RE: Super Dreadnought CV's ..

RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (Full Version)

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

Message

firepowerjohan -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/18/2007 5:22:55 PM)
Sub counter can only be used in some occasions. Still, the easiest way is just to intercept with a fighter. If carriers attacks Paris you only need to be in range of Paris in order to intercept and navy cost more to reinforce than air and ground. Try setting this up in hotseat and test see how long you can afford it as Allies. But if unopposed then carriers but also strategic bombers and ships can put some strain on enemy but that is how it should be else you could not getting any pay off on building those units [:)] Carriers should not advance any faster than fighter but in fact is harder to get. You need both air labs and navy labs to get carriers to their max level, while you only need air labs to get fighters to their max tech. Fighters beat Carriers when both are unteched as well as when both are max teched.

Hard Sarge -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/18/2007 5:38:10 PM)
Well, maybe you just playing humans that are not too swift [:-] the AI at least knows to buy labs, and since the English are not doing much in the game, I think the English AI tends to build up labs faster then the player does sure, I would agree with you, if all the other side was doing is sending in CV attacks, but it also has it's own fighters and bombers and when the AI fighters are level 12-14 and his CV is level 18 and your fighters are level 8, have fun trying to pick off any of his "air cover" (I normally have at least 4 or 5 labs in air, with Dogfight as there main focus, would go higher, but the Axis needs ground and armor labs too)

IrishGuards -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/18/2007 5:42:57 PM)
CV's gain experience at around double the pace of other units on board .. You hit em and they just get better ... then they are not vulnerable to air attacks at all ... Try sending a german Tac at a CV with a few of those pretty little ensigns ... They go in at 0:2 .. as I have said before .. Ftr's do more damage to CV's than Tac .. IDG

Hard Sarge -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/18/2007 6:03:08 PM)
as IDG says, they look to gain faster then other units, by what you can see on the map and with out being able to see the number of labs the AI is using, it is HARD to tell if it is just out buying you for labs or if they gain levels faster but in my games, I have never seen a AI CV stay anywhere close to my fighters in Levels

firepowerjohan -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/18/2007 6:16:50 PM)
No unit gain experience faster than any others, but Dog Fights generate more experience. It will be reduced from 20 experience points to 15 experience points for the patch.

Vypuero -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/18/2007 7:23:25 PM)
Fighters can cover the units in France, when the carriers attack they are intercepted. If they surround them with DDs, have the subs destroy the convoys.

firepowerjohan -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/18/2007 7:49:10 PM)
The counter in the west with bombardment and early D-Day is quite realistic also. What we see in many games is that Axis save some bucks by not using subs and not doing Battle of Britain and instead throw everything on eastern front. This means USSR is in more trouble than historically unless countered. When more ppl learn that Allies can bomb France to pieces then Axis players will be forced to spend more on air and not be as strong in Russia. This would create a more historical east front battle also. If Axis neglect air research, sub research and just throw everything on infantry and armour then the game needs a natural counter to this because USSR cannot win the whole war by themselves. Of course it is also a choice for the player, do I stall Allies in the west as long as possible (hence D-Day come very late) or do I gamble and throw all in on the east front risking Allied counter offensive in the west? Perhaps I do something in between? The trick in the game is to find out ASAP what the other player is focusing on so that you can produce the necessary counter weapons. if Axis is trying to bomb Britain to pieces in the west, Allies wont need a 2nd Strategic Bomber instead they need every single penny into AA tech or fighters. If Axis is throwing all-in east, the Allies wont need to buy destroyers. Decisions, decisions and FoW... [8D]

IrishGuards -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/18/2007 9:12:52 PM)
With all due respect I think you are missing the point guys. With the imbalance of Ftr's or lets just say Air units in the Allies hands here is the situation. OOB .. 1939 .. before Germany even begins they are below par ... in a number of ways .. Allies .. 3 Ftr .. UK .. FR .. Poles Strat UK 2 CV's ... UK Axis .. 2 Ftr 1 Tac So .. 1st turn .. Germans take damage on there ftr .. because the Polish Ftr .. and for that matter the French Ftr are equal to the German Ftr's ... I dont think this is correct for 2 reasons .. If we assume what Vypuero says the Polish had 600 Air .. That means all things being equal there are only 1800 German air on board ... This is seriously low ... OK .. Allies .. They send there air to attack German units ... This means they have 3 air to soak off 2 ger ftr ... so even if the germans build a ftr .. necessary of course ... they are only on par with Allied land based air ... So after the Allies have injured the Axis air and germany has to spend there limited PP to repair .. If they don't then the Cv's come in and damage the german air even worse ... It is based on initiative .. If this is the result then the Germans will never be able to use there air offensively as was realistic in all operations .. attrition will limit there use to the germans .. and while they intercept allied air .. no choice here as the game system dictates ... the CV's do not intercept .. unless they are attacked .. If the Allies are able to use there 5 air units in this way I find it very difficult to rationalize why land based german ftr's are taking huge damage from CV based air ... Just not balanced at all ... IDG

Vypuero -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/18/2007 9:59:26 PM)
There were more like 2,400 air - my opinion was always that Germany should get 2 bombers, not 1, and my scenario will reflect that - but did we not just go through people telling us the allies cannot win? The French & Polish fighters have org 1, UK org 2, and germans org 3 - the germans are better. The Polish fighter will be eliminated The French can't afford to reinforce their fighter when Italy enters, they get an additional Tac bomber The UK has to send air - carrier or something, to help in Med or they lose it

firepowerjohan -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/18/2007 10:02:47 PM)
Polish on org L1, oh my god? [&:] Maybe Poland should be org L0 since they are causing some losses for Germany. Vypuero, I think he meant in early 1940 before Italy join but regardless it is the fighters and carriers that will decide air superiority anyway so a tac bomber wont matter.

IrishGuards -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/18/2007 10:15:48 PM)
I can and will continue to win with both sides ... Just the way I am ... I will come up with new strategies .. builds ... openings and reactions ... But speed is essential in this game in the early stages ... I was the 1 who came up with the SC 1 .. low country defense .. Allies were attacking the Lows on turn 2 .. So with the Irish as Germany .... my bro is emailing me that these guys in the forum are discussing a way to stop the Irish ... So I strat moved an HQ .. Arm and Inf back on turn 1 instead of going into poland with the whole German army ... Because once the Allies had the lows .. Axis were done .. IDG

Dave Ferguson -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/19/2007 2:30:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IrishDragoonGuards I can and will continue to win with both sides ... Just the way I am ... I will come up with new strategies .. builds ... openings and reactions ... But speed is essential in this game in the early stages ... I was the 1 who came up with the SC 1 .. low country defense .. Allies were attacking the Lows on turn 2 .. So with the Irish as Germany .... my bro is emailing me that these guys in the forum are discussing a way to stop the Irish ... So I strat moved an HQ .. Arm and Inf back on turn 1 instead of going into poland with the whole German army ... Because once the Allies had the lows .. Axis were done .. IDG Can someone please decode this

IrishGuards -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/19/2007 2:46:31 AM)
LMAO ... [X(] IDG

SMK-at-work -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/19/2007 4:21:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IrishDragoonGuards If we assume what Vypuero says the Polish had 600 Air .. That means all things being equal there are only 1800 German air on board ... This is seriously low ... No - it seems almost perfect - from wiki: quote: Germany had close to 3,000 aircraft (~2,000 of them can be considered militarily modern) with half of them deployed on the Polish front. or, from http://www.ibiblio.net/hyperwar////USA/DAP-Poland/Campaign-II.html quote: The two air forces assigned to direct the air effort against Poland would control 36 groups and approximately 1,400 offensively armed aircraft. All of the Luftwaffe's dive bomber force, 70 percent of its bombers, and 50 percent of the fighter force would be committed to operations, and the two air forces deployed to meet an attack in the west would be weakened by the diversion of combat units to the air effort in the east.

HansBolter -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/19/2007 1:38:53 PM)
The real questions that should be answered here is how many planes are represented by a 10 strength unit. A carrier and it's puny air wing shouldn't even come close to being able to stand up to a land based air unit. The land based air unit represents hundreds of planes. The British carrier air squadrons represent anywhere from 18-40 planes. The way to fix the problem would be to make carrier air squadrons strength 2 or 3 and NOT 10. Then the owner would be loathe to take them in range of land based air,,,,,just as the British were. Their carriers were primarily used to counter subs and NOT to participate in the land/air campaigns. When the British took their carriers in range of land based air they lost their carriers. Try reading abouth the convoys to Malta sometime. The problem comes from trying to model individual capital ships at this game scale. Does a carrier unit represent a single ship and it's escort destroyers or does it represent a "squadron" of carriers? Furthermore carriers should cost way, way more than they do. A fighter costs 100.....a mobile airfield (carrier) WITH a fighter ....costs 100![8\|]

Phatguy -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/19/2007 2:23:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vypuero 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. Yes, true, but subs can get seriously damaged by attacking the carriers. Couple with the fact that there are usually some destroyers around means bye-bye sub.

IrishGuards -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/19/2007 3:42:10 PM)
Very difficult to have a balance in all theaters as in .. Air .. Naval .. Land .. and then to incorporate them all as part of the whole .. Some kind of problem solving is needed .. I beer thinkin .. Oh dear .. [X(] What about we look at BB .. as only 50 % strength .. 10 BB ... has 5 str when shore bombarding .. and I prefer to see effectiveness as the loss for land units .. with the possibility of unit damage when massed for an invasion .. And CV's I think a 10 should be seen as .. 5 Naval ... the ships 5 Air .. the planes .. and reduce itself for any damage .. A 6 factor CV .. would be 3 naval and 3 air points .. as It stands I guess a 6 is still 6 air .. Thoughts .... [:)] IDG

Vypuero -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/19/2007 4:07:52 PM)
I am starting to think 1 CV for the UK at the start would be better, but they may have more BB or DD units

IrishGuards -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/19/2007 4:35:36 PM)
You would have to talk to the swine Allied players ... Just make sure the Luftwaffe is represented in some way more offensively .. I mean most players say I am offensive , most people say I am very offensive ... [X(] IDG

Hard Sarge -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/19/2007 4:54:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dave Ferguson quote: ORIGINAL: IrishDragoonGuards I can and will continue to win with both sides ... Just the way I am ... I will come up with new strategies .. builds ... openings and reactions ... But speed is essential in this game in the early stages ... I was the 1 who came up with the SC 1 .. low country defense .. Allies were attacking the Lows on turn 2 .. So with the Irish as Germany .... my bro is emailing me that these guys in the forum are discussing a way to stop the Irish ... So I strat moved an HQ .. Arm and Inf back on turn 1 instead of going into poland with the whole German army ... Because once the Allies had the lows .. Axis were done .. IDG Can someone please decode this the bad part is I understand him and agree with most of what he says :)

Hard Sarge -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/19/2007 5:02:42 PM)
if the Allies do not send a CV to the MED, the MED is lost ? okay, the AI will not send it, also the AI will pull most of it's ships around Spain out towards England, and will not move any of it's ships that are in the MED but even if it did move to join forces in the MED what is a CV going to do ? a CV in the MED with out a lot of support Ships around is dead meat what the AI likes to do, is keep it in port, and then repair damage as it is done to it I still do not think you guys are playing your own game (maybe your human vs human games are taking away from what you think the game does) if the English defend the CVs in Port, sink the Convoys ? how many Subs do you think the GE player is going to have ? and how many Ships do you think the English will build ? most of my AI games the English end up with around 21 ships (think there may be a flaw in the how the AI thinks, once it gets 21 it seems to stop, and then if it loses ships, it does not replace them) funny though, game design way, the GE sub war should begin in late 41 early 42, once they can build up a sub fleet, but if they wait until then, they are pretty much lost in the sub war (as you say, Fighters and ground troops are more importent then subs, until you begin to crack Russia)

Vypuero -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/19/2007 7:15:52 PM)
I was not discussing AI games

IrishGuards -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/20/2007 1:05:55 AM)
Thanks anyway Les ... [;)] IDG

Rocko911 -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/20/2007 5:31:08 AM)
The core issue or problem is the Labs. There should be a limit on the labs due to raw material shortages (steel ect..) Perhaps also a penalty imposed once you get above a certain level of development, like a cost increase for them. This would mean you must sacrifice the building of units to keep pushing on in your research.

Hard Sarge -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/20/2007 3:03:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vypuero I was not discussing AI games sorry, but we have been, a Human vs Human will have many more explots that the AI will not use and once people see what can be done by the AI, they will soon, bring that into there Human vs Human games themselfs

HansBolter -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/20/2007 3:16:08 PM)
I agree that they really don't seem to be playing their own game. A carrier with 40 planes, as much as half or more of which are bombers, should NOT even be able to consider going up against a land based fighter wing with several hundred planes.

YohanTM2 -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/20/2007 3:24:16 PM)
Heck, British CVs at the start of WWII still had some bi-planes

firepowerjohan -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/20/2007 3:58:45 PM)
It is a design decision that carriers are decent in air fighting but clearly inferior to fighters. I would suggest you give it the benefit of the doubt here. Perhaps try a hotseat with a Figher vs Carrier on equal tech levels with the Fighter having leadership bonus (yes, air units get leadership bonus from nearby leaders) and write down how much it cost you to repair the carrier and how much for the fighter.

HansBolter -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/20/2007 4:25:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan It is a design decision that carriers are decent in air fighting but clearly inferior to fighters. I would suggest you give it the benefit of the doubt here. Perhaps try a hotseat with a Figher vs Carrier on equal tech levels with the Fighter having leadership bonus (yes, air units get leadership bonus from nearby leaders) and write down how much it cost you to repair the carrier and how much for the fighter. Giving it the benefit of a doubt is really tough. It is just too far out of whack with reality to be able to do so. I haven't gotten a response to my question as to whether or not carriers are supposed to represent one capital ship with escorts or a flotilla/fleeet of capital ships which would at least balance the disparity in numbers of planes when compared to a land based fighter unit, but would make the production costs appear even more out of whack than they already appear. The point you appear to be missing is that the important comparsion isn't one carrier unit versus one fighter unit. Games of this type (sequential movement and attack) are ALL about ganging up on single enemy units with multiple, sequential attackers in oredr to kill off the enemy units. Introdcuing units into a country's inventory that can be used in conjunction with other units to gang up on enemy units, when the unit in question was never, and could never have been used that way in a doctrinal manner historically, contributes considerably to throwing off the historical balance and even more improtantly to the gamer interested in history (most of us wargamers) throws off the historical flavor.

Vypuero -> RE: Super Dreadnought CV's .. (7/20/2007 4:25:44 PM)
Let us see: Argus = 20 Hermes = 15 Ark Royal = 60 Courageous, Glorious = 48 + 48 Eagle = 21 Furious = 36 Illustrious Class - 36 to 72 each x3 Most were either already build or almost complete by start of war That is a few hundred AC and ALSO the FAA had float planes and other land-based naval aircraft, too. As I said, maybe 1 rather than 2 at the start is better, but it is not as far off as you imply. I also find it very dangerous to support France with them. They can easily get hammered by enemy fighter intercepts and/or counter-attacked.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.75