I seems very unrealistic to me how powerful land based aircraft are against ships. The fact that they are powerful causes a lot of unistorical situations in both the atlantic and pacfic.
What if the rules were changed so aircraft on carriers attacked normally, but fighters attacking sea units from land attack at 1 and bombers at 2, i think this adds alot to the game in both gameplay and hitorical accuricy plus it is very simple
well a cruiser is a 3-3 unit for 12 and moves 2.
Fighter are 3-4 for 10 and moves 4.
The problem is fighter hits should go against fighters like in AARHE using our Air combat values of 3,2,1
To keep it KISS, then…
Fighters should be at 3 over sea and 4 over land only if the other side has no fighters ( 3 otherwise)
Bombers over sea should stay at 4 if no other planes and drop to 2 if other side has planes.
but german fighters based from the land never destoryed the UK fleet, and the UK airforce certainly never took out the whole german fleet in the baltic in 1942.
land based aircraft are extremly overated in sea battles.
IF you hade this rule you would also have a really good way of implementing inland airfeilds in the game.
normally aircraft on inlands can attack land units like they are land based airfract, but once you build an airfeild on the inland, they attack as if they were on a carrier
but german fighters based from the land never destoryed the UK fleet, and the UK airforce certainly never took out the whole german fleet in the baltic in 1942.
land based aircraft are extremly overated in sea battles.
That is because inter service rivalry of the Luftwaffe ( Goering) and The Kreigsmarine ( Admiral Raeder) would not allow cooperation of support by planes except on limited basis.
This is one reason why they never finished the carrier…Goering
This is why efforts to develop long range bombers and long range aircraft used to help the u-boats were not used more…Goering
Most of the German efforts were commerce raiding and subs and not direct naval confrontation were the main efforts and air power was not demonstrated to its full extent in Atlantic
In Pacific it was all who had more carriers and torpedo bombers/ divebombers/ fighters. That decided who was gonna win or lose because direct naval battles could take place because Japan had a fighting chance for a few years.
@Imperious:
That is because inter service rivalry of the Luftwaffe ( Goering) and The Kreigsmarine ( Admiral Raeder) would not allow cooperation of support by planes except on limited basis.
This is one reason why they never finished the carrier…Goering
This is why efforts to develop long range bombers and long range aircraft used to help the u-boats were not used more…Goering
Most of the German efforts were commerce raiding and subs and not direct naval confrontation were the main efforts and air power was not demonstrated to its full extent in Atlantic
so true, the infighting practically defined the 3rd Reich, as in how they through the war made something like 4x the number of aircraft types that the Allies did, when they should have settled on and focused on the superior ones.
@Imperious:
That is because inter service rivalry of the Luftwaffe ( Goering) and The Kreigsmarine ( Admiral Raeder) would not allow cooperation of support by planes except on limited basis.
I beleive this could be a factor, but you are still overestimating land based aircraft. in A&A Goering does not even need the subs, you can simply destory the whole Britsh fleet with fighters. And what about the British being able to destroy the German fleet in the baltic?
Carriers are really good in naval battles, becasue you can have a mobile airbase with in just a few miles of there target. Sea zones in axis and allies span hundreds of miles so land based airfract are at a sevior disadvatage to naval aircraft when battleling each other and naval vessles.
I beleive this could be a factor, but you are still overestimating land based aircraft.
In this case yes, but only because of Goering “whatever flies belongs to me” and due to his pigheaded behavior, the capabilities of the Luftwaffe were stymied into planes that were not utilized into torpedo bombing planes. To see what air power does you have to look exclusively at the pacific campaign. Where do you see that air power was weaker compared to naval power in naval combat?
@Imperious:
In this case yes, but only because of Goering “whatever flies belongs to me” and due to his pigheaded behavior, the capabilities of the Luftwaffe were stymied into planes that were not utilized into torpedo bombing planes. To see what air power does you have to look exclusively at the pacific campaign. Where do you see that air power was weaker compared to naval power in naval combat?
I am not saying airpower was weaker compared to naval power, I agree with you, carriers raped battleships, torpedo bombers were to surface ships as knifes are through warm butter. But in the pacfic all these planes came from carriers or from inland airbases. These location were extremly close to the front line and so planes could engage targets multiple times through out a given day.
I am talking about aircraft based from land, in axis and allies, aircraft traveling thousands of miles to there target are just as effective as aircraft fighting from and a carrier or inland airbase that are already at the battle. If a plane flew from Norway or France to fright a naval battle in the middle of the North atlantic, it would have enough fuel to do maybe two strafing runs, while aircraft on a carrier however, could fight until the world ended.
my suggest is simply land based fighters and bombers attack navies at 1 for fighters and 2 for bombers.
Yea on that point its probably correct due to the specialized training on bombing sea targets and torpedo runs.
2 and 1 is a bit extreme. id say -1 for both, so fighters are 2, bombers are 3
2 and 3 is still two powerful and allows crazy things like the German baltic fleet being obliterated by Britsh air units.
Fighters on land should represent air-superiority aircraft, while bombers should represent stratigic aircraft and ground attack(dive bombers whould also tend to be more useful agaisnt ships so thats why they get 2). Therefore only the aircraft on carriers and inlands are antiship and torpedo aircraft
Well thats true, but thats fixed by the game using ports and preventing allies in the Baltic like it exists with Turkey or controlling both sides before entering rules.
Land based air should only be able to cross ONE SEA ZONE for combat movement is another way around this.
Making changes from OOB can be addressed many ways to prevent bogus looking moves.
I think its simpler and more logical to reduce there combat rating when attacking surface targets. The same should be true for attacking gorund units as long as the aircraft can pick their target
The same should be true for attacking gorund units as long as the aircraft can pick their target
But they don’t do this. If you have to pick one rule to solve all problems the easy way is leave everything OOB and just say: Air units attacking cannot cross more than one sea zone. That solves all the problems you address with minimal impact on all other aspects of the game.
Now German fleet cannot be sunk, unless UK takes Norway first which makes sence
Also bombers cant perform all sorts of weird movements attacking the Italians and must base in africa, because they are now crossing 2 sea zones to hit Italian fleet.
Most people are looking at minimal changes to address glitches and ahistorical rubbish
Well its pretty glitchy and a historical for a fighter wing to mow down a whole army group or even bother firing at infantry.
but I get what your saying, i just think in an advanced rule set fighter and bomber surface attacks should be reduced to one and two.
one ‘fighter’ is like 1,500-2,500 front line planes
one infantry is an army of 35,000-50,000 men
at the Bulge on the 23rd of Dec allied sorties demolished the 6th Panzer Army spearhead and if augmented with ground units air power was devastating to ground troops and they had no defense against it except with counter air power.
yah, so planes should be able to target other planes, tanks and artillery becasue thats what they were devistating against.
If i was defending against only infantry I would rather have the machineguns and autocannons of the aircraft given to my infantry rather than have them used on the planes. Why would u not do this?
