Attacking ships in port.

[Tidavis]

Just what is the process or chance of attacking ships in port? I can;t find the formula for doing so. Every time I try I end up causing zero damage to the enemy ships and every so often the port takes a hit. More often than not my ships take several points worth of damage.

Conversely, I just resigned a game where my opponent virtually eliminate my Italian fleet while every ship was sitting in port.

What am I doing wrong?

After reading the naval war section again, I get why I can't do any damage to ships in port. Still doesn't explain how my Italian fleet was wiped out though.

[xwormwood]

First of all, attack with air power, not with ships. Tac air will target the enemy vessel. Same is true for subs.
If you shell the harbor, the harbor fortificatons will fire back. And you will only have a slight chance to damage the ship in port.
From what you describe your opponent was either lucky, or your harbor was down to supply / strength zero. And at this status, the fortificatsion won't fire back any more.

[Tidavis]

This was several ships in several different ports. Zapped like nothing was there. This was on Sicily and mainland Italy in spring of 1940. Ports were in full supply.

[Christolos]

Where they mostly hit with air power from carriers? This can do a fair bit of damage. Subs can also damage ships in port.

Italian ships in 1940 are likely to not have Naval Warfare and/or Naval weaponry upgrades, which may also have contributed.

C

[Tidavis]

I have tried a few times to replicate this feat against the Italians. After a few hits on RN Ships, I give up.

In the game it was subs, air, and surface ships.

I just don't know.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Hey Brother Tidavis, you must be referring to our game. I got no problem suicide plan for the French ships, everyone does. But you are correct, surface to surface in ports ain't happening. Need Air power to pop naval inside them ports. You didn't take much damage. Supply level is big with ships too. Going into the opponent's home high supply +10 bases gonna be rough. You can trash subs in ports, don't think they dive there, you'll need a decent carrier. Don't plan on me sitting still Action is in the High Seas early in 1939. Unless you wanna hang around your own ports, which isn't such a bad thing. Allies are hard pressed in 1939 Campaign. Nothing you can do to defend Poland/LC/France & initial parts of China. Gotta get a plan, pick your spots. It's like a Chess game against a Poker player.

[eriador08]

If i am losing as france and there seems no threat to take algier, i try to suicide attack with french navy. You can just run into an enemy port (enemy ships must not be spottet! ). If you run into enemy ships near a port and they spot each other they BOTH seem to take damage most of the time. You mostly get hurt more, but that does not matter, when you lose anyway. Combine with carriers and subs and you can get pretty good results.

[sapper32]

My carrier airgroups inflicted zero losses on Italian ship in port but got realy hammered in return I didn't bother attacking with my third carrier there seemed no point plus cant repair past 8 in the med my surface ships and subs also attacked and no hits in return I lost a BB,CL and a Carrier

? Realy

[sPzAbt653]

Check the Settings for your Carriers because some of them will result in little or no losses to the enemy.

[Toby42]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Check the Settings for your Carriers because some of them will result in little or no losses to the enemy.

Yes having to mess around with the carrier settings is a pain for a game at this scale! Mostly I forget all about them and end up getting hammered for a zero result!

[Xsillione]

yep, that one is completely unnecessary, the carriers should be less effective a bit against ground based units, but playing with the setting, and losing badly since you forget to set them into naval, or to return them into fighters is just bad. In midway, the Japanese lost an hour or two for swapping, not a month or two.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

There's a dozen factors involved in the subject of Carriers/Ships vs Ports/Ships. Supply, Readiness, Tech, Air-Mode come to immediate thinking. True, the Japs didn't take month to switch munitions. This is a strategic game, some method needs to allow for Cat/Mouse at Sea.

[sapper32]

Carriers were on naval/tactical in good supply and morale i attacked four times with two carrier air groups and lost about 7 hits for zero results my surface ships and subs also inflicted virtualy no losses and took damage my task force was left depleted and a sitting duck for the undamaged Italian navy and airforce, My third carrier group turned tail and ran as i saw no point in that getting zapped aswell.

[Toby42]

I agree. The end results are not worth the cost! And this carrier mode settings at this scale drives me nuts! I'm always forgetting to change something!

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: sapper32

Carriers were on naval/tactical in good supply and morale i attacked four times with two carrier air groups and lost about 7 hits for zero results my surface ships and subs also inflicted virtualy no losses and took damage my task force was left depleted and a sitting duck for the undamaged Italian navy and airforce, My third carrier group turned tail and ran as i saw no point in that getting zapped aswell.

Without seeing the stats including tech level differences, exact supply, readiness and morale, attack mode of the carrier, weather and so on it is hard to say exactly what the potential concern would be here.

Off hand I can suggest that there is essentially nothing special when it comes to Carrier attacks versus any other unit when it comes to combat calculations, i.e. it is always resolved the same way where the attack and defence values are taken into account on top of readiness, morale, supply, strength and tech levels. After that the values go into the same formula that handles all combat regardless of unit type.

The biggest issue it seems is that often players are attempting to perform a naval strike while in Figther Combat Air Patrol mode, which of course will be ineffectual.

But that being said, if you encounter this again, please give us some screen shots, or even better a saved turn, where we can take a look at the relative values and we can then provide much more helpful feedback.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Xsillione

yep, that one is completely unnecessary, the carriers should be less effective a bit against ground based units, but playing with the setting, and losing badly since you forget to set them into naval, or to return them into fighters is just bad. In midway, the Japanese lost an hour or two for swapping, not a month or two.

The issue here is that Carriers did have a variety of aircraft available to them, i.e. dive bombers, torpedo bombers, fighters etc., and did historically get caught with the wrong type of aircraft on deck with disasterous results for the Japanese as was the case at Midway.

The multiple modes for Carriers were requested quite a while ago, from memory about 10 years ago, and has been a part of the game ever since which allows players to play with the right mix of Carriers for fleet actions in the Pacific where one either needs to balance their task forces with the right balance of CAP and Tactical mode, or risk everything in Tactical mode and so on. Without these modes it plays out much differently, and at one time when we didn't have modes, there is less of that cat and mouse, risk and reward feel in game.

On land, it is not much different as players appropriately manage this with the different air unit types available to them, i.e. balancing a front with Fighters as well as Tactical Bombers and so on.

From a game play point of view, I would argue it is not so much a matter of how long it took Carrier decks to swap out Torpedo Bombers for Fighters, but rather without these modes, you'd lose an entire layer of Carrier combat tension in the Pacific and especially so as the ebb and flow of battles range from attacks to defensive actions as the war progresses.