Several questions about game mechanics (mostly naval air & air stuff)

Several questions about game mechanics (mostly naval air & air stuff) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Fishbed -> Several questions about game mechanics (mostly naval air & air stuff) (4/7/2008 5:05:29 PM)
Hey people :) Im playing a PBEM right now, and as a rookie, I have several questions to ask, as I am a little uncertain about the answers. - Does a Air Combat TF located in a coastal hex lose part of its ability to launch planes because of the geographic settings? Sorry couldn't locate the stuff written about it in the manual... But Im sure I read that already in the past. - Same question with an Air Combat TF located in a friendly harbor hex, but not being docked. - If I set up a LRCAP over a friendly task force currently out of range, can I be sure that, the day after, when the TF will be in range, the mission will be flown? For now it is set up this way ("TF CURRENTLY OUT OF RANGE" but the mission objective seems to have been taken into account in the squadron window). Thanks in advance for helping Mr.rookie Fish

John Lansford -> RE: Several questions about game mechanics (mostly naval air & air stuff) (4/7/2008 5:08:36 PM)
I believe the answers to your questions are yes, yes, and yes. I've certainly seen Question #3 happen; designate a TF that is "too far away" but when it gets closer there are planes flying CAP over it.

Fishbed -> RE: Several questions about game mechanics (mostly naval air & air stuff) (4/7/2008 5:17:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford I believe the answers to your questions are yes, yes, and yes. Thanks John... Hum that terribly sucks... It's not like my carriers were sitting on the beach! Anyone has some figures and numbers about the phenomenon please? I'd like to see the real odds so I can take the right decision... thanks in advance [:)]

HansBolter -> RE: Several questions about game mechanics (mostly naval air & air stuff) (4/7/2008 5:30:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fishbed quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford I believe the answers to your questions are yes, yes, and yes. Thanks John... Hum that terribly sucks... It's not like my carriers were sitting on the beach! Anyone has some figures and numbers about the phenomenon please? I'd like to see the real odds so I can take the right decision... thanks in advance [:)] I believe it is a 50% reduction in effectiveness..ie...only 50% of the numer of planes that would normally participate in a strike do so in the coastal hex.

Fishbed -> RE: Several questions about game mechanics (mostly naval air & air stuff) (4/7/2008 9:04:38 PM)
Thanks Hans! Any past experience among some PBEMers?

herwin -> RE: Several questions about game mechanics (mostly naval air & air stuff) (4/15/2008 1:23:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fishbed quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford I believe the answers to your questions are yes, yes, and yes. Thanks John... Hum that terribly sucks... It's not like my carriers were sitting on the beach! Anyone has some figures and numbers about the phenomenon please? I'd like to see the real odds so I can take the right decision... thanks in advance [:)] In reality, carriers flew their air groups ashore if they were entering harbour. Otherwise they could not fly.

Saso -> RE: Several questions about game mechanics (mostly naval air & air stuff) (4/15/2008 8:27:31 PM)
In my PBEM game (Rising Sun) I trasferred the CVL Ryujo from Palau to Takao in the first turn (Auto-disband selected) and I forgot to change the setting of the aircrafts: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Aparri , at 46,49 Japanese aircraft A5M4 Claude x 5 (12 A/C, 30% CAP) B5N Kate x 9 (18 A/C, Nav search level 0) Japanese aircraft losses B5N Kate: 1 destroyed Runway hits 2 Aircraft Attacking: 8 x B5N Kate bombing at 5000 feet In the same turn she has been attacked, I think before to enter into port: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF, near Takao at 48,45 Japanese aircraft A5M4 Claude x 1 Ki-27 Nate x 4 Allied aircraft P-26A x 2 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses P-26A: 1 destroyed Japanese Ships CVL Ryujo Aircraft Attacking: 1 x P-26A bombing at 2000 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF, near Takao at 48,45 Japanese aircraft A5M4 Claude x 1 Allied aircraft P-26A x 8 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses P-26A: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged Japanese Ships CVL Ryujo Aircraft Attacking: 3 x P-26A bombing at 2000 feet 4 x P-26A bombing at 2000 feet

Feinder -> RE: Several questions about game mechanics (mostly naval air & air stuff) (4/15/2008 8:33:36 PM)
Did anybody ever test whether CVE were immune to the 50% reduction in coastal hexes? I know there was some discussion back-and-forth on this. The CVEs were supposed to be able to operate without penalty in order to cover invasion TFs. Anybody ever test this, or know it to be true or false? I'm not willing to risk my CVEs to test it, but I'm happy to risk yours... [;)] -F- * edit - I was also asking about CVLs, but Ryujo example shows that the CVLs certainly DO take the 50% penalty.

Saso -> RE: Several questions about game mechanics (mostly naval air & air stuff) (4/15/2008 8:56:17 PM)
quote: Anybody ever test this, or know it to be true or false? I'm not willing to risk my CVEs to test it, but I'm happy to risk yours... Wait my next forgetfulness [:D]

Widell -> RE: Several questions about game mechanics (mostly naval air & air stuff) (4/15/2008 9:17:51 PM)
Some more information about planes and the air war: http://witp.kodapa.com/index.php?title=Planes_and_Air_War

Gem35 -> RE: Several questions about game mechanics (mostly naval air & air stuff) (4/16/2008 12:18:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder Did anybody ever test whether CVE were immune to the 50% reduction in coastal hexes? I know there was some discussion back-and-forth on this. The CVEs were supposed to be able to operate without penalty in order to cover invasion TFs. Anybody ever test this, or know it to be true or false? I'm not willing to risk my CVEs to test it, but I'm happy to risk yours... [;)] -F- * edit - I was also asking about CVLs, but Ryujo example shows that the CVLs certainly DO take the 50% penalty. coastal base/beach hexes or nonbase/nonbeach coastal hexes?

tabpub -> RE: Several questions about game mechanics (mostly naval air & air stuff) (4/16/2008 10:05:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gem35 quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder Did anybody ever test whether CVE were immune to the 50% reduction in coastal hexes? I know there was some discussion back-and-forth on this. The CVEs were supposed to be able to operate without penalty in order to cover invasion TFs. Anybody ever test this, or know it to be true or false? I'm not willing to risk my CVEs to test it, but I'm happy to risk yours... [;)] -F- * edit - I was also asking about CVLs, but Ryujo example shows that the CVLs certainly DO take the 50% penalty. coastal base/beach hexes or nonbase/nonbeach coastal hexes? Friendly base/beach or unfriendly base/beach?

castor troy -> RE: Several questions about game mechanics (mostly naval air & air stuff) (4/16/2008 11:10:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tabpub quote: ORIGINAL: Gem35 quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder Did anybody ever test whether CVE were immune to the 50% reduction in coastal hexes? I know there was some discussion back-and-forth on this. The CVEs were supposed to be able to operate without penalty in order to cover invasion TFs. Anybody ever test this, or know it to be true or false? I'm not willing to risk my CVEs to test it, but I'm happy to risk yours... [;)] -F- * edit - I was also asking about CVLs, but Ryujo example shows that the CVLs certainly DO take the 50% penalty. coastal base/beach hexes or nonbase/nonbeach coastal hexes? Friendly base/beach or unfriendly base/beach? I thought CVEs wouldn´t take the penalty, no matter if at friendly or hostile base... Am I wrong?

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.5625