Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Consider it Karma.

Nuke bombardment TFs work just fine for Allies also.  If... 

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I didn't say it was easy.

I just lost HMS Repulse to Bilbow in our PBEM to Nells (including 30 fighters on LRCAP : only 8 found the TF, grrr), trying to shut down Ambonia.  Granted, I didn't expect it to be stocked yet, so shame on me.

However, that's part of why I suggested cruisers, which move 12 (nothing moves more than 12 by the way).  Even the fast BBs only go 10.

So yes, it's a risk.  But you often don't have the luxury of time to build an AF(4).

Cruisers -are- a safer option than using CV-based air (which I realize is -not- what you were advocating).  With CVs (besides the fact that you're risking your CVs), you have to END your turn well within strike and escort range, in order to deliver your bombers.  So that's not really an option.  Also consider the lack AF(4) bases around, cruiser bombardment TFs are often your only option (certainly mine at the moment).

And the caviate' on building the AF(4) to base B-17s to shut down the base:  You realize that your B-17s won't launch at extended range from an AF(4)...  So it needs to be built within range of 10 (normal range).  Otherwise, you're going to be very disappointed to complete your AF(4) at 12 hexes out, only to discover that it needs to be an AF(5)... 

No, shutting down hives of Bettys and Nells is NOT easy.

-F-

quote:

In reality, shore bombardment was not that effective. You had to use air power. After Guadalcanal, we never invaded without land-based air cover.

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Heh? There were some central pacific invasions that had only CV-based air cover. Iwo Jima comes to mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Heh? There were some central pacific invasions that had only CV-based air cover. Iwo Jima comes to mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Heh? There were some central pacific invasions that had only CV-based air cover. Iwo Jima comes to mind.

Iwo was bombed for months by (admilitelly small numbers of) B-24 and PB4Y from Marianas before the invasion, but you're right about the lack of land-based fighetr cover.

Feinder, it seems to me that B-17/24 flying from a size 4 AF will fly always with reduced load (as if they were flying at extended range) but can still fly to extended range. At least it was so in former patches.

quote:


"Level bombers flying out of a small airfield cannot fly at extended range, and will be treated as if they are flying at extended range when bombing targets at normal range.  Playing flying a Naval or ASW Search mission will carry an extended range bomb load.

In order to avoid these penalties, the size of the airbase needs to be equal to:

4 + (max load of aircraft / 6500)
All fractions rounded down.

Thus, and A-20B requires a minimum size 4 base, a B-17E requires a size 5 base, and a B-29 requires a minimum size 7 base."

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I was going off of p. 128 in the maunal (and have always presumed it was correct that),

quote:


"Level bombers flying out of a small airfield cannot fly at extended range, and will be treated as if they are flying at extended range when bombing targets at normal range.  Playing flying a Naval or ASW Search mission will carry an extended range bomb load.

In order to avoid these penalties, the size of the airbase needs to be equal to:

4 + (max load of aircraft / 6500)
All fractions rounded down.

Thus, and A-20B requires a minimum size 4 base, a B-17E requires a size 5 base, and a B-29 requires a minimum size 7 base."

But you may well be right right AL (about extended range).  It wouldn't be the first time the manual wasn't current. 

-F-

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

In reality, shore bombardment was not that effective. You had to use air power. After Guadalcanal, we never invaded without land-based air cover.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

In reality, shore bombardment was not that effective. You had to use air power. After Guadalcanal, we never invaded without land-based air cover.

Ahh, Tarawa? Nov 20th 1943.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Used yes. COVERED from, no. The protection of the fleet and troops was provided by carrier based air exclusively. They flew recon and maybe some ground support (not even sure about if they flew strike missions from Baker honestly).

But the covering force was pure carrier power.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

it also helped later in the war that US TF's took it "to" the Japanese initially before an invasion as well, conducting numerous plane raids on the target base as well as the chain of bases that could be used to reinforce the target. Hard to do in the game though due to the instant replacement plane/pilot function if supply is adequate.