Matrix Games Forums

I just found out the hard way that you can not send your carriers to raid oil and refineries. Because you can not designate a "city attack" or target unless your carrier aircraft are in range. So while you can set your carrier raiders to "port attack" and designate a port while well out of range and then rush in for your port raid, you can not do this for oil and refineries.

So now you Japanese players know that you do not have to leave decent fighter protection at Palambang (or any other oil center) because in order to raid the oil facilities, we AFBs need to move our carriers to within SBD range and sit them there for a day in order to set the attack on your oil. Meanwhile, you can then move every zero and betty within 1000 miles over to Palembang to dish out some torpedo love at the moment we send our "raid" in.

So if you are playing Japan, don't waste valuable fighter assets covering vulnerable oil centers as you will have at least one turn to move them back in when faced with a carrier raid. Instead it is my recommendation that you use these fighters instead to create massive stacks nearer the front lines and make my pitiful Allied life an unholy hell. [:@]

I would have to catagorize this as an 8.5 out of ten on the "really blows big time meter."

Actually been that way since WITP days - those original designers made some subtle decisions that we only understand much later!!!

Though actually I had an allied opponent "complain" about this back in 2005 - so I already knew about it - but perhaps many have not discovered it yet.

Yep, I just never was in a position to try it before even from as far back as WITP days. Got my carriers moved and into position only then to discover that I could not do it.

Oh well, just going to have to send in the marines.

Why waste carrier assets on bombing industry/oil?? The allies have plenty of untouchable 4E for that...[&:]

ORIGINAL: crsutton
So if you are playing Japan, don't waste valuable fighter assets covering vulnerable oil centers as you will have at least one turn to move them back in when faced with a carrier raid. Instead it is my recommendation that you use these fighters instead to create massive stacks nearer the front lines and make my pitiful Allied life an unholy hell. [:@]

I would have to catagorize this as an 8.5 out of ten on the "really blows big time meter."

Cool! Thanks for the advice, crsutton. Please do continue to let us know more efficient means of stacking fighters near the front and, of course, ways of making your pitiful Allied life an unholy hell. [;)]

Well, in 1942 and 43 it is not possible to use heavy bombers on these locations unless you are facing a weak opponent or had been very lucky. But a carrier raid on Palaembang or any of the oil centers in Java or Indonesia would send a nice message to the Japanese player that he would need to keep some fighters there to cover that flank. As it is now, the raids are not possible so it is a moot point.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: crsutton
So if you are playing Japan, don't waste valuable fighter assets covering vulnerable oil centers as you will have at least one turn to move them back in when faced with a carrier raid. Instead it is my recommendation that you use these fighters instead to create massive stacks nearer the front lines and make my pitiful Allied life an unholy hell. [:@]

I would have to catagorize this as an 8.5 out of ten on the "really blows big time meter."

Cool! Thanks for the advice, crsutton. Please do continue to let us know more efficient means of stacking fighters near the front and, of course, ways of making your pitiful Allied life an unholy hell. [;)]

No problem. I exsist only to serve at the feet of my JFB masters. [:D]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: crsutton
So if you are playing Japan, don't waste valuable fighter assets covering vulnerable oil centers as you will have at least one turn to move them back in when faced with a carrier raid. Instead it is my recommendation that you use these fighters instead to create massive stacks nearer the front lines and make my pitiful Allied life an unholy hell. [:@]

I would have to catagorize this as an 8.5 out of ten on the "really blows big time meter."

Cool! Thanks for the advice, crsutton. Please do continue to let us know more efficient means of stacking fighters near the front and, of course, ways of making your pitiful Allied life an unholy hell. [;)]

No problem. I exsist only to serve at the feet of my JFB masters. [:D]

Like Dirty Harry said from "Magnum Force": A man has got to know his limitations. [:'(]

I was playing the AI (you are too, right?) and I bombed Palembang sometime in about mid-43 (?) with carriers from Colombo. I did it west-to-east across the island and didn't get a scratch. The AI had hordes of Bettys at Oosthaven too. Maybe I got lucky.

As I recall (I think I told Canoerebel about it in his "Shattered Vow" AAR) I lost about 1/3 of the air wings to flak and A2A, for about 15 points of Oil damage, so it wasn't worth it. But the carriers got away free.

ORIGINAL: Zigurat666

Why waste carrier assets on bombing industry/oil?? The allies have plenty of untouchable 4E for that...[&:]

because they haven´t got 100 hexes range?

Bullwinkle is right (and has a good memory). In my "Shattered Vow" game, I set up all Allied carriers to hit Soerabaja's oil and refinery in April 1942. The only trouble was that the KB showed up in that region and stubbornly refused to leave. Eventually, I decided to strike the KB, while the carriers were disbanded in port, rather than strategic targets. So I didn't find out what would happen if massed carrier dive bombers did a strategic strike, but it sure seemed like a good idea at the time.

IIRC British CVs raided strategic targets in the DEI in real life a couple of times. Pretty sure the damage wasn't much but they did do it.

As Japanese player I would keep fighters at exposed oil centers nonetheless - sneaky Allied players may send in carrier raids on naval attack. Losing a TK convoy loading at or cruising near an oil center will harm the Japanese more than some damage to the oil wells / refineries. Good long-range naval search coverage of approach routes may discourage carrier raids, but I wouldn't bet on it. 

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

As Japanese player I would keep fighters at exposed oil centers nonetheless - sneaky Allied players may send in carrier raids on naval attack. Losing a TK convoy loading at or cruising near an oil center will harm the Japanese more than some damage to the oil wells / refineries. Good long-range naval search coverage of approach routes may discourage carrier raids, but I wouldn't bet on it. 

Well, the need would only arise when you have tankers in port. So you can move fighters in when your convoys arrive and then move them elsewhere when not needed. Still, a little protection is not a bad idea.

ORIGINAL: spence

IIRC British CVs raided strategic targets in the DEI in real life a couple of times. Pretty sure the damage wasn't much but they did do it.

Palembang, with USS Saratoga.

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

As Japanese player I would keep fighters at exposed oil centers nonetheless - sneaky Allied players may send in carrier raids on naval attack. Losing a TK convoy loading at or cruising near an oil center will harm the Japanese more than some damage to the oil wells / refineries. Good long-range naval search coverage of approach routes may discourage carrier raids, but I wouldn't bet on it. 

Well, the need would only arise when you have tankers in port. So you can move fighters in when your convoys arrive and then move them elsewhere when not needed. Still, a little protection is not a bad idea.

I don't about you, but I have TKs at Palembang every turn.