Land Based Carrier Squadrons

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Land Based Carrier Squadrons

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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Land Based Carrier Squadrons

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Land Based Carrier Squadrons - 7/28/2003 7:35:15 AM

Sir Robin

Posts: 16
Joined: 7/18/2003
Status: offline

Wierd issue I have just run into. Sorry if this has come up before.

Took Lunga and started expanding the airfield.

Lost the CVL Shoho and CV Zuikaku taking out the Yorktown and beating up the Enterprise.

The squadrons from the CVL and CV were transfered. I set them up on Lunga and disbanded the Shoho's to beef up the Zuikaku squadrons.

So I have Zeros with 30ish fatigue and 70ish morale. Vals with 10ish fatigue and 60ish morale. Kates with 20ish fatigue and 50ish morale. All running with 20+ planes.

Lunga is up to 3 for airfield and 2 for port. It also has 98 aviation support and is using 96. More than it needs for the squadrons and the Mavises.

The Enterprise, with the Hornet, came back to pound on the Surface Combat TF in Lunga port.

They are sighted by my recon planes but my squadrons don't attack.

Tulagi couldn't fly but Lunga could. I figured maybe the carriers were too far away.

Well the next day the carriers move in closer and pound the TF again. Instead of attacking the carriers my Lunga ex-carrier squadrons go after a Surface Combat TF several hexes further away than the carriers.

Has anyone else run into this with 2.30? I had the Vals and Kates set to Naval Attack both days with the Zeros on escort. Do ex-carrier squadrons need to be on carriers to attack carriers?

What am I doing wrong?

Post #: 1

- 7/28/2003 7:55:50 AM

wobbly

Posts: 1095
Joined: 10/16/2002
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Status: offline

Not sure about this but I think, as soon as you have land based planes (and they could previously been on carriers) as your attack weapon, they fall far more heavily under the "fear of enemy CAP" issue.
What I mean by this is:
If a target has cap above it, a bomber requires to be escorted in order to attack the target. The more CAP the more escort required.
Carriers are not as influenced by this, and this can cause you to get just as angry (when your carrier commander sends your vals and kates with 6 or so zeros up against 50 wildcats and they get slaughtered).
Moral is also an issue although I would have said that is not the case this time.
I'll hypothesize and say that a land based unit gets a bonus to the chance it will attack a target if an AIR HQ is present. The carrier is always considered to have an air HQ so may always get this bonus - not sure about that though.
The moral of this story is: set more fighters on escort - this is no gaurantee; especially when there are other easier targets.
This is the price we pay for not having a priority over which targets we value in the sphere of influence of our air assets.

_____________________________

(in reply to Sir Robin)

Post #: 2

- 7/28/2003 9:17:05 AM

Sir Robin

Posts: 16
Joined: 7/18/2003
Status: offline

Thanks for the fast response.

I would have to check but I don't think I had any HQ units on Lunga yet.

I have had UV for a few weeks and have been concentrating on trying to master the carrier vs carrier engagements. Never got to far in scenarios and never thought of an "intimidation factor" in the game.

This changes my entire strategy.

So much for having Lunga and Tulagi handle the carriers while the Soryu and Hiryu handle Port Moresby.

Back to the drawing board.:rolleyes:

(in reply to Sir Robin)

Post #: 3