Back to Blog
Cv carrier bomber hearts of iron 56/13/2023 While I agree with the general concept that carrier fighters should defend against land-based bombers, I think you simplified it a bit too much here. ![]() With the current state of naval balance, it would also provide a motivation to build carriers that may otherwise be lacking. More than anything, I think that providing carrier-based air cover is a relatively intuitive solution, for a player aware of the systems involved and the risk that naval bombers pose, and this game could use more intuitive solutions. I do get to shoot some down, so it isn't completely pointless, but it's not great as a defensive measure in the short-term. My personal experience has been that naval bombers don't get disrupted very well by land-based fighters, even where I have plenty of detection. After all, there's a significant opportunity cost related to building carriers, and carrier-capable aircraft, relative to building airbases and regular fighters. I actually wouldn't even mind if they kept the bonus disruption that they currently get against carrier-based bombers. Shouldn't CVs be extremely relevant in a ww2 game?įor my part, I think carrier-based fighters sortieing in response to ordinary naval strikes would be good for the game. Moreover - this would provide a reason to make CVs, which really aren't worth building in the current mechanics. Operation Pedestal was only possible with the addition of air cover from CVs against land based bombers. Instead, they are a hindrance to a TF merely by greatly increasing fleet frontage while providing only a very limited fleet AA offset. It's utterly ridiculous that a CV task force fighting another navy with 300 land navs supporting would take less air damage than the same tf just steaming across the ocean under attack by 300 navs.ĭon't you agree? CV TF should be able to operate more effectively in challenging air environments than a TF without CVs. Why would they not be able to do anything purely because the bombers were traveling from land? ![]() Think about it - a CAG's entire job was to do this. It is utterly ridiculous that Carrier fighters provide absolutely 0 defense against land-based naval strikes. If that is too difficult, then carriers should get an AA buff for deck space or something to compensate. But i'll settle for the CVFs doing something). 240 fighters should disrupt a significant number of those bombers.Įssentially, naval bombers attacking a task force with carriers should create a naval battle, and the air mechanics of a naval battle should take effect, with the CVFs not getting the carrier buff (which doesn't really make sense- the CV-F should be much more effective since they are covering a only their TF, not an entire airzone. This would have a frontage of approximately 3000, allowing 100-200 bombers to target the TF. This should be a TF with very good air protection. With 4 carriers at 60 planes, that's 240 planes that could defend against a wing of 100-300 bombers, depending on fleet frontage(HP/20). That said, I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that they wouldn't do very much. The bug/suggestion being that CV Fighters should provide some defense against land based bombers. That's correct, I'm referring to carrier fighters not protecting the fleet(ie sortieing) from land based naval strikes. I could be wrong, but it seems pretty sad that CVF's are so useless, making CV's even more irrelevant in a WW2 game. In my limited playtesting, CAGs fighters don't seem to do much of anything, but I'm specifically referring to playtesting naval strikes, not carrier battles. Rebalanced carrier fighter disruption and fixed bugs with its calculation. ![]() What is the truth? Do carriers fighters provide any defense against land based naval strikes?ġ.9 has this patch note(which would have been after BITMODE noted the -90% penalty, but again - this seemed like an issue with carrier naval battles, not necessarily protection against naval strikes). I've gone through several threads(thanks to for doing a lot of the research) and cannot find a definitive answer:ĭo CV fighters do anything against land based naval strikes? I've heard there is a -90% new arrival penalty which kills efficiency, and i've heard they only join naval battles, not air battles (ie naval strikes). Posted this in QQ's, but didn't get a response.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |