Carriers and Special Forces

[emf]

Hi there, I just want to throw these two thoughts out there. Carriers: I think we should be able to choose to have the air component be a fighter, tactical, or strategic. Fighter is the default air in the game. Tactical, because I'm sure they were used in that fashion during the war (especialy the U.S.) Strategic, remember the Doolittle raid on Tokyo? Perhaps you could choose the componet on the carrier depending on the need for the turn. Or maybe, upon building the carrier, choose whether to have it as a fighter, tactical, or strategic air. When building choosing tactical air it should be cheaper, fighter more expensive, and strategic even more.

Special Forces (only) should be allowed to make an opposed landing. They are already almost marines in the game, why not take them all the way. Special Forces (in the game) have a good attack (like marines) poor defense (like marines) and can do not need a port to launch an amphibious assault (like marines). I don't think it would unbalance the game any if we include theses features, and it would be upto the players if they want to spend the mpp's on the units. Special Forces making an opposed landing should have their attack points halved, and (maybe)if they fail to take the square then they would suffer five points of damage and return to their ships.

[Timskorn]

I posted a quick "Carrier doc" post awhile back on how carriers could work. Especially with the global campaign out now it'd be great to see some added functionality to capture the essence of the Carrier War.

Say you can set your carriers to different modes by right-clicking:

A. Attack Carrier

B. Attack Any

C. CAP

Attack Carrier and Attack Any would work sort of like Intercept mode with current aircraft. If a carrier or any other enemy ship comes into LOS of your carrier (during your opponents turn), your carrier will automatically launch an air strike against it. If the opposing carrier is on CAP mode, they'll have a higher chance of repelling the attack. If both carriers are on Attack Carrier, simultaneous attacks would occur.

Pretty basic idea that would need much more attention of course, but expanded carrier functions would go a long way to making the "Carrier War" in the Pacific more exciting, and involve some more strategy.

[Edwin P.]

Timskorn, I like your concept of additional modes for carriers, and would like to see this concept extended to other naval units as it would add more strategy to the naval war.

[carverrt]

I read your comments with excitement, as I myself have pondered how to make the naval war more fluid. I think this subject needs a lot more discussion. If we can break the code, a new dimension of SC2 WaW might start to grow. So, I’ll add my take on this.

Historically speaking, the decisions naval-air commanders had to make were centered on combat air patrol (CAP), naval attack and ground support. I know strategic attack might be within the game system, but it would not be supported by the operational situations in WW2. I counter the supporting idea of the Doolittle raid with the fact that that one attack was an anomaly. That bombing of Tokyo did NO damage, the real effect was physiological. The one strategic aspect of the attack was that the Japanese had to move more air defenses to the home islands. Maybe this could be handled with a script.

Midway is the classical example of the consequences Admirals pay for incorrect decisions regarding arming their aircraft. As we all know, the Japanese were caught changing their ground bombs to anti-shipping armament by US air. I favor a different set of modes for carries: CAP, Naval, Ground, Auto.

I like the discussion of amphibious attacks on occupied landing. Yes, we need to figure out how to make opposed landings work. We just won’t have a good Pacific scenario without it. Special Forces and Marines should be able to attack at full strength, but regular Army unit were used also – to good effect. I think an increase in the amphibious technology level should correspond with unit attack strength on an occupied beach.

BTW… Marine defense is always stronger than Special Forces. Marines, especially US Marines, made it a point to come ashore with lots of hardware, supplies and pure staying power. The US Marines were the first to really get this right. The Brits learned this as they raided Nazi occupied Europe and it paid off on D-Day (the Brit units came very well supported by armor and other heavy weapons).

Any way. These are my first thoughts to be put on this message board. There is room for improvements. A focus on making Naval warfare more realistic with additional depth and flexibility will be a great addition to WaW.

[SeaMonkey]

Yeah Robert, you go, tell the Japs at Guadalcanal that the Marines weren't good defenders(Battle of Tenaru River).

Enough of that fallacy, now I have to bring up that interdiction of supply and neutralization of enemy asset islands was a big part of Carrier TF operations.

The best example is the huge central Japanese naval-air base of Truk in the Caroline Islands. This was the main support structure for most of the central and south Pacific Japanese defense perimeter and it was totally neutralized by CV hit and run tactics.

Invasion was never needed.

[ November 11, 2007, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[SeaMonkey]

Look its simple, we have the CV aspects that are necessary it's just a matter of tweaking the effects to the CTVs especially Naval tech.

Enhancement of naval tech increases SA, NA, RA, CA, CD and DE/DM levels for CVs.

You'll now have 4 categories of research to enhance carrier prowess, ASW, AA, LR, and NT.

You could possibly even make a case for AT as it is applied to TAC bombers for the CAG attacks.

Now do you see why only the richest nations on the planet can employ Carrier Battlegroups.

[xwormwood]

AT should than be limited for CVs, because you can't compare CVs with airfleets when it comes to tankbusting & Co. Not in equipment and not in numbers.

[PowerGmbH]

Hi Seamonkey:

i also tend to your proposal to enhance simply the Carrier Techs in 4 Dimensions instead of crating 2-3 different Carrier Types.

For this Pacific Part of the Scenario, Long Range-Air Strength and the new Tactical Bombing and the other research type would be the best representative for sc2.

I also would say the Doolittle can be better done with a Script, as is was an exeption, mostly used for propaganda, and only had a motivation effect.

[emf]

If the Doolittle Raid is too be done with scripts then I propose that it be done not just for Tokyo, but for every major capitol. Historicaly or the first time a capitol is subjected to strategic bombing, the effect should be the temporary reduction in moral of all the enemies units; i.e. bomb Berlin all German unit's moral decreases. This reduction could be a % per unit or for all units, and then rise in a similar way each turn there after.

[carverrt]

So we seem to agree the Doolittle Raid could be a script, the results/effects of a script are still up in the air. EMF says all first raids should be handled a special way. Maybe, but the response of the Doolittle Raid was out of proportion to the attacks. The German reactions to British bombing can be left up to the players. Germany switched from attacking the RAF to attacking civilians in cities. The game lets players replicate that strategy – stop attacking the RAF fighters and go after London. The Doolittle Raid was an anomaly, but did have an impact that could be replicated.

CV’s. I agree technology enhancement would give the game a better feel for the cost of carriers in fleets. Also, hit and run raids should be dealt with. This aspect of the Pacific and Mediterranean wars should be replicated in the game mechanics to give the game a better – more realistic – feel. In the current game engine, subs disappear/move. Maybe we can have carries do the same. A CV attacks an Italian Battleship in a port, the next turn the Italian bombers attack the British CV, but the CV jumps six hexes toward the Suez and avoids any damage – sounds like an actual raid - no?

[Lars]

Er, no.

So many misconceptions in this thread, I'm having a hard time figuring out what you guys are arguing for.

[carverrt]

Lars,

The discussion is about additional Carrier and Special Forces capabilities. The main ideas for Carriers are changing/adding the options available to real carries; we’ve discussed different modes and replicating hit and run tactics (my newest addition to this thread). My point is that we should try to make the naval game have the right feel. Focusing on carries is just one aspect.

The other part of this post had to do with special forces amphibiously attacking occupied hexes. Actually, another part of Naval warfare.

Just to summarize what my take on this is.

- Carries need to act more like real carries, possessing the same tactical options WW2 carries had like armament choices for their embarked air wings and methods to replicated hit and run raids.

- Special Forces need Marine-like capabilities and be able to assault defended beaches – especially one hex islands.

I hope this does the topic justice. But this is not the end. I really hope we have more discussions so we can refine these thoughts.

[pzgndr]

Carriers: I think we should be able to choose to have the air component be a fighter, tactical, or strategic.

In a way, you already can. Carriers have robust CTVs relative to air units. When engaged in escort/intercept, the fighter component is used. When attacking other units, the tactical component is used. When attacking resources, the strategic component is used. Carriers are versatile, whereas other air units have more defined roles. It's up to the player to decide how a given carrier is to be used each turn.

To get more specific for carriers with separate fighters, dive bombers and torpedo bombers (for maybe a Coral Sea or Midway operational scenario), that would be a major feature change and not likely any time soon.

[carverrt]

Xwormwood,

I agree with you AT (anti-tank) busting is for land based tactical air. The carries are supporting fleet operations, amphibious assaults and raiding.

[Lars]

Originally posted by RobertC:

Lars,

The discussion is about additional Carrier and Special Forces capabilities. The main ideas for Carriers are changing/adding the options available to real carries; we’ve discussed different modes and replicating hit and run tactics (my newest addition to this thread). My point is that we should try to make the naval game have the right feel. Focusing on carries is just one aspect.

The other part of this post had to do with special forces amphibiously attacking occupied hexes. Actually, another part of Naval warfare.

Just to summarize what my take on this is.

- Carries need to act more like real carries, possessing the same tactical options WW2 carries had like armament choices for their embarked air wings and methods to replicated hit and run raids.

- Special Forces need Marine-like capabilities and be able to assault defended beaches – especially one hex islands.

I hope this does the topic justice. But this is not the end. I really hope we have more discussions so we can refine these thoughts.

Well, you got the one guy saying Marines had more staying power, which lost me right off the bat.

The only suggestion that made any sort of sense is Timskorn's, but I don't see why anybody would set a carrier to just CAP. If you're worried about taking the hit, you shouldn't have a carrier out there in the first place.

[carverrt]

pzgnder,

I understand your position on different carrier modes – they already have a flexible CTV.

How about replicating hit and run raids?

[carverrt]

Lars,

CAP has many uses. Sometimes carries provided combat air patrol for amphibious operations or surface shore bombardment. The point is to make the naval part of the game feel more realistic. Maybe mode options do the trick.

Maybe the Special Forces units should include Marines – the Japanese called their Marines Special Naval Landing Forces (SNLF). But, the point is to find a way to allow for attacks on occupied hexes.

[pzgndr]

How about replicating hit and run raids?

In the current game, you can position a carrier for a strike on one turn, then attack and move on the next turn.

[emf]

RobertC has a pretty good take on what I was thinking.

Here's another thought, something I'm working on with my own wargame - if someday we're allowed to do an opposed amphibious landing using Special Forces/Marines, any carrier in range, that has been set for tactical attack, adds its Soft Attack or Tank Attack rating to the SF/Marine unit. In other words a Marine unit has an SA rating of 2 and the carrier has a SA rating of 2, add them together. Should any enemy air (carrier or land based) intercept, any available friendly air (carrier (set for cap) or land based) may escort.

[Timskorn]

Lars: Think of my suggestion as a sort of rock/paper/scissors.

"Attack Carrier" stance would only automatically have your carrier attack another enemy carrier the moment it gets into range (on your opponents turn).

"Attack Any" stance has it strike the first enemy ship that comes in range (on your opponents turn).

"CAP" keeps the fighters prepared for any enemy carrier attacks in the vicinity of your carrier.

The strategy here is determining how you want your carriers to act in certain situations. If you have 3-4 carriers together, you can mix and match stances. If you only have 1 carrier with a couple cruisers nearby, you probably want to set it to CAP to protect them all from fighter attack. If you had the carrier set to "Attack Any", your opponent could lure your carrier to strike out first, grounding its fighters and allowing him to strike you without worrying about fighter defense. Had you kept it on "CAP", your enemy would be forced to tangle with your fighters in order to strike any of your ships.

Setting "Attack Any" and "Attack Carrier" would be a risky, aggressive stance best used when you believe you have superior strength. It allows your carriers to strike twice (once on their turn, once on your turn like how artillery works now), but can leave your ships without fighter cover.

[Lars]

But "Attack Carrier" was the historical norm.

Think I'd go with that one. Nimitz must have known something.

[Timskorn]

You and I both know that games like this don't always follow the "historical norm", because we tinkering fools think we can figure out ways to win differently!

Plus, naval combat isn't anywhere close to historical. You have to design features to fit within the scope of the game.