Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Landbase

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Carriers At War >> Landbase Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Landbase - 2/24/2008 10:49:47 PM   
Pyrrhos1976

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 1/22/2008
Status: offline
Is it possible to permanently disable a landbase ? I find that it's too easy to repair the landing strip. The best way to eliminate the land based aircraft is the CAP. Not very realist. Or I've missed something ?
Post #: 1
RE: Landbase - 2/25/2008 4:57:25 AM   
Gregor_SSG


Posts: 681
Joined: 3/6/2003
Status: offline
It is not possible to permanently disable a landbase. You bomb holes in the runway, and after a short time they shovel the dirt back in and keep flying. Look at the example of Henderson Field on Guadalcanal which was extensively bombed and shelled but which was never really shut down.

What you can though is to destroy or damage enough planes through bombing to effectively suppress the airbase, even though the runway is operational. This also happened to Henderson, which at times ran very low on planes, and needed regular reinforcements to keep operating.

Gregor

_____________________________

Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
See http://www.ssg.com.au and http://www.ssg.com.au/forums/
for info and free scenarios.

(in reply to Pyrrhos1976)
Post #: 2
RE: Landbase - 3/24/2008 7:08:47 PM   
mciann

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
The only way I've found to suppress land bases is to launch a steady stream of airstrikes over a period of time. The amount of aircraft in the attack doesn't seem to matter. To test this, I edited the Leyte scenario to add about 400 B-29s to the American bases at Peleliu and Morotai. To put this in perspective, this is more B-29s than were used to level Tokyo. This amount of air force should be able to utterly destroy every single human being within 2 miles of any airstrip, to say nothing of planes, ammunition, and fuel. A single, coordinated strike against Clark Field by this force destroyed about 8 planes, and caused moderate damage to the airstrip, which was repaired within hours. WTF?

I then restarted the scenario, and using the same force, strung the attack out into strikes every 15 minutes, rather than a coordinated strike. This was immensely more successful. I destroyed every aircraft at the base, and severely damaged the airstrip.

The only way to recreate this effect with carrier based air (such as in the Midway scenario playing Japanese, or in Leyte playing the default scenario), is to park your carrier as close to the base as possible and launch strike after strike in rapid succession. The only problem with this is that you will wind up trading plane for plane in losses due to prangs on landing or takeoff, combined with the odd AA or CAP casualty.

In the historical battle of Midway, Midway's bomber force was dealt with by the Japanese CAP. If you expect this to occur in game, you will find yourself rapidly running out of carriers. Even with 100% of fighters dedicated to CAP, it appears that you will lose at least one carrier to land based air on Midway.

In another example of the power of land-based air, I played the Santa Cruz scenario as the Americans. I transferred every plane on board Hornet and Enterprise to Henderson field, then pulled my carriers out of the battle. When the japs got within range of Henderson, I completely annihilated them.

Playing as the Japanese, I can easily wipe out the invasion force at Tarawa, and can annihilate Sprague's forces at Leyte Gulf. The complete inability to stop a land base, combined with the ability to shuffle squadrons around from base to base to get the planes you want at the right bases, appears to be pretty much invincible.

In previous versions of CAW, CAP did 2 things which it does not seem to do in the 2007 version. 1 - CAP would aggregate. If you piled every carrier into one hex and set full CAP on all of them, the combined CAP would work collectively for every surface group in the hex. The 2007 version does not seem to do this. I see very wide discrepancies in CAP effectiveness as different strike groups hit different surface groups in the hex. 2 - CAP would defend adjacent hexes. I would occasionally see CAP casualties in attacks on the Japanese surface forces if the attack happened to take place near a Jap land base. I don't see that at all in the 2007 version of the game.

The resiliency of land airbases is not disputed by the historical account, but shouldn't the planes be a little more vulnerable on the ground? Also, why is CAP so ineffective in CAW 2007 as compared to old versions of the game?

(in reply to Gregor_SSG)
Post #: 3
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Carriers At War >> Landbase Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.219