Super Dreadnought CV's ..

[IrishGuards]

I can and will continue to win with both sides ... Just the way I am ...
I will come up with new strategies .. builds ... openings and reactions ... But speed is essential in this game in the early stages ...
I was the 1 who came up with the SC 1 .. low country defense ..
Allies were attacking the Lows on turn 2 ..
So with the Irish as Germany .... my bro is emailing me that these guys in the forum are discussing a way to stop the Irish ...
So I strat moved an HQ .. Arm and Inf back on turn 1 instead of going into poland with the whole German army ...
Because once the Allies had the lows .. Axis were done ..
IDG

[Dave Ferguson]

ORIGINAL: IrishDragoonGuards

I can and will continue to win with both sides ... Just the way I am ...
I will come up with new strategies .. builds ... openings and reactions ... But speed is essential in this game in the early stages ...
I was the 1 who came up with the SC 1 .. low country defense ..
Allies were attacking the Lows on turn 2 ..
So with the Irish as Germany .... my bro is emailing me that these guys in the forum are discussing a way to stop the Irish ...
So I strat moved an HQ .. Arm and Inf back on turn 1 instead of going into poland with the whole German army ...
Because once the Allies had the lows .. Axis were done ..
IDG

Can someone please decode this

[IrishGuards]

LMAO ... [X(]
IDG

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: IrishDragoonGuards

If we assume what Vypuero says the Polish had 600 Air .. That means all things being equal there are only 1800 German air on board ... This is seriously low ...

No - it seems almost perfect - from wiki:

Germany had close to 3,000 aircraft (~2,000 of them can be considered militarily modern) with half of them deployed on the Polish front.

or, from http://www.ibiblio.net/hyperwar////USA/ ... gn-II.html

The two air forces assigned to direct the air effort against Poland would control 36 groups and approximately 1,400 offensively armed aircraft. All of the Luftwaffe's dive bomber force, 70 percent of its bombers, and 50 percent of the fighter force would be committed to operations, and the two air forces deployed to meet an attack in the west would be weakened by the diversion of combat units to the air effort in the east.

[HansBolter]

The real questions that should be answered here is how many planes are represented by a 10 strength unit.

A carrier and it's puny air wing shouldn't even come close to being able to stand up to a land based air unit. The land based air unit represents hundreds of planes. The British carrier air squadrons represent anywhere from 18-40 planes. The way to fix the problem would be to make carrier air squadrons strength 2 or 3 and NOT 10. Then the owner would be loathe to take them in range of land based air,,,,,just as the British were. Their carriers were primarily used to counter subs and NOT to participate in the land/air campaigns. When the British took their carriers in range of land based air they lost their carriers. Try reading abouth the convoys to Malta sometime.

The problem comes from trying to model individual capital ships at this game scale. Does a carrier unit represent a single ship and it's escort destroyers or does it represent a "squadron" of carriers?

Furthermore carriers should cost way, way more than they do. A fighter costs 100.....a mobile airfield (carrier) WITH a fighter ....costs 100![8|]

[Phatguy]

ORIGINAL: Vypuero

Carriers are also vulnerable to subs. Take some notches off the carriers with fighter cover, then sneak up some subs and sink yourselves some expensive carriers.

Yes, true, but subs can get seriously damaged by attacking the carriers. Couple with the fact that there are usually some destroyers around means bye-bye sub.

[IrishGuards]

Very difficult to have a balance in all theaters as in .. Air .. Naval .. Land .. and then to incorporate them all as part of the whole .. Some kind of problem solving is needed ..
I beer thinkin .. Oh dear .. [X(]
What about we look at BB .. as only 50 % strength .. 10 BB ... has 5 str when shore bombarding .. and I prefer to see effectiveness as the loss for land units .. with the possibility of unit damage when massed for an invasion ..

And CV's I think a 10 should be seen as ..
5 Naval ... the ships
5 Air .. the planes .. and reduce itself for any damage ..
A 6 factor CV .. would be 3 naval and 3 air points .. as It stands I guess a 6 is still 6 air ..
Thoughts .... [:)]
IDG

[Vypuero]

I am starting to think 1 CV for the UK at the start would be better, but they may have more BB or DD units

[IrishGuards]

You would have to talk to the swine Allied players ...
Just make sure the Luftwaffe is represented in some way more offensively ..
I mean most players say I am offensive , most people say I am very offensive ... [X(]
IDG

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Dave Ferguson

ORIGINAL: IrishDragoonGuards

I can and will continue to win with both sides ... Just the way I am ...
I will come up with new strategies .. builds ... openings and reactions ... But speed is essential in this game in the early stages ...
I was the 1 who came up with the SC 1 .. low country defense ..
Allies were attacking the Lows on turn 2 ..
So with the Irish as Germany .... my bro is emailing me that these guys in the forum are discussing a way to stop the Irish ...
So I strat moved an HQ .. Arm and Inf back on turn 1 instead of going into poland with the whole German army ...
Because once the Allies had the lows .. Axis were done ..
IDG

Can someone please decode this

the bad part is I understand him and agree with most of what he says

[Hard Sarge]

if the Allies do not send a CV to the MED, the MED is lost ?

okay, the AI will not send it, also the AI will pull most of it's ships around Spain out towards England, and will not move any of it's ships that are in the MED

but even if it did move to join forces in the MED what is a CV going to do ? a CV in the MED with out a lot of support Ships around is dead meat

what the AI likes to do, is keep it in port, and then repair damage as it is done to it

I still do not think you guys are playing your own game (maybe your human vs human games are taking away from what you think the game does) if the English defend the CVs in Port, sink the Convoys ?

how many Subs do you think the GE player is going to have ? and how many Ships do you think the English will build ?

most of my AI games the English end up with around 21 ships (think there may be a flaw in the how the AI thinks, once it gets 21 it seems to stop, and then if it loses ships, it does not replace them)

funny though, game design way, the GE sub war should begin in late 41 early 42, once they can build up a sub fleet, but if they wait until then, they are pretty much lost in the sub war (as you say, Fighters and ground troops are more importent then subs, until you begin to crack Russia)

[Vypuero]

I was not discussing AI games

[IrishGuards]

Thanks anyway Les ... [;)]
IDG

[Rocko911]

The core issue or problem is the Labs. There should be a limit on the labs due to raw material shortages (steel ect..) Perhaps also a penalty imposed once you get above a certain level of development, like a cost increase for them. This would mean you must sacrifice the building of units to keep pushing on in your research.

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Vypuero

I was not discussing AI games

sorry, but we have been, a Human vs Human will have many more explots that the AI will not use

and once people see what can be done by the AI, they will soon, bring that into there Human vs Human games themselfs

[HansBolter]

I agree that they really don't seem to be playing their own game.

A carrier with 40 planes, as much as half or more of which are bombers, should NOT even be able to consider going up against a land based fighter wing with several hundred planes.

[YohanTM2]

Heck, British CVs at the start of WWII still had some bi-planes

[firepowerjohan]

It is a design decision that carriers are decent in air fighting but clearly inferior to fighters. I would suggest you give it the benefit of the doubt here. Perhaps try a hotseat with a Figher vs Carrier on equal tech levels with the Fighter having leadership bonus (yes, air units get leadership bonus from nearby leaders) and write down how much it cost you to repair the carrier and how much for the fighter.
 
 

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan

It is a design decision that carriers are decent in air fighting but clearly inferior to fighters. I would suggest you give it the benefit of the doubt here. Perhaps try a hotseat with a Figher vs Carrier on equal tech levels with the Fighter having leadership bonus (yes, air units get leadership bonus from nearby leaders) and write down how much it cost you to repair the carrier and how much for the fighter.

Giving it the benefit of a doubt is really tough. It is just too far out of whack with reality to be able to do so.

I haven't gotten a response to my question as to whether or not carriers are supposed to represent one capital ship with escorts or a flotilla/fleeet of capital ships which would at least balance the disparity in numbers of planes when compared to a land based fighter unit, but would make the production costs appear even more out of whack than they already appear.

The point you appear to be missing is that the important comparsion isn't one carrier unit versus one fighter unit. Games of this type (sequential movement and attack) are ALL about ganging up on single enemy units with multiple, sequential attackers in oredr to kill off the enemy units. Introdcuing units into a country's inventory that can be used in conjunction with other units to gang up on enemy units, when the unit in question was never, and could never have been used that way in a doctrinal manner historically, contributes considerably to throwing off the historical balance and even more improtantly to the gamer interested in history (most of us wargamers) throws off the historical flavor.

[Vypuero]

Let us see:
 
Argus = 20
Hermes = 15
Ark Royal = 60
Courageous, Glorious = 48 + 48
Eagle = 21
Furious = 36
Illustrious Class - 36 to 72 each x3
 
Most were either already build or almost complete by start of war
 
That is a few hundred AC and ALSO the FAA had float planes and other land-based naval aircraft, too.
 
As I said, maybe 1 rather than 2 at the start is better, but it is not as far off as you imply.  I also find it very dangerous to support France with them.  They can easily get hammered by enemy fighter intercepts and/or counter-attacked.