obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (3/25/2016 11:23:41 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rustysi First, let me just say thanks Obvert for the effort, and it'll be interesting to see where this goes, but... Hmmm, layered CAP seems to work best. Hmmm, US Navy figured this out and at whatever point in the war and consistently ran Hi-CAP, Med-CAP, Low-CAP. Hmmm, game mimics this. Hmmm, what a shock!!!![:D] P.S. Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.[:'(] It's taken a while to isolate what is actually most effective, and it's not quite a Hi-CAP, Med-CAP, Low-CAP as (I think) the USN would have run it. I would guess, although I don't know what the actual altitudes would be, that they were running something like 20k, 15k 10k? Or something similar. I'm happy to try this, but the CV game is slightly different than flying and defending strato-sweeps with LBA. CV CAP is meant to combat strikes against ships, which in general come in at a smaller selection of altitudes. The really tough tests will come in trying to defend airfields against high sweeps, LR CAP and escorted bombing strikes all across the range of possible altitudes. Anyway, the interesting part here may be that the game as we play it doesn't mimic strategies that were used in the era, and that certain tactics may provide very unhistorical results. I really want to get through this set so the tests are not about how to beat the P-47, but actually about tendencies of CAP using any airframe.
|
|
|
|