Land Base Air vs Naval surface and air interaction

[SeaMonkey]

Understanding the new features of Carrier operations in SC PTO I'm a little concerned about the land based air interaction.

In my new mod PanzerArmee Afrika I have found that all land based air needs to have double strike capability. I designed it in from the beginning and from playtesting it has worked out quite well.

First, landbased air usually represents a larger air contingent than does a carrier air group. There are more operational idiosyncracies accompanying carrier air operations than land based, ie confinement, limitations.

In the Pacific there were considerable night time land based air operations conducted at which the Japanese were quite astute, at least in the beginning.

Since I'm reading that anti-air artillery has a double defensive strike capability also, I think its imperative for all aviation type units to have a double strike feature. It should be for the players discretion whether he wants to persist with air operations against a target, not feature limitations.

Lastly, air units are the most mobile on the battlefield, able to conduct more sorties, deliver more ordinance in a given time period than any other unit depicted in SC.

They are the most lethal, dominating unit on the playing field and should demonstrate that reality as it still exists today.

[SeaMonkey]

One more thing... I want to deselect, my air unit after the first strike and save the second strike for later in my turn.

Just like it happened, when the first strike on Wotje airfields by the Yorktown didn't get the proper results, I want my captain, J.J. Clark, to be able to launch another strike after reviewing intelligence and steaming a little further east out of harm's way.

Can you say "Hit and Run" tactics!

Hubert....time to bring the AI up to snuff.......OK at least give us the editable capability for H to H games.

[jon_j_rambo]

Air & Naval interactoin will make/break this game. It must be somewhat accurate, and of course fun.

Difficult task in my opinion. Too much crap, makes for detailed game. Not enough, we might as well be playing "paper football" or risk.

[SeaMonkey]

Obviously there is some intelligence lurking beneath that hard shell of machismo you are so adept at displaying, Rambo.

[Nupremal]

Interesting idea with double strikes for all land air units. I do find it odd that my interceptors can only intercept one of the strikes from bombers, and not the second! Does giving fighters 2 strikes allow for that?

[xwormwood]

Maybe the Pacific Theater is the right point to say good bye to bomber, fighter and TacAir units and get used to airfleets.

Give every airfleet unit 3, or better 4 different combat points.

One for fighterS, one for strat. bombing, one for ground support and one for naval warfare.

In russia i wouldn't build up naval warfare ability, and in the pacific i would in 4 from 5 cases ignore strategic bombing abilities.

Give Carriers high naval and medium ground support ability (= combat strength points), and very low strat.bombing and low fighter points.

If carriers fight against cariiers, those low fighter strenght points would be equaly low on both sides, but when carriers attack a well guarded land zone (guarded from a stong air fleet) they should pay heavily.

To give carriers a chance against air fleets i suggest that we introduce joined attacks into the game system (let on, two, three or even more carriers or unsits attack one target together, everyone who played Clash of Steels knows the concept).

So: just open the system so that each air fleet can be build just the way it is needed. Strenght points could be limited, or at least adjusted through naval tech (research).

Carriers would of course have to be limited in their abilities, because it is a difference if i have 90 planes (carrier) or 1000 planes (air fleeght).

Or at least it should be a difference when both start to fight against each other.

Just my 2 cent.

[jon_j_rambo]

Lets get real here. AIR & NAVAL must be COMPLETELY re-done. To what? I do not know. I'll leave that upto the Designers, Testers, & whosoever.

The Legend & The Gamer,

-Camp Rambo

[arado234]

I thought earlier alot of people said Airfleets were to strong.If they get two attacks per turn(stukas etc.)they will be a REAL game breaker.Maybe against eachother or against attacking Strat.bombers but against ground targets,doesnt look to good for the Russians.

[Big Al]

One thing you all are not considering. Pilots that flew over seas had to be specially trained. Carrier pilots trained ~2 years in total. Navigating over land is easy with all the markers and landmarks to follow but when one is over the ocean thats a completely different story. Planes have torc and there is a pull to one side, wind changes direction, everything looks the same. Pilots can easily get lost. Remember the flight of TBFs over Florida that got lost in 1946?

The point is within a land based airgroup there are very few pilots that can actually fly over ocean with success. Even the German Condor groups were not properly trained and often reported wrong positions on convoys. The quality of the pilot is vastly more important than the airplane itself. Thus training for flying on the ocean is tough also.

The largest air battle over the ocean was I believe in the Phillipines where only 800 aircraft from both sides participated. If a nation could truely put in the air 200 aircraft in a strike force they could sink ANY FLEET.

Land based air factors really should not even come close to doing what CV air factors do man for man. Strategic bombers were not too good at sinking ships. Look at the Tirpitz suck in port in Norway not even moving. How many times did it take to sink her from land based 4 engine bombers?

Fighters should have a very very low ship attack

Strat bombers a little better. Have you ever flown at 300 MPH and then tried to drop something from a height of a few hundred feet on a target that is also moving and not in the same direction? Its quite F'ing hard.

Tactical bombers should have the best air to sea factors and not as good as CVs (counting for proper ratios). Reason? pilot training and type of plane.

While the Stuka and Val were pretty much the same plane and good for this kind of bombing many other types of tactical bombers were not on the allied and axis side.

[CSS]

Guys at this scale these are not induvidual ships with 90 aircraft each, they are carrier groups and escort vessels. A mixture of ship and planes. This is a stratiegic game with stratiegic counters, please remeber that in your tactical considerations.

[Nupremal]

I decided to try some experiments. I am setting Carriers to evade 50% damage on attack only - this means you spot and strike enemy first = big advantage. I am also allowing for some slight chance ships get hurt bombarding land targets to keep that under some control. (90% evasion for BB instead of 100 - then 80 for CA, 70 for DD and also 50 for carrier)

Then I am slightly adjusting UK, Japanese and US Carrier stats. Will see how it plays.

[Big Al]

I did. I think your scale is 1 to 3. Each counter is 3 full CVs or ~300 a/c. Perhaps 4.

I assumed the same scale for land based air as SC2 ~1000 a/c per counter.

[Nupremal]

I am thinking about 1 per 2 capital ships (Carriers, BBs) with supporting light cruisers (or even escort carriers) and destroyers for a unit. Seems to work out about right. Cruisers maybe 3 to 1 heavies plus associated lights and escorts.

Not sure if the new idea will work - forgot that carriers also intercept each other. Seems reasonable though that means they are not entirely vulnerable especially when there is a whole task force of ships involved.

[Big Al]

I worked out a scale for a game I am making.

for this scale without fleets counters I like

25 DD per counter

25 SS per counter

3 BB per counter

3 CV per counter

6 CA per counter

I did a calcuation based on force pools of the US and Japan.

# produced over war + start force AND # of converted counters for the scale below

Japan # of counters USA # of counters

SS 230 14 315 20

DE 0 498 31

DD 176 11 520 33

CA/CL 45 11 84 21

BB 12 6 25 13

CVE 5 1 112 19

CVL 5 1 9 2

CV 26 13 30 15

USA total 153 counters naval (with no fleet markers)

JAPAN 57 counters naval (with no fleet markers)

counters were based on

SS 16 units per counter

DE 16

DD 16

CA/CL 4

BB 2

CVE 6

CVL 4

CV 2

This is all assuming nothing gets sunk during the war. Even if you take 30% and split the fleet in 1/2 for just pacific thats ~50 naval units on the map for that scale. @ 30% casualty Japan would have 40 counters on the map. This does not include common wealth units

[xwormwood]

Lets get real here. AIR & NAVAL must be COMPLETELY re-done.

The Legend & The Gamer,

-Camp Rambo

Absolutly correct!

I hope that Hubert is on exactly this road toward a great PTO game.

And i would rather wait one more year than to see and play a well ment game suffering from the wrong game mechanisms.

Now would be the right time to leave the old ways and to rework, invent, surprise, overhaul.

[Big Al]

Its quite difficult to get naval air right. Scale of planes, the fact most battles were fought near a coast, finding not findint the enemy.

[arado234]

CSS the first Ami.carrier groups were only based on one Carrier like the Yorktown,etc.(neither side had any support carriers at Midway)They only equal about 90 aircraft.I guess you have to have upgrades for the carrier groups.To get this really accurate its going to take alot of work.

[SeaMonkey]

Let's examine the characteristics and how they evolved in the Pacific for CAG(carrier air groups). Early on, as the British successfully demonstrated in the Med and ETO, CAGs were adept at searching and surface naval air attacks.

As time went on the Japanese took it to a higher level by enhancing the surface attack capability and also disruption of infrastructure(strategic attack). Obviously throughout this development the ability to provide air cover and anti-submarine duties for naval surface vessels was also progressing.

Slowly but surely as the other parameters became more effectively prosecuted by CAGs a new use was introduced and close air support for ground troops started on the path of perfecting.

So what are the areas for enhancements? Naval attack, sub attack, spotting capabilities, strategic attack, air superiority, and finally CAS.

Now what are the priorities for development and how should they be balanced in relation to the other SC units, specifically air and naval assets?

[arado234]

SeaMonkey you sure do raise alot of points(thats good).I would think that Carrier task forces primary goal is to clear the way for an invasion force by first wiping out the other guys planes and ships(Carriers first of course then land based air).

It sounds like everyone wants to get quite tech.and thats ok if the game will still be easily playable because if it isnt alot of people wont buy it.

I think as far Carriers go the planes on board should have to be divided up in to fighters,divebombers and torpedo planes(you would choose how many of each type a Carrier has on board).Battleships and Crusiers have the ability to launch one or two spotter planes.As the war progresses then possible upgrades for Carriers would be those small escort Carriers and this could be simulated by an overall abundance of more planes available to the group in question.But since this is mostly a strategic game I dont know how technical it can be made without the game taking to long to play.

[SeaMonkey]

I agree A234, first and foremost a CAG should provide air cover and ward off enemy naval assets. So AA and NA CTVs(combat target values) have initial priority and we have that in tech upgrades.

I also believe in the same league with AA and NA is spotting which of course is also accessible in the form of LR tech. That's our three. Problem is we need more...well maybe not.

Let's see, did I get ASW tech mixed up with Naval tech, seems so. In other words we can't really initiate higher NA values currently. And what about the ability to erode the supply level of an island base through RA ctv(strategic attack) for CAGs?

What about SA and TA from our CAGs performing CAS?

To sum it up, here's the present situation:

CA & NA values for CV groups is fixed, no research upgrades at 4 each.

SA & TA also fixed at 1.

Spotting, UA, and AA are all modifiable through tech research and upgrades starting at 2, 4, and 1 respectively.

Conclusion.........is everyone OK with this set of priorities? If we only get 3, are these the most important three and do they represent what the true nature of combat evolution depicted in PTO?

I have one more thing to add. During my studies of naval combat in WW2, both theaters, I was impressed with the advantage that the Allies had in radar advancements. Very often it was a great contributor to success in fleet actions, generally speaking.

[Nupremal]

I think in the new Pacific game did Hubert not say that Naval/Carrier attack would in fact now be upgradeable by tech?

[SeaMonkey]

Seems you're right Nupremal, rereading the features page. So where does that leave ASW? Looks like we'll need to form task forces with destroyers escorting our carriers to neutralize the submarine threat.