Apologies if this post belongs in the suggestions forum.
So right now I think that naval bombers (i.e., torpedo bombers) are overpowered. I'll try to outline why I think it's so, and perhaps suggest a couple of changes that might make things line up better with history and give more interesting gameplay.
The main thing I'm noticing is that the orthodoxy right now for designing carrier fleets is the following: 50% fighters and 50% NAV (naval bombers). CAS, which are used as a surrogate for the historical dive bombers, are usually felt to be useless in naval combat. However, this does not align with their records in World War 2.
Naval Bomber WW2 Record
Naval bombers were involved in a number of decisive moments in WW2. The British, Americans, and Japanese recognized the potential for these type of planes early on and worked on designing them some in the interwar period. The first major action for torpedo bombers was the Battle of Taranto, in which 21 British torpedo bombers annihilated the Italian Royal Fleet in port during a night attack. This required a modification to the British torpedoes that allowed their use in shallow water.
Roughly one year later the Japanese built on this for their attack on Pearl Harbor, creating the best aerial torpedo in the world at the time that could be launched at high speeds and had reliable operating characteristics. The Japanese also had to attack in shallow water, and they practiced accomplishing this in exercises off the coast of Japan. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had a similar effect to Taranto, with the American fleet in port being obliterated.
That was the good part - outside of these actions, torpedo bombers are largely absent in action at sea. There are a few counter cases - for example, torpedo bombers more or less disabled the Bismarck and later allowed the British fleet to sink it. The Bismarck was alone and had no air cover. Japanese torpedo bombers also destroyed the Yorktown at Midway, but this was after the Yorktown had been damaged by dive bombers. The sinking of the Lexington is one of the few examples of torpedo bombers sinking a ship that had appropriate air cover, but this required a large, coordinated attack of all 3 carrier plane types. The Hornet suffered a similar fate.
Later in the war, the Americans sank the uncovered Yamato & co. with torpedo bombers.
Dive Bomber WW2 Record
Dive bombers - in particular, the Douglas SBD Dauntless - comprised almost the entire U.S. WW2 kill record - six carriers, 14 cruisers, and six destroyers.
The first major action was the Battle of the Coral Sea, where Dauntless Bombers sunk two carriers - a light carrier and a main fleet carrier.
The bulk of this happened at the Battle of Midway, where an ineffective torpedo bomber attack distracted the Japanese and allowed the dive bombers to obliterate almost the entire Japanese carrier force. They also sunk the carrier Ryujo during the Solomon Islands Campaign.
Summary
Torpedo bombers (i.e., NAV) were devastating to ships without air cover or ships docked in port - main examples being Taranto and Pearl Harbor. Torpedo bombers were also effective at destroying disabled ships or ships without air cover. What was the reason for this? Well, torpedoes are actually quite slow - barely faster than a ship - so if they're launched too far out, most WW2 ships have the speed to avoid them. If a fleet has proper air cover, torpedo bombers will typically be shot down prior to getting close enough to drop their payload effectively. Dive bombers are much more accurate, and once they've begun their attack, are quite difficult to stop. This makes them more effective against fleets at sea.
Suggestions
Naval port strikes should be extremely effective when the port owner doesn't maintain air superiority.
For ships at sea, speed should be included in the defense calculation for a torpedo attack, as well as some resemblance of air cover/air superiority that forces torpedo bombers to launch their attacks from further away. Regional air superiority from land-based planes should not be included in the calculation, as these wouldn't arrive in time. Fleets with planes should engage at very large distances - typically too much for battleships or screens to engage.
Where torpedo bombers should really be effective at sea are when a fleet lacks localized air cover - this would allow the bombers to get in close and launch their torpedoes without giving ships room to maneuver. Keeping the air superiority calculation localized would reduce battleship spam and give a new focus to carriers, and screen ships could also give a (minor) bonus to air coverage to encourage their use, but obviously not as much as carriers. If tactics are introduced to naval battles, you could also take into account combined-arms tactics that the Japanese used to launch coordinated attacks from different altitudes and with different weaponry. Nations should be sure to exercise air superiority or interception missions to protect their fleets in port.
Some elements of this might already be in the game - maybe I haven't read enough of the Wiki, but I still think this post outlines an overall philosophy for naval warfare that would give it a bit more depth and historical accuracy.
So right now I think that naval bombers (i.e., torpedo bombers) are overpowered. I'll try to outline why I think it's so, and perhaps suggest a couple of changes that might make things line up better with history and give more interesting gameplay.
The main thing I'm noticing is that the orthodoxy right now for designing carrier fleets is the following: 50% fighters and 50% NAV (naval bombers). CAS, which are used as a surrogate for the historical dive bombers, are usually felt to be useless in naval combat. However, this does not align with their records in World War 2.
Naval Bomber WW2 Record
Naval bombers were involved in a number of decisive moments in WW2. The British, Americans, and Japanese recognized the potential for these type of planes early on and worked on designing them some in the interwar period. The first major action for torpedo bombers was the Battle of Taranto, in which 21 British torpedo bombers annihilated the Italian Royal Fleet in port during a night attack. This required a modification to the British torpedoes that allowed their use in shallow water.
Roughly one year later the Japanese built on this for their attack on Pearl Harbor, creating the best aerial torpedo in the world at the time that could be launched at high speeds and had reliable operating characteristics. The Japanese also had to attack in shallow water, and they practiced accomplishing this in exercises off the coast of Japan. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had a similar effect to Taranto, with the American fleet in port being obliterated.
That was the good part - outside of these actions, torpedo bombers are largely absent in action at sea. There are a few counter cases - for example, torpedo bombers more or less disabled the Bismarck and later allowed the British fleet to sink it. The Bismarck was alone and had no air cover. Japanese torpedo bombers also destroyed the Yorktown at Midway, but this was after the Yorktown had been damaged by dive bombers. The sinking of the Lexington is one of the few examples of torpedo bombers sinking a ship that had appropriate air cover, but this required a large, coordinated attack of all 3 carrier plane types. The Hornet suffered a similar fate.
Later in the war, the Americans sank the uncovered Yamato & co. with torpedo bombers.
Dive Bomber WW2 Record
Dive bombers - in particular, the Douglas SBD Dauntless - comprised almost the entire U.S. WW2 kill record - six carriers, 14 cruisers, and six destroyers.
The first major action was the Battle of the Coral Sea, where Dauntless Bombers sunk two carriers - a light carrier and a main fleet carrier.
The bulk of this happened at the Battle of Midway, where an ineffective torpedo bomber attack distracted the Japanese and allowed the dive bombers to obliterate almost the entire Japanese carrier force. They also sunk the carrier Ryujo during the Solomon Islands Campaign.
Summary
Torpedo bombers (i.e., NAV) were devastating to ships without air cover or ships docked in port - main examples being Taranto and Pearl Harbor. Torpedo bombers were also effective at destroying disabled ships or ships without air cover. What was the reason for this? Well, torpedoes are actually quite slow - barely faster than a ship - so if they're launched too far out, most WW2 ships have the speed to avoid them. If a fleet has proper air cover, torpedo bombers will typically be shot down prior to getting close enough to drop their payload effectively. Dive bombers are much more accurate, and once they've begun their attack, are quite difficult to stop. This makes them more effective against fleets at sea.
Suggestions
Naval port strikes should be extremely effective when the port owner doesn't maintain air superiority.
For ships at sea, speed should be included in the defense calculation for a torpedo attack, as well as some resemblance of air cover/air superiority that forces torpedo bombers to launch their attacks from further away. Regional air superiority from land-based planes should not be included in the calculation, as these wouldn't arrive in time. Fleets with planes should engage at very large distances - typically too much for battleships or screens to engage.
Where torpedo bombers should really be effective at sea are when a fleet lacks localized air cover - this would allow the bombers to get in close and launch their torpedoes without giving ships room to maneuver. Keeping the air superiority calculation localized would reduce battleship spam and give a new focus to carriers, and screen ships could also give a (minor) bonus to air coverage to encourage their use, but obviously not as much as carriers. If tactics are introduced to naval battles, you could also take into account combined-arms tactics that the Japanese used to launch coordinated attacks from different altitudes and with different weaponry. Nations should be sure to exercise air superiority or interception missions to protect their fleets in port.
Some elements of this might already be in the game - maybe I haven't read enough of the Wiki, but I still think this post outlines an overall philosophy for naval warfare that would give it a bit more depth and historical accuracy.
