naval targeting by air

[WanderingHead]

I wanted to start a new thread dedicated to just this topic (already discussed at some length here).

Based on all the discussions, I would suggest the following (which has two changes), which actually makes for a smoother rule (more consistent in a few ways).

[*] all air units pick unique targets until all naval units are targeted. This would entail two changes: (1) CAGs would no longer double team CVs (unless there are more air units than naval units), and (2) non-CAGs would now target naval units uniquely (CAGs already do, other than the double team).

[*] CAGs select targets before other air units (no change from current - this allows them to focus on the capital ships first). CAG targeting priorities are unchanged. While I'd prefer different priorities myself, at this point I'd rather take it off the table so we keep the manual accurate in this case and have less to agree on.

The motivations for the two changes:
i) eliminate CAG double team on CVs: consistent with other targeting rules, and makes CVs a little less vulnerable so you don't need a huge stack of CVs to operate. At the "grand strategy" abstract level of the game this also makes more sense, IMO.

ii) unique targeting: consistent with targeting for all other non-suppression fire, a more intuitive outcome (in part because it is consistent, but also I think it is simply more intuitive). I also think the current implementation is a "bug", in that I believe it was accidentally introduced as a consequence of another change.

If this is acceptable to everybody, or at least almost everybody, I might be able to wrap it up tonight. Go ahead and chime in again, even if only to say "I agree". I want to be sure that it is something most people would be happy with.

** edit ** changed phrasing slightly to be more clear what the two changes are (original was a little confusing)

[MrQuiet]

Sounds good to me.
I am in favor of removing the auto CAG double up on Carriers feature.
 
 

[christian brown]

I agree that air units should not double up on naval units unless there are more air than naval units in a battle (I support the change - individual targeting.) I also agree that CAGs should have a higher probability of choosing to strike enemy CVs (no change - target weights.) I also agree that CAGs should target naval units before other air units choose targets (no change - firing order.)

[Lebatron]

A good change. Naysayers will eventually come around once they get used to it. 

[Lucky1]

Sounds resonable to me.

[WanderingHead]

I want to reiterate a point that someone else made before ... eliminating the CAG double team against CVs will weaken the Japanese first strike against SW USA, a good thing IMO.

[Lebatron]

Building a few fighters in SW USA protects the 2 CV's stationed there, unless of coarse the US player chose to put more CV's in the cue which prevents a fighter build up there. IMO that's a risk the US player needs to calculate on his own. That is, build CV's on the west coast to save time, or play it safe and build them in the east and leave the west coast que open for fighter builds. I see nothing wrong with this Japanese exploit because this is a US counter to it.  

[SGT Rice]

I see this change providing important benefits to Germany against the WA. In many game situations the Germans have land-based fighters and bombers in position to attack WA ships with numbers of aircraft equal to the numbers of defending ship; the proposed change would benefit the Germans in at least two important situations:

1) Using fighters to 'soften up' defending HS/LS in preparation for a bomber attack. With the proposed targeting rule the Germans merely need to send in a first wave with as many fighters as there are defending ships; they are guaranteed to hit each defender, reducing all evasion ratings by one with no wasted attacks.

2) {which may or may not follow #1} When sending in a wave of bombers equal in numbers to the defending ships again there are no wasted strikes; defending transports are (almost) guaranteed kills and any 'softened up' target is guaranteed to be attacked.

I like playing the naval game with the Germans and would enjoy having this degree of control, but it strikes me as pretty unrealistic. Naval units can be very slippery targets; they are much more mobile than land units, they don't have to travel on roads, and they're always hiding out under rain squalls and the like. The notion that attack aircraft would always be neatly parceled out to each ship unit in a sea zone seems to be at odds with history.

In defense of the current targeting rule - how do you explain the Battles of Midway, Coral Sea, Philippine Sea, and all the other carrier engagements fought in the Pacific? Clearly the contesting CAGs had orders to go after carriers as their primary targets and then followed those orders pretty successfully (or died trying). The problem I have with the current rule is the first line in rule 8.7.3 "Carrier aircraft were trained to attack enemy aircraft carriers as the first priority." Wait a second; first they were trained to FOLLOW ORDERS. If the tactical situation dictated a different priority target then that's what the pilots would look for.

I would suggest that what's needed for air attacks at sea is an attack specification window like the one used when selecting targets on land, but instead of the various infrastructure attack options you have ship type attack options. Once a priority target type was selected then attacking CAGs would go after that ship class using the existing 40-4-2-1-1 weighting scheme (with some default priorities for secondary targets). If the player wanted to go after multiple target types then he simply sends in separate attacks selecting different targets.

One last detail; land-based aircraft couldn't do this nearly as well as CAGs ... their airfields can't help them chase down their targets. So the weighting factors for land-based air attacks might be 20-10-5-1-1, with some % chance (inversely related to the # of ships in the area) that they won't target anything at all ... my two cents.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice
1) Using fighters to 'soften up' defending HS/LS in preparation for a bomber attack. With the proposed targeting rule the Germans merely need to send in a first wave with as many fighters as there are defending ships; they are guaranteed to hit each defender, reducing all evasion ratings by one with no wasted attacks.

2) {which may or may not follow #1} When sending in a wave of bombers equal in numbers to the defending ships again there are no wasted strikes; defending transports are (almost) guaranteed kills and any 'softened up' target is guaranteed to be attacked.

Indeed, I've done this many times and been perplexed by why it didn't work. It took some time before I figured out (or learned from Jan ... ? I don't recall) that the game engine targeting was different here than everywhere else.

[Lebatron]

SGT Rice,

I find your example which attempts to point out weaknesses with the proposed change to be rather weak. You envision an ideal German situation which I can't see a skilled Allied player putting himself into. Your saying the British are going to just leave there fleet off of the coast of Europe in the face of German air superiority to get wacked like this? Of coase the German's would deserve all the hits they could get in this perfect case.

"I like playing the naval game with the Germans and would enjoy having this degree of control, but it strikes me as pretty unrealistic." Do you mean mind control over your opponent? Because to have that degree of control in this case is what I find to be the only unrealistic assumption being made. I would not want this example of a perfect storm in any way to out weigh the benefits this proposed change would have on the game. 

[SGT Rice]

Well Jesse, not every Allied player (myself included) has your perfect command of all the game's nuances; sometimes when the Germans really try to pour the heat on, the British navy finds itself exposed to heavy land-based air attacks. Seems to me I've even read that such things happened in real life ...

[Marshall Art]

ORIGINAL: Lebatron

I find your example which attempts to point out weaknesses with the proposed change to be rather weak. You envision an ideal German situation which I can't see a skilled Allied player putting himself into.

Quite the contrary, actually SGT Rice's example hit the nail IMO. You are assuming that not only must all air evenly distribute during battle but also that all air unit types are sort of treated the same, including Fighters. I find the idea that given a (small) fleet of 3 vessels, I need 3 fighters to soften each fleet up, then send in the bombers, and most likely sink all three fleets, to both be non-historical as well as non-realistic. Of course this strategy is commonly used even today but this change will even enforce this tactic. Sorry but never heared of this happening in real WW2, if you exclude the use of Fighters as kamizazes by the Japanese.

Can we maybe at least agree that Fighters are excluded from the non-team-up feature?

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
"I like playing the naval game with the Germans and would enjoy having this degree of control, but it strikes me as pretty unrealistic." Do you mean mind control over your opponent? Because to have that degree of control in this case is what I find to be the only unrealistic assumption being made. I would not want this example of a perfect storm in any way to out weigh the benefits this proposed change would have on the game.

Not sure if I am qualified to rate my degree of control over my opponent but in my games, in particular around Britain, in the Med, and also in the Pacific, there is hardly a way to not have any situation where a sizeable fleet is used as a blocking force - which in return will eventually be attacked by air. What I am trying to say is that while I understand the motivation behind the change and can get to live with it this change has implications that I would not exactly call desired (as for the fighters, see above).

[Lebatron]

Yes, there are times that the Germans may find themselves in a very nice position to strike the Allied fleet due to miscalculation on the Allied part. In that case, what's wrong with getting a good number of hits? That's what having air superiortiy over a sea region is supposed to give a nation. The Germans have this in the beggining, which is why the Allies should keep their fleet far enough off shore to prevent fighters from reducing ship EV. Later the Allies can provide a strong CAP or sweep German fighters from France. Either way, the perfect example you stated above can be countered. So in effect there is no problem with imprementing unique targetting. 

[Lebatron]

Unique targeting could lead to more ships having their EV reduced, but I don't think this is going to have an unrealitic feel as some fear. Lets not forget double targetting will become more rare and lead to some ships being damaged instead of sunk. Claiming that this change is going to create situations that never happened in WWII is jumping the gun. I could counter that the existing system has too many capital ships getting sunk instead of damaged is also something that never happened in WWII.

"Can we maybe at least agree that Fighters are excluded from the non-team-up feature?"

That's an idea. But for the sake of rule consistency I think that should be left out for now unless testing proves it necessary.

[Forwarn45]

My 2 cents: I think there are some good points made on both sides. But, all in all, I think that the proposed change has more pros than cons. The possibility of using a wave of fighters to "soften up" naval units is a minor con - but I don't think it's a huge one. IMO, it actually makes at least some sense that having fighter escort would be an asset in planning and executing attacks - even if there are not enough enemy air assets allocated to CAP to represent a "unit" in game terms.