Rabaul is no longer a safe haven.

[wobbly]

I leave ships in TF's in port - just docked. the B-17s are far less capable of hitting things in Naval attack under 2.30. The ships aren't getting the full benefit of repair, but they are given some measure of defense against torpedoes. If i need ships to undergo repair I send them back to Truk.

Question, If a CV in a TF that is docked has it's capability halved, does this mean half the CAP is going up - say 30% when set to 60. If this is so are these planes considered to not fly, therefore not accruing fatigue?

[Drex]

Originally posted by cap_and_gown
Here is the difference between being docked and at anchor:

When at anchor:
ships repair damage faster.
ships cannot be attacked by naval attack, thus no torpedo bombers.
ships cannot fly planes (although this doesn't seem to apply to AVs and CS's).
ships are vulnerable to port attacks.
ships will not engage enemy ships that enter the harbor but can be hit by a bombardment.

When docked:
Ships cannot be attacked by subs if in a size 3 or greater porter.
Ships can fly planes, CV operations are halved.
Ships can be attacked by naval attacks.
Ships will engage in surface combat with enemy ships that enter the harbor.

What this means is that the only safe havens for docked(disbanded) ships would be Truk, Brisbane, Rockhampton(?).

[iceboy105]

Originally posted by wobbly
I leave ships in TF's in port - just docked. the B-17s are far less capable of hitting things in Naval attack under 2.30. The ships aren't getting the full benefit of repair, but they are given some measure of defense against torpedoes. If i need ships to undergo repair I send them back to Truk.

Question, If a CV in a TF that is docked has it's capability halved, does this mean half the CAP is going up - say 30% when set to 60. If this is so are these planes considered to not fly, therefore not accruing fatigue?

Patch 2.30-
17) Carrier air unit operations are now halved when in a base hex. This simulates their inability to operate near land. The impact should be that for carriers in a base hex only half as many planes will fly as would otherwise have flown had the carrier been in a non base hex.

does this apply to the little dots with nothing there as well???

[Yamamoto]

Originally posted by iceboy
Patch 2.30-
17) Carrier air unit operations are now halved when in a base hex.

does this apply to the little dots with nothing there as well???

I believe someone posted a few days ago that it does.

Yamamoto

[Drex]

Keep them out in the blue water Ice Boy!:D

[iceboy105]

Originally posted by Yamamoto
I believe someone posted a few days ago that it does.

Yamamoto

what about shallow water, beach, land hexes, etc? or is it just base hexes?

[Yamamoto]

Originally posted by iceboy
what about shallow water, beach, land hexes, etc? or is it just base hexes?

I beleive its just base hexes. I still like to keep my CV group in shallow water to have a greater chance of killing any subs that dare take a shot at me. With halved IJN ASW you need every break you can get.

Yamamoto

[Mr.Frag]

Docked = at anchor with engines turning/boilers hot, ready to steam. (eats fuel)

Disbanded = in port/drydock/boilers not lit to get underway in a hurry. (no fuel use)

Both can be attacked by Air and recieve the "I'm not moving" penalty.

Only UNDOCKED ships do not get this penalty (do not retire option set).

What has always bothered me is that you can form a TF and be on your way instantly. I think the act of forming a TF should eat ops points (getting ready to depart etc, lighting the boilers, getting ready to steam). Ships should load/fuel in the port itself prior to being formed into a TF. Seems we have the logic backwards in UV where we form the TF then load/fuel/etc. I guess we need a 6 hour phase instead of a 12 hour phase.

[elcid]

Yes, you do put most of your zeros around a critical port!!! That is how to win. IF you are going to use a forward port to repair (I like Gili Gili or Shortland myself), you better protect it!!! And you should build other air bases nearby and fly zeros from them - so even a B-17 raid that takes down the base for a day will not matter much. [If you have lots of engineers and supply, the airfield comes back right away]. And most of the time you will eat the B-17s so bad (damaged mostly) they won't be back for a while. It hurts in terms of zeros for other places, but that is how to win - give em numbers!!!

[Hard Sarge]

yes and is that not the reason for the rules on limiting the number of Cap planes, so everyone don't just pile on the numbers ?

you sound like the type who would put 10 CV's into one TF

you know, the game should take that into account, if a target is attacked and it has no defence, the bombers should do better damage



HARD_Sarge

[Admiral DadMan]

I was hit by a Port Attack early Jan 43:

Air attack on Lunga , at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 3
A6M2 Zero x 16

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 110

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress x 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
AG 2050, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AG 118, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AG 2052, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AG 5090, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AG 113, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AG 115, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AG 106, Bomb hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
AG 2051, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AG 110, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AG 103, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AG 116, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

"OOOOOh I wish it would(n't) rain down, down on me...."

[Drex]

Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
I was hit by a Port Attack early Jan 43:

"OOOOOh I wish it would(n't) rain down, down on me...."

At least you only lost zero point vessels. I had 3 out 4 CVs hit! I had to learn the hard way.

[Admiral DadMan]

LOL, those barges were after he had plastered a BB, CA, and some DDs at anchor a few turns earlier.

Apparenly, I had not learned either...

[LargeSlowTarget]

Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
The closest Australian base to Rabaul is Cooktown - 28 hexes.

B-17 extended range is 27 = cannot reach.
B-24 extended range is 28 = can reach, but op losses would be staggering.

Cooktown would have to be level 4 airfield or higher to support the mission.

Well, somehow my B-17s operating out of Cooktown are able to bomb Rabaul. Once I've hit my opponents CVs disbanded in Rabaul with B-17s from Cooktown bombing the port at night. Some nice 500-pounders through the flight deck of Zuikaku sent her back to Tokyo .

[Chiteng]

Why again is it bad to put 10 CV in a task force?

If the allies have flying tanks that cannot be shot down,
why is it bad to group your CV?

Maybe I am missing something.

[Hard Sarge]

Hi Chiteng

Why again is it bad to put 10 CV in a task force?

well from somebody who would put B-29's into BTR, I would have to guess, 10 CV TF's would seem normal to you

but, since we do have a some what limit to numbers of ships in a TF, wouldn't 3-3-4 be a better choice ? (saying 15 ships to a TF, that is 45 ships in the area for FLAK, instead of only 15)

you lose options on movement and targets with one large force

would love to see a surface TF or subs get into action against it

Command and Control would be a royal pain

they didn't do it in real life ?

well one thing in games, you have players and game lawers, you got people who play the game and others who play the rules

you for the most part have always hit me as a game lawer, you want to find the loopholes and then use them (not saying that is a bad thing, just a style thing)

HARD_Sarge

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Hard Sarge
Hi Chiteng

Why again is it bad to put 10 CV in a task force?

well from somebody who would put B-29's into BTR, I would have to guess, 10 CV TF's would seem normal to you

but, since we do have a some what limit to numbers of ships in a TF, wouldn't 3-3-4 be a better choice ? (saying 15 ships to a TF, that is 45 ships in the area for FLAK, instead of only 15)

you lose options on movement and targets with one large force

would love to see a surface TF or subs get into action against it

Command and Control would be a royal pain

they didn't do it in real life ?

well one thing in games, you have players and game lawers, you got people who play the game and others who play the rules

you for the most part have always hit me as a game lawer, you want to find the loopholes and then use them (not saying that is a bad thing, just a style thing)

HARD_Sarge

I seek realism in a game, always realism, even before playability.
I have actually played Campaign in North Afrika.

Realisticly the US used four CV per task force for a reason.
It maxed flak protection. However....UV doesnt simulate this.

[Hard Sarge]

I seek realism in a game, always realism, even before playability

ahhh, you must be changeing as you get older mate

really, that is a shocking statement to be coming from you

also, after saying it, why would you be asking what is wrong with a 10 CV TF then ? , they didn't use it, and to be real, it should not be done ????

HARD_Sarge

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Hard Sarge
I seek realism in a game, always realism, even before playability

ahhh, you must be changeing as you get older mate

really, that is a shocking statement to be coming from you

also, after saying it, why would you be asking what is wrong with a 10 CV TF then ? , they didn't use it, and to be real, it should not be done ????

HARD_Sarge

Because the game force you to do bizzare stuff

[Howard Mitchell]

Originally posted by Chiteng
the US used four CV per task force for a reason.
It maxed flak protection.

Also because more than 4 CVs per TF resulted in too many aircraft in the air over the TF to allow proper control and co-ordination. The 4 CV TF was the ideal balance between defensive and offensive firepower against the difficulty in managing all those aircraft.