Feltan
Posts: 1160
Joined: 12/5/2006 From: Kansas Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fcharton quote:
ORIGINAL: Feltan Read history. Finding and attacking a specific vessel on order is a fantasy of micromanagement. Most certainly, but on the other hand not being able to exclude an enemy base or area, which is known to be heavily capped, save by reducing bomber range in all directions, seems a bit strange (to say the least). Somehow, the presence of an enemy port with ships and a strong CAP over it, five hexes east, make it almost impossible for one's bombers to intercept anything further than four hexes away, to the West, North, or South. In other words, enemy bases acts as "range limiters" in all directions. I realize it cuts both ways, but it doesn't seem right. I really think arcs, or something similar (and not too precise, and subject to random factors), should be allowed for naval attacks. Francois You make good and fair points. My point, perhaps stated a little to succinctly, was that in general there was no way a commander could order the specific target -- save, for instance, "attack the carriers" which the game engine already handles by default. There are many, many examples of aircraft not finding the target; hitting another target claiming it to be a capital ship, and totally missing the target but reporting it sunk. As the commander, you get to order a strike launched. What happens after that is up to your digital subordinates. Not perfect -- as you point out there are frustrating examples that seem difficult to justify. Regards, Feltan
|