Carrier air Power

[Taifun]

Hi all,

I am sure that this topic has been discussed before but I would like to refresh it.
First I would like to comment that I really appreciate the new rule about the "no spotting inland" of naval units ... I tried it for the first time and is a real step forward towards WWII realism! Congratulations [&o]. This will stop a lot of nonsense early naval invasions and undue recon.
BUT after playing for the last >10 years something must be done with the carriers, they are just to powerful. The carrier air groups were just small in size, no more than 50-80 (obsolete) planes per carrier. They just could not do any damage to ground units (in Europe) or to the air fleets based in well defended airdromes. In the current version of the game, gathering 3-4 carriers together are just unstoppable and can destroy any air unit the axis owns in a totally unrealistic way...

I suggest:

- To limit their spotting range to sea exes (no inland spotting) or maybe 1 exe max
- To limit their air component size to 5 (enough to damage naval vessels)

I am sure that many veterans players agree about the subject

[Elessar2]

Their ground attack ratings can be modded back if desired.

[Sugar]

Modding can never be a solution to balancing, neither are house rules.

But I don`t agree with Taifun as well: the CVs are nearly the only units able to do damage to German air- or land units, in the latter case usually only when placed in open terrain. Their Fighter groups are weaker than same lvl fighter units anyway.

If the Axis player doesn`t neglect his air defense, the CVs won`t hardly be a real threat at all.

[PvtBenjamin]

ORIGINAL: Sugar

Modding can never be a solution to balancing, neither are house rules.

But I don`t agree with Taifun as well: the CVs are nearly the only units able to do damage to German air- or land units, in the latter case usually only when placed in open terrain. Their Fighter groups are weaker than same lvl fighter units anyway.

If the Axis player doesn`t neglect his air defense, the CVs won`t hardly be a real threat at all.

+1

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: Taifun

BUT after playing for the last >10 years something must be done with the carriers, they are just to powerful. The carrier air groups were just small in size, no more than 50-80 (obsolete) planes per carrier. They just could not do any damage to ground units (in Europe) or to the air fleets based in well defended airdromes. In the current version of the game, gathering 3-4 carriers together are just unstoppable and can destroy any air unit the axis owns in a totally unrealistic way...

Mmmm, not sure. If the Axis player deploys fighters and invests properly in air defence (cough!) then the carriers are much less useful against land targets.

Late in the game I usually find carriers very weak against land units as their Ground Attack does not scale with tech at all - so carriers end up being unable to damage ground units almost at all, which is not so realistic either.

[Markiss]

Anyone who does not think carrier aircraft can be effective against land-based aircraft has obviously not played Taifun or Fafnir. Taifun is not bringing this up for no reason. They are so effective early that he is actually feeling bad for his opponents, and thinks that it is an unfair advantage. Many experienced players have lost Luftwaffe aircraft to Taifun's carriers.

This seems to be most at issue in France early in the war. At this point, the British are using biplanes on their carriers. They should not be able to effectively attack Luftwaffe air-armies. The reason they can is that their effectiveness is based upon "Naval Weaponry", which is already at a 1 out of 2 to start the game. In other words, carrier aircraft are nearly as effective as they will ever be to start the war, and that is wrong. "Naval Weaponry" should refer to the fighting power of warships outside of carriers. Starting at 1 and possibly going to 2 makes perfect sense for that.

I think there should be a new tech, "Naval Aviation". This would replace both Naval Weaponry and Advanced Aircraft for carriers. Star at 0 to represent biplanes, which would have very little chance indeed to damage a land-based target(or any other target). The more it got bought up, the more effective they would be. Later in the war, they could be every bit as effective as the best land-based aircraft, as was the case historically. But early in the war, when they are causing a problem right now, their effectiveness would be curtailed.

And I am a little concerned about the comments about operating aircraft in "open terrain". Should the Luftwaffe be cowering in forests and bogs out of fear of the mighty Fairy Swordfish? Doesn't operating out of these hexes reduce your supply and readiness? Why should I have to do that at this stage of the war? I shouldn't. That should be reserved for hiding from the USAF in 1944-5. The British carriers should not reduce me to the same situation in 1940.

[PvtBenjamin]

I don't understand the concern about CV's at all. Sugar is correct that they are the only Allied deterrent to Axis airpower early in the game.


France? really I would think sending the CVs off the coast of Holland/Belgium would be an unmitigated disaster against a proper defense. Leaves the Brits wide open to Sealion.

I think Sugar is saying the planes should be in cities/forts etc, there are many cities within attack range of France and not in range of the CVs.

The Allied CV's can be very effective off Egypt. Against a highly skilled attack in Egypt the Allied CV impact is still minimal and even against a medium skilled attack the Axis still take Egypt. So even with the "overpowered" CVs the Allies still can't hold Egypt.

CVs upgrade like all other units so I don't see that issue either.

I think these CV issues are better remedied with tactic changes not game changes.

[Markiss]

What bothers me most about carriers is that early in the war, when they should be useless, they are powerful. Later in the war, when they should be powerful, they are useless.

This cannot be rectified under the current system with tactics changes.

I understand that they are useful in Egypt, but could they really have served this function at that point in time? I don't think so. It is gamey, and I think a better solution could be found than relying on the carriers to save Egypt.

Ultimately, it is not the end of the world, but Naval Aviation is an upgrade to the game I would like to see. I understand it would take work, and so won't happen, but I can dream.

[Elessar2]

It should be moddable in the current engine-I know Crispy has some unique techs, mainly for increasing air/inf/tank morale/readiness. I may do so for the Pacific Scenario I've been toying with.

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

France? really I would think sending the CVs off the coast of Holland/Belgium would be an unmitigated disaster against a proper defense. Leaves the Brits wide open to Sealion.

It's fairly easy to have the CVs positioned so that they are in strike range of German units, advancing into France, but are not in turn within strike range of German bombers. Not least because the carriers can move in from a distance, attack, and then retreat again - all behind a screen of surface ships.

The CVs' air wings will still take damage from any German interceptors, but the damage does not seem to be prohibitive so long as there are escorts (from ground air, or from other carriers...)

Another trick with the CVs is even if they are not in range of any targets, you can send their fighter wings to do 'patrols' over friendly territory, which will be interecepted and mean that the Germans use their strikes on attacking your carrier air and not on any bombers you might have attacking their land formations...

[PvtBenjamin]

Yeah but by April '40 the Germans will have researched Naval Wpnry (lv 1)& Advanced subs (lv 1) maybe LR air.

So the Germans are fielding 5 (lv 1) subs, a Maritime bomber (lv 1& 1/ Range 12), at least two medium bombers (Range 9) and superior fighters.

I would imagine the Allies are blocking with the French Navy & subs but its a huge gamble and could be a disaster with 5 subs blocking/ searching and the Maritime attached to high lv HQ.

The Axis can place the AF in cities within attack range or just out of CV range (5 maybe 6) for the most part anyway.

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

Yeah but by April '40 the Germans will have researched Naval Wpnry (lv 1)& Advanced subs (lv 1) maybe LR air.

So the Germans are fielding 5 (lv 1) subs, a Maritime bomber (lv 1& 1/ Range 12), at least two medium bombers (Range 9) and superior fighters.

I would imagine the Allies are blocking with the French Navy & subs but its a huge gamble and could be a disaster with 5 subs blocking/ searching and the Maritime attached to high lv HQ.

The Axis can place the AF in cities within attack range or just out of CV range (5 maybe 6) for the most part anyway.

But the Axis air will not be in strike range of the carriers, as (a) the Axis air will slowly be following behind an advancing front and (b) the carriers will retreat after bombing the Axis land units.

The submarines do not change that fact, even if the Axis player wants to send all his submarines into the Channel against British destroyers.

[PvtBenjamin]

Ok

So I was talking about CVs attacking air units you are talking about them attacking land units.

Aren't the CVs useless against land units?

[Sugar]

Aren't the CVs useless against land units?

CVs have got an attack value of 1 against land units, not depending on the lvl of naval weaponry; they can only do damage under best circumstances, prefarably if not intercepted. And their ability to move, attack and move again is also fairly limited, especially if they`re attacking twice.

@all: I didn`t dispute the CVs to be able to damage air- and land units, I`m talking about balancing, and that`s the reason why I think they should be able to do some, allthough it`s probably ahistorical.

Buy a mar. bomber and 1 fighter as German for Fall Gelb, and even if you should lose 1-2 units, the Allied player will have a hard time to keep his CVs out of the range of bombers. Place valuable units in terrain providing air defense. No unit should be indestructible, let the enemy pay for his success, it will probably be a pyrrhic victory if you`re doing it right.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Sugar

CVs have got an attack value of 1 against land units, not depending on the lvl of naval weaponry;

It's actually zero against land units, but it can be increased to 1 if upgraded to level 2 of Naval Weaponry.

[Taifun]

As it is designed the game now it is pretty well balanced: the ratio in the latest Elo tournament published by Noah gives a total of 60 Allied wins vs 64 Axis wins (almost a surprising 50-50%).
Gamers that played War in Pacific for years we got to know well the definition of historical accuracy and immense exhausting details down to individual losses of vehicles, aircraft, guns and squads. So the issue with carriers in SC it as someone suggested before more of a abstract balancing force vs historical accuracy.
I personally like the idea of Markiss of "Naval Aviation. This would replace both Naval Weaponry and Advanced Aircraft for carriers"

[Sugar]

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

ORIGINAL: Sugar

CVs have got an attack value of 1 against land units, not depending on the lvl of naval weaponry;

It's actually zero against land units, but it can be increased to 1 if upgraded to level 2 of Naval Weaponry.

I see, sorry for the misinformation. They are nevertheless able to do damage without lvl. 2 NW, even showing in the combat prediction.

I personally like the idea of Markiss of "Naval Aviation. This would replace both Naval Weaponry and Advanced Aircraft for carriers

I see an issue here with the different upgrades. Focussing on such a general improvement could lead to improve the CVs fighter abilities over regular fighters, and that`s nothing I`d like to see. And NW is capped at 2, while Adv. Air is at 5...

[Markiss]

I was purposely vague about of how this new tech would work. I will leave it to Bill, Hubert, & Co. or the senior modders to determine exactly how the upgrades would effect the carriers stats and how high the tech could be bought up.

I think the specifics are best left to them, as they have vast experience adding features without effecting game balance. I bet they could find a way to do it, if there was a will.

[Elessar2]

ORIGINAL: Taifun
I personally like the idea of Markiss of "Naval Aviation. This would replace both Naval Weaponry and Advanced Aircraft for carriers"

And would allow the 3rd tech slot to be used for AA.

[The Land]

So thinking about it more, I think the issue is how tech interacts with the carrier's multiple strikes.

Taking land units as an example: Carriers tend to have Attack 0, increased by tech 1 point per level.

If the Axis land units have the same level of AA tech, then this negates the carriers' tech advantage. So they have 2 strikes with an effective attack of 0, which means they only do any damage at all with the luck of the RNG. The mean will be something like 0.33 I think. One carrier attacking with both strikes will have a mean of 0.66, and an upper bound of 2.

If the Axis have one level lower of AA tech then the carrier has an effective attack of 1 - so each strike does 0-2 damage with a mean of 1, or 3x as effective on average. Say 3 carrier wings attack one Axis unit that is strength 8 after attacking. On average it will end up as strength 2, but it only takes a little luck to get it to shatter.

I guess something similar is likely to happen for air units.

I wonder if the answer is for carriers to lose their 2nd strikes but gain more base damage in compensation, so that they end up more useful at equal-level tech but less powerful when they have superior tech.