Super Dreadnought CV's ..

Super Dreadnought CV's .. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Commander - Europe at War Gold

Message

IrishGuards -> Super Dreadnought CV's .. (6/26/2007 11:17:29 PM)
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 -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (6/27/2007 1:17:29 AM)
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 -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (6/27/2007 1:41:34 AM)
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 -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (6/27/2007 6:11:25 AM)
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 -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (6/27/2007 1:07:34 PM)
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 -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (6/27/2007 2:45:01 PM)
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 -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (6/27/2007 4:50:25 PM)
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 -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (6/27/2007 5:08:14 PM)
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 -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (6/27/2007 5:43:35 PM)
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 -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (6/27/2007 7:13:00 PM)
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 -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (6/27/2007 9:52:50 PM)
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 -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (6/27/2007 10:57:07 PM)
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 -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/5/2007 4:19:00 AM)
There seems to be an abundance of 20 PP garrisons spending alot of time at Sea .. [:'(] IDG

SMK-at-work -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/5/2007 7:49:16 AM)
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 -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/5/2007 12:31:13 PM)
quote: 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 -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/5/2007 12:55:29 PM)
quote: 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 -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/5/2007 8:27:25 PM)
"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 -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/5/2007 9:35:10 PM)
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 -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/5/2007 10:00:41 PM)
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 -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/5/2007 10:15:31 PM)
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

MengCiao -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/5/2007 10:19:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IrishDragoonGuards 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 .. [:-] Well...I always feel very sorry for jerry, but I can't let pity for poor jerry ruin my gamey life. So in a game that simulates a force where 11 torpedo planes (the much-despised Swordfish at that) can knock out half the BBs in a navy...you have to allow for the possibility that carrier planes can do so serious damage, contemptable though they may be. I would be happy if the whole level of the game were pushed up a few notches in terms of sophistication so that the RN can be reasonably invincible without the ability to launch airstrikes deep into the continent, but given the very high level of abstraction, CVs are no more strange than having the entire French navy vanish when France falls or only one Destroyer for the RN and no convoy escorts built into the convoys.

MengCiao -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/5/2007 10:22:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 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 Wow...I had no idea the FAA had so many Hellcats. In Torch the Wildcat was the plane used to fly air cover off the carriers for the first few days. So how did the Hellcat do against 109s and such?

Hard Sarge -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/6/2007 2:56:40 PM)
I didn't find much on what kinds of kills the FAA had with there Cats, only seen they had like 52 kills confirmed for the Cats

IrishGuards -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/18/2007 6:15:21 AM)
Go for your Air Tech .. Once the Super Dreadnought Cv's get a wee bit of Ftr, Tac and Strat labs .. they just sit in the port of Liverpool and strat bomb France .. Super Dreadnought Heavy Bomber Cv's .. [:-] IDG

targul -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/18/2007 10:22:57 AM)
Yep, way off historically but them Dreadnaught CV's certainly own France. Africa and Italy. As we play we learn of the additional flaws in the game. Least it means you dont need those silly Strategic Bombers just work on Carriers America and England and take over the world. Now of course the Axis player can build to stop them as long as he is willing to allow Russia Super Heavy Tanks by 42. Could be the techs are too easy. Na, we all saw those jets flying around in 1941. Too many labs seems to be the problem. Also allowing two techs to be at 5 while the others arent worked on at all doesnt help. Even out the techs across the board and keep the labs down would control these early game breakers. I would think it best 5 labs available to each major with an additional lab once each six months after they are active. Do not allow the unlimited building in a field but control it so that you see a more realistic example of WWII. I know many of you hate anything with realism but it would in the case also add to playability.

firepowerjohan -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/18/2007 1:12:36 PM)
From my latest games in TcpIP, starting in 1939 when being in 1943 we both realised (me and Vypuero) that we would on average be no way near the historical tech levels in 1944. I do not know how you do it, but I found a problem to get to the higher techs especially with USSR who have very little labs until late 1941. I do not inderstand either how carrier would outcompete Strategic Bomber. Strategic bomber has strategic attack = 8 on max tech level while carrier has strategic attack = 1, and on no tech strat bomber has 4 while carrier has 0. If you compare the striking of units, strategic bomber is not meant to do that so carrier is better. Rather compare the carrier with a tactical bomber instead. So, fighter is better than carrier in Dog Fight, Tactical Bomber is better than Carrier in striking units, Strategic bomber is better than Carrier at striking production and Battleship is better than Carrier in naval combat. Carrier is just an all around unit but can be countered with fighters.

Dave Ferguson -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/18/2007 1:46:41 PM)
What complicates matters is that if the strategic targets are occupied by ground troops a successful carrier strike will also impact on the cities production value. So it seems the best advice is NOT to occupy production centres???? Dave

firepowerjohan -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/18/2007 2:18:37 PM)
The best advice is that you counter the carriers with fighters [;)] In my recent TcpIP game I managed to stall Axis in Africa thanks to Axis having only one Tactical Bomber and I had 2 carriers there pounding Axis. Had Axis sent a figher there, I would have been a position of high cost and lose precious time moving back to port, repair and then move front again.

Vypuero -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/18/2007 4:53:32 PM)
Carriers are also vulnerable to subs. Take some notches off the carriers with fighter cover, then sneak up some subs and sink yourselves some expensive carriers.

Hard Sarge -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/18/2007 5:16:07 PM)
at times, I am not sure you guys have even played your own game what is being said is, the CVs park out of range of Axis fighters, hide in port and then plink away at France sneak in with a sub ? when it is surrounded by DDs and BBs ? which firepower has a point that they are not as good as a basic unit is, but then again, I have not seen many level 18 fighters or Strat Bombers, but have seen lots of level 18 CVs (but seeing that CVs gain level though Naval labs and Airforce labs, they tend to gain levels faster then "basic" units) (out in the open, in a running sub battle, yea, you can sneak in and sink a CV or two (if you have enough subs to have a running sub battle)

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.796875