Matrix Games Forums

Clearly, they are designed to represent multiple ships, not just one, as that would not make any sense.
 
I do agree I am not all that happy with the way they are used in France.
 
Also, I suggest if it bothers you I have a VERY easy solution.  Go into your units script - it is a simple text file.
 
Then:
Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C, Paste into Excel
Modify the ground units to have Naval Attack = 1
Copy and paste back
 
Now your ground units will defend vs. any naval attacks.  It makes striking with carriers vs. land units very painful - probably too much so.  BUT there you have it.
 
Alternately, perhaps the game designers can allow AA to to function vs. carrier attacks, that would make sense no?

ORIGINAL: Vypuero

Clearly, they are designed to represent multiple ships, not just one, as that would not make any sense.

I do agree I am not all that happy with the way they are used in France.

Also, I suggest if it bothers you I have a VERY easy solution.  Go into your units script - it is a simple text file.

Then:
Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C, Paste into Excel
Modify the ground units to have Naval Attack = 1
Copy and paste back

Now your ground units will defend vs. any naval attacks.  It makes striking with carriers vs. land units very painful - probably too much so.  BUT there you have it.

Alternately, perhaps the game designers can allow AA to to function vs. carrier attacks, that would make sense no?

Indeed. I have not played the Allies so was not aware how many carrier units they have to represent the total number of British carriers.

By your count, the total British carrier air strength is 346-448 planes distributed between two carrier "units" which makes for an air strength of 173-224 planes per unit (with a significant percentage of those planes NOT being fighters).

According to Wikipedia there were two German fighter Jagdfliegerfuehrer in France in August of 1940 as subcomponents of Luftflotte 2 and Luftflotte 3. One was much stronger that the other with 20 fighter gruppes while the other had 11 fighter gruppes. Each gruppe had a strength of 65-70 fighters. The total fighter strength was in the neighborhood of 2015-2170 fighters. Divide that evenly between the two and you come up with a total fo approximately 1000 fighters for each fighter "unit" in the game.

There is no way in hell that even BOTH British carrier units combined together should even have a prayer's chance in hell of ever being able to go up against even one German fighter unit.

It shouldn't be up to me to have to modify the game to make it right. The game's designers should see clear to fix it themselves.

I would question those Wikipedia figures. In Terraines 'Right of the Line' it has german fighter strength in Luftflotte 2 & 3 at about 1000 fighters, with over 200 bf110's of dubious quality 2 german fighter units for CEAW would be generous.. Two units would be right for the UK as well taking into account the Radar network and lower attrition on pilots v the Luftwaffe.
 
dave

ORIGINAL: Dave Ferguson

I would question those Wikipedia figures. In Terraines 'Right of the Line' it has german fighter strength in Luftflotte 2 & 3 at about 1000 fighters, with over 200 bf110's of dubious quality 2 german fighter units for CEAW would be generous.. Two units would be right for the UK as well taking into account the Radar network and lower attrition on pilots v the Luftwaffe.

dave

Agreed. Those are approximate full strength figures and I did include the 110s in the comparison as the Fairey Swordfish Torpedo bombers are also included in the British figure. Even if you take a figure of 500 operational fighters per Luftflotte and compare that against a figure of 175-225 total planes in a carrier unit, including the Swordfish,........the disparity still stands.

Yes it is more like 1,200 fighters for Germany, that 2,000 figure is wrong.
 
I agree -> but as I said what about the Naval Power in the Carrier group?  Other FAA units?  The Carrier is also more limited it cannot send its air inland, it costs more -
 
BUT.... as I said, I am leaning to making them start with just 1 Carrier - not 2 - I agree 2 is too many

I played 2 games vs IDG now in TcpIP where he was Allies using his carriers. I DoW Denmark on turn 1 in both games which was my big mistake. Against a laid back Allied play, invading Denmark, Holland and Belgium earlier than in real ww2 is no problem and in fact seem easy. Now instead he got his carriers and navy into play since their support hindered the Denmark invasion enough until the Allied navy arrive in the Baltic further turning the pressure on German ground units.

I think this strategy is excellent counter to if Germany tries to swell out of proportions too soon and conquer too fast.
I cannot see any harm with that [:)]


Nice Work, IDG!

Irish has never been to this Waikiki .. where is that Hawaii .... they have some useful material for reading on WW2 there ... [8|]
I dont have this Waikiki book .. where can I buy 1 .... And who is talkin about flying Jadgpanthers.. Is that the Herman Goring Flying Circus ..????
You guys are confusing the Irish ..
I think I will go speak to General Jameson about this situation .... and Issues ..
Waikiki ... very interesting ... [&o]
IDG

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.

why do you keep coming back with this Alt that we havn't given it the benefit of the doubt ?, we are the ones playing with it and makeing statements about what is wrong (or we think is wrong)

you keep coming back with give it a chance, see how it works, we know how it works, or we wouldn't be saying anything about it

and I also don't think you see, when the CV kills 3 or 4 of your fighter and you kill 0 or 1 of the CVs fighters, then how much does it cost you ?

plus the main idea is, it is not just one CV vs one fighter

ORIGINAL: 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.

you want us to start listing the LW JG's, KG's and Stuka units

how about the KGr's which would be mainly recon and anti ship units ?

ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan

I played 2 games vs IDG now in TcpIP where he was Allies using his carriers. I DoW Denmark on turn 1 in both games which was my big mistake. Against a laid back Allied play, invading Denmark, Holland and Belgium earlier than in real ww2 is no problem and in fact seem easy. Now instead he got his carriers and navy into play since their support hindered the Denmark invasion enough until the Allied navy arrive in the Baltic further turning the pressure on German ground units.

I think this strategy is excellent counter to if Germany tries to swell out of proportions too soon and conquer too fast.
I cannot see any harm with that [:)]


Nice Work, IDG!

fpj...not to sound mean spirited but you are starting to sound like the Wizard of Oz....all bluster, no substance.

What about a German player who tries to make his games follow a historical pattern and DOESN'T exploit the games weaknesses that allow Germany to expand faster than historically? That player faces two extra allied air units when he invades France and the low countries that he SHOULD'NT have to be facing. Attempting to justify something so blatantly ahistorical as overpowered carrier fighter air groups by pointing out that it is a good counter to ahistorical exploits that game shouldn't be allowing in the first place is rather lame in my apparently not so humble opinion.

What should carriers do then, in your opinion?  I have not found them to be overwhelming in nature.  When they support France inevitable they start to take a pounding, and they could even get killed if the german player sneaks in his subs.  That said, they don't entirely satisfy me either, but they need to have some reasonable value as they were pretty valuable assets.

Carriers need to be divided between the planes on board and the ship carrying same.  Air on board should start at about 3 but with each upgrade adds another plane.  Planes should be damaged if they attack or take damage away fromt the carrier.  Carrier should only be damaged when it is attacked.  That kind of attack could damage both planes and carrier.
 
This is done in other games and seems to work really well.

ORIGINAL: Vypuero

What should carriers do then, in your opinion?  I have not found them to be overwhelming in nature.  When they support France inevitable they start to take a pounding, and they could even get killed if the german player sneaks in his subs.  That said, they don't entirely satisfy me either, but they need to have some reasonable value as they were pretty valuable assets.

Carriers should do what they did historically in the European theater....hunt submarines and provide escort for transpot missions, venturing into the range of land based air only when the transport missions they are escorting warrant so under dire need as in the missions to reinforce Malta. Carriers were NOT used in the Atlantic and Med in anything like the role they were used in the Pacific. Carriers had almost ZERO impact on the European air/land battles.

The problem in game terms of relegating them to their historic roles is that subs suck as currently implemented so that a German player has little incentive to want to build, develop and use them in sufficient force to give the carriers anything to do.

Subs can be awesomely effective, I think you are dead wrong about that.

ORIGINAL: Vypuero

Subs can be awesomely effective, I think you are dead wrong about that.

Really? Everytime I have used a sub to attack a convoy it has been jumped on by 4-5-6 counterattackers and summarily sunk (the gang-up effect). Trading a 70 production point sub for 6-8-10 points worth of convoy damage doesn't seem awesomely effective to me. Even if I use them in a wolfpack that allows me to do considerably more damage to the convoy, the counterattackers will still single out one sub to gang-up on and sink rather than distributing their attacks across the wolfpack. I must be doing something wrong.....

By my experience and estimation subs are far too easily found after they have attacked.

For the drain on Germany's resources that building, researching, resurrecting from the dead and operating (oil), that subs represent I find far more efficacious use of those resources directing them to the land/air war.

You need different tactics with subs.  If you have enough, you attack with a few and leave some as "surprises" for the counter.  Otherwise, you need to attack when the escorts are not around.  It works differently depending on whether you are fighting a person or the AI

In games vs Vypuero and against Shury, they have both been using Subs against me very effctively. Shury even swarmed me and partly the Subs won the game for him since I had neglected Navy research too much and then it was too late.

Vypuero describes it correctly, that strategy has been used in some TcpIP games with success. You need the right numbers and strike at distant places where all Allied ships cannot reach you in the counter. Plus you can line up invisible subs as surprise counters on the incoming ships. The next turn, ZIP youre gone into invisibility again and enemy cannot catch ya [8D]

I find it about 50/50 some players use the subs very effectively and those are the ones that stay away from English ships.  Others do not.  Personnnally I use my subs to attack the English Navy. 
 
BTW Destroyers should be weak against battleships but I find you attack a destroyer with a battleship you take more damage then the destroyer.  This a far from true in real life.

I agree w VP and FPJ .. subs do some huge damage ... but they are also a huge boon to the Axis player .. they show where the Allied fleet is .. And when you are invading minors .. you get the Uk out of position to react ... at least for 1 or 2 turns ..
Also they use lots of Oil to just run around looking .... then the confusion sets in with the swine allies and they dont know which way to go ..
IDG

ORIGINAL: Vypuero

You need different tactics with subs.  If you have enough, you attack with a few and leave some as "surprises" for the counter.  Otherwise, you need to attack when the escorts are not around.  It works differently depending on whether you are fighting a person or the AI

Obviously. The AI never leaves it's convoys unescorted. I have tried multiple different approacches and have found that the AI sends the convoys from a group of escorts based near the US east coast to another group in mid Atlantic to another group based near the British Isles. The convoys are never out of range of an escort counterattack group. No matter where I decide to attack the convoys at least one sub will die for every attack. There is no way the Germans can afford the uboat war against the AI if they want to build an army to invade Russia with.

It appears all of the people lauding the naval war and giving advice on how to play it are NOT playing it againats the AI.

The naval war against the AI appears, at least from my experience, to be a no go. I just ignore it altogether, leaving my at start subs in port, and conquer Europe by land.