Super Dreadnought CV's ..

[IrishGuards]

Allied CV's .. I had both my CV's w 3 of those experience symbols by Jan 1940 ... Totally unrealistic ..
They seem to be gaining double experience or whatever it is ...

This happened in SC also ... All you had to do was go for extended range and jets .... !!
Next thing you knew there were these untouchable CV units with jets so there strength was 15 .. they started at 10 ...
And with extended range they could bomb Polesti .. [&o]

And these are Brit CV's .. They only started the war with 7 CV's ...[&:]
3 were capable of 18 planes each ... [8|]
3 had 36 each ...
Ark Royal had 48 or so ... 1939 numbers ..[&o]

This is some huge imbalance ..!!
200 planes total ... for the havoc they cause [&o]

The untouchable factor is also very hard to understand .. I have sunk a few in the games I have played Germany .. Not easy to do at all ..
Usually they had to start damaged at 8 or so .. Then it took 2 Sub, BB, Tac and 2 ftr's to destroy .....

The Uk lost Cv's all through the war .. 1939 .. 1940 .. even lost Ark Royal in Med ..

I can't even begin to compare the German air on board ...
2 Ger Ftr and a Tac ... this is some 3500 planes ... They do not cause anywhere near the damage the Cv's do ... and they don't gain experience anywhere near what the CV's do ...

UK 2 CV .. Strat bmr .. Ftr ... not even gonna count the Polish Ftr ..
Fr Ftr ...
IDG [X(]

[freeboy]

It is not a simulation, these are done for balancce sake.. I am sure U could mod some files and make this game much more user friendly.. to U

[Dave Ferguson]

No scenario editor, any mods you did to the UK CV's would apply to everyone.
 
Game setup not historical, if it was germany would overun everything or alternatively there would be so many units on the map that we would end up with ww1
 
My experience is that CV's are used for tactical air strikes, totally unrealistic as their tiny aircraft would be sitting ducks against land based fighters. especially UK ones with Swordfish!!!!

[targul]

It is distrubing the ahistorical use of CV's in France but they have made the range of those aircraft too long.  They should only reach a beach hex.  Also land based air should really rip those carriers apart making anyone thing twice before bringing carriers in the range of land based tactical bombers.
 
 

[Dave Ferguson]

Using carriers tactically does look gamey as does the use of battleships for continuous shore bombardment, making a beaten zone where units suffer additional casualties. Should they have alower land attack value?
 
Shore bombardment did take place but the ships were very vulnerable because they were in shallow water and could not manoeuvre, pray to mines and small units, MTB's etc
 
Maybe land units should have a small anti shipping attack value.

[firepowerjohan]

Carrier vs Fighter

Carrier pros
- Slightly higher survivability than fighter
- Can move+attack on same turn


Carrier cons
- Slightly lower air combat value than fighter
- Cost more to repair than fighter (80% factor vs 60% factor)
- Need to be in port to upgrade or repair
- Shorter range than fighters
- Can not intercept or escort


Summary:
I do not think there are any super carriers exploits that can be used to win the game, instead the carriers are flexible complementary units that can be used all around the map. They are good overall but not expert in any particular area and they are less cost efficienct than fighters in the air.

When you succeed with a super carrier strategy then it is probably when you already have a big lead and are winning the game. I could be wrong, more AAR's especially human vs human games would be needed but we will of course keep an eye on any unit balancing issues so that we can change them in a patch if needed.

[IrishGuards]

Carrier vs Fighter

Carrier pros
- Slightly higher survivability than fighter
- Can move+attack on same turn


Carrier cons
- Slightly lower air combat value than fighter
- Cost more to repair than fighter (80% factor vs 60% factor)
- Need to be in port to upgrade or repair
- Shorter range than fighters
- Can not intercept or escort

OK ... the only thing I will say is ..... So far that is .. a few of these are not Con's [:-]

- slightly lower air combat value than ftr ... well I certainly hope so .. considering they had way smaller air complements ... comparitively that is ..

- Cost more to repair than fighter (80% factor vs 60% factor) .. I certainly hope so .. they are way stronger than the average bear ..

- ports to repair and upgrade and range less than ftr's -
I'm quite shocked - When you built these CVN's ... they did not come with floating dry docks .. Ah the pain ... !! [:'(]
I must inquire with the Minister of Armerments ... Still means they can repair in ANY..!!! Port .. When I attack these CVN's .. What am I hitting ..
The CV .. The air component ..[&:]

I have to go back to port once in awhile .. can't just stay at sea all game and enjoy the fact that the Luftwaffe command goes into seizure mode every time a CVN shows up on board ...

And last but not least ....[&o]
- Can not intercept or escort - This is a serious boon .. forget about the escorting ....
the intercept is the key ...

I can launch Luftflotte 1 2 and 3 at the CVN battlegroup ... All his supporting BB's DD's .. and covering forces ... they are in hexes adjacent ... you get the picture .. right next door .. [X(]
Admiral whoever just pours himself some claret as the flames and such engulf his screening forces ... and does not even launch his planes to defend .... [8|]

I have an opponent right now .. 1941 .. Oil is on .. He knows who he is ..!!
He has a CVN parked off Tobruk ... 10 strength .. 4 of those pretty little kill ensigns ...
Just merrily blasting away .. No losses of course ..[X(]

I got 1 buddy ...[;)]
who would probably go into a goosestep every time and start talkin like Goebbels ..
Just utter nonsense to his wife and kids .. the dog even ..
sending smack talk emails .. pouring some more scotch ...
Wagner on the CD player ...
Prancing around like Nappy .. Talkin about my heritage and the fact maybe I should be playin Risk or Rail Baron .. something more akin to my abilities as a wargamer .. [:@]

I can't even begin to contemplate the amount of time, resources and such that it would take to even scratch the paint on these puppies once they have 4 of those pretty little ensigns.. [X(]

IDG

[IainMcNeil]

We could give ground units a naval combat value of 1 which would inflict ~0-2 points of damage per attack. We could reduce naval attacks on ground units to 0 so they only have shock values, no damage values, so they reduce effectivness but don't inflict casualties. Both options would need some testing though - maybe you guys want to try it out yourselves and see what works

[IrishGuards]

I was allready thinking about more the effectiveness of units ... Which I think is a good idea ... !!

Damage done to entrenched ground from BB's .. I can see this when there are units invading .. as it probably should be ... On D-Day or such ... when the Allied player has concentrated the pointy units in his OOB ..
I think ground should and probably would take some damage from ...
Air .. Fleet .. and the effectiveness decrease would be reasonable .. when these factors are combined .. so it seems the Naval and Air units would cause shock ... especially in overwhelming superiority ..

I was thinking more in line with either a coastal hex penalty for BB and CV .. movement penalty .. when they are supplying coastal hexes with the invading units they are much more vulnerable ..
I think If you tie the fact of a unit in a city to some kind of damage to fleet .. makes sense .. much lower if a player does not garrison his city though ..

As I look at the board I am trying to see areas where fleet are most vulnerable .. straights and canals .. mines and coastal defenses ...
Just seems that once ... say denmark is attacked and the Skag is open you see Nelson coming round the point ... no fear .. [:-]
Intrinsic port and city defense .. keeps em honest .. and wary .. right now it is just a freebie .. especially for the French Fleet .. they are just cannon fodder ..
Thanks for the quick reply .. good to see some of the more gamey issues are being addressed .. [:)]
IDG

[targul]

In my naval phases I have not found the Battleship to be overrated.  The 0-1-2 damage seems about right for naval bombardment.  I am opposed to the land unit damaging the Battleship.  That just wouldnt happen due to the range of the BB's guns verses most costal guns.  The one exception to this might be fortified hexes such as Gibralta they should probably have a chance of damaging the attacking BB.
 
 

[IrishGuards]

Great .. keep it simple .. but remember AA is not portrayed in the game at all ...
CV's hitting 4 hexes inland from the coast .. and no decrease in Eff on the way in ..
seems the same to me as if a naval unit is gonna go flank everywhere .. full move ..
This increases each turn they move full ..
Lessens there spotting level ... point A to B .. not just wandering around .. decreases effeciency in bringing a full battle line into action ..
Gib, Malta, Sev, Len all were loaded to the tits with guns .. big guns .. Malta is probably the exception to this .. nay sure ..
IDG

[targul]

As I said CV's should only bomb coastal hexes.  I do not know of any carrier based planes in WWII being used for inland targets.  At sea there range is fine but land should probably be fixed at costal and maybe you can add a hex with a tech but I would still think costal should be it.

[IrishGuards]

There seems to be an abundance of 20 PP garrisons spending alot of time at Sea .. [:'(]
IDG

[SMK-at-work]

Naval aircraft are not significantly different from land-based ones - why should they be limited to coastal hexes?  Usually naval a/c have a LONGER range than land based ones in fact!  Naval aircraft were used extensively to attack inland targets in Japan in hte last few months of the war.
 
The choice is whether to use them close to coasts where the carriers may be vulnerable to land-based attack - purely a player decision.

[n0kn0k]

ORIGINAL: IrishDragoonGuards

There seems to be an abundance of 20 PP garrisons spending alot of time at Sea .. [:'(]
IDG

Yes those are cheap scouts!
There is a solution for that though

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Naval aircraft are not significantly different from land-based ones - why should they be limited to coastal hexes? Usually naval a/c have a LONGER range than land based ones in fact! Naval aircraft were used extensively to attack inland targets in Japan in hte last few months of the war.

The choice is whether to use them close to coasts where the carriers may be vulnerable to land-based attack - purely a player decision.

agree with the idea, but I think the complaint is not the same, the complaint is Sea Based Airpower bombing Berlin, or CVs sitting behind England, bombing targets in France (would love to see a detailed combat sim, with Fulmars and Swordfish flying to Berlin on a bombing raid)(now, Hellcats and F4us and TBMs would still be fun, but not as interesting)

OT
odd, I have seen a report given to the FAA pilots flying Hellcats, on what was thought of the 109 and 190 compared to the cat, if they spotted 109s and thought they had the edge, to do what they thought was best, if they saw 190s, to break off and head home, they were not to engage even if they thought they had the edge

BUT then I guess that is why the Intell boys sit on the ground behind the lines and let the warriors fly and fight

[targul]

"Naval aircraft were used extensively to attack inland targets in Japan in hte last few months of the war."
 
Japan is only 200 miles across at best so bombing inland target is pretty close to bombing coast since you will never be 100 miles from a coast.

[MengCiao]

Quote:

OT
odd, I have seen a report given to the FAA pilots flying Hellcats, on what was thought of the 109 and 190 compared to the cat, if they spotted 109s and thought they had the edge, to do what they thought was best, if they saw 190s, to break off and head home, they were not to engage even if they thought they had the edge

BUT then I guess that is why the Intell boys sit on the ground behind the lines and let the warriors fly and fight

I think the FAA only got as far as improved Wildcats (FM2), though the six-gun Wildcat was a FAA idea anyway, so it only seems fair. The USN Wildcat pilots reported shooting down some 109s early in the war in the Pacific...which is one more reason to wonder about human experience in little airplanes shooting at each other.

The Wasp was in the Med in 1942. Did its Wildcats shoot down any 109s?

The FAA did manage some very lethal attacks. For example on the Italian Fleet in Taranto so unless the game adds some extra level of simulation, carriers need to be pretty good against lots of different targets. Maybe giving them an antishipping bonus and reducing them against other targets might be good.

I guess Ranger and some escort carriers did fine in the Torch landings, though, with nothing more than Wildcats for fighters.

[IrishGuards]

How can you even begin to believe that CV's are not different from land based air ...
This means the UK alone has abundantly more Air than Ger at the start of the game ..
add in the Poles and the French and you have on board .. 6 Allied Air to 3 Axis ..
I nay think so .. [:-]

And with the quality factor going through the roof for Cv's in a very short period of time .. what a riot .. !! [X(]
Why dont we add the Bearn and Com Teste in for the French .. [X(]

In the last months of the war there was very little opposition to Allied Air attacks in any theater ... But why are we even talking about Japan .. It is not even portrayed .. To base a comparison on this is delusional ..

To even begin to imagine that they are vulnerable to land based air is ludicrous ..
German Ftrs do more damage to a CV than Tac .. Just see the odds for yourself ..
Send a Ftr ..
Send a Tac ...
Any attacks against the Cv's just add a nice little ensign to these CV's .. means your just making them harder to kill ..
Armored flightt decks aside .. Torps work well on Cv's .. BB would make mincemeat of them and did in 1 case I remember early in the war ..
To think if they were just hanging out on the coast of France and the Low Countries and survive is just nay reality ..

UK CV's at war start 1939

Hermes, Eagle, Argus, Furious .. Do you have any clue as to the number of planes on these 4 CV's .. maybe 64 - 80 ...

And the big boys ..
Courageous, Glorious and Ark Royal .. maybe 110 -120 ...

Thats 200 Naval planes .. very dubious quality and advancement here ...
And yet they romp around gaining experience because the Allies use up the Ger Ftrs first .. then send in the CV's ....

[Hard Sarge]

the Royal Navy got over 900 Avengers (used in the Atlantic, Med and Pto)

they also got 252 Hellcat Is, and 930 Hellcat IIs

for the F4u, they got 95 Corsair Is, 510 IIs, 430 IIIs and 977 IVs

the first use in the ETO (also first use off of a CV) was in April 44 when they went after the Tirpitz

(19 FAA squadrons used the F4u)

most of the use is more known from the PTO, but they were also based and used in ETO

the FAA also used the Marlet

most combat reports on the Hellcat, were in the Med/South of France and off of Norway

I thought most of the mission for the CVs during Touch was to transport P-40s, took off from the CVs and landed on the Captured French Airfields