Fly boats & mines

[Erik2]

Many players are now using fly boats to lay massive amounts of mines in naval scenarios.
In my view, this is very unhistorical and takes the fun out of naval scenarios.
I don't mind the odd mined hex, but when you see 10-15 linked hexes with mines...
I don't blame players using the tools that are available, but I think this needs to be addressed by the devs.

Suggestions:
Add fuel limits to fly boats and recon planes, having them fly around for a whole scenario is fantasy.
Limit the mine-laying ability to 1 hex before refueling or add a timer similar to torpedoes. Remember, a recon unit is not a whole squadron roaming about, it would usually be 1-2 planes.
Increase the cost of mine-laying and restrict the strength to a low number.
Add the capability of support ships to remove all mines of a single hex pr turn.

Thanks

[DirkW]

My Suggestion: Scrap minelaying alltogether! Instead convert the fly boats to a anti submarine role!

[bjarmson]

I agree with both Erik and DirkW's suggestions. The unlimited mine-laying ability for flying boats has no basis in reality.

[morge4]

+1

[Philippeatbay]

Why does this remind me of dive bombers that never seem to need to re-arm ?

[Erik2]

Personally I would like all air units to rearm after one mission.
Increase the movement range of air units so that they may launch on t-1, move to the target area on t-2, find and attack the target on t-3, return on t-4.

[DirkW]

Maybe one could solve two game Problems in one stroke! By using the loose of cohesion Effekt (this time a permanent one) more and the damage effekt less in ASW by destroyers (and máybe flyingboats) and by heavy and small AA- guns. So a Sub or a bomber would likely incure a "mission kill" ,and had to return to base to recover, but is not destroyed. That would make it easier for Subs to gain experience over time too.

[bjarmson]

I have less trouble with torpedo planes and bombers having the ability to make more than one attack without having to rearm. Since many air attacks (particularly carrier attacks) tended to be done in waves rather than one massive attack. I assume, for the sake of playability, that is what is happening. If only one attack per launch, then return and rearm, to be practical the dive bomber attack results would have to be altered. Dive bombers would need to have a 5/10 % chance of causing massive damage and perhaps a 25/50 % chance if they attack when planes are on deck. This is what happened at the Battle of Midway. Torpedo plane attacks were totally ineffective (other than giving their lives to bring the Japanese CAP down to sea level, thus away from the dive bombers) and dive bombers caught the Japanese planes refueling and rearming on deck. A few well placed bombs ended up causing catastrophic explosions of fuel and munitions. The results four Japanese carriers sunk, and the Japanese effectively lose any chance they had of winning the war with a knockout blow. This type of damage would have to be modified to reflect the huge differences in US and Japanese damage control, at which the US excelled and the Japanese proved woefully inadequate.

Erik's movement suggestion has some merit, but is problematic in certain ways. I think it would make fighter interception almost impossible and antiaircraft fire virtually worthless. Plus, how would fighters move? Part of the realism of carrier operations comes from having to move planes 8/12 turns across vast ocean expanses, which sometimes results in running out of fuel.

In my suggestion thread, I noted that carriers planes should be halved in strength and the numbers doubled (fleet carriers would have 6 air groups rather than 3). This would allow for more realistic carrier operations. Fighters could be used as both CAP (Combat Air Patrol) and escorts. Bombers and torpedo planes could be launched in waves, or one group launched and another held in reserve. If this were to happened, I think two flight deck takeoffs per turn, or one takeoff and one landing, would be required, otherwise air operations would back up interminably.

[adherbal]

Personally I would like all air units to rearm after one mission.

While this would make sense in (some) naval/carrier battles, it would be extremely cumbersome in others - particular land battles. As bjarmson said, to compensate these aircraft would have to do massive damage, spending far more time flying between target and airfield/carrier than attacking. That does not benefit the gameplay.

As for minelaying, we intend to add a cooldown timer to the ability similar to torpedo attacks.

[bebro]

I remember one-mission air sorties in people's general - and while they were more "realistic" I have to say I like the classic PG/PzC approach more.

Also this "realism" would be IMO kinda inconsistent - after all you land units can fight on constantly (if efficiency allows it) - without needing maintenance, time for recovery or resupply.

[Dragoon.]

I remember one-mission air sorties in people's general - and while they were more "realistic" I have to say I like the classic PG/PzC approach more.

Also this "realism" would be IMO kinda inconsistent - after all you land units can fight on constantly (if efficiency allows it) - without needing maintenance, time for recovery or resupply.

The Fixed-wing (you still had helicopters as deployable units) one-mission airstrikes paid with air deployment points, and the cost of those mission where dynamic, based on the air superiority factor set for the scenario, fixed the problem that in a modern scenario air power could have the potential to obliterate organized forces, without the need to nerf airforce into oblivion for the sake of gameplay.