naval air strike too easy?

Warplan is a World War 2 simulation engine. It is a balance of realism and playability incorporating the best from 50 years of World War 2 board wargaming.

Moderator: AlvaroSousa

Post Reply
User avatar
MrBlizzard
Posts: 636
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:34 pm
Location: Italy

naval air strike too easy?

Post by MrBlizzard »

Playing the Axis, rel 1.3
This turn my planes attacked some enemy fleet in the Mediterranean sinking many ships and without losing a single aircraft.
It seems to me a little too easy.
Here you are some examples,
in first example an italian tactical air group attacked and sunk 2 London CA groups

Image
Attachments
navalairstrike.jpg
navalairstrike.jpg (52.02 KiB) Viewed 383 times
Blizzard
User avatar
MrBlizzard
Posts: 636
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:34 pm
Location: Italy

RE: naval air strike too easy?

Post by MrBlizzard »

Here another attack by another land based italian air group:
The whole fleet was annihilated without losing a single plane.
The brithis lost 14 naval groups in all the attacks, the axis didn't lose a plane.
I think we got a small problem [;)]


Image
Attachments
nr5ftrsunk.jpg
nr5ftrsunk.jpg (65.08 KiB) Viewed 383 times
Blizzard
Essro
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:37 pm

RE: naval air strike too easy?

Post by Essro »

You're going to have to elaborate more on what you think you are seeing.

In the first screenshot the Italian Bomber did "2 damage" and "0 sunk" at a loss of zero to himself. That's a pretty basic result. They damaged some ships, that's all. The UK player should escort that with a carrier. You'd get a different outcome.


In the second example, I'm guessing it was an un-escorted UK air sup unit traveling via ship transport directly across the Med. Bold. A sort of in game Operation Pedestal.

I am also guessing you are playing the AI?

Am I understanding your examples correctly?


Transports absolutely get hammered if travelling alone I've noticed. And rightly so.

User avatar
AlvaroSousa
Posts: 11989
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:13 pm
Contact:

RE: naval air strike too easy?

Post by AlvaroSousa »

Land based air is unbelievably destructive to any fleet. That Italian air unit is 300 planes at full strength. They Americans had what 150-200 at Midway and they effectively sank 2 WarPlan carrier groups.
Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3
User avatar
MrBlizzard
Posts: 636
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:34 pm
Location: Italy

RE: naval air strike too easy?

Post by MrBlizzard »

ORIGINAL: Essro

You're going to have to elaborate more on what you think you are seeing.

In the first screenshot the Italian Bomber did "2 damage" and "0 sunk" at a loss of zero to himself. That's a pretty basic result. They damaged some ships, that's all. The UK player should escort that with a carrier. You'd get a different outcome.


In the second example, I'm guessing it was an un-escorted UK air sup unit traveling via ship transport directly across the Med. Bold. A sort of in game Operation Pedestal.

I am also guessing you are playing the AI?

Am I understanding your examples correctly?


Transports absolutely get hammered if travelling alone I've noticed.

Yes playing against AI, that's why tranports (carrying planes in crates) were travelling alone and were obliterated
Blizzard
User avatar
MrBlizzard
Posts: 636
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:34 pm
Location: Italy

RE: naval air strike too easy?

Post by MrBlizzard »

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

Land based air is unbelievably destructive to any fleet. That Italian air unit is 300 planes at full strength. They Americans had what 150-200 at Midway and they effectively sank 2 WarPlan carrier groups.
I didn't figure that there were 300 hundred planes, now the result is clear [:)]
At Midway the land based planes didn't hit anything, the KB was sunk by CV planes [;)]
Blizzard
AlbertN
Posts: 4272
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: naval air strike too easy?

Post by AlbertN »

Airplanes should be lethal to ships - no question asked - when they've initiative.

There are scarce cases of ships 'winning' over planes and usually that's faulty of the CV in question (Example, the HMS Glorious, a CV sank by BCs) - whereas even a single bomber can sink a BB, in the example of the Italian BB Roma. Sure it was a radio-guided bomb, but it was sent right down the chimney pot.
There are lots of example of LBA squadrons hammering convoys, their escorts, and battle squadrons.
User avatar
AlvaroSousa
Posts: 11989
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:13 pm
Contact:

RE: naval air strike too easy?

Post by AlvaroSousa »

The A.I. should be grabbing escorts when it can
Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3
Essro
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:37 pm

RE: naval air strike too easy?

Post by Essro »

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

The A.I. should be grabbing escorts when it can

AI really ought to send those transports through Red Sea.

I'm guessing it's going for shortest distance?
ThunderLizard11
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:36 pm

RE: naval air strike too easy?

Post by ThunderLizard11 »

Nice screen shots OP. Naval torpedo bombers, like the Fairey Swordfish, were very effective (especially for a bi-plane that looks to be straight out of WW1). However, the Sparviero (sparrowhawk) Italian torpedo bomber only sank a few British war ships, like a destroyer, and damaged several cruiser so the amount of ships sunk in game seems unrealistic. Maybe the issue is AI not protecting its transports with air cover.
User avatar
scout1
Posts: 3091
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: South Bend, In

RE: naval air strike too easy?

Post by scout1 »

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

Land based air is unbelievably destructive to any fleet. That Italian air unit is 300 planes at full strength. They Americans had what 150-200 at Midway and they effectively sank 2 WarPlan carrier groups.

I could be wrong ….. but ……

Midway didn't have anywhere near that number of land based aircraft and none of the land based aircraft did any damage to the flat tops …..

but yes, land based aircraft were considered a premium threat to flattops ….
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: naval air strike too easy?

Post by Michael T »

Level bombers were pretty useless v ships. Torpedo bombers or dive bombers, whether land based or carrier based were the threats.
User avatar
sol_invictus
Posts: 1959
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Kentucky

RE: naval air strike too easy?

Post by sol_invictus »

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Level bombers were pretty useless v ships. Torpedo bombers or dive bombers, whether land based or carrier based were the threats.

Agree. A good example; if memory serves; was the sinking of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse. The level bombers didn't cause a problem but the torpedo planes sank them.
"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero
User avatar
MrBlizzard
Posts: 636
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:34 pm
Location: Italy

RE: naval air strike too easy?

Post by MrBlizzard »

What do you think about this?
Interceptors from 1° Jagdkorps bombed and sunk BB Marat, 7 points of strenght lost in this attack by soviet BBs


Ok ground attack planes like stuka, ok level planes like torpedo SM-79 but even interceptors can easily sink a BB?
[:)]

Image
Attachments
maratsunk.jpg
maratsunk.jpg (84.56 KiB) Viewed 383 times
Blizzard
User avatar
AlvaroSousa
Posts: 11989
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:13 pm
Contact:

RE: naval air strike too easy?

Post by AlvaroSousa »

Air units are a mix of units. You probably got lucky in the rolls. In fact you got mega lucky because it is hard to sink a unit in port.
Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3
User avatar
MrBlizzard
Posts: 636
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:34 pm
Location: Italy

RE: naval air strike too easy?

Post by MrBlizzard »

I'm a lucky man [:D]
Blizzard
Essro
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:37 pm

RE: naval air strike too easy?

Post by Essro »

ORIGINAL: MrBlizzard

What do you think about this?
Interceptors from 1° Jagdkorps bombed and sunk BB Marat, 7 points of strenght lost in this attack by soviet BBs


Ok ground attack planes like stuka, ok level planes like torpedo SM-79 but even interceptors can easily sink a BB?



Okay, even I'm going to call out this one lol.

Yes, you got very lucky. Interceptors--regardless of tech level--only have ONE naval air factor. Maybe even that's too much lol.

But for those who want an explanation...here is a photo of a FW-190 carrying a freakin torpedo...I googled "FW-190 dive bomber" and got results and still can't stop laughing. It was a prototype but nonetheless.....









Image
Attachments
fw190.jpg
fw190.jpg (39.92 KiB) Viewed 383 times
User avatar
MrBlizzard
Posts: 636
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:34 pm
Location: Italy

RE: naval air strike too easy?

Post by MrBlizzard »

Nice bird indeed, never seen before [X(]
yes I suspect too that 1 of naval air (1 on 10 scale?) is probably too much for interceptors; 'cause if you have 20/20 air squadrons you can do two hits as average.
The naval flak seems really too low, in 20 attacks I lost some 4 air strenght points;
the coordination of land based planes was very difficult against ships in ww2; a nice model would be if every single air squadron comes alone against the ship and takes is amount of flak.

Blizzard
Post Reply

Return to “WarPlan”