Ground units should be able to defend against far away carriers

[zappsweden]

I can understand that cruisers and battleships can bombard coastal ground units from the sea without taking casulaties. What i don't understand is the logic that carriers can attack ground units that are 3-8 hexes from the coast without taking any casulaties.

Carriers use planes so ground units defending should be able to use atleist a modified air defence value when attacked from longer range than 1 hex.

Only when carriers attack an adjacent (coastal) ground unit they should be able to use the regular riskfree naval bombardment like Battleships and Carriers do.

[ September 13, 2002, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[daystrom]

Originally posted by zappsweden:

I can understand that cruisers and battleships can bombard coastal ground units from the sea without taking casulaties. What i don't understand is the logic that carriers can attack ground units that are 3-8 hexes from the coast without taking any casulaties.

Carriers use planes so ground units defending should be able to use atleist a modified air defence value when attacked from longer range than 1 hex.

Only when carriers attack an adjacent (coastal) ground unit they should be able to use the regular riskfree naval bombardment like Battleships and Carriers do.

Some good points zapp re ground unit defense against carrier air but CVs of the period would have no means of attacking ground units with shore bombardment...no cruise missiles in the 40s.

regards,

Ray

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Zappsweden:

What i don't understand is the logic that carriers can attack ground units that are 3-8 hexes from the coast without taking any casulaties.

Nor do I. A corollary to this topic was discussed many months ago, and it concerned a Carrier's limited # of naval planes having as much lethal punch as an entire Air Fleet which is posited to include fighter-bombers, and most certainly would include a much greater number of ground (NOT Sea) familiar and appropriately equipped planes.

Air attack on a port should be treated differently (than even an attack on otherwise unremarkable coastal hex, IMO), but flying 200 miles inland and strafing tiny (compared to ships) and highly mobile units is a bit of a stretch.

I would be hard pressed to even think of one maddened Admiral who would order such an unpredictable (in the sense that he would be highly unlikely to trust another branch of service to provide adequate cover OR topography intelligence) attack. :eek:

I do like those opinions already expressed that ask for SOME AA for ground units -- few of this sized (Army & tank detachments anyway) units would venture out into potential killing fields without some minimal AA protection, even if only a couple of 20mm guns jury-rigged to a truck chassis.

This could easily be fixed by allowing units to benefit from AA advances, and it wouldn't have to be the full benefit -- maybe even 1/2 rounded up or some such, just so they wouldn't be sitting ducks... yeah yeah, I know, smarten up and provide CAP, but I would still argue for minimal AA for ground units.

[arby]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

I agree completely. This would be historical -- anti-aircraft units in the field improved substantially during the course of the war, both quantitatively and qualitatively -- and would probably help realism a bit. I notice another thread where the subject of air power being too strong is discussed. I tend to agree with that point, and allowing units to become stronger against air attacks is certainly one way of correcting that.

Plus, it gives a significant new strategic option. Right now, there's no incentive whatsoever for the Allied player to invest in anti-aircraft: Britain is much better off investing in jets to counter any German air attacks, and on the list of things the Soviets have to worry about, having German planes attacking their strategic resources doesn't make the first three pages. The German player has a little more incentive -- he's more likely to suffer Allied bombing attacks. But in most of my games the true damage that the Western Allies inflicted by air was on German troops, not resources. I could easily suffer the loss of even 20 or 30 MPP's a turn, but having my units chewed up was something else. Investing in anti-aircraft would make far more sense if my units could avail themselves of it.

In fact, this might go aways toward solving the "tech problem," either real or imagined. The general line, which I believe is true, is that the Germans have an advantage in tech because they can start out earlier, and devote more points to it. The disadvantage they have is that they are truly fighting two different wars: a defensive war in the west and an offensive one in the east. Widening the research options for the German player may be a better way of diluting any advantage he has.

Oh, and as far as the carrier planes, yeah, that's ridiculous.

[pzgndr]

allowing units to benefit from AA advances

This is what we have now:

Every new level of anti-aircraft radar research improves the air defence values for all Strategic Resources. As an added bonus defending units located on these resources will also receive the anti-aircraft radar bonus when defending against air attacks.

So should the added bonus simply apply to all units, or would this skew the game too much? In later years with L4 or L5 jets, air attacks against ground units become devastating, but in reality there should be improved AA all around. Factoring in at least 1/2 the AA bonus sounds good.

Regarding the naval air issue, there could be a distinction made between ground/city attacks and ship/port attacks since there was a difference in planes and tactics. A suggestion is to include a -1 or -2 modifier for naval air attacks on ground/city targets, and for air fleet/strategic bomber attacks on ships at sea.

[arby]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

This is what we have now:

I meant applying them to units that weren't on strategic resources.

So should the added bonus simply apply to all units, or would this skew the game too much? In later years with L4 or L5 jets, air attacks against ground units become devastating, but in reality there should be improved AA all around. Factoring in at least 1/2 the AA bonus sounds good.

I don't think it would skew the game at all. Both sides are heavily dependent on air power: the Allies on the Western Front and the Germans on the Eastern Front. Reducing the effectiveness of tactical air benefits both sides.