I came across this on my hard drive, and thought it relavant tot he discussion..The Folly of Naval Operations in AH
Currently in the Aces High Main Arena environment, naval forces play a relatively minor role. The most usual role of the standard AH task group, or TG (1xCV, 1xCA, 4xDE), is to place it within visual range of an enemy shore base and attempt to capture the base. A combination of air-to-ground attacks (Jabo strikes) and shore bombardment is used to destroy the town and eliminate defenses, followed by an amphibious assault or airborne troop drop to affect the capture. If the land base mounts any kind of defense, such an attack is fairly easy to thwart. The question is, what is the best and proper use of naval forces in the AH MA? This piece is intended to generate discussion towards this end.
Basically, it is easier to sink the CV than it is for the CV-based force to render an airfield inoperable and ready for capture. Eight thousand pounds of bombs will sink the CV, resulting in the entire remaining TG vanishing 10 minutes later, to reappear back at it’s home port. It can than take an hour or more to get this fleet back into position off shore of the enemy base. Contrast this with what it takes to render a base defenseless. It takes 12,000 lbs. of bombs to destroy all the hangers at a small base, 8,000 lbs. to destroy the shore batteries, over a thousand more to destroy all the AAA, and several thousand more beyond that to level the town in preparation for capture. Now figure in the fact that hangers rebuild in 15 minutes – while destroyed ships do not – and you see why the land base holds the upper hand in an even contest between naval and land-based forces. By even, I mean the same number of AH players on each side.
Historically, this is understandable. Sea-based air power will loose against land-based air when numbers, pilot quality, intel, and technology are reasonably even. Aircraft carriers are inherently more fragile than a base built on terra firma. They are much more expensively, both in terms of initial cost to build and to man/operate/maintain, than an airbase. The main, indeed the only advantage that naval forces have lies in their mobility. They can move rapidly, not just tactically but strategically, and are thus more difficult to pinpoint for attack. This mobility also allows them to attack at an unexpected point, and from an unexpected direction. This was proven quite decisively during the 2001 AH scenario, “Hostile Shores.” During frames 1 and 2, the lack of exact positions for the RN carriers prevented the Luftwaffe from getting close enough to put even one bomb on a British ship. Conversely, in frame 3 the Luftwaffe had perfect position information on the Royal Navy carriers, thanks to the nearly invulnerable Ar234 reconnaissance planes made available to them. The result? “Scratch one flattop.”
This is all fine and good in a scenario environment. However, the MA practice of “CV camping” essentially takes away the only two advantages the naval force has, mobility and stealth. This practice is understandable if one considers a couple of key, non-realistic factors in the Main Arena. First, the big guns of the TG, the main battery of the attendant cruiser, has to be within easy visual range to be affective. This is because (a) the waterline gun directing hampers effective targeting and (2) the need for a direct hit on by naval artillery to destroy a target. Second, the slow speed of the LVT amphibious assault vehicles requires the fleet to be within shouting distance of the objective. The latter was true in real life of course, but in real life the amphibious ships and naval gunfire support ships were not tied by an invisible tether to the aircraft carriers. As it stands now naval forces in AH in general, and the aircraft carrier in particular, are mostly just window dressing. They do not come close to having the impact on “the War” that the flattops had in real life.
How can we redress the shortcomings of naval forces in AH? Should we even try? It is after all primarily an air combat simulation. The answer to this last question is “yes.” If Aces High is to continue to evolve towards the goal of being the best WWII air combat simulation on the market, it must find a better way to represent the profound impact naval forces (particularly naval aviation) had on that conflict. Keeping in mind the primary emphasis of the MA, i.e. intense and constant action, there are some things that can be done to influence players to utilize naval forces in a more historical, less “gamey” fashion. I say influence players, not make them. Excessive rules tend to make people resentful. Far better to design the game mechanics in such a way as to reward proper behavior rather than dictate it.
First, we can acknowledge the fact that the amphibious assault craft and cruisers (and, hopefully, battleships:)) need to operate in littoral waters (i.e. shallow coastal areas), but that the carriers do not. Separate the current standard MA fleet into two separate types of fleets, the CV battle group (CVBG) and the Amphibious Assault Group (AAG). The AAG would have LVT’s enabled, but the CVBG would not. Likewise, the AAG would have two cruisers at its core but no carriers, while the CVBG would have two carriers at its core but no cruisers.
Second, update the damage model of ships in general to allow them to take incremental damage, instead of the “completely operation or sunk” model we have now. Damaged subsystems such as guns, vehicle spawning (damaged elevators for CV’s, troop transports – I can hope, can’t I – for AAG’s) would rebuild over time, just as damaged objects at land bases. This would encourage players to consider withdrawing damaged fleets to allow for repairs, rather than the do-or-die mentality that presides over naval operations in the MA today.
Third, make naval gunfire the awesome and terrible weapon it was. Add more realistic blast radius effects for all naval caliber weapons, as well as making the main guns of the destroyer escorts player controllable. Move gunnery control up to the crow’s nest were it belongs, with the option to slave multiple turrets to a single gun director.
Finally, give players direct control over the helm, allowing them to control speed and heading. So long as the TG commander stays “on the bridge”, allow him/her to con the ship manually. As soon as they jump to a vehicle or another base/fleet, the fleet returns to its waypoint-guided course.
