|
Post by Blothorn on Jul 10, 2019 11:35:54 GMT -6
On the issue of dive bombers versus torpedo bombers, in my experience dive bombers don't bring enough benefits to justify their lower damage. I've had a port strike as Japan against the USSR using 7 carriers of 144 planes each with 2/3rds being dive bombers, and I could send one wave of dive bombers before the Soviet battlecruisers started moving out of port. It was honestly pathetic seeing a maximum of 5 bomb hits against stationary targets when torpedo bombers could manage hits in the tens. I actually sank zero capital ships and promptly retired all of the dive bombers I had and switched back to torpedo bombers afterwards. The only real success I've seen from bombs is when a 1,000lb bomb penetrated 5 inches of turret armor and instantly blew up one of my best battleships, but that could have been a level bomber for all I know. That is a best-case for torpedo bombers, though--dive bombers are much less sensitive to target mobility. (Although portstrikes do seem an argument for Japan specifically favoring TBs.) I favor an even mix from 1940+, favoring TBs against battleships and DBs against escorts/carriers. And IMO, by the time DBs are in their prime taking out the enemy battleline is somewhat less important--DBs' effectiveness against all classes makes them a good complement to TBs.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 10, 2019 12:04:41 GMT -6
I feel a significant part of the problem is the AI's propensity for wasting a lot of its carrier airpower attacking land airbases that respawn for free after the battle, instead of sending more naval strikes after your fleet. If you have the strike capacity to spare for it, hitting nearby airfields hard - especially early in the scenario when the only things likely to be in the air are reconnaissance planes and CAP - can actually be pretty useful even though the airfields will be back next month. Catch most of the airbase's bombers on the ground - or knock the airfield out entirely - and you don't need to worry about it for the rest of the battle, and since you know where the airfields are at the start of the battle your bombers could already be dropping bombs on nearby airfields by the time their reconnaissance planes find your fleet. You also don't need to worry so much about the strike miscarrying as when you send strikes out after contact reports.
Mind you, I'd only launch against nearby airfields until the enemy's fleet is discovered and dealt with, and I probably wouldn't send a follow-up strike until then, either.
|
|
|
Post by arminpfano on Jul 10, 2019 12:21:43 GMT -6
I stopped to care about carriers. They never lived up to my expectations, first due to the missing carrier battle type, and second due to the poor control possibilities about strike behaviour. Still the guns do the main job, air power is just one more potential danger, but much more from land bases than from enemy carriers. So RTW2 turned out to be a kind of prolongued RTW1 to me.
So actually I stopped to play RTW2 for the moment, waiting for some improvements with comming patches. I do not want to blame the devs, they made a terrific job, and the game itself is great. But the main attraction, the carriers, are just not worth it.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 10, 2019 12:41:52 GMT -6
I stopped to care about carriers. They never lived up to my expectations, first due to the missing carrier battle type, and second due to the poor control possibilities about strike behaviour. Still the guns do the main job, air power is just one more potential danger, but much more from land bases than from enemy carriers. So RTW2 turned out to be a kind of prolongued RTW1 to me. So actually I stopped to play RTW2 for the moment, waiting for some improvements with comming patches. I do not want to blame the devs, they made a terrific job, and the game itself is great. But the main attraction, the carriers, are just not worth it. Aircrafts are deadly, several hundreds of aicrafts easily sunk a lot of capital ships. It is true especially if there is no fighter opposition.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jul 10, 2019 13:45:52 GMT -6
I second dorn’s comment, carrier can obliterate entire battlefleets in the current game without the ai even able to fight back.
There are many issue with carriers in games, but their deadliness, even with issues like focusing on sinking ship, is unquestionable imo.
|
|
|
Post by gornik on Jul 10, 2019 14:35:34 GMT -6
Here is my experience about carriers from 3,5 games (Russia, Japan and Germany):
For player, short range of game-generated battles is not an issue, as I almost always may increase this range before carriers came under enemy guns. That,s why I never protect hangar sides - If somehow enemy may hit it with light guns, then there would be torpedoes and heavier shells as well, and I can't protect carrier from all this at once - best protection is range.
Flight deck, in reverse, need to be protected at all cost - as late bombs are deadly, and successful penetration usually means burning all "ready" airgroup at once (And I rarely don't have ready planes, prepared for strike, in hangar). So my late carriers have 4" FD, and 5" may be better (but this would add crazy weight, so I never use it). Hangar deck (D) and belt (B) are thin - just another barrier for bomb splinters - usually 1"
Torpedo protection - no less than III! Despite any defense, random torpedo is always an option, and I want to to use carrier even after two of them
AA guns - there can't be enough of them. They maybe not as effective as fighters, but they do something and weight for large ships usually is not an issue. Late AA sometimes achieve several kills and nearly always make attack failed. I can't say, what type of it is better.
Airgroup composition: At the beginning of air era I use 6-8 fighters and as many torps as possible. At the end I usually have 1:1:2, sometimes 1,5:1:2 (bomber/torp/fighter) + extra fighter squadron (I use 8 and 16 plane groups). With heavy (1400+) AP bombs, dive bombers seem to be more dangerous than torps, while fighters are best AA and sometimes strafe ship gunners.
Ships: First CVL are usually converted from large AMC (if there is war) or AV. I saw little point to build them once CV conversions are allowed. First CV are usually former CA less than 20 000 ton (This allow me to use 6" instead of 8" obligatory guns) And then the era of large purpose-built carriers with DP guns and large groups begins! I usually use 56 or 80 planes per ship, 112-plane CV are planned as colonial "one-ship fleet" (with long-ranged, reliable diesels), but they still never saw notable action.
|
|
|
Post by mobeer on Jul 10, 2019 14:41:15 GMT -6
Early carriers are satisfying as they try to find their place supporting the battleships. It's later in the game when the their usage doesn't seem to work for me. I think as the 1940s go by their needs to be battles starting at much longer range from the enemy and better control over carriers. The limitations in command and control don't help - I cannot send a scout plane to follow an enemy force and send reports, or radio directions to a strike in the air.
Early on I build the smallest carrier I can just to get something in service, with almost all torpedo bombers. Over time I add more and more fighters. My carriers generally: - 28-29 knots - main battery of many 4/5" DP guns - good medium AA - 3" belt and deck armour - no\1" hangar and flight deck - best available torpedo protection - this is the most likely type of hit on a carrier - 28-34 plane CVL, 64-90 plane CV increasing over time - 25% fighters at first, increasing to 40% as land based air increases
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Jul 10, 2019 16:22:03 GMT -6
I tend to be critical, but I want to say that I'm very happy with what I've seen of carrier combat so far. It's very good!
Still, there is plenty of room for improvement. I've seen aircraft circle overhead of enemy ships, in visual range of my CVL (so I know the planes must/should have seen them, since my ship can), and they never attacked -- part of a recording, so I have proof!
Also, there should be a way to give airplanes a primary target: search for this ship (especially if it's an enemy flattop), and only fall back on a secondary target if you don't find it. The targeting choices of my airplanes are very questionable (e.g. targeting transports over BCs in very close proximity).
[Obligatory: I'm okay with some amount of randomness and pilot error, but pilot error (i.e. poor targeting choice) is right now the norm rather than the exception.]
Tip on targetting: because aircraft are so prone to attack the first thing they see, the best solution is to overshoot the enemy's position by 50 nm.
I only have about 20 (30?) hours of time with carrier combat so far, so I'll probably need a lot more testing before I can give my final thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Jul 10, 2019 16:50:06 GMT -6
I tend to be critical, but I want to say that I'm very happy with what I've seen of carrier combat so far. It's very good! Still, there is plenty of room for improvement. I've seen aircraft circle overhead of enemy ships, in visual range of my CVL (so I know the planes must/should have seen them, since my ship can), and they never attacked -- part of a recording, so I have proof! Also, there should be a way to give airplanes a primary target: search for this ship (especially if it's an enemy flattop), and only fall back on a secondary target if you don't find it. The targeting choices of my airplanes are very questionable (e.g. targeting transports over BCs in very close proximity). [Obligatory: I'm okay with some amount of randomness and pilot error, but pilot error (i.e. poor targeting choice) is right now the norm rather than the exception.] Tip on targetting: because aircraft are so prone to attack the first thing they see, the best solution is to overshoot the enemy's position by 50 nm. I only have about 20 (30?) hours of time with carrier combat so far, so I'll probably need a lot more testing before I can give my final thoughts. Can you explain further what you mean by 'overshooting' the target by 50nm?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 10, 2019 16:57:10 GMT -6
Can you explain further what you mean by 'overshooting' the target by 50nm? Using the Location designator to set strike target, choose a point about 50nmi beyond where you think the enemy will be. You've now set your strike to overshoot the target by ~50nmi, probably.
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Jul 10, 2019 17:22:54 GMT -6
i see the location designator less as "where to strike" and more as "fly in this direction until you spot something to attack" so i figured it's always best to overshoot the target by quite a bit, but of course less than the maximum range of the loadout you are carrying (or escort range)
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on Jul 11, 2019 3:10:55 GMT -6
Tip on targetting: because aircraft are so prone to attack the first thing they see, the best solution is to overshoot the enemy's position by 50 nm.
That´s a very good point (I forgot to mention)!
Own planes tend to attack the first ship in sight, instead of "scout" a force/group of ships and than attack. I had one airstrike against an enemy CV-force (one was spotted but I could not come in range with my battle force), where a strike of 40 TB and 20 DB attacked the escort (1 CA with 8 torpedo hits, 1 DD with 4 torpedo hits and 1 bomb hit and another DD with 3 torpedo hits), instead the fat juicy targets. That´s so annyoing and it feels some kind of stupid behavior! If bad or fair squads do such things, it is some kind of OKish. But good, veteran or elite ones should act in a different way. My experience is, that it doesn´t matter what experience your crews have- they hit and do damage. And honestly it doesn´t even matter if you land 10 torpedo hits from 40 TBs or "only" 9- the damage is nearly the same.
Maybe the devs could implement some kind of pop up together with the message for sighted ships with the question for the strike or not (maybe after voice radio/fleet tactics has been developed).
|
|
|
Post by director on Jul 11, 2019 7:23:35 GMT -6
Early carrier battles in WW2 did feature strikes going in on the wrong target, usually because that had been mis-identified as a carrier force. Carrier admirals (and staff and flight-ops officers) found it mostly impossible to redirect strikes because the pilots filled up the channels with chatter. It's only in later-war (late 1943 on) that control and direction of CAP and strikes improves... so however frustrating it is, the fates of USS Neosho and HIJMS Shoho argue that the game is not wrong. Of course, this 'should' improve with experience...
Anyone play the old 'Carriers at War' from SSG? The AI was brilliant and the searching, report/false report/muddle was a commander's nightmare.
|
|
|
Post by gorthaff on Jul 11, 2019 8:39:15 GMT -6
The problem is, you currently can't even order your planes to attack what they THINK is a hostile CV. And we know target misidentification is already in the game, so implementing at least the choice to attack CV/capitals/escorts that takes misidentification into accounht should be relatively easy.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 11, 2019 9:12:09 GMT -6
Early carrier battles in WW2 did feature strikes going in on the wrong target, usually because that had been mis-identified as a carrier force. Carrier admirals (and staff and flight-ops officers) found it mostly impossible to redirect strikes because the pilots filled up the channels with chatter. It's only in later-war (late 1943 on) that control and direction of CAP and strikes improves... so however frustrating it is, the fates of USS Neosho and HIJMS Shoho argue that the game is not wrong. Of course, this 'should' improve with experience... Anyone play the old 'Carriers at War' from SSG? The AI was brilliant and the searching, report/false report/muddle was a commander's nightmare. The radios on board US carrier aircraft were four channel radios. After a sighting report and a launch, say two hours, the enemy fleet could have moved especially if it intercepted the report. It will take the air wing at least one hour to get to the target and during that three hour period, it could have gone 60 miles in any direction. If the scout can maintain contact with the enemy or shadow, then they can send their new reports into the carrier and possibly the attack group can receive them. The carrier certainly doesn't want to send out more radio messages or the enemy will detect that, and have a direction for their attack group. So radio silence is important. Weather will play a part especially low clouds because if you are flying above the clouds you might miss the target. All this predicated on the carrier group being close enough to the enemy force to launch, if it isn't then it will get orders to close with the enemy and then launch, which might lose another hour. It does get chattery on the radios during combat, but generally on the way to the target, radio silence is observed until the enemy force is sighted. The radio's in the US Navy aircraft were ARC-5's. There were four buttons to select channels, only one channel at a time with the transmitter and receiver select simultaneously. The emission switch could be used to switch between voice and tone. It was VHF or MHF. There was also an ARB-2 Navigation system for homing. Fighters would have one receiver and one transmitter fitted, bombers might have three each. Be careful with movies, there was little chatter on radios during the flight to the target, returning and during combat except to direct the force. Pilot were generally ordered "Pipe down", "Keep off of the radio" so that the air group commander could provide orders once the target was found.
|
|