SMK-at-work -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/17/2007 4:51:49 AM)
|
Um...it's not really fair to compare battlegroup capabilities with ship capabilities!! According to Wiki by the end of the war the RN Pacific fleet comprised 4 BB's, 18 carriers (with 300 a/c - 1 carrier was maintenance, most were "light" Colossus class carrying 50~ a/c (2/3rd fighters, 1/3rd attack), at least 2 were fleet class carrying 70+ a/c each), 11 cruisers and sundry smaller craft - the AA armament of the KGV BB's at that time was 8 8-barrelled 2 pound AA, 6 quad 2 pound AA (except KGV), 2 quad 40 mm AA, up to 65 single 20 mm AA. I dont' see any reason why bombing inland targets would be inherently more risky than bombing any other type of target - carrier aircraft have a range, and are perfectly capable of attacking anything within that range. It's a matter of how many enemy aircraft are within range to counterattack that is important - not how far a target is from teh coast. If there's no enemy airforce nearby then you have no problem. RN fleet carriers supported allied landings in Sicily and Salerno, and Escort carriers were sufficient to cover Dragoon in Sth France in 1944. the problem with CV's in the game is, I maintain, a fundamental issue with the way the naval war is modeled, and nothing at all to do with their ability to strike inland - which is perfectly valid. Basiacally it's far to easy to repair and rebuild the damned things, so it's no great problem risking them if you have production points you're willing to invest.........imagine how people might play differently if, for example, yuo could only repair 1 pt of a carrier unit per turn???....
|
|
|
|