942, Nagumo would have launched a second air attack against Midway. I just want to understand the reasoning of the game designers and programmers. Bu the way my carrier strike force was only 160 miles from Roi Namur and Kwajalein, giving plenty of time for round trip travel to accommodate two attacks. I can understand why a B-17 strike against Rabaul from PM or Iron Range in Australia would only allow one attack, but I'm having a problem understanding the restriction on carrier raids against land bases.

There's a standard excuse I learned from the Marine Corps--"It seemed like a good idea at the time." I think it applies here to the game design.

This sounds like the most reasonable answer.

[bigred]

As to why a carrier TB can only bomb a port once per day, I believe the answer basically stems from coding issues/difficulties. Remember the underlying game engine and philosophies go back a long way, not just to Uncommon Valour but at least back to PacWar in the early 1990s (and probably back even earlier to Carrier Strike +). To me it is quite plausible that offensive bomber operations which are primarily land focussed are coded for 1 operation per day whereas those primarily naval focussed have separate code to allow for 2 operations per day specifically to reflect USN carrier operations in WWII. When your carrier TB is given a port to attack either as its primary or secondary mission, it calls upon the land focussed code and it is too difficult/out of scope to have modified the code.

So once again, I think we have a case where the devs stand accussed of being ahistorical/not knowing their stuff, when in reality they have come up with an acceptable compromise and it is the claimer who discloses their own lack of understanding of the real world issues which force compromise upon the devs.

Alfred

Alfred, that was deep thought..or maybe deep thought for me.

[dr.hal]

Very interesting Alfred. I spent 2 and a half years on a CV and it is amazing the "turn around" time to get another mission in the air. From what I've read, this holds true for the USN in WWII. But did this hold true for the IJN? I suspect it does although some would argue that "slow" turn around time cost the IJN dearly at Midway. Could this have been a factor in the developers' minds? Historically ship launched air attacks did hit twice and even three times in a day, but I don't really know the turn around time for land based attacks, but clearly multi-engined aircraft have a much higher ground time aspect than single engined aircraft (those being the types on carriers). Hal

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Very interesting Alfred. I spent 2 and a half years on a CV and it is amazing the "turn around" time to get another mission in the air. From what I've read, this holds true for the USN in WWII. But did this hold true for the IJN? I suspect it does although some would argue that "slow" turn around time cost the IJN dearly at Midway. Could this have been a factor in the developers' minds? Historically ship launched air attacks did hit twice and even three times in a day, but I don't really know the turn around time for land based attacks, but clearly multi-engined aircraft have a much higher ground time aspect than single engined aircraft (those being the types on carriers). Hal

The big advantage of a carrier over a land base was that they could close a target, conduct a surge (~3x the usual number of sorties per day) while in range, and then move out of range to catch up on aircraft maintenance. A bit like the difference between the Marines and US Army divisions. The USMC troops knew that their time in hell was limited and would be shorter if they fought aggressively.