|
Post by aeson on Feb 26, 2020 21:49:55 GMT -6
oldpop2000 - my original point was that continental nations could and would not develop a separate naval air service because of politics, expense and the superior pull of the elder service (IE the Army). Any attempt by Germany or Italy to build up a major naval air force was going to be trumped by the Army's need for planes, gas and pilots. Germany struggled to produce the small number of heavy bombers it dedicated to naval service, and both the German and Italian navies struggled to get air assistance for naval operations. In the Med, Axis airfcraft were brought in for short periods either at Army insistence (prepping for an invasion) or after a lot of naval pleading. Pretty sure that the Kaiserliche Marine, the Kaiserliche und Konigliche Kriegsmarine, the Marine Nationale, and the Regia Marina maintained air corps separate from the Fliegertruppe/Luftstreitkrafte, the Kaiserliche und Königliche Luftfahrtruppen, the Armee de l'Air, and the Corpo Aeronautico Militare in the First World War.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Feb 27, 2020 1:59:15 GMT -6
I feel quite strongly that the current land-based air system is historical and correct for the game. If land-based air makes it impractical to enjoy carriers in the 40's and on in Europe, well there is a reason carriers developed more fame and utility in the Pacific. The key to surviving land-based air in the late 30's and on is to be selective with your battle choices, to know when to walk away and know when to run, and willing to let the other side step out into a VP lead. If a large number of people feel fun is at stake (it is a game after all) & want to be able to disable land-based air by a tick-box, one could certainly lobby for such a feature to be added at the start screen, though heaven knows how much time it would take when we would rather have Fredrik spend his development time on fixes and planned features. - please understand that this is my opinion being expressed, and not automatically that of NWS. I think you are right. I can see issue that in such areas where land based aircrafts are dominating they will be almost no operating naval divisions without carrier cover. However it is not completely true in RTW as some divisions are there without air cover. I think the best example is the Mediterranean. In time of dominance of Italian and Germany aircrafts, there were no capital ships or convoys operating without carrier cover or land based cover (Malta). In some cases (Greece evacuation, convoys to Malta or through the Mediterranean) ships were without air cover because of greater need. Cruisers usually was not covered by aircrafts as they were more expendable and still usually they do not operate far from air cover. In game scout cruisers are usually not covered by carrier CAPs, But I think the overall system is quite historic, may be a little tweaking of naval forces in such area. note: another thing to mention is that the most important early battles in Pacific shows that Japanese CAPs were quite effective, later American too. If we look at Europe (mostly the Mediterranean), we can see British with their fighter directors and it was really effective especially if you compare how many fighters defend the fleet. As I mentioned elsewhere I do not know if CAPs adds suppression to wings they attacked during bombs run. It certainly should as in the Mediterranean campaign it was found that even if fighter does not shot down attacker, the disruption is tremendous and decrease accuracy of bombing runs greatly.
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on Feb 27, 2020 3:03:20 GMT -6
Coordination with army fighters that were supposed to provide air cover was often poor though. Italians ultimately put catapult launched conventional fighters on Litrorios so they could be sure they'd have some air cover available. A dedicated land based naval airforce would probably help a bit, but that wasn't exactly default setup. Pretty sure that the Kaiserliche Marine, the Kaiserliche und Konigliche Kriegsmarine, the Marine Nationale, and the Regia Marina maintained air corps separate from the Fliegertruppe/Luftstreitkrafte, the Kaiserliche und Königliche Luftfahrtruppen, the Armee de l'Air, and the Corpo Aeronautico Militare in the First World War. [/div][/quote] Arguably only because the senior service had not yet had the time and opportunity to subsume the efforts of the junior one.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Feb 27, 2020 6:08:42 GMT -6
Respectfully, I find arguing with bringing up historical accuracy/plausibility a bit of a logical fallacy in this case, because - as tortuga pointed out as well - there is a disconnection between the tactical and strategic layer, bridged over solely by the battle generator (which is understandable). To not lose scope and to detail my point, let me lead you trough an example. Let's say I am playing as A-H, waging a war against Italy. Italy only has it's core territories, the bare minimum to exist, nothing else to take or deny. This means 1400 a/c. (1900 with the starting areas). - If the player plays on the larger fleet sizes, let's say 6-10 CVs might be present in a lucky scenario I guess. Italy not in a coordinated, but in a consistent manner attacks with the force above. Granted, can't remember the AI's LB setup, meaning not every single a/c will be there even if the bases are untouched, but I do recall MB squadrons of 20 a/c, and I dare to say at least 4-600 aircraft is easily plausible in late game. - If the player plays on smaller fleet sizes, maybe 1-4 CV is present, IF they are present. Italy is arriving with the same exact force as above. The player might either limp back home with 2-3 torpedo hits on average per capital ships (I experienced this in a german game of mine against France), or outright get sunk (German game in an earlier iteration with the 120 a/c bases). As A-H, it might also happen that two of your destroyers will attack a convoy near Crete. The moment the Sun rises, they are annihilated. Gone. (Question is of course, if land-based a/c is so effective, how did they get there in the first place.)
Is it historical? Let me rephrase that - is this believable? Yes, absolutely. If in the moment two destroyers sortie Italy can consistently raise 600 aircraft into the air, then this is the expected result. I do not argue with that. I argue that IF this is a plausible historical or alternate historical occurence, then the player has no other option than to deny his battles in the area. Meaning: every single one.
So, what remained is waging war with subs, let's say, but in this case most of the (fun) gameplay-elements go out of the window, and might as well go with a summary report in the very end. "Do not sortie the fleet, use subs, did I win? Y/N." I do not wish to argue with whether or not Italy can send up 400 dive bombers against two destroyers, nor that if they CAN, then whether or not the A-H is willing to send out said destroyers without any sort of means to defend or retaliate (which the battle generator does, of course). My main concern instead is if the gameplay gets shifted heavily towards an element which virtually does not involve any sort of player agency, then the game loses it's core point halfway through - which is building ships. There can be many interesting recommendations to solve this, for example, much slower a/c production, so attrition is a serious issue and bases/carriers actually bleed out during a war; fine-tuning pre-battle land-based strikes, so the player's own land bases can counter-act effectively etc., but I still feel that optionally scaling the bases with the game size is probably a reasonable, either temporary or final, solution. Both the goat and the cabbage will be kept.
I would not outright turn off land-bases under any circumstances, I do believe that "tight" areas should be dangerous, but as long as the player has very, very limited actual and direct means to combat this (you can't night-Guadalcanal Henderson Field before a landing for example, because you are entirely in the hands of the battle generator) outside of "heh, just don't go in there", it's a problem as long as they are borderline suicidal. Even with pre-battle LB bombing, even with assigning LB CAP.
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Feb 27, 2020 10:35:34 GMT -6
I feel quite strongly that the current land-based air system is historical and correct for the game. If land-based air makes it impractical to enjoy carriers in the 40's and on in Europe, well there is a reason carriers developed more fame and utility in the Pacific. The key to surviving land-based air in the late 30's and on is to be selective with your battle choices, to know when to walk away and know when to run, and willing to let the other side step out into a VP lead. <snip> I mostly agree (and honestly I'm not qualified to weigh in anyway). The problem as I see it is that the player does not have an option to select battles. I cannot say "move my CV fleet west of Norway in order to keep them out of the German airbase range". The game makes that decision for me. The battle generator may choose to place several battles, even an unexpected battle that I cannot skip, near enemy air cover, even if I (as leader of the navy) would have prohibited that.
|
|
|
Post by director on Feb 27, 2020 10:37:41 GMT -6
aeson - please point out the occasions on which those air forces raised multiple-hundred-plane naval strikes without calling on the army air force (or Luftwaffe, which functioned mainly as an army air force).
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 27, 2020 10:41:42 GMT -6
... The key to surviving land-based air in the late 30's and on is to be selective with your battle choices, to know when to walk away and know when to run, and willing to let the other side step out into a VP lead. ..... In other words, You've got know when to hold them, know when to fold them and know when to walk away.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 27, 2020 11:11:00 GMT -6
Just some facts about the Luftwaffe. The German pilots that were trained to hit aerodromes and railway yards were consider capable of hitting warships and merchants traveling at speed. They would use the 30 degree dive bomb attack. On 5 July 1942, German bombers sank 40,000 tons of Allied shipping in the Murmansk Run and 40,000 tons were heavily damaged including a cruiser.
The following aircraft were capable of carrying two torpedoes slung under each wing. The HE-111, He-115 Seaplane, Ju-88, Fw-200 and the DO-217. The He-177 was intended to carry six torpedoes.
The real problems for the Luftwaffe were trying to support the operations in the East with sufficient aircraft, assist the Regia Aeronautica in the Mediterranean and still attack the convoy's heading to Murmansk in the north.
I have data on the Regia Aeronautica also.
This does not answer the questions being asked and discussed. But I am in agreement that this is a GAME, not a US Naval War College simulation. I support the attempts to follow historical accuracy but as I've already stated, let's give the player some latitude to explore other paths not take to enhance the play and make it fun and interesting.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Feb 27, 2020 11:27:42 GMT -6
Just some facts about the Luftwaffe. The German pilots that were trained to hit aerodromes and railway yards were consider capable of hitting warships and merchants traveling at speed. They would use the 30 degree dive bomb attack. On 5 July 1942, German bombers sank 40,000 tons of Allied shipping in the Murmansk Run and 40,000 tons were heavily damaged including a cruiser. The following aircraft were capable of carrying two torpedoes slung under each wing. The HE-111, He-115 Seaplane, Ju-88, Fw-200 and the DO-217. The He-177 was intended to carry six torpedoes. The real problems for the Luftwaffe were trying to support the operations in the East with sufficient aircraft, assist the Regia Aeronautica in the Mediterranean and still attack the convoy's heading to Murmansk in the north. I have data on the Regia Aeronautica also. This does not answer the questions being asked and discussed. But I am in agreement that this is a GAME, not a US Naval War College simulation. I support the attempts to follow historical accuracy but as I've already stated, let's give the player some latitude to explore other paths not take to enhance the play and make it fun and interesting. Yes, but also as its a game, its not fun to have a game about ships that at a certain point just devolves into an air battle between thousands of land based aircraft. Quite simply, the land based air part of RTW2 makes it less fun, and therefore a worse game than it could be
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Feb 27, 2020 11:55:17 GMT -6
What would be needed is the different scenarios at time of dreadnoughts and time of airpower.
Airpower completely change strategic situation in areas where land based aircrafts can dominate and scenarios would need to adapt different strategic situation. In actual RTW2 we have still some of scenarios same no matter if battle is in 1905 or 1955.
In 1905 you can take German navy and tried to raid England coast or you can take British battlecruisers in 1910 and try to lure German ones near Helgoland but in 1935 situation is different and your raid will be done by airpower by hit and run similar to Taranto raid. You will never send lone cruiser or cruiser division to raid coastal installations if they cannot get out of range or enough range to be covered by carriers. The scenarios in RTW2 does not have enough change in strategy to take this into account.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 27, 2020 12:33:50 GMT -6
Just some facts about the Luftwaffe. The German pilots that were trained to hit aerodromes and railway yards were consider capable of hitting warships and merchants traveling at speed. They would use the 30 degree dive bomb attack. On 5 July 1942, German bombers sank 40,000 tons of Allied shipping in the Murmansk Run and 40,000 tons were heavily damaged including a cruiser. The following aircraft were capable of carrying two torpedoes slung under each wing. The HE-111, He-115 Seaplane, Ju-88, Fw-200 and the DO-217. The He-177 was intended to carry six torpedoes. The real problems for the Luftwaffe were trying to support the operations in the East with sufficient aircraft, assist the Regia Aeronautica in the Mediterranean and still attack the convoy's heading to Murmansk in the north. I have data on the Regia Aeronautica also. This does not answer the questions being asked and discussed. But I am in agreement that this is a GAME, not a US Naval War College simulation. I support the attempts to follow historical accuracy but as I've already stated, let's give the player some latitude to explore other paths not take to enhance the play and make it fun and interesting. Yes, but also as its a game, its not fun to have a game about ships that at a certain point just devolves into an air battle between thousands of land based aircraft. Quite simply, the land based air part of RTW2 makes it less fun, and therefore a worse game than it could be I don't have any answers except that if the game is designed to present naval warfare after 1920 or thereabouts, land-based and carrier-based aircraft have to be a part of it. They were part of it in Europe, the Med and in the Pacific. Nice discussion and I hope all of you figure out what you really want in the game. Good Luck.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Feb 27, 2020 12:36:17 GMT -6
aeson - please point out the occasions on which those air forces raised multiple-hundred-plane naval strikes without calling on the army air force (or Luftwaffe, which functioned mainly as an army air force). 1. The Luftwaffe didn't exist in World War I and a separate German naval air service did not exist afterwards.
2. Nobody conducted multiple-hundred-plane naval air strikes in the First World War, with or without calling upon army air forces. 3. The Marine-Fliegerabteilung and the Kasierliche und Konigliche Seeflugwesen ceased to exist alongside most of the rest of the German and Austro-Hungarian armed forces at the end of the First World War; the Aeronavale remained separate from the Armee de l'Air but was more or less irrelevant in the Second World War; and the Italian air services were merged into the Regia Aeronautica in 1923.
4. I don't believe that any countries except the United States and Japan have conducted multiple-hundred-plane naval air strikes using only their naval air forces - Britain's probably the only other power which would've had the opportunity, but if I'm not mistaken the Fleet Air Arm's largest operation to date was against the Palembang oil refinery and associated oil fields, I think the main strike there involved only about 100 aircraft, and that's only a "naval" air strike inasmuch as it was conducted by the Royal Navy's aircraft and launched from the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers.
Since the Imperial German and Austro-Hungarian armed services essentially ceased to exist after the First World War, I can only point out that the French air forces remained separate while the Italian air forces merged and became at least nominally independent, giving precedent for both merger and continued separation among the continental powers' air forces.
Moreover, I will point out that the senior service in Britain is the Navy, yet looking at the interwar period it'd be a stretch to call the Royal Air Force a naval-oriented air force, and after the Fleet Air Arm was split off to the Royal Navy its most naval-oriented command was Coastal Command, which seems to have been something of a red-headed stepchild to the RAF.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Feb 27, 2020 16:14:40 GMT -6
Respectfully, I find arguing with bringing up historical accuracy/plausibility a bit of a logical fallacy in this case, because - as tortuga pointed out as well - there is a disconnection between the tactical and strategic layer, bridged over solely by the battle generator (which is understandable). ... I would not outright turn off land-bases under any circumstances, I do believe that "tight" areas should be dangerous, but as long as the player has very, very limited actual and direct means to combat this (you can't night-Guadalcanal Henderson Field before a landing for example, because you are entirely in the hands of the battle generator) outside of "heh, just don't go in there"... I have been thinking about this point for many of the last 10 hours, and for the record I have concluded I can't disagree with it. I see yet more thinking in my future.
|
|
|
Post by bry7x7x7 on Feb 29, 2020 15:17:04 GMT -6
Congrats OP, you found the reasoning for the British to use the armored flight deck design
|
|
|
Post by kastratore on Feb 29, 2020 16:07:58 GMT -6
I think quick stopgap "solution" would be to at least let us know what time of day a scenario is starting, before committing to it (unless we have that information now and i just didn't notice). I might be willing to do operation near hostile coast, if i would now that i'm fighting under the cover of darkness, but as it stands i'll just decline any engagement that is within range of enemy airbases.
And just to add my two cents to the discussion, i don't mind land based air power being deadly. That how it was in real life, and that's what navies had to plan their operations around. Overall i think the best change to land air power is a change to scenario generator. For example it should offer me far less raids on enemy coast starting when enemy has airfields in the area, unless those take place during the night. I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to conduct WW1 style battlecruiser raids on British coast with hostile planes above their heads.
|
|