Mike Scholl -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/12/2005 1:02:15 AM)
|
The game makes the same basic mistake a lot of games do. It assumes "Bigger is Better", which is not generally the case in bombardments. Bigger naval shells were designed to pierce thicker armor, not to kill more infantry per acre. When the air force is going after soft targets on the ground today, they don't use a 2,000 lb laser guided SAP bomb..., they use a Cluster Munition. 1,000 two-lb bombs! Heavy naval ordnance is useful for breaking things that are well protected. And in situations where it remain on station and register it's fire it's quite useful for support. But it is not (except incidently) an anti-personnel weapon. And certainly not in the manner in which the game handles "bombardment" missions. The damage from these is quite out of proportion with that achieved in real life. 30-40 minutes of area fire would put some holes in runways, might hit a parked plane or two, put holes in peoples tents and buildings, and keep everyone awake. They were depressing..., but overall the real damage wasn't that great. The Cactus Air Force was virtually always up and flying the next morning. The game allows the bombarding force an awful lot of Night Movement (too much in my opinion), and makes this the most effective "bang for a buck" in the game (also erroneous)---so players are abusing it. Why not? You get the damage of conducting a 12 hour "shoot" with ground and air spotters, delivered in a few moments on the fly and in relative safety from air attack. Every BB Admiral's dream. But mostly a pipedream as potrayed in the game.
|
|
|
|