I posted that in another thread. I think is a great idea. Would force TG to remain outside shore batteries range until disabled.
On the whole issue of naval warfare, I would ask for these points:
1.- Shore batteries.
2.- Easier aiming model (I think this would not be gamey, but closer to the real thing)
3.- Landing Crafts. Put some panzers & M3's inside, and....you have deep penetration strikes on enemy country
IMHO, a way of getting an easier ranging model would be:
- Have the possibility to anchor the fleet, then...
- Show in map a spot where the MIDDLE of the base is. You would use the current notepad for bearing/range info to that spot. Then you would have to make some calculations to get to actual range/bearings on the different targets of the base.
So, if you want to make a precise bombardment, you would have to actually stop the fleet, and make it an easy target for torps & buffs (and batteries, eventually). If you want to play it safe and move the fleet while shooting, range/bearing will be moving, so bombarding would be a much more questionable issue, in terms of efficiency.
From my point of view, the consequences would be:
#1 & #2 alltoghether would improve the use of the TG's closer to their intended role. You would have to use the air power to try to disable shore batteries before you even think on shore bombardment. Only after batteries are out you could take the risk of getting close to the shoreline.
#3 would have the nice effect of encouraging the use of the fleet in long range missions. With the present situation, you NEED a close air/groud base for the gooning thing.
Losing the port would not be so harming, since the fleet itself woud have capturing ability and, thus, the asset to protect would be the fleet itself, not the port.
Oops, sorry for the long post. Seems my €0.02 pays more nowadays
Pepe
