What ammo restrictions should be placed on carrier aircraft?

[Subchaser]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

I thought it represented ordnance. If it represented avgas, then fighters flying CAP and escort would use up these points also.

Joel Billings
We've added an item called aircraft ordinance to each carrier. This represents aviation gas and bombs. We didn't want to have carriers run themselves out of the ability to put up CAP and search, so we only deduct 1 point from the aircraft ordinance whenever a plane launches on a strike mission (including escorts). Typical carriers have a value around 500, meaning they can launch 500 aircraft on strike missions.

As you can see, in fact this is about aviation gas consumption. CAP fighters don’t use points to avoid problems, kind of a emergency aviagas reserve, while escorts(!), TBs, DBs all using 1 point while flying strike missions. No bombs, no torps, all you have is just 500 tons of aviation gas to fuel aircraft you need in the air the most, no actual weapons.

[tsimmonds]

Thanks for clarifying. Kind of an odd system, huh? Between avgas and ordnance, I wonder which was actually the bigger constraint on operations during the war. Not just which got used up faster, but also which was harder to replenish. My money'd be on ordnance.....but whichever it was, that should be the thing that is in limited supply in the game.

[Mr.Frag]

I believe the logic was look at what was flown historically.

Take that total and subtract a fixed percentage to account for non-strike flights (cap/search/etc)

Take the remaining number and use it at the offensive total for the CV.

(NOTE!!!! this is a unique number per CV, not a generic number, it varies from <100 to 700ish)

That remaining number gets decremented by 1 for each aircraft flying on a strike type mission.

Whether you want to treat it as gas or bombs or both, feel free. The purpose is to prevent CV's sitting around and carpet bombing for weeks.

For those who don't like it, it is a database entry that can be edited so if you want it lower or higher or whatever, the power is in your hands.

[tsimmonds]

Not knocking it, I approve of the simplicity. Just wondering about the details.....It would be very interesting to see some of the individual CV capacities. I suppose the 500pts that has been tossed around would be for Essex class, what about the pre-war CVs for both sides?

[Mr.Frag]

It goes as low as 75 on one end of the scale for a Chitose class and as high as 720 on the other end for the monster Essex class.

These are alpha numbers so they may go up or down as needed based on tester results. Keep the faith. [;)]

[Rainerle]

Which will lead to howls of anguish when 75 points are burned for attacking 1 SC.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Subchaser
HMSWarspite, please, do us a favor, be a little bit more polite, we’re not stupid crowd, we’re customers as well as you are, and we can tell what we think and can have an opposite opinion.

I am sorry, I did not mean to cause offence. I was merely drawing attention to the relatively high numbers of posts that cited the advantages in 'realism' in the 4 ammo types option, without considering the drawbacks.

Now take a look at this situation: I have Shokaku and Zuikaku raiding somewhere near Fiji in august 42, and I see juicy US convoy and dozen of cruisers approaching, about 40 ships total. No US carriers nearby. Since I’m far away from the nearest IJN base, I have to use 2x 500 (or so) strike points wisely. What can I do, I can order Vals and Zeros to rest and use Kates exclusively, there are 48 Kates onboard. Here we go, 48 Kates do 160-180 sorties in two turns and I bet most of US ships will die, some immediately, some later because of high float.damage far away from port. Kate drivers in 42 are desperate killers, if you’ll give them 180 torpedoes they will crush any target without appropriate cover. More than this, I’ve already killed 30 ships from this convoy for just 180 (out of 1000) points used, but I can repeat this bloodbath somewhere else, oh yes, there is another convoy sighted, deadmen are trying to reach Australia, I’m taking another 150 torpedoes out of my magic pocket. BTW I still have enough torps to deal with US carriers if they will appear. All I need in this situation is just a couple of TKs for replenishment. There are many other generic ammo problematic points.

You can bring even more arguments for generic CV ordnance but they won’t make such results and tactics any bit realistic, there cannot be hundreds of torps in carrier holds, if they are onboard there cannot be realistic carrier combat (detailed or not, it isn’t realistic). And please do not tell me about great scale of this game, WitP is just several UVs in one box, and UV is not grand strategic, whatever you say; you have 3000 ships now, but you still have to handle them manually.

In the same time I understand all those problems with 4 types, AI choosing ordnance etc., I was hoping that this option would trigger further improving of AI and carrier combat model. Looks like developers think it is already perfect, I can’t agree here and I don’t want to make a virtue out of necessity.

Your example is fair enough. However you aren't going to get a quantum leap in AI (I suspect) at this stage in development. The limitation on ammo prevents the CV TF camping on a location for weeks on end. Agreed it does not solve all problems, but it doesn't introduce too many either. IMHO, the 4 ammo option will introduce significant issues, that will then need addressing. By far the easiest would be decoying the CV TF with a transport force, and then attacking later with the CV. The AI just will not cope without significant help/cheating, which will then annoy people. If I could see a way out of this, I would be a confirmed 4 ammo type!

[mogami]

Hi, OK so the worry is someone could run a TF out of torpedos by sending in decoy TF and once 2 strikes have been launched close with the CV.
Then you'd only have the full enemy airgroups attacking with AP bombs.

How hard would it be to code 800kg bombs for Kates against merchant ships? (1000lb or 2000lb for Allied torpedo planes)

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, OK so the worry is someone could run a TF out of torpedos by sending in decoy TF and once 2 strikes have been launched close with the CV.
Then you'd only have the full enemy airgroups attacking with AP bombs.

How hard would it be to code 800kg bombs for Kates against merchant ships? (1000lb or 2000lb for Allied torpedo planes)

Yes, but who says I don't need the APs sunk really badly, and want to use Torps to be sure? And, of course I could decoy with PC, or DE, or DD or...., or put one CL/CA in the decoy...

[Subchaser]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

By far the easiest would be decoying the CV TF with a transport force, and then attacking later with the CV. The AI just will not cope without significant help/cheating, which will then annoy people.

Accept – this is a player’s choice, you’re not forced to do so, besides we have many other similar issues around how to beat AI hard and fast. No one complains desperately, all maul AI. You can avoid this by playing in more historical manner. If playing against human you can build your tactics on this, I’ve pointed this out before.

If I could see a way out of this, I would be a confirmed 4 ammo type!

This is one of the possible ways, not very easy to code, but this worth it.

Separate points for bombs
Separate points for torpedoes
Separate points for gas (those 500 strike points)

Toggle switch for TBs: torps/bombs

New mode for CV TF – ‘React to enemy carriers only’. With this mode on, CV TF will attack only those enemy TFs which contain CV/E/L and will ignore everything else. FoW can spoil this from time to time, carriers will attack non-CV TF due to inaccurate intel. And this mode will automatically switch TB to torps if they were previously armed with bombs.

And finally switch, accessible from the realism menu screen, between everything above and generic ordnance for those who prefer milk instead of beer. [:'(]

To avoid problems with AI running all this stuff it can be hardcoded only for PBEM game, as a variant, why not? Most of us will play pbem, 80% of other customers will not, but this is a good reason to start .

Of course this variant requires more attention and some micromanagement, but since CV operations are crucial I think you’ll find 5-10 minutes more for them, carrier combat is not an everyday issue. But dividends are great, almost perfect CV combat model for the game of such a huge scale.

[Hoplosternum]

HMS,

You could decoy with all these things and more. But quite frankly the AI is meant to go after the CVs. I always assumed it did and only hit other things if it could not locate the CVs.

But if you mean soak up the enemies CV strikes early with a few 'forward' TFs before your CVs arrive you can do that anyway under all systems offered. In UV CVs that have been bombing for a couple of days tend to have fatigued and low morale bomber groups. Plus the fighter escorts and/or high % CAP are likely to be getting ragged too. It is always the UV dream scenario to catch the enemy CVs after thay have been all out attacking for a couple of days. Watching your bombers slip through their tired CAP while their strikes bounce off or crumble against yours. Well just getting lucky is good too [:D]

I am sad that the Torpedo count has gone but I can accept Mr Frag's reasoning. The AI may become a much easier target when it keeps getting caught Torpedoless just at the wrong moment. Alternatively it might just play very defensively - constantly scurrying back to Truk after launching a couple strikes against picket ships for resupply [:(]

I cannot help thinking that Mogami's suggestion would have been better to preserve the AIs Torpedos though. Yes HMS Warspite Torpedos are probably better, but bombs are good enough against soft targets I think. If bombs were always considered rubbish why did the IJN and US not just fly Torpedo bombers by the late war period?

[Damien Thorn]

See, this limited ammo / av-gas thing is already starting to get people thinking of cheap ways to screw up the system. When purposly sending ships in to the enemy's path to get them sunk is a valid tactic there is something terrily wrong with the game. This is much worse that the "park and pound" we saw in UV. I think the whole thing should be scrapped and just go back to the unlimited ammo. The map will be big enough that we don't have to worry about "park and pound". Besides, with the larger hexes it will be easier for subs to intercept tast forces that are sitting around pounding the same target day after day.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

See, this limited ammo / av-gas thing is already starting to get people thinking of cheap ways to screw up the system. When purposly sending ships in to the enemy's path to get them sunk is a valid tactic there is something terrily wrong with the game. This is much worse that the "park and pound" we saw in UV. I think the whole thing should be scrapped and just go back to the unlimited ammo. The map will be big enough that we don't have to worry about "park and pound". Besides, with the larger hexes it will be easier for subs to intercept tast forces that are sitting around pounding the same target day after day.

Easy, now. How do you know that this tactic will work? I recall from an earlier thread that AI target selection has been improved, so maybe the "sacrificial lamb" approach is untenable. How about asking the design and test team what they think before talking about scrapping the whole thing and how bad it all is.

[Damien Thorn]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
How about asking the design and test team what they think before talking about scrapping the whole thing and how bad it all is.

You're right, we should let them test it out. But if it doesn't work and it leads to all sorts of gimics then we should go back to the previous, UV style, method. We will see how well the AI targeting has been improved but I don't have much faith in AIs.

[pasternakski]

For once, you and I are on exactly the same page, Damien.