RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work

RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

sfbaytf -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/28/2010 7:08:35 PM)
Yes Korea is a possibility and I have a few other ideas floating around in my head. Since I could care less about winning by book-what good are trophies anyway they just sit on a shelf and collect dust, I can try some different approaches and not worry about the clock so much. I'm already ahead of the historical timeline in most respects. I was even contemplating this-eventhough I have no interest in using the ABomb as a strategic war ending weapon, there's nothing I can seer that wouldn't stop me from using it as an operational or tactical weapon. It could be useful as a "can opener" to punch a hole in the emperors defense from which a ground force could move through and exploit. The Allieds will come up with a solution..

chesmart -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/28/2010 7:18:13 PM)
The A-Bomb does not effect ground units it destroys manpower and industry, you will have to use another aproach.

chesmart -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/28/2010 7:23:37 PM)
I dropped 4 bombs 2 on tokyo 1 on osaka and 1 on hiroshima. If you want i can send you the screenshots of before and after. Ground units are not effected.

freeboy -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/28/2010 7:55:52 PM)
I think there may be too much fuel.. My pbem oponent seems?????????????????? to have lots of fuel in late 44 BUT this is unconfirmed, and I just overram Palambango and it had lots of fuel there... interesting.. when did the Japs get jets? I am not sure how to win any other way than takling the armed forces march route.. Back on track, are your B29's eliminating enemy cities... in Witp I was able to firestorm several...

sfbaytf -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/28/2010 8:40:14 PM)
Sure go ahead and post the screenshots. I trust your judgement and observation about he ABomb. Now that I know I'll seek out other solutions. quote: ORIGINAL: che200 I dropped 4 bombs 2 on tokyo 1 on osaka and 1 on hiroshima. If you want i can send you the screenshots of before and after. Ground units are not effected.

sfbaytf -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/28/2010 8:48:19 PM)
No question liberties have been taken with regards to history and he Allieds are fighting a Japan on steroids while they've been castrated, but that the hand he Allieds have been dealt and we'll just have to live with it. I have conducted firebombing raids on Kyoto, Osaka, Nagoya and Tokyo and racked up 7000 points. I had to divert the B29s to other tasks like attacking airfields and a mining campaign. Simply not enough to go around and they spend a lot of time on he ground getting repaired. Besides getting a lot of points what other effects does night firebombing bring? Dos it affect industry? I have some decent airfields close to the Homeislands so the B-24s can now participate. Also received the A-26 Invader. I'm wondering if I'll get Skyraiders and when do I get jets.

chesmart -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/28/2010 9:53:30 PM)
Tokyo pre A-Bomb [image]local://upfiles/23691/9FB3769C2D26432AA952876BC39B6158.jpg[/image]

chesmart -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/28/2010 9:54:51 PM)
Tokyo after A-bomb [image]local://upfiles/23691/F1882B9CFB7F41F4BE80020231B4B960.jpg[/image]

John Lansford -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/28/2010 11:34:39 PM)
That's it? The worst damaged facility was the repair shipyard; heavy and light industry lost only about 100 points, most others lost nothing at all. That atomic bomb must have been a dud!

sfbaytf -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/28/2010 11:42:14 PM)
Mabye that too is a new game balancing feature. Abombs that go pfffftttt instead of boom...

chesmart -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/28/2010 11:45:29 PM)
Did you see the amount of destroyed Hi and manpower ? They where Destroyed not disabled. I dropped 4 bombs most of HI was destroyed in Tokyo and Osaka but ground units where not effected.

Alfred -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/29/2010 1:17:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf If you set the range to zero or one you're making yourself extremely vulnerable to counter attack from enemy carriers. This is a non sequitur, in fact in terms of understanding how AE operates it is totally wrong. You complain elsewhere that your CVs are parked some 8 hexes away from Japanese bases yet your fighters dissipate their strength by sweeping enemy bases. If you instead limited your fighters to a zero or 1 hex range (subject to the per centage CAP you assign to them) they would remain fresh, at full strength to meet incoming strikes. You change the target then once again you open yourself up to attack from enemy carriers and ships. Another non sequitur. Operating close to Japan, provided your opponent retains any assets, you are always open to attack from the enemy. That is the benefit of having interlocking airbases (compounded by mobile naval assets) for the defender. It is simply impossible to totally suppress all Japanese homeland airbases using only Allied carriers. By this stage of the war American carrier task forces had sophisticated combat information centers and could gather, analyse and disseminate information gathered and make reasonably intelligent targeting decisions. You sound like you expect it to be a "Turkey Shoot". Instead you are opposed by an opponent who either by his good play, or your earlier mistakes, retains a significant sting and is employing it to good effect. Also what relevance to a turn based game engine is your point about historical real time Allied capabilities. There are plenty of good reasons to operate your carriers close to the home islands-especially if you intend to invade. And are you achieving your goals. Seems to me that you are shooting down a lot of enemy air, thus degrading his defences. On the other hand, from what you have posted on this thread you don't seem to be implementing a multifaceted pre invasion plan and seem to be not fully aware of how the game engine operates (cf your posts on the effect of the A-bomb). Yet notwithstanding your opponent's endeavours and the game engine's features which you find objectionable, you state you are ahead of the historical timeline - so why the complaints. It would be a very poor human opponent if they were not able to set you difficulties which you need to overcome. Alfred

sfbaytf -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/29/2010 1:39:54 AM)
Setting fighters at Zero or 1 could easily lead to a situation where you suffer a carrier strike at 7 or 8 hexes and then what? You have to asorb the carrier strike while not retaining the ability to strike back. You could easily get hit by a surface attack and then not be able to hit back at the retreating surface ships that attacked you. Remember we're playing 2 day turns. I don't expect a Turkey Shoot all the time and that wasn't the point. Sending out a small strike to take out a couple of detected ships sitting in a major port that has a major airfield and surrounded by 5 other major airfields that has been reconed extensively and known to be basing 200 fighters on each airfield is not something a seasoned air commander would do. What sort of commander sends out 15 torpedo planes escorted by 25 Wildcats to take out a couple of ships sitting in a major Japanese port 200+ miles away that is swarming with fighters? Thats what the game engine does. It calculates that a couple of ships requires a small strike, but doesn't take into account the fact this is near the Japanese home islands nor the fact there are 1000 fighters in easy range of the ships in port. What results is a bunch of Wildcats shot down and the experienced TBF pilots dead. Same with the strikes sent from CV's-not nearly large enough to overcome the CAP that will engage it. Heck you could just park 5 barges in a port and and CAP the hell out of it and wait for tiny incomming strikes and butcher them. Alot of times too your carriers are undetected-until they send sweeps. Once your opponent see the type of planes doing the sweeps he's tipped off that your carriers are around. I've seen situations where unspotted carriers sent carrier planes join in missions flown by LBA. That's a dead give away your carriers are in the area. Yes I don't fully understand all of game mechanics.

sfbaytf -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/29/2010 2:01:57 AM)
Why do I have carriers in the area? Simple. I just took Amami Oshima. I had a resupply convoy going in and I needed to cover it. I had also just captured Nago and the airfield wasn't up and running. The resupply convoy needed air cover as well as protection from naval attacks-I also had surface combat groups protecting the resupply convoy. From time to time my opponent sneaks out his carriers and moves them to the Kyushu area to launch attacks and there are lurking surface fleets that also luanch coordinated attacks. If my carriers are going to get hit by enemy carriers I want to hit back. What I don't want is small wasted attacks on a couple of ships sitting in a port. From previous posts I was informed that if you set the range to zero or 1 it won't readjust if you spot or are attacked by enemy carriers 7 or 8 hexes away. Land based air alone is not going to be able to protect the resupply convoy from the massive air attacks from the Kyushu area. Thats why I made the decision to send the carriers to protect it. The cargo on board was supplies as well as base and naval support units. I needed to get them to Amami Oshima so I could operate LBA from it as well as offload transports faster. And yes it wasn't a well planned operation. In fact it was a "target of opportunity" operation. The original plan was to land the Amami Oshima assault force at Nago. However near Nago I decided to recon Amani Oshima and when I discovered it was relatively lightly garrisoned I redirected the invasion force to Amani Oshima instead. What followed was a 2 week battle for Amani Oshima. I was able to not only destroy a good deal of the leftover Japanese surface fleet. I also blasted a bunch of desperate attempts by my opponent to reinforce Amami Oshima. Thousands of his troops went to the bottom of the sea in transports. And yes 1600 of his airplaes when down in a series of massive air battles. I lost some carriers and surface ships. While it took longer than I wanted to take Amani Oshima I did take it and in the end I'm quite satisfied with the decision to redirect to Oshima. Even better was the fact that had I stayed the course and hit Nago instead on the original planned date, I would have faced 50,000+ dug in troops. When I did hit Nago later than I originally intended I faced only 27,000 troops-most of which were support units (in fact there was only 1 combat unit)and took Nago very quickly. So now I have Amani Oshima and Nago. I can't say for sure, but I don't think my opponent expected me to hit Amani Oshima when I did. The logical thing to do at the time was to land at Nago to support the Naha invasion where I was facing very stiff resistance. That's why I made the recon of Amani Oshima and made the calculated decision to divert to AO when the recon indicated I would have a favorable force ratio. By doing so I was hoping to short circuit my opponents plans and decision cycle. Im my mind I had the picture of my opponent thinking that logically I would secure Okinanwa first and that would give him time to figure out what to do next and reinforce the next target. Once I was ashore at Amani Oshima he sure made a desperate attempt to reinforce it and he paid a big price in doing so. quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Of course you can "turn it off". (a) Shorten the range of the planes if you don't want them to hit the bases. (b) Change the missions assigned to the airgroups. (c) Embark different airgroups onto the carriers. But then, if you don't want to hit the bases, why do you have carriers in the area? Alfred

usersatch -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/29/2010 2:16:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf With Japan potentially getting a version of the ME262 in large numbers and he fact they don't seem to run out of pilots and fuel the equation becomes more complex. Jet aircraft for the Japanese...did I miss something? Will they fare as well as the 262 did against the Mustang?

sfbaytf -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/29/2010 2:18:43 AM)
Right now thats speculation, but there is little doubt that come late June or July Japan will be producing a new "wonder fighter". Whether its a jet or something else remains to be seen... quote: ORIGINAL: usersatch quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf With Japan potentially getting a version of the ME262 in large numbers and he fact they don't seem to run out of pilots and fuel the equation becomes more complex. Jet aircraft for the Japanese...did I miss something? Will they fare as well as the 262 did against the Mustang?

Mynok -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/29/2010 2:23:48 AM)
You have enough ships to fast transport stuff in there until you can build up/repair the airfield and make it impervious to attack from LBA with LBA. Use your carriers for invasion support. That's their purpose, not supply fleet protection.

sfbaytf -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/29/2010 2:29:12 AM)
I respectfully disagree. The massive wave after wave of Kamakazie attacks would easily wear down LBA fighters alone. I sent in the carriers in a very big way as well as flying as many P-51 and P-47s as I could in support. Even so I suffered losses. LBA alone would result in plenty of sinking transports with their valuable cargo sitting on the bottom of the sea. Fast transports would be easily intercepted by my opponents surface units and would not provide enough supplies in the the time frame I wanted. Yes the "book" says use your carriers for invasion support and not transport support. I just don't always follow the "book". quote: ORIGINAL: Mynok You have enough ships to fast transport stuff in there until you can build up/repair the airfield and make it impervious to attack from LBA with LBA. Use your carriers for invasion support. That's their purpose, not supply fleet protection.

Mynok -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/29/2010 3:36:21 AM)
Valuable cargo? You have enough of everything to send massive transport fleet than can take losses and still unload what you need. Where are your surface units? They are your best defense against surface attack. If he's running his in and out then run yours in and out to avoid kami attacks on them. You can afford transport losses. You apparently cannot afford CV air losses. The conclusion seems obvious.

P.Hausser -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/29/2010 3:44:22 AM)
Don't land in Korea, Kwutang Army will destroy you like a worm.

morganbj -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/29/2010 1:56:38 PM)
That's "wurrem" (trilling the r), according to Mel Gibson.

FatR -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/29/2010 2:06:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf Having your carriers fighters waste time and energy sweeping over useless targets was tolerable in the past, but around the Japanese Home Islands its begining to seriously undermine the game completely. If your opponent has a few ships nearby the allies will send sweeps and strikes in the face of overwheling odds and take useless losses. No commander would send in a bunch of small easily overwhelmed strikes to take out a few worthless ships well in range of 6+ major Japanese airbases packed with fighters. I've already destroyed about 2000+ airframes on the ground in the past month or so and have had the equivalent of 3 Turkey shoots in which I shot down over 650+ enemy planes in the past week. The Japanese can build fighters up the ying yang and you can't have your carriers do stupid things where you can't control it. You have to operate your carriers near the Home Islands and you can't set your carrier planes range to 0 or 1 because that's going to leave you terribly vulnerable, but having idiotic strikes sent in to attempt to destroy a few worthless boats that are going to be Capped by 250-500 Japanes fighters is insane and very unbalancing. Up till now it was tolerable, but in these circumstances its not. Now I have a bunch of depleted squadrons and I can't operate my carriers near the Homeislands because I can't have them launching dumb strikes. Now I'm vulnerable to a counter strike beacuse of fatigued and depleted squadrons. Why again you're launching naval strikes while loitering in the vicinity of multiple unsupressed airbases at range that covers these airbases? You're seriously complaining that AI did exactly as you ordered it to do.

sfbaytf -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/29/2010 2:31:57 PM)
I was operating carriers in the area to cover reinforcements. I guess the take away from all this is when operating near the HI set the range to 0 or 1 and take the assault from enemy carriers and don't hit back because the game mechanics work in a certain way. I can see Halsey rolling in his grave. As for the you have plenty of transports and units and can take the losses philosophy, I'm sure the troops on those transports and the sailors really appreciate that. I'm sure they would be more than happy to sail to a island 200 miles off the coast of Japan and get pummled by kamis and maruading surface raiders knowing high command isn't doing all it can to protect them. I get the carriers are precious argument, but tell that to the men on board those transports. At this point in the war carriers are there to go in harms way and fight. I may have lost a couple of carriers and some got dinged, but I'm far from being short of them. As commander on the spot I made the decision to do what I did based on the situation and after years of war having a good idea of what my opponent would do. Ok so I got stung because the game mechanics behave in a particular way. I still would have made the same choice, and while from a numbers point of view it feasible to run a huge transport TF to reinforce the just taken island and let it take losses, from a ethical and morale point of view - neither of which is represented in the game, I have a problem with that.

Sardaukar -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/29/2010 3:35:19 PM)
One could also stay several hexes off and try to LRCAP the protected TFs..but I don't think that'd go well. Fatigue is killer in LRCAP.

Mynok -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/29/2010 4:06:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf while from a numbers point of view it feasible to run a huge transport TF to reinforce the just taken island and let it take losses, from a ethical and morale point of view - neither of which is represented in the game, I have a problem with that. Are you freakin serious? It's a game. Play it how you want, but don't imagine there's any morality or ethics involved...other than not cheating and the like.

sfbaytf -> RE: Serious need to rethink how Carriers work (4/29/2010 4:14:37 PM)
Yes it is just a game. I Could very easily gather 200 spare liberty ships fill them up and send them off and let 100 of them get sunk and call it a day. We just have different styles and let's just leave it at that.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.6875