Air attack damge

[Baron]

How is it that my American carrier aircraft make mincemeat out of any Jap fighter it attacks on an island but attacks against tactical attack aircraft is like farting in a windstorm?

Same thing seems to be the case when any air attacks any other air unless the attack is against fighters.

The carriers making these attacks are on the tactical attack settings but I've even tried using carriers set to air defense and they did not make a dent either. I'm just wondering if these results are to be expected?

[Colin I]

Indeed. I thought defending key islands with a combination of HQ, fighter, TAC and ground troops was good but the fighters are just sacrificial victims (despite being L4 and HQ lead).

I would note that some of the TAC were veterans of India but does not explain this at all.

[jon_j_rambo]

Yep, fighters are toast against TAC attacks. But TAC sitting on the ground doesn't take the big damage. I don't get it either....nor will I, because I don't do manuals, combat charts, or editors. I'm a gamer, I go with common sense & Legend.

The outer island strategy is lame. Spreading units out is dumb. You'd think spotting with on an island would be helpful, but only an idiot would put his Navy in harm's way to get whacked. The naval wars are like a big mob riot, becuase you can't "see" (spot) crap anyways. Just ram your pieces in & be in supply.

Strategy really comes down to tech & your opponent. By the way, start playing the Vypuero World Campaign, it's the most interesting.

[Colin I]

I intend playing Nupremal's game - indeed I think it opens up strategic options. Indeed, when I get back from hilidays might challenge you to a game.

Defending islands alone does not work but in this game I have India and China and I'm using fortified islands to slow the US. He will take them but it takes time and whilst his fleet is superior its dangerous for him to close on Japan with fortified islands with long range air still in his rear.

When you have an HQ coordinating TAC bombers on Guam or Iwa Jima you can stand up to heavy punishment and sink the odd battleship when it gets depleted and kill incoming transports. If we up TAC offense even further but decrease defense then they should really behave like the dangerous but fragile items Kamikaze bombers were.

[Bill101]

How is it that my American carrier aircraft make mincemeat out of any Jap fighter it attacks on an island but attacks against tactical attack aircraft is like farting in a windstorm?

Hi Baron

Thanks for bringing this up, I'll do some testing to see if I can fix this.

Bill

[SeaMonkey]

I've found that TAC do a good job of taking TAC out. Just get them some LR, spruce them up with NW and AT and now you have a unit that will deal out damage to a variety of enemy formations. Also they are pretty much immune from tripleA upgrades to ports and villages, but not the AAA unit.

This is more in keeping with historical philosophy of using the islands as unsinkable aircraft carriers and ...do.. somewhat bring them into play, but still agree with Rambo, the outer islands aren't a good investment as the USN can just wait until they are all powerful.

I have been thinking about a possible alternative for Japan though as I've noticed that the Roi-Namur fortification is a pretty strong deployment. If you could get a couple of engineers working on the islands to fortify them and then get the proper unit mix in, then you might have an efficient roadblock with some mutually supporting locations.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Yep, fighters are toast against TAC attacks. But TAC sitting on the ground doesn't take the big damage. I don't get it either....nor will I, because I don't do manuals, combat charts, or editors. I'm a gamer, I go with common sense & Legend.

The outer island strategy is lame. Spreading units out is dumb. You'd think spotting with on an island would be helpful, but only an idiot would put his Navy in harm's way to get whacked. The naval wars are like a big mob riot, becuase you can't "see" (spot) crap anyways. Just ram your pieces in & be in supply.

Movement greatly outstrips view distance, which also hampers the two Midway scenarios. Unfortunately to remedy that would require (on Nupremal's scale) 7 day turns.

[SeaMonkey]

Come to think of it, this whole spotting thing needs to be changed, it should be randomized, especially high for land and naval units. I'm OK with running into units and then they being revealed as the "surprise contact" works now, but for air units disclosing everything in their spotting range, its just pure hogwash.

I would think, that since air are the best recon units and are all subject to LR upgrades and experience accumulation, that a randomized chance of spotting escalates as these two characteristics rise.

You should never be able to spot "for sure", beyond a reasonable doubt. Intelligence is like that, interpretation sometimes misses the obvious. Speaking of intel, there you go ......another factor for raising the percentage of enemy units that are spotted.

See how this will work, each air unit reveals enemy units according to the set of 3 characteristics(intel, LR, exp.) (are there more?), so the greater your density of friendly air the higher percentage you have to disclose enemy locations.

Is this to difficult to program? For the AI to handle?

Are we getting closer to....."The Search".

[jon_j_rambo]

Naval spotting could be changed. Give carriers better vision. Right now, you just ram.

[SeaMonkey]

You know, Jon....you are spot on! Thing is folks, Rambo can't tell us why he's right, because he plays by feel, he doesn't dwell into the analytical aspects, he just knows.

Nothing wrong with that, I play that way too, by feel.....but later....I think about the game mechanics. So ....from the Rambo/SM camp here's the basics.

A global conflict takes place on Earth, a planet three fourths covered by water, it is simply the most complicated medium to get the correct interaction of the playing pieces. That why Rambo thinks it doesn't feel right, cause its not.

The oceans represent more dimensions than any other geography, there's inner space(the depths), there's the surface, water and the coastal land borders(no where to hide, except in the vastness) and then there is the outer space(the atmosphere residing above).

It is very easy to move from one medium to the other, things happen quickly.

Any wargame that professes to be "great" needs to be designed from the oceans up, even if its playground is the universe, you've got to get these dynamics right first and from there its a cakewalk.

Basically the same features that govern the land/air unit interaction won't work in the ocean, specifically blocking and zones of control. Now this is a general summary as you could dig down into the land, for a bunker so to speak, but there is lingering evidence. A sub slips below the surface and in a manner of seconds all evidence disappears, at least in the technology of WW2.

So...as I've said before, there has to be a "pass through" provision for the oceans, the sea tiles of SC represent that vastness you can get lost in and what we're missing is that feature.

We need "two ships to pass in the night" and never be aware of each others presence.

[jon_j_rambo]

For now "It is what it is". Thus you must make your strategies accordingly, just like everybody else.

I'm sure those folks who have played more naval games would have some suggestions.

[Nupremal]

any model with "pieces" will not be accurate. The most accurate models are the types used in games like WiF. My dream game is to use google earth as a map with the wargame on top of it = having a full 3d game