Gary Grigsby's World At War gives you the chance to really run a world war. History is yours to write and things may turn out differently. The Western Allies may be conquered by Germany, or Japan may defeat China. With you at the controls, leading the fates of nations and alliances. Take command in this dynamic turn-based game and test strategies that long-past generals and world leaders could only dream of. Now anything is possible in this new strategic offering from Matrix Games and 2 by 3 Games.
But dive bombers would still sink any ship, given enough time (and planes), and they would certainly damage ships to the extent that it would require months of repairs.
The point is, that the anti-shipping bombing stats on CV-planes and tactical bombers should be higher, or even better, the armor on heavy fleets should be reduced by at least 1 level. (This would require rebalancing HF ship attacks.)
I see your point, I just don't agree with it. Rudel hit Soviet battleship in port attack in Spring 1940 turn, four turns after the beginning of the game. Do you think he was going to do that in 1940? And even if he could, he was an ace, you don't represent entire force with its best part. When you contemplate what factor to give to tactical air you have to think of average pilots, not the aces. "Rudel" effect is represented when you roll all sixes.
If your argument is that Germans should start with increased antishipping factors for dive bombers and increased torpedo factors for heavy bombers in 1941 and later scenarios, I'd support you, but in 1940 Luftwaffe was not an efficient anti-shipping force.
I see your point, I just don't agree with it. Rudel hit Soviet battleship in port attack in Spring 1940 turn, four turns after the beginning of the game. Do you think he was going to do that in 1940? And even if he could, he was an ace, you don't represent entire force with its best part. When you contemplate what factor to give to tactical air you have to think of average pilots, not the aces. "Rudel" effect is represented when you roll all sixes.
If your argument is that Germans should start with increased antishipping factors for dive bombers and increased torpedo factors for heavy bombers in 1941 and later scenarios, I'd support you, but in 1940 Luftwaffe was not an efficient anti-shipping force.
Drax
Well German Tac starts with a "3" ship attack rating in 1940. Assuming they put in the points they could have it up to a "4" by the time of Barbarossa. Against a Russian Hvy in Port or at sea it would get 1 die needing to roll a "9" to damage the Hvy. I believe that is impossible. Against any other nation's heavy fleet it would need a "12". Essentially, even with a 5 ship attack rating a single Tac (or any other aircraft) would still need to roll a "12" on 2 dice (ie your ace #s) just to damage a hvy. Admittedly this does not take into account the effects of it's torpedo attack or multiple attacks from different units.
What I find amusing is the whole concept of a battleship at sea with alerted defenses etc being hard to take out by air. Isnt that what the British kept on telling themselves before the Repulse and Prince of Wales were taken out by Japanese land-based air. I also seem to remember that same argument being made by the proponents of the 'big gun' theory in US naval circles. [:D]
The Germans also took out quite a few British destroyers in the waters around Dunkirk in the days of the invasion, and some were certainly under power and with intermittant air cover. Even a lot of smaller craft were hit by German air (although some were certainly not too maneuverable).
That said, I think the Torpedo rating also is a general stat for effectiveness vs ships. A lot of 'Tac Bombers' and certainly most 'Heavy Bombers' didnt carry much of a torpedo load-out. So, IMO, the Torpedo rating is an abstraction that includes bombs. For game purposes, it makes no difference...the end result is that the plane can take out a ship.
The crux of it is the way the game mechanics function, there is little or no chance that planes will 'gang up' on ships unless they outnumber them in a single attack. That means that instead of needing a '9' to take out a Heavy or Light with a Torpedo attack, its always a '12' (on 2 dice for most starting planes). End result is that its not going happen very often. IMO, it really shouldnt happen all that often and in order to pull it off, you have to mass planes against massed fleets. Note that as of 1.33, even Fighters get to 'roll' even if they have no chance of a hit. But their attacks DO make it easier for follow-on attacks to hit.
A good way to try and hurt ships is to stagger your attacks. Send in a few Fighters first to 'soften up' the defense ratings of certain ships. THEN send in the bombers and hope that they target ships previously targeted by the Fighters. If you send them together, the chances of this are nil unless you have more aircraft than there are ships. But by sending in multiple groups, you significantly increase your odds of killing ships.
Overall, I've had no real trouble keeping ships out of areas where I have airpower until they start to research AA for the ships. THEN it can become a pain and, in fact, it can become close to suicidal to attack ships with 4 (and 5) AA factors unless you have cranked up your Evasion on your planes.
What I find amusing is the whole concept of a battleship at sea with alerted defenses etc being hard to take out by air. Isnt that what the British kept on telling themselves before the Repulse and Prince of Wales were taken out by Japanese land-based air. I also seem to remember that same argument being made by the proponents of the 'big gun' theory in US naval circles. [:D]
The difference is that British battleships have been attacked and sunk by the experts, pilots who were trained to fly above the sea, find their targets and hit them. In 1940 German stuka pilots simply did not posess the necessary training.
The Germans also took out quite a few British destroyers in the waters around Dunkirk in the days of the invasion, and some were certainly under power and with intermittant air cover. Even a lot of smaller craft were hit by German air (although some were certainly not too maneuverable).
All of them were hit in close proximity to the coast while they were assisting in the evacuation.
My issue is not limited to german bombers, but is related to the general issue of bombs being unable to harm heavy fleets.
As for the germans dive bombers in 1940, to my knowledge they lacked effective anti shipping armor piercing bombs, much more than lack of training. (A battleship is a pretty big target compared to most of the things they were trained to hit, so physically hitting it would not be such a big problem.)
With a 1 level increase, german tac bombers should be able to harm the bombing attack. Japan should be able to do so with their starting tech.
The way it is now, as Uncle_Joe describes, the anti-ship stat is really an anti merchant/light fleet stat, while the torpedo attack is the anti-heavy fleet stat. I dont see the reason for this kind of abstraction, and would like to see bombs being closer to torpedoes in effetivity than they are at the moment.
ORIGINAL: Harrybanana
However, there is nothing stopping a player from continually moving ships which did not attack in the 1st round back into the contested area.
There's the chief problem right there.
In general, your position is very sound--it is way too easy to project naval power into enemy territorial waters. Some of that is necessary, because of the scale of the game.
Another relatively simple fix would be add a defensive combat bonus for having a friendly port in a sea zone.
