Matrix Games Forums

Any hex that can be built up is a base hex and will result in the 50% penalty, allied or japanese controlled.

The fact that 7.2.1.13.2 doesn't mention CVE's made me start questioning myself about this bit of knowledge, but it seems pretty widespread amongst forumites. I tried looking through my bookmarks of useful threads to see if I could find where this idea might have originated but couldn't find anything that pertains. I am next to useless at forum searches so that was out.

I know CVE's operating unimpeded in base hexes is a commonly understood thing, but I don't know if it's something that's just generally accepted (and perhaps wrong?), or if there's been testing, or if the knowledge is sourced by word of god.

CVE's may be included in amphbious and escort task forces. CV's may not. A good example that the game engine does indeed treat CVE's differently. The notion, of course, is to drive historically accurate behavior.

Not sure what would happen if you put CVE's in a mixed Air Combat taffy with CV's in a friendly base hex. I am suspicious the game engine would look at the type of task force for application of the penalty but it might look individually at the ship types. In any event it is a tactically bad idea to mix CVE's with the faster CV's.

I would be very surprised if there were a penalty applied for operating in an ENEMEY base hex because it doesn't make any real world sense and the guys who built AE were (still are probably) smart.

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

ORIGINAL: Sredni

When you conduct invasions it's useful to have CVE's which don't suffer the base hex penalty of 50% operations (7.2.1.13.2). I dunno if it's covered in the manual and thinking about it now, I dunno where I learned this, but CVE's can operate in base hexes unimpeded by the carrier base hex 50% rules.

apologies if this was already mentioned. I ended up skipping a lot of this thread.

7.2.1.13.2

I don't believe at this point, that this thing about the CVE's in shallow/base hexes is true. Read the previous posts.

Can anybody comment about the penalty of base hexes, if the "base hex" is an enemy "dot"?

It has been confirmed by Devs that other ships than CVEs suffer reduction in CAP in base hex, be it enemy or not. Dot hex is still base hex.

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

ORIGINAL: Sredni

When you conduct invasions it's useful to have CVE's which don't suffer the base hex penalty of 50% operations (7.2.1.13.2). I dunno if it's covered in the manual and thinking about it now, I dunno where I learned this, but CVE's can operate in base hexes unimpeded by the carrier base hex 50% rules.

apologies if this was already mentioned. I ended up skipping a lot of this thread.

7.2.1.13.2

I don't believe at this point, that this thing about the CVE's in shallow/base hexes is true. Read the previous posts.

Can anybody comment about the penalty of base hexes, if the "base hex" is an enemy "dot"?

It has been confirmed by Devs that other ships than CVEs suffer reduction in CAP in base hex, be it enemy or not. Dot hex is still base hex.

Awesome, thanks!

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
It has been confirmed by Devs that other ships than CVEs suffer reduction in CAP in base hex, be it enemy or not. Dot hex is still base hex.

Really? That doesn't seem to make sense. Perhaps it was just a simplification to make the code cleaner?

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
It has been confirmed by Devs that other ships than CVEs suffer reduction in CAP in base hex, be it enemy or not. Dot hex is still base hex.

Really? That doesn't seem to make sense. Perhaps it was just a simplification to make the code cleaner?

Seems like design decision. I think reason was lack of operating space to launch planes effectively near base. But it's been long time since this came up, so I don't remember the reasons.

>From: Finland/now in Malta

Samuli Edelmann :PP?

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

>From: Finland/now in Malta

Samuli Edelmann :PP?

Hell no! [:D]

Interestingly, there are very few Finns here. Been living here now over 6 years and you tend to meet only couple a year.