Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Just funny note..but when I see this thread abbreviated from main forum as "RE: Advice Needed: Getting La .."..my first thought was not Land-Based bombers...

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

The Argentinian Air Force is braver.

Don't sell the FAA short!

They sortied 430 times on attack missions...sinking two destroyers, two frigates, a RFA landing ship, a container ship, and in addition damaging another two destroyers, six frigates, three RFA landing ships and a fleet stores ship...

...they might have been totally outclassed by the Sea Harriers in air-to-air combat, but their attack pilots still had teeth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

The Argentinian Air Force is braver.

Don't sell the FAA short!

They sortied 430 times on attack missions...sinking two destroyers, two frigates, a RFA landing ship, a container ship, and in addition damaging another two destroyers, six frigates, three RFA landing ships and a fleet stores ship...

...they might have been totally outclassed by the Sea Harriers in air-to-air combat, but their attack pilots still had teeth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

I tried a night attack with everything I had.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
My point is the game engine seriously understates the bravery and skill of these pilots by the way it models daytime air operations. It creates a game exploit--all you have to do is mass enough carrier aircraft in a hex, and land based forces will refuse to launch. You can overawe any single base with 10-12 carriers. And that allows you to methodically take out every base in the theatre in turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

I tried a night attack with everything I had.

Coordinated night attack by LBA bombers is anathema in this game, as it was IRL for the Allies, mate. I would not expect any degree of launch against KB in this circumstance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
My point is the game engine seriously understates the bravery and skill of these pilots by the way it models daytime air operations. It creates a game exploit--all you have to do is mass enough carrier aircraft in a hex, and land based forces will refuse to launch. You can overawe any single base with 10-12 carriers. And that allows you to methodically take out every base in the theatre in turn.

I respectfully disagree with your premise and your conclusion.

A 10 CV naval air strike arm is a very potent focal force which, like IRL, was capable of taking out single bases when so applied. Fire in the Sky addresses this nicely. Whereas land bases had greater durability and were in it for the long haul, carrier air was a very potent mobile weapon, albeit with less offensive sustainability. Two different weapons 'systems' that can't be compared as equals.

Carrier air may be able to take out a few bases in turn, but it will not have the staying power either IRL or in the game to 'take out every base in the theatre in turn' without sustaining unacceptably high casualties to her aircrew or airframes. In my opinion, a clever Allied player would welcome seemingly unending airfield (or better yet) or port strikes by KB's elite. The resultant attritional losses will put the KB in a precarious position when challenged in the future by Allied carrier air.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
My point is the game engine seriously understates the bravery and skill of these pilots by the way it models daytime air operations. It creates a game exploit--all you have to do is mass enough carrier aircraft in a hex, and land based forces will refuse to launch. You can overawe any single base with 10-12 carriers. And that allows you to methodically take out every base in the theatre in turn.

I respectfully disagree with your premise and your conclusion.

A 10 CV naval air strike arm is a very potent focal force which, like IRL, was capable of taking out single bases when so applied. Fire in the Sky addresses this nicely. Whereas land bases had greater durability and were in it for the long haul, carrier air was a very potent mobile weapon, albeit with less offensive sustainability. Two different weapons 'systems' that can't be compared as equals.

Carrier air may be able to take out a few bases in turn, but it will not have the staying power either IRL or in the game to 'take out every base in the theatre in turn' without sustaining unacceptably high casualties to her aircrew or airframes. In my opinion, a clever Allied player would welcome seemingly unending airfield (or better yet) or port strikes by KB's elite. The resultant attritional losses will put the KB in a precarious position when challenged in the future by Allied carrier air.

In reality, yes. The carriers can surge and pull out of range to recover. The bases can't. However, in the game, the only thing the bases launch are fighters, so the carrier air can focus on taking out the fighters and stonking whatever is at the bases. My experience is that in a single strike a 10-CV KB can kill half the aircraft on a maximum-sized base, damage the rest, and generate 100% damage on airstrips, facilities, and whatever shipping is in the hex.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

When I played the Allied side I loved when the Japanese side would attack airstrips with carrier air. The USN pilots have the ability to be trained in better numbers than naval pilots flying for the emperor. You have the ability to have a good amount of AA batteries at all your major bases near contested area's off Oz if you chose.

I had the same problem as you're having in my last game which I admit can be frustrating. I built up bases, brought in plenty of air support made sure my bombers had the most aggressive commanders available plus P-38 escort, nothing worked against the 500 fighters in the mega KB. Not long after a carrier battle happened and my land based air flew with the help of USN carriers in the area.
You're being caught up in a numbers game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

I’ve wondered many times why my opponent has never tried stonking Noumea and the Australian bases. There would be no opposition in the air.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

And so in the morning, the KB is observed sailing sedately just to the north of Ndeni as thousands of American airmen wave from the shore. Ndeni has about 200 operational aircraft including about 80 fighters. Neither side launches. My question is 'where are the diminishing returns to scale that led both navies to use right-sized CVTFs'.

The first time I played D-Day against my brother--soon after the first release--neither of us noticed the stacking rules, and the campaign was decided when a stack of all the Allied units attacked a stack of all the German units. This game reminds me of that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

You talk of this as an exploit, yet you use a large number of Black Cats in 42 to strike back at night? Harry, the game system cannot protect you from yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

I’ve wondered many times why my opponent has never tried stonking Noumea and the Australian bases. There would be no opposition in the air.

I find the effect P39s on CAP have on Zekes, Vals and Kates very gratifying when the KB strikes these bases in 42. You define opposition maybe differently than I do....I suppose you mean that land-based dive bombers, torp bombers or 2Es will not strike the KB unless it closes. Going back to UV, I have not found this a serious issue. If the enemy wishes to expend his naval aircraft and pilots on attacking airfields, he had better have a very good reason, because that is the break most Allied players are looking for (divided attention) when, like Nimitz, they try and put their carriers in a position to win.

You talk of this as an exploit, yet you use a large number of Black Cats in 42 to strike back at night? Harry, the game system cannot protect you from yourself.

Mike

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADB123

Harry likes beating a dead horse, and he also likes implying things rather than stating things. (That's often typical of academic-style thought and discourse.)

So let me ask the question that Harry is avoiding:

Should the Game Engine be modified so that there is a better chance of LBA taking off and attacking CV Death Stars, whether Japanese or Allied?

My vote is for yes.

Now, if Michael M would agree, and could do it, my opinion is that it would make for a more interesting game.

But if Michael doesn't agree, or can't do it, then we all have to learn how to continue to live with this - the Allies during the first few years of the Game and the Japanese during the last few years of the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Well..4E bombers do not suffer from "insufficient escort penalty", so if IJN puts 10 CVs together, bring in 10 groups of B-17s/B-24s and set them on Naval Attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADB123

Harry likes beating a dead horse, and he also likes implying things rather than stating things. (That's often typical of academic-style thought and discourse.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Herwin,

I'll avoid the personal attacks, as I feel they're unwarranted. If other forumites tire of your posts or your point of view, there are mechanisms that exist to provide them relief.

I understand some of your frustration at the game engine. It does most things well, but some things not so well. Perhaps this is one of those things.

I think perhaps the scale (numbers) of CVs throws the computer matrix into a tizzy. Other reasonable posters have observed this generality with the air model: that large scale combat changes the tenor and tone of the overall combat. 'Twas a common observation with WiTP in years past too.

I propose a test: Set up 4 Japanese CVs (original KB minus CarDiv 5) plus their retinue in a single CVTF. Put Nagumo in charge. Put it 4-5 hexes NW of Midway, a level 4 airfield. Put a hodge podge of USMC, USAAF bombers and USNAF recon Catalinas there and see what launches.

IRL, there were several 'bitsa' attacks, frequently unescorted, against Nagumos carrier force. Will the game allow this to occur 8 or 9 times out of 10?

As we know now, these attacks were crucial in invoking delay, thereby allowing KB to be pounded by Allied CVTF naval air shortly thereafter.

Can the game faithfully replicate the role of under or unescorted LBA in one of the most pivotal battles of the Second World War? I've not seen this test...

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Well..4E bombers do not suffer from "insufficient escort penalty", so if IJN puts 10 CVs together, bring in 10 groups of B-17s/B-24s and set them on Naval Attack.

When I was working with USN and USMC attack pilots in the far, far past, they took pride in not needing an escort--being able to take care of themselves in air combat.

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Well..4E bombers do not suffer from "insufficient escort penalty", so if IJN puts 10 CVs together, bring in 10 groups of B-17s/B-24s and set them on Naval Attack.

When I was working with USN and USMC attack pilots in the far, far past, they took pride in not needing an escort--being able to take care of themselves in air combat.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the game, and contributes absolutely nothing to any discussion about the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Just funny note..but when I see this thread abbreviated from main forum as "RE: Advice Needed: Getting La .."..my first thought was not Land-Based bombers...