Carrier Strike Question

Fury Games has now signed with Matrix Games, and we are working together on the next Strategic Command. Will use the Slitherine PBEM++ server for asynchronous multi-player.

Moderators: MOD_Strategic_Command_3, Fury Software

Post Reply
User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2213
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

Carrier Strike Question

Post by Taxman66 »

I just attacked an Italian Battleship off the Norwegian coast with 3 UK Carriers (each full strength, at 10 supply, with Naval Weapons 1 and set to Naval Attack).
I also attacked it with a 13 strength UK Sub.
UK national morale is at 88%.

I did a grand total of 6 or 7 damage to the Italian Battleship (which did have level 1 AA and no ASW) over 6 air strikes and 1 sub attack.
In exchange I lost 6 points of CV air wings and 1 off the elite sub.

W.T.F.?


----------

This is very likely my last game. I am trying real hard not to rage quit as it is.

In a half dozen games as the Allies I've now faced 2 Barbarossa's with Germany having level 3 Tanks to start. This one in @!#$% May.
Did I mention that the Siberians showed up on the map just before I got to level 2 Infantry weapons? Another turn and about 130 MPP just for that upgrade.

I absolutely despise the naval system of: Hide and Seek -> Ambush -> Hit & Run and the amount of devastation that subs can do to surface ships, while it takes a major effort (even at level 2 ASW)
to even sink one back. On top of that the weather randomness of if you can even counter attack with Carriers or not. And now 3 Carriers can't even sink one Battleship???
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
User avatar
Markiss
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:15 pm
Location: US Midwest

RE: Carrier Strike Question

Post by Markiss »

I feel your pain. Carriers are next to useless. I refer to this as the "curse of the tailhook". Tactical bombers are the most potent units in the game. That is, until you put a tailhook on them. Then, the very same aircraft becomes completely useless!!! Isn't that amazing?
The only solution is to assume from start that your carriers are not worth anything, then they won't disappoint you.
The only value they have is to absorb an intercept or two, but since they have to be in port to get replacements, it's a one shot deal. I have never, ever bought one, because they are not worth the mpp's they cost. Not even close. Frankly, I would not buy one if it cost 100 mpp's.
Don't quit, buddy. You are an excellent player, do not let one frustrating game make you quit.
If I did, I would have quit after playing you.
Lock up your wife and children now,
It's time to wield the blade..
User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2213
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

RE: Carrier Strike Question

Post by Taxman66 »

Its not just that. I loathe the whole naval system; and have issues with the fact that if the breakthroughs... err break certain ways the game is effectively over.

For the record, I've never bought a CV, but the CVLs are good at killing subs (when the weather is favorable) and are cheaper than Destroyers.

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
User avatar
Markiss
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:15 pm
Location: US Midwest

RE: Carrier Strike Question

Post by Markiss »

Good point about the CVL's. I would buy one if they got 2 attacks, but since subs dive such a high percentage of the time, they almost never do any damage.
Don't quit. If it makes you feel better, you can kick my ass again if you like, I'm not proud.
Lock up your wife and children now,
It's time to wield the blade..
User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2213
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

RE: Carrier Strike Question

Post by Taxman66 »

You do have to get ahead in ASW vs. Advanced Sub tech game.
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
Sugar
Posts: 940
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:42 am

RE: Carrier Strike Question

Post by Sugar »

CVs are not that useless, but their tech tree doesn't support ASW or tac. bombing. They are nevertheless able to do damage even to ground targets or aircraft if used in tac. role under favourable circumstances. They are worse than fighters on the same tech lvl 1 point attack/defense, but good against surface ships; and very valuable spotting units. Compared to the costs of reinforcing battleships their cags are cheap.

At least the Brits get 5 for free, so if you don`t want them, I'll take them gladly.

User avatar
nnason
Posts: 523
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 2:47 pm
Location: Washington DC Metro Area

RE: Carrier Strike Question

Post by nnason »

Taxman66,
Speaking as a player that has not won a single tournament game, (yet) I hope you will continue.
I have seen the same results as you against me and for me. Generally the bad results are a result of the differences in supply, readiness, unit morale, and country morale. Seems to me (I could be wrong) that unit tech is less important. If German country morale is 108ish and brits is 87ish the difference is unsurmountable in the sea and on the land. So I am trying to learn how to make sure that whether Axis or Allies the difference is to my advantage.

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

I just attacked an Italian Battleship off the Norwegian coast with 3 UK Carriers (each full strength, at 10 supply, with Naval Weapons 1 and set to Naval Attack).
I also attacked it with a 13 strength UK Sub.
UK national morale is at 88%.

I did a grand total of 6 or 7 damage to the Italian Battleship (which did have level 1 AA and no ASW) over 6 air strikes and 1 sub attack.
In exchange I lost 6 points of CV air wings and 1 off the elite sub.

W.T.F.?


----------

This is very likely my last game. I am trying real hard not to rage quit as it is.

In a half dozen games as the Allies I've now faced 2 Barbarossa's with Germany having level 3 Tanks to start. This one in @!#$% May.
Did I mention that the Siberians showed up on the map just before I got to level 2 Infantry weapons? Another turn and about 130 MPP just for that upgrade.

I absolutely despise the naval system of: Hide and Seek -> Ambush -> Hit & Run and the amount of devastation that subs can do to surface ships, while it takes a major effort (even at level 2 ASW)
to even sink one back. On top of that the weather randomness of if you can even counter attack with Carriers or not. And now 3 Carriers can't even sink one Battleship???
This is very likely my last game. I am trying real hard not to rage quit as it is. In a half dozen games as the Allies I've now faced 2 Barbarossa's with Germany having level 3 Tanks to start. This one in @!#$% May. Did I mention that the Siberians showed up on the map just before I got to level 2 Infantry weapons? Another turn and about 130 MPP just for that upgrade. I absolutely despise the naval system of: Hide and Seek -> Ambush -> Hit & Run and the amount of devastation that subs can do to surface ships, while it takes a major effort (even at level 2 ASW) to even sink one back. On top of that the weather randomness of if you can even counter attack with Carriers or not. And now 3 Carriers can't even sink one Battleship???
Live Long and Prosper,
Noah Nason
LTC Field Artillery
US Army Retired
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 5785
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

RE: Carrier Strike Question

Post by BillRunacre »

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

I just attacked an Italian Battleship off the Norwegian coast with 3 UK Carriers (each full strength, at 10 supply, with Naval Weapons 1 and set to Naval Attack).
I also attacked it with a 13 strength UK Sub.
UK national morale is at 88%.

I did a grand total of 6 or 7 damage to the Italian Battleship (which did have level 1 AA and no ASW) over 6 air strikes and 1 sub attack.
In exchange I lost 6 points of CV air wings and 1 off the elite sub.

W.T.F.?


----------

This is very likely my last game. I am trying real hard not to rage quit as it is.

In a half dozen games as the Allies I've now faced 2 Barbarossa's with Germany having level 3 Tanks to start. This one in @!#$% May.
Did I mention that the Siberians showed up on the map just before I got to level 2 Infantry weapons? Another turn and about 130 MPP just for that upgrade.

I absolutely despise the naval system of: Hide and Seek -> Ambush -> Hit & Run and the amount of devastation that subs can do to surface ships, while it takes a major effort (even at level 2 ASW)
to even sink one back. On top of that the weather randomness of if you can even counter attack with Carriers or not. And now 3 Carriers can't even sink one Battleship???

Thanks for posting this.

For the Carrier attacks, did the Italian BB have good experience and/or AA upgrades?

I only ask as the result does seem rather out of the ordinary, and I don't want to rush in and change anything without further research and consideration.

Your post has given me a separate idea regarding the ambush effect in naval combat. I'll have to test it out and see if we can improve things here.

We will be working on a patch to this game in due course to further improve it once World at War has been released.
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2213
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

RE: Carrier Strike Question

Post by Taxman66 »

Speaking as a player that has not won a single tournament game, (yet) I hope you will continue. I have seen the same results as you against me and for me. Generally the bad results are a result of the differences in supply, readiness, unit morale, and country morale. Seems to me (I could be wrong) that unit tech is less important. If German country morale is 108ish and brits is 87ish the difference is unsurmountable in the sea and on the land. So I am trying to learn how to make sure that whether Axis or Allies the difference is to my advantage.

This was against an Italian BB, albeit with level 1 AA (iirc).
Italian Morale was at 100 or 99, UK morale was at 88.
All CVs were at full strength and 10 Supply.

Regardless of this particular result I still hate the naval system as a whole.
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
stockwellpete
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:18 pm

RE: Carrier Strike Question

Post by stockwellpete »

I don't mind the naval system really. It has a lot of interesting elements to consider. For instance, the ratio between capital ships and support ships in your fleets and on particular missions; the requirement to have an aircraft carrier for extra air cover or not; the use of some ships as bait, or decoys; and submarine raiding on the convoy routes and the protection of your own convoy routes. I am not sure what the main objections to the current system are?

The more I play, the more I think that aircraft carriers are quite useful. Especially for spotting enemy ships and protecting your only fleet from enemy aircraft. Aircraft on carriers are quite capable of sinking undamaged battleships in a couple of turns so I think they could well be worth their MPP's.
User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2213
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

RE: Carrier Strike Question

Post by Taxman66 »

Bill,
Missed your post earlier.
The IT BB had level 1 AA and no experience pips. I presume it had 10 supply and national morale and other conditions already stated.

As for my Ambush comment, I'm not referring to the game mechanics ambush of suddenly finding an enemy ship.
I'm refering to the trap setting tactical use. Far worse is the hit and run where multiple units gang up on one victim and then flee to safety with no retaliation due to distance/hiding and/or storms grounding carriers.

Another example:
DD finds sub, forces it to dive or does 1-2 damage and takes 0-1 back.

Then 2 or 3 subs gang up on the destroyer and sink it in 1 turn. The subs take a lot of damage, mostly on the 1st sub, but they all survive.

Do this enough (and it doesn't matter if the DDs have their own pact) and then the subs are free to rip the heavier ships to shreads.
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 5785
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

RE: Carrier Strike Question

Post by BillRunacre »

Thanks for explaining this. The question then might be what could be done about this.

Would it help if ships had not only a higher chance of retreating when they are attacked at low strength (it's currently 50%) but could also be likely to retreat further (currently 2 hexes)?

Of course, what we don't want to do is to make damaged ships too likely to survive attacks, so getting the balance right is key, but maybe there's something in this?



Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2213
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

RE: Carrier Strike Question

Post by Taxman66 »

I'm not aware that there is anything that can be done about this, short of reworking the naval system completely (ala a new game mechanic/engine).

There is currently no way for ships to support each other.
So even if you have a superior fleet in an engagement, the player that gets the first blow winds up getting to match up his ships against the opponent in a far superior method.
Using big ships against smaller ones, then using subs against the enemy big ships.
The damage swing is often enough that the retaliation on the following/victim's turn (again presuming possible if weather and the attacker is close enough by which are often not the case) is inferior.
Then it snowballs with original attacker in an even better position on his next turn.

There is a reason (with Bismark the exception that proved why) the KM stayed away from the RN, and for the most part subs did not engage in fleet actions.
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 5785
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

RE: Carrier Strike Question

Post by BillRunacre »

Thanks, setting out the issue does help us at least ponder it further. [:)]
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII War in Europe”