What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

So it would seem I wasn´t so wrong after all.

As far as I was concerned, it was never a question of you -- or anyone else -- being wrong. Many UV players just don't like the idea of Allied radar reducing the probability of an IJN LL attack to zero since it never worked that way historically, esp. during the early days of the war.

Not only were there problems w/the new technology, but even accurate radar info didn't always get passed up the chain of command.

[SuluSea]

Java Sea and the 100 plus missed LLs provide witness that the IJN sufferred from problems as well as the Allies. Yes the IJN won Savo but if you read Richard Franks chapter on Savo you see that it was many more factors than just "radar" that led to the allies defeat. I believe how the game accounts for "experience" in both navies comes close to accurately modeling the conditions that were present at the time.

[decaro]

I'm not talking about what happens during a LL the attack, but the probability of it happening in the first place; this probability shouldn't be negated (i.e., = "0") by the presence of one ship in an Allied TF equiped w/radar regardless of whether its crew is experienced or not.

I'm just asking for an algorithm to better determine the probability of an LL attack, not the effectiveness of that attack.

[SuluSea]

Okay , sorry for the confusion Joe D.[;)]

[decaro]

Not a problem, but for the record, some Allied WitP players complain about "drive by" LL attacks, even late in the war, so not everyone will be happy if this change is adopted -- I just want to see both sides get a fighting chance and a better game.

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Not a problem, but for the record, some Allied WitP players complain about "drive by" LL attacks, even late in the war, so not everyone will be happy if this change is adopted -- I just want to see both sides get a fighting chance and a better game.

That may be were we differ I'd like to see conditions and specs modeled almost as they were or as close as can be.
There was no chance the IJN could sneak up on U.S. forces towards the end of the Solomons Campaign.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

... There was no chance the IJN could sneak up on U.S. forces towards the end of the Solomons Campaign.

Again, it shouldn't be "zero" probability, even for a highly improbable event; the odds should just be (greatly) against such a surprise, but not eliminate it entirely, taking into account inclement wx, fog of war, experience, etc.

[Ike99]

An intrinsic defense value for large population centers representing local police forces and hastily assembled emergency militias. (Australian cities) This would prevent 40 men by submarine from being able to capture major towns.

[tocaff]

Build in a unit's historical limitations to prevent the KB from operating it's ac at night or non CV trained units can't be used on CVs for examples.

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Build in a unit's historical limitations to prevent the KB from operating it's ac at night or non CV trained units can't be used on CVs for examples.

No question that should be addressed.

On another note

Would it be possible to have DD/DEs set as ASW for its primary mission.

[Ike99]

Build in a unit's historical limitations to prevent the KB from operating it's ac at night

Japanese carrier pilots were very well trained for night carrier operations and had a system for night landings. Before you type in the code have a research.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Build in a unit's historical limitations to prevent the KB from operating it's ac at night

Japanese carrier pilots were very well trained for night carrier operations and had a system for night landings. Before you type in the code have a research.

After 1942 "very well trained Japanese Pilot" is an oxymoron.

[SuluSea]

There is a difference between night operations as far as taking off and landing and a night attack. Where is there any evidence of a successful night attack by Japanese Naval Air? There is none. With that knowledge the game going forward should be fixed.

[tocaff]

I'm sure that the guys doing the work and testing on CF have and are doing their homework. 
IJN CV night ops?  Were they trained for it?  Maybe....Did they do it?  When & where?  Night navigation was poor, bombing accuracy was poor and interception was also poor and all of this was with LBA.  Later in the war the USN had dedicated night squadrons, the IJN had empty flight decks.  

[decaro]

Re Battle 360, later in the war, Enterprise a/c had success w/night ops because they had radar; w/o radar, air night ops is hit and miss, emphasis on the latter.

[borner]

I think Japan tried it at the Coral Sea. I agree, it is too unrealistic to think about. I had never conisdered it in the UV games, but not allowing them is going to be a house rule I insist on going forward.

[Hornblower]

bump

[Ike99]

Historic radar sets for the Japanese ships that were equipted with them....

JN CL KUKA and KITAKAMI classes are fitted with type 13 radar sets each. And CVE SHINYO & KAIYO have type 21 onboard. However, KITAKAMI class cruisers will arrive very late in the game - if ever. And the two CVE classes aren´t available in Sc17 and Sc19 camapigns.

Historically, on BB ISE a Type 21 set was installed by May 1942. And IIRC one of the japanese fleet carriers also has radar by 1942 already. I think it was SHOKAKU. Unfortunately you don´t get any upgrades as japanese player when sending ships back to the homeland.

[RGIJN]

Furthermore an upgrade path for ships that have been sent back. Several vessels of the IJN underwent refit & radar/weapon modifications early in 1943 historically. UV only supports the Allies in this regard. At least it seems like that, or did anybody ever get an upgraded ship back from Tokyo???

[SuluSea]

As mentioned in the thread regarding planes diverting from damaged carriers. Is it possible to add to emphasis on diverting to an airfield with air support if at all possible?