|
|
Post by dorn on May 23, 2019 16:14:23 GMT -6
I just have been in war in 40s.
Frankly speaking in 20s my bombers have difficulty to make some hits. Sometimes they hit but 1 or 2 torpedoes do not sink large 40000 tons battleships. In 30s it is quite similar, but at end of 30s it is started to getting better. And in 40s it is butchery.
I sent about 300 bombers on enemy fleet and they annihilate them completely (about 6 battleships with other ships). All battleships were about 38-45000 tons (year 1943).
Land power is quite devastating. I completely agree. If you compare it with the Mediterranean it is too much overhelming. Attack of several planes has very small chance for success. In RTW2 in 40s it is not true at all. The evasion skill of ships seems completely lost in 40s.
There is another thing - location of battles and battle targets: 1. As airpower become strong, starting location is just too close to land air power and usually in reach of land air power and no fleet will operated under overhelming land air power more that hit and run from max. distance
2. fleet battles are just too close. I have just battle in Baltic with Soviet Union and after my scouts report enemy fleet, it was 50 miles (battleships), 90 miles (carriers). My torpedo bomber has range 446 miles, my dive bomber in development has similar range. So how I can get so close wihout knowing enemy. But the issue is that because of land airpower clash of naval power will be minimal in Europe and more focused on hit and run, convoy escort, raider interception. Question how to solve it is difficult as Air land power is most important between these 2 nations. Practically naval power is important mainly for UK, USA, Japan. Rest nations could use land air power for protection. In Europe it should be more Mediterranean style or raider interception.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on May 23, 2019 16:39:12 GMT -6
On the effectiveness of AA I think you are by far not "maxing AA" yet, at least by your scrfeenshots. For large BB/BC I am at 70+ HAA factor (24x5in DP secondaries and 24x4in tertiaries + 4x AA director) and haven't yet invented autoloading for the DP calibres.
|
|
|
|
Post by boatlet on May 23, 2019 18:21:52 GMT -6
Good discussion, and thanks for the impressions. We will consider adjusting things based on your input. You can switch off the aircraft approach warning dialog in options if you find it annoying. Thats actually handy, thanks mate. |
|
|
|
Post by boatlet on May 23, 2019 18:26:51 GMT -6
On the effectiveness of AA I think you are by far not "maxing AA" yet, at least by your scrfeenshots. For large BB/BC I am at 70+ HAA factor (24x5in DP secondaries and 24x4in tertiaries + 4x AA director) and haven't yet invented autoloading for the DP calibres. For all ships by the 60s I built only AA ships since my fleets barely saw action. Still my planes did all the killing. Im open to be wrong there, but my ships all ad maxxed AA at a certain point. |
|
kch
New Member
Posts: 27 
|
Post by kch on Jun 24, 2019 8:05:48 GMT -6
Maybe the solution is to lower the % of aircraft operational and reduce the chance of hitting when faced with AA fire, even if the aircraft isnt hit.
|
|
|
|
Post by director on Jun 24, 2019 8:36:12 GMT -6
I have been saying that there needs to be a consequential decision between having a separate naval air arm or a unified air force.
The unified air force would benefit Germany, France, Italy, Austria and Russia - nations that need to concentrate on army strength. Air support for naval operations under that system would be brokered at a prestige cost or by reducing the value of friendly naval forces committed.
A true separate naval air arm (US, Japan and to a degree Britain) should have caps on numbers of aircraft available as a percentage of budget, at least until a ship is successfully sunk by naval air power. And a naval air arm should be strictly limited in the number of land bases it can operate, with use of army or air force planes decided as above.
|
|
jma286
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by jma286 on Jun 24, 2019 13:17:47 GMT -6
I have been saying that there needs to be a consequential decision between having a separate naval air arm or a unified air force. The unified air force would benefit Germany, France, Italy, Austria and Russia - nations that need to concentrate on army strength. Air support for naval operations under that system would be brokered at a prestige cost or by reducing the value of friendly naval forces committed. A true separate naval air arm (US, Japan and to a degree Britain) should have caps on numbers of aircraft available as a percentage of budget, at least until a ship is successfully sunk by naval air power. I really like this idea. |
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jun 24, 2019 22:19:30 GMT -6
I have been saying that there needs to be a consequential decision between having a separate naval air arm or a unified air force. The unified air force would benefit Germany, France, Italy, Austria and Russia - nations that need to concentrate on army strength. Air support for naval operations under that system would be brokered at a prestige cost or by reducing the value of friendly naval forces committed. A true separate naval air arm (US, Japan and to a degree Britain) should have caps on numbers of aircraft available as a percentage of budget, at least until a ship is successfully sunk by naval air power. And a naval air arm should be strictly limited in the number of land bases it can operate, with use of army or air force planes decided as above. I second this, though honestly I am just a fan of any idea that lets you use prestige for something meaningful. However, rather than It being tied to the country, maybe the exact air force organization can be determined as air tech takes off(random or possibly based on factors like how much the navy invested into naval aviation at the time etc)/ |
|
|
|
Post by zedfifty on Jun 25, 2019 1:22:13 GMT -6
I have been saying that there needs to be a consequential decision between having a separate naval air arm or a unified air force. The unified air force would benefit Germany, France, Italy, Austria and Russia - nations that need to concentrate on army strength. Air support for naval operations under that system would be brokered at a prestige cost or by reducing the value of friendly naval forces committed. A true separate naval air arm (US, Japan and to a degree Britain) should have caps on numbers of aircraft available as a percentage of budget, at least until a ship is successfully sunk by naval air power. And a naval air arm should be strictly limited in the number of land bases it can operate, with use of army or air force planes decided as above. I second this, though honestly I am just a fan of any idea that lets you use prestige for something meaningful. However, rather than It being tied to the country, maybe the exact air force organization can be determined as air tech takes off(random or possibly based on factors like how much the navy invested into naval aviation at the time etc)/ Yes, and maybe trading in prestige for more naval air. After all, the pre-WWI Imperial Russian and Austrian armies were not exactly hotbeds of innovation, so a Grand Admiral could be more progressive than the Generals who keep repeating Suvorov's maxim that "a bullet is a fool, whereas the bayonet is a fine chap." |
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Jun 25, 2019 2:54:46 GMT -6
Fredrik W maybe force some sort of ratio between ship and air maintenance? Or between airforce and national resources?
In reality no government would allow Navy to spend more on planes than on ships for example. In fact, I'd think Nav Air should be rather small portion of abstracted overall airforce of the nation. So while you could have a lot of airbases, you will need to manage limited number of squadrons that Army or Airforce allow you to operate.
As was mentioned, Pedestal operation included some 600 planes on Axis side, so anything more than that in a major battle (especially numbers in the thousands) should be prevented at all costs. Small raids should be targeted only by small fraction of available planes, not all planes in range.
Also, there should be switch to stop air operations from given airbase (on turn 0, before all the launches) if it has no range to affect combat to reduce clutter in Log and reduce operational losses.
|
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jun 25, 2019 16:41:49 GMT -6
Fredrik W maybe force some sort of ratio between ship and air maintenance? Or between airforce and national resources?
In reality no government would allow Navy to spend more on planes than on ships for example. In fact, I'd think Nav Air should be rather small portion of abstracted overall airforce of the nation. So while you could have a lot of airbases, you will need to manage limited number of squadrons that Army or Airforce allow you to operate.
As was mentioned, Pedestal operation included some 600 planes on Axis side, so anything more than that in a major battle (especially numbers in the thousands) should be prevented at all costs. Small raids should be targeted only by small fraction of available planes, not all planes in range.
Also, there should be switch to stop air operations from given airbase (on turn 0, before all the launches) if it has no range to affect combat to reduce clutter in Log and reduce operational losses.
A simpler limit that roughly approximates pre-WW2 (excluding WW1 obviously) standards would be to limit the number of planes a navy has to twice the combined capacity of the navy in question's aircraft carriers (ie. 2 80 a/c carriers would allow for 320 aircraft overall - 2x2x80). Maybe this could be increased to thrice in 1930 (480 in the same scenario). Float planes and flying boats should be excluded - they float like ships after all so are really a naval unit. |
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 26, 2019 8:04:53 GMT -6
A simpler limit that roughly approximates pre-WW2 (excluding WW1 obviously) standards would be to limit the number of planes a navy has to twice the combined capacity of the navy in question's aircraft carriers (ie. 2 80 a/c carriers would allow for 320 aircraft overall - 2x2x80). Maybe this could be increased to thrice in 1930 (480 in the same scenario). Float planes and flying boats should be excluded - they float like ships after all so are really a naval unit. If you're going to do that, I'd think about adding it to tech - the limit would change over time that way. Or maybe structure it like oil, with a hard date that switches up the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jun 26, 2019 13:52:51 GMT -6
A simpler limit that roughly approximates pre-WW2 (excluding WW1 obviously) standards would be to limit the number of planes a navy has to twice the combined capacity of the navy in question's aircraft carriers (ie. 2 80 a/c carriers would allow for 320 aircraft overall - 2x2x80). Maybe this could be increased to thrice in 1930 (480 in the same scenario). Float planes and flying boats should be excluded - they float like ships after all so are really a naval unit. If you're going to do that, I'd think about adding it to tech - the limit would change over time that way. Or maybe structure it like oil, with a hard date that switches up the rules. Yes, I think a hard change from 2 capacity to 3x in 1930 would be the way to go. Either that or model dedicated airforces (RAF, USAAF etc) |
|
|
|
Post by gornik on Jun 26, 2019 15:15:39 GMT -6
If you're going to do that, I'd think about adding it to tech - the limit would change over time that way. Or maybe structure it like oil, with a hard date that switches up the rules. Yes, I think a hard change from 2 capacity to 3x in 1930 would be the way to go. Either that or model dedicated airforces (RAF, USAAF etc) For my recent playtrough even 2:1 ratio will change nothing in situation. At 1938 I had 4x26, 4x36, 4x56 and 2x80 carriers total. So I may have... 1264 ground planes - 10 full bases 120 planes each! Isn't it what we have in Mediterranean and Baltic now? So I support blocking random number of planes out of current operation - maybe 2/3 of them to start with (and best ratio after studying HtA branch may decrease to 1/3). Also there may be random event like "heavy bombing just neutralized our/enemy airfield XXX" based on number of medium bombers. Or completely random "local weather prevents air operations at XXX". The idea to decrease air maintenance budget (and through this - number of planes) is interesting too. For example, regular events like "Ruler is unhappy that you rate canvas kites and flying sausages more than solid Dreadnoughts! Cut air budget to XX% of total naval spending (with exact sum) or face His Disgrace!" They end once player planes sink BB or BC completely through air strikes, without any gun hits. |
|
|
|
Post by director on Jun 26, 2019 17:26:18 GMT -6
My point is not that the number of aircraft is wrong but that naval services would not have control of those forces, as they would be needed for ground operations. If a naval service could afford that number of aircraft it would be in serious funding trouble as the argument would be made that the purpose of a navy is to operate ships.
Even at the height of the Pacific War the US Navy did not operate thousands of land-based aircraft - the Army Air Corps did that. The Japanese Navy did have a good-sized land-based air service - but who else?
|
|
