Naval Interdiction settings

[Doug Olenick]

Just wondering what the original logic was behind requiring some bomber groups needing to be set to NI to hit naval units?

In reality this was a moot point, all land units could handle the maritime strike role, albeit not all successfully due to the inherent difficulty of hitting a moving target.

[Sardaukar]

Well, difference is not bad when dealing with Allied tac-bombers. But IJAAF was really inept attacking ship targets..and same goes with allied heavy bombers. So it makes sense if you *really* want to use those B-17/B-24/B-29 against naval targets or use those IJAAF squadrons. I think it's more doctrinal choise, and I like the idea that squadrons who are not trained into naval attack have to be specifically tasked to that.

Cheers,

M.S.

[Doug Olenick]

True, but US Army tac bombers did very well against shipping. For instance the Battle of the Bismark Sea.

Where the system falls apart is when a tac bomber unit's base is under amphibious attack and it simply sits on the runway doing nothing. In real life they would have been thrown into the battle whether or not they had a good chance of hitting anything.

[Sardaukar]

B-25s and such were very effective against ships, true. Tac-bombers will attack ships (IIRC) on their own if they are experienced enough (80+, I think) without NI order. I think that's realistic too, since it took time for doctrine to change.

Cheers,

M.S.

[showboat1]

Have never seen a US non-NI status bomber group attack a TF. Not in 12 years of playing this game.

[showboat1]

Originally posted by Doug Olenick
Where the system falls apart is when a tac bomber unit's base is under amphibious attack and it simply sits on the runway doing nothing. In real life they would have been thrown into the battle whether or not they had a good chance of hitting anything.

Agree 1000%!!!!! It REALLY gets me mad!:mad:

[Capt. Harlock]

There is one USMC medium bomber squadron in several of the revisions of the game. I believe this unit will attack ships without being set to Naval Interdiction.

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by showboat1
Have never seen a US non-NI status bomber group attack a TF. Not in 12 years of playing this game.

I think there was mention is some version/manual/maybe posting that high-exp tac bombers might naval attack. But, as you said, I cannot really recall that myself either.

If it was so, things would be better.

Cheers

[OrvalB]

But unlike the US, UK tac bombers WILL pretty dependably attack naval targets at 80+ experience. Especially Wellingtons, at such a lovely long range too, which is why it is such a deep irritation that the hard-wired game logic is so deeply prejudiced against them. I mean they are a poor man's Betty in terms of lethality (though they are a little more robust), but they do manage to actually sink ships.

Well, against the computer, the US tac bombers cast mighty ZOCs, which tends to scare it away anyway. But it would be nice to see a 95+ Mitchell group at least toss a bomb at a ship once in a while, even if it missed.

[Bernard]

I set most of my planes in NI.
what i hate even more than them sitting on the runway is to see them bomb some empty bases, get slughtered, come back, attack som depot, while amphibious are invading theirbase or with a TF at strike range, spotted and all.
Against IA, i used to send in first turns SB to Indonesia. once in Batavia / Soerabaya, they would sink scores of MCS and CV's that the japs will throw against Indonesia...

By the way, Orval, do you know you have the name of a belgian beer ? one of the last brewed in a monastery (ocated at Orval
) ? good beer as a matter of fact.

[OrvalB]

Actually, bombing empty or near empty bases is a pretty good way to ramp up experience a whole lot faster than "training." One of the nice things about leaving isolated enemy bases behind the front is you can use them as training grounds for arriving air-groups.

The moniker pre-dates my discovery of the brew, tho I'm proud to share the name, its darn fine.