|
82ndtrooper -> RE: Waw4t - West/Russia Bwheatley/Ara vs Japan/Axis 82nd/Bart (5/13/2010 4:08:24 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: abulbulian
Don't have a lot of time for this post. But the larger issue is the casualties taken by a pure air force vs a pure naval force (no air) and this is in 1939!
Consider this:
- on the scale of WaW, that battle fought was like the German navy shooting down over 100 planes.
- 1939 most naval vessels had small amount of AA considering, remember these ships were laid down many many years before they were completed. Thus, the naval thinking at the time was that planes can't sink big ships. Doolittle was one of those 'radical' thinkers that was able, early on, to prove them all wrong.
- so in 1939, these ships had very little chance to shoot down more than a handful of planes, nothing even remotely close to 100+ (given even best random mod).
- yes, later in war many ships were refitted with 2x, 3x the AA compliment to deal with the no very real concern about planes vs ships. But even then it was still considered absolutely crazy to send ships in range of enemy air with no air cover!
- you won't find any battle of pure ships (no air, no CVs) vs a decent size air force, which had any sort of success against it. Just never happened and especially not in 1939 when ships had such a small compliment of AA to make room for the larger caliber guns.
- USA even started making CLAA class ships to give a fleet some extra protection against air
conclusion: naval vs air in WaW 4T is still broken and should be addresses as it's a key component in the realism factor for WWII.
No worries bro on the being taken wrong thing [sm=Cool-049.gif]
I want you to know that I agree with you about some things on your argument above.
in some ways the air versus ship thing is a little out of whack.
BUT.
it all goes back to balancing.
if you make carrier air too strong than there is no reason to have anything but carriers.
and since this is a game where you want every unit to have a place and have value you have to make some exceptions.
in this case for carrier air the cost is lower than land based air. Which in real life was exactly the opposite. Carrier aircraft had many more modifications and where a lot more expensive to produce.
So while your air losses are more than they should be they are cheaper to replace then they should be.
its a give and take thing.
also in the air attack in question lets look at a few things from the game perspective.
the land based aircraft that participated in the attack where mostly all fighters which are weak against ships, and 1 unit of level bombers which at that time where weak against ships.
plus
it was winter so they didn't have full readiness for their attack.
so what we really had was the aircraft from one lone carrier-II against 3 BB-II and 2 CA-II.
(and at that time the Royal Navy carriers only carried from 30 planes to 60 planes depending on the class.)
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/uk_fleet.htm
In the game that's a bit much for 1 lone carrier to chew. Those CA-II are plane killers designed to reflect the ability of all the DD's that where the primary air defense in WWII. But if we gave the air defense to DD's in this game then it would make the air defenses for fleets way to strong and throw things further out of balance because they have to be cheap to make.
Also remember the random generator that's used in the combat rounds. its there to keep things interesting and to reflect how anything can happen due to peoples actions a mechanical failure etc...
if you did that combat round 10 times you would get a different result each time going from both ends of the spectrum. from the air doing massive damage with few losses to the air getting creamed. in this case the air just happened to get that rare outcome where it got creamed.
I agree its not perfect but I don't know how it can be improved without throwing everything else out of balance.
|
|
|
|
