RE: A Game of Balance
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:48 am
Gary,
Must disagree re CV vrs surface units. I posted this a while back on another thread, but it really belongs here as it is part of this AAR.
>> 13 April Post >>
Just got some results in. The Peter Strasser has finally been sunk in my PBEM game. I kept a log of the attacks to support my contention that naval combat 'needs work'.
7 weeks of chasing this ship + 1 BB +1 CA around the Atlantic (BattleVonWar too cagey to move where TAC could hit it with laser guided bombs)
Based on the forces involved this should have been 'over' in seven hours not seven weeks.
Strikes on hex with 'reported' German CV present.
USN CV strikes 31 (including the one which finally sunk it.)
RN CV strikes 9
4 Turns ending in in sea zone with 'spotted Ge CV' (large task forces 3+BB 3+CA 4+ CV) (big stuff here bigger than battle of Midway forces on Allied side)
Port strikes (based on 'someone' getting a hit on the Strasser in that port that turn
USSR 3
USAF 5
UK 3
So 11 port strikes (actually nearly half of the damage was done this way and this is likely the least effective based on the historical record which indicates : CV strikes most deadly Surface engagements second most Port strikes third (of the three) {Pearl harbor is a special case of a surprise attack when at 'peace'})
40 CV strikes plus whatever happens when 5 CV's end a turn in the same zone (mostly nothing)50 days of 'action'. Wow if the Japanese had a few of these they could have anchored them in San Francisco bay and Bombed Sacramento. All this is about as plausible as the movie about the nuclear Carrier which went thru a wormhole back to WWII.
So ANYONE tell me that if this is WAD that the design does not need a 'bit' of tweaking.
Must disagree re CV vrs surface units. I posted this a while back on another thread, but it really belongs here as it is part of this AAR.
>> 13 April Post >>
Just got some results in. The Peter Strasser has finally been sunk in my PBEM game. I kept a log of the attacks to support my contention that naval combat 'needs work'.
7 weeks of chasing this ship + 1 BB +1 CA around the Atlantic (BattleVonWar too cagey to move where TAC could hit it with laser guided bombs)
Based on the forces involved this should have been 'over' in seven hours not seven weeks.
Strikes on hex with 'reported' German CV present.
USN CV strikes 31 (including the one which finally sunk it.)
RN CV strikes 9
4 Turns ending in in sea zone with 'spotted Ge CV' (large task forces 3+BB 3+CA 4+ CV) (big stuff here bigger than battle of Midway forces on Allied side)
Port strikes (based on 'someone' getting a hit on the Strasser in that port that turn
USSR 3
USAF 5
UK 3
So 11 port strikes (actually nearly half of the damage was done this way and this is likely the least effective based on the historical record which indicates : CV strikes most deadly Surface engagements second most Port strikes third (of the three) {Pearl harbor is a special case of a surprise attack when at 'peace'})
40 CV strikes plus whatever happens when 5 CV's end a turn in the same zone (mostly nothing)50 days of 'action'. Wow if the Japanese had a few of these they could have anchored them in San Francisco bay and Bombed Sacramento. All this is about as plausible as the movie about the nuclear Carrier which went thru a wormhole back to WWII.
So ANYONE tell me that if this is WAD that the design does not need a 'bit' of tweaking.



