CL Richmond safe! No...CL Richmond sunk

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers.

Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
goodboyladdie
Posts: 3470
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:35 pm
Location: Rendlesham, Suffolk

RE: CL Richmond safe! No...CL Richmond sunk

Post by goodboyladdie »

I agree Ron, but it is still the best game I have played.

Roll on WITP2! I'll buy it.
Image

Art by the amazing Dixie
User avatar
niceguy2005
Posts: 12522
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:53 pm
Location: Super secret hidden base

RE: CL Richmond safe! No...CL Richmond sunk

Post by niceguy2005 »

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

The Omaha class have such poor AA values that scouting and raiding are really all they are good for. They do not have the legs of the later CLs either. The thing that really makes them expendable is the fact they will be replaced with a late war CL or CA, whereas if you keep them safe, they will still be a load of crap at the end of the war. Gamey, I know, but in real life, naval commanders tend to follow the traditions of the service and are far more aggressive than we are. How many allied players would risk a Coral Sea or Midway with the air groups available in early 1942? I have read enough AARs to see how much that tends to hurt!

Only because IRL the situation was not dependent on screwy A2A or fake CAP capabilities or unwarranted Japanese strike coordination etc.
Coral Sea happened because commanders didn't have the benefit of historical hindsight that we have. They didn't know that US naval air was just inferior at the time. After Coral Sea the USN had a much better idea of where it stood. Midway would never have been attempted had not the US broken the Japanese code, thus giving them the element of surprise. Midway, IMO, was a bit of a desperate act on the part of the US. They knew that in terms of carriers they were outnumbered and to an extent outclassed. They thought the element of surprise might even the odds a bit and they were more right than they could have possibly guessed.
Image
Artwork graciously provided by Dixie
User avatar
George Patton
Posts: 1245
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:38 am
Location: Lugano, Switzerland

RE: CL Richmond safe! No...CL Richmond sunk

Post by George Patton »

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

One of the main reasons why ship crew factors should have been modelled. It would double the VP easy. Also,, we can't get planes to fly because of morale issues or whatever, but a guy sends a CL on a pointless mission guaranteed to cost the loss of the ship and crew and off it goes!~ LOL[:D]

You are completely right. I've never understood this decision to inluence the decision to fly depending on the morale. The pilots have to fly, that's all. In war there were plenty of pilots that were flying in very bad conditions. Think, for example, about Henderson Field. There were sometimes very few planes that could fly but the pilots never said "Today I'm too sad to fly."
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”