Just want to confirm that carriers can be neutralized by land-based fighers

[herm]

I have mostly played as Germany but I have some interest in trying out Italy again and focus on North Africa and the Middle East. But I would like to hear other players comment on how feasible it is to control the Mediterranean with a navy without carriers and with the help of land-based air. Can I assume it is possible with the current game mechanics? How easily can Italy do it (assuming regular difficulty)?

 

[Holdy]

It is totally possible. When you as Italy gain control of Malta or destroy its airport, the british will have severe problems to get some planes into the area. When you can freely operate with CAS or NAV the british Navy will stand no chance. Your Air superiority negates the british CAGs efficency. Btw the same counts for the Bay of Biscay, where a lot of british trade ships through.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

I never tried it with Italy. But I managed to control the Atlantic with landbased Fighters and NAV as France the other day against UK and USA. So, yes, perfectly doable.

Or island hopping as Australia in the Pacific without any ships worth to be mentioned - just lots of planes...

 

[grandad1982]

Well land based fighters are have better stats than carrier based ones.

Give them some extra rang range so they can effectively cover the sea zones from your bases and don't neglect radar.

Some nav and a reasonable sized modern bb fleet on top of this should do the trick. Just aim to close the med asap.

 

[Micky Luv]

I have mostly played as Germany but I have some interest in trying out Italy again and focus on North Africa and the Middle East. But I would like to hear other players comment on how feasible it is to control the Mediterranean with a navy without carriers and with the help of land-based air. Can I assume it is possible with the current game mechanics? How easily can Italy do it (assuming regular difficulty)?

It's very doable and quite fun. I tried this in my very first game (I play Regular) and it is easier than it should be due to some AI issues. Some things I did that helped. Take out Yugoslavia before WW2. You could maybe get Romania and/or Greece before they get guaranteed. I didn't go for Rom, and Greece was guaranteed by UK in my game so my entry to WW2 was heralded by my invasion of Greece. At the same time I had an army heading for Cairo, an invasion force hitting UK in East Africa, and a preprepared invasion of Gibraltar under way. My fleet did very well with air support. I didn't build much shipping apart from some screens and some subs (subs were a total waste of time ) Air force was mostly FTR with CAS and some NAV. Didn't play it all the way through but it was going well and it was easy to manage. Good luck.

 

[Samlefomas]

Just aim to close the med asap.

Italian lake time?

 

[Alex_brunius]

You can neutralize 100% of Carriers bombing damage done inside Navalcombat by having Air superiority with Land based fighters. How many Fighters you need depend on their range and the size of the seazone they need to cover, but it can be as much as a few thousand to give enemy CV Airwings 100% penalty in larger seazones.

But you can't neutralize their fighters Air-Air damage, they will still shoot down your planes inside Naval Combat without Land based fighters being able to escort any bombers you bring.

 

[DicRoNero]

Huge [design] problem is that you effectively need 100% air superiority in order to even-out the playing field for naval combat, otherwise enemy carrier fighters will deal damage to your ships while your land-based ones will contribute nothing in this regard. This is a mind-boggling injustice, which artificially promotes already quite overrated carriers.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Huge [design] problem is that you effectively need 100% air superiority in order to even-out the playing field for naval combat, otherwise enemy carrier fighters will deal damage to your ships while your land-based ones will contribute nothing in this regard. This is a mind-boggling injustice.

Why would you use land based fighters to sink ships with though when bombers are 10 times more effective?

Land based bombers can damage ships inside naval battle as long as you have 50.1% Air superiority or more...
Ships outside of Naval battle can be damaged by land based bombers even with 0% Air Supriority, so if anything the advantage is with the Land based bombers here, not the other way around!!!

 

[DicRoNero]

Why would you use land based fighters to sink ships with though when bombers are 10 times more effective?

Land based bombers can damage ships inside naval battle as long as you have 50.1% Air superiority or more...
Ships outside of Naval battle can be damaged by land based bombers even with 0% Air Supriority, so if anything the advantage is with the Land based bombers here, not the other way around!!!

I'm not saying anything on bombers vs fighters or bombers outside of naval combat either; that's irrelevant for me here.

My complaint is that tiny fighters taking off of a pathetic carrier can somehow damage super-heavy battleships while state-of-art heavy fighters capable of doing a 2000km round-trip can not drop even a smallest bomb to hit a flimsy ugly mobile runway caught at the high sea.

 

[walt526]

There is absolutely no reason to build/deploy carriers in the Mediterranean unless you literally have no land bases. Same thing for Sea Lion: you should be able to utilize land based aircraft to maintain air superiority and launch NAV.

 

[indignanthedgehog]

I'm not saying anything on bombers vs fighters or bombers outside of naval combat either; that's irrelevant for me here.

My complaint is that tiny fighters taking off of a pathetic carrier can somehow damage super-heavy battleships while state-of-art heavy fighters capable of doing a 2000km round-trip can not drop even a smallest bomb to hit a flimsy ugly mobile runway caught at the high sea.

Perhaps because they are not made for anti-shipping duties but for taking out bombers? If you want to take out carriers, take some CAS or naval bombers. Even Medium bombers can do the job. I'm confused about what you are angry about here.

 

[indignanthedgehog]

There is absolutely no reason to build/deploy carriers in the Mediterranean unless you literally have no land bases. Same thing for Sea Lion: you should be able to utilize land based aircraft to maintain air superiority and launch NAV.

Air superiority doesn't protect your ships from surface fleets. Having bombers to take out those surface fleets does.

 

[xMer]

Air superiority protect fleets from enemy carrier based planes, however it does not affect planes-planes combat in naval battle. As result even with full air superiority if land-based nav bombers hoin combat then they got decimated by carrier based fighters. Also Navs are unprotected by land-based fighters because fighters can't join naval combat.

 

[kettyo]

Air superiority protect fleets from enemy carrier based planes, however it does not affect planes-planes combat in naval battle. As result even with full air superiority if land-based nav bombers hoin combat then they got decimated by carrier based fighters. Also Navs are unprotected by land-based fighters because fighters can't join naval combat.

I guess it's by intention. Otherwise carriers would become supervulnerable.

 

[kettyo]

The entirety of the Med is open to NAV strikes so it is not suitable for carriers. You need carriers to control the mid-ocean, not to operate them in dangerous coastal waters.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

I guess it's by intention. Otherwise carriers would become supervulnerable.

 

[Alex_brunius]

The entirety of the Med is open to NAV strikes so it is not suitable for carriers. You need carriers to control the mid-ocean, not to operate them in dangerous coastal waters.

Historically UK used most of their Carrier force in the Med to defend Malta convoys and keep the Italian fleet in check, and I would say that they were fairly successful in doing so despite Axis Air-forces best attempts to ruin their day.

 

[kettyo]

Historically UK used most of their Carrier force in the Med to defend Malta convoys and keep the Italian fleet in check, and I would say that they were fairly successful in doing so despite Axis Air-forces best attempts to ruin their day.

Yes it's true but in game they'll be decimated very fast. In-game navy is generally underpowered.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Yes it's true but in game they'll be decimated very fast. In-game navy is generally underpowered.

IMO there are a few reasons why this is the case, for example:

• Land based fighters ( From Malta historically ), can't disrupt bombers bombing fleets.
• Carrier based fighters can't disrupt bombers bombing fleets.
• Screens with AA protection can't disrupt bombers bombing fleets.
• AA protection on ships can't be upgraded after ships are deployed.
• Radars on Carriers & Doctrines to use them can't assist with interception of enemy bombers.
• Distance isn't taken into account when determining how efficient bombers are ( They are equally efficient at 99% of their range compared to at 10% as long as bombing takes place in the same seazone ).
• Radars provide to big of an advantage in helping bombers find fleets to bomb, and increasing the frequency of their bombings.