LBA vs Ship

[stjeand]

Maybe someone knows the answer...

When I attack land units with my LBA they lose efficiency...which makes sense...they are trying to avoid getting bombed.


Why do ships not lose any efficiency when bombed?

I attacked a fleet with 7 LBA attacks...did a little damage but it had no effect on their efficiency.
Shouldn't they be worn out after fighting off over 1000 planes?

[AlvaroSousa]

First off what is an LBA?

[YueJin]

Acronym for Land based aircraft. Basically any plane that isn't on a carrier.

[Hairog]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

First off what is an LBA?

I was scratching my head too. [X(]

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: stjeand


Why do ships not lose any efficiency when bombed?

Short answer is, that's how the game is set, but is it right ?

I guess WW2 aircraft are comparatively more fragile, operating off jungle strips, minimum navigational aids, even in the best circumstances there is a high wastage, with sometimes an overall loss rate of up to 50% in some air forces, with accidents due to weather, poor maintenance in field conditions, etc..

This is representing a 20 day cycle, where even without combat there are air losses

Ships are just an older more solid technology, individually not so vulnerable, crews trained for very specific tasks, often operating at high efficiency right up until the time the water starts coming in.

Steel is tougher than aluminium.

[stjeand]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: stjeand


Why do ships not lose any efficiency when bombed?

Short answer is, that's how the game is set, but is it right ?

I guess WW2 aircraft are comparatively more fragile, operating off jungle strips, minimum navigational aids, even in the best circumstances there is a high wastage, with sometimes an overall loss rate of up to 50% in some air forces, with accidents due to weather, poor maintenance in field conditions, etc..

This is representing a 20 day cycle, where even without combat there are air losses

Ships are just an older more solid technology, individually not so vulnerable, crews trained for very specific tasks, often operating at high efficiency right up until the time the water starts coming in.

Steel is tougher than aluminium.

I am not debating that...what I am questioning is...

Air is used to disrupt the enemy.
You disrupt land units when you attack them....
you disrupt air units when you attack them as well...
But you do not disrupt naval units?

When a naval force is attacked by aircraft I suspect it is an extremely trying and hectic time, especially in WW2.

Ships start evasive maneuvers burning extra fuel...all personal are on alert, manning AA guns burning extra ammunition and wearing down the crew always in constant battle stations.

Then the air raid passes...and things calm down...but wait here comes another no time to rest...

Then another and another and another...

The crew would be exhausted. Ships resources would be strained.


I would suspect each additional attack would be more and more wearing as the crews would not be as sharp as they were prior ones, just like it is against land and air units.


The attacking air units get worn down.
Attacking naval units should get worn down.

When a naval unit attacks another...if it does not find that unit no efficiency is lost. I think no matter what some should be lost...maybe even just 2% every turn outside of port, and moreso as they go into battlestations searching for enemy ships or avoiding enemy ships and aircraft. Even searching convoy routes.

I don't believe that the German surface fleet should be able to sail to the US coast in 1939...can camp it until 1945 if no one goes searching for them.

When a naval unit finds another naval unit and they battle...no matter the outcome each attack wears the attacking and defending units down 8% on their efficiency rating.

Now come aircraft...they attack. They find or do not find the enemy and they get worn down, I think 12% but I forget...but the enemy naval units are unaffected.
That is wrong
Why should attacking units be worn down bombing a ship...but a ship taking damage, spending time performing evasive maneuvers, firing guns just like in full naval combat yet they are unaffected other than the damage to the ship. Which mind you the air units took a hits too as they should.

That is all I am saying.

[kennonlightfoot]

I suspect, but haven't found a way to measure, that some of what you are saying is occurring during combat. It looks like LBA attacks against carriers has a short term effect that makes carriers more vulnerable to attacks that follow. It just isn't showing up on Efficiency. On the game scale of two week turns only actual damage lowers efficiency.

But it is a hard thing to test because there are so many "random" variables occurring you can't isolate out the effect of LBA's.

[Remington700]

I took a quick look at an attack by two medium bombers.

Two airstrikes by a 1944 tech Naval Air spec medium bomber with 50% experience and 81% effectiveness takes 7 hits in damage and destroys 4 carrier air SPs. Another medium bomber with the 1944 tech and Naval Air spec with 52% experience and 88% effectiveness takes 8 hits and destroys 4 carrier air SPs plus one hit of damage to the CV Leviathan.

The only effectiveness loss taken was by the CV Leviathan. It takes one hit and loses 2% in effectiveness. At first I thought it might be driven by a higher level of carrier plane experience but that may not the case. They appear to be close to the attacking bombers.

In my current game the Japanese carrier-based aircraft have 90% experience - I wonder how much of a difference that will make.





Screenshot on the left was at the end of allied turn 84 and the one on the right is at the beginning of allied turn 85 after being hit by bombers during Japan's turn.

[AlvaroSousa]

One of the reasons I didnt directly reduce naval effectiveness and tied it to damage is that if I did you would see players gladly sacrificing 2 DDs to sink an entire fleet of CVs with the larger force.

[stjeand]

Okay so the only way to affect naval effectiveness is...

1) Shore Bombardment. (Each bombardment does 8%)
2) Attack another naval unit and actually get in combat.
3) Defend against a naval attack and actually get in combat.
4) Land Based Air attacks but only affect the a naval unit that they damage. (Each damage does 2%)
5) Successfully hit a MS on a convoy lane? Not sure of this one but it must be the case.

Otherwise efficiency of naval units is unaffected, is that correct?