.png){kind=avatar}
Doesn't "strategic" represent bombing of entire nations to seriously affect their entire economy, and thus their ability to wage war? IMHO naval power projection is a quite different thing, representing the ability to use any kind of military forces in states otherwise out of reach. This has been done with naval forces since anicent Greece and IMHO the concept hasn't changed, only been updated with recent tech (i.e. aircraft was simply added in wwII). Even the US has relied solely upon strategic missiles (land & sub) and land-based & air refuelled bombers for this task postwar.
Attacking the very limited industrial base & infrastructure in extremely poor and small third world nations unable to strike back cant be considered strategic warfare (IMHO it's dobious if it's warfare at all or merly a logistic operation).
And this discussion isn't really about the 1.06b patch is it?
/Mattias
Im talking in terms of game mechanics however. Not what 'strategic' represents but is a CAG capable of carrying out an airbase strike or installation strike or not.
...so ignorant..kilolima said:
Late 1944-45 US navy CAGs & LCAGs were not shipping next to ANY torpedoes because 95+% of offensive combat missions were airstrike/ground installation oriented. ie bombs, not torps
In AOD terms that means airport_strike & installation/logistical_strike.
Is 1944 During WWII?
Does ANYBODY consider Japan to be a third world nation?
No theyll be Outside of it launching SEAD, airbase(airbase_strike) & nuclear installation(installation_strike) strikes i Imagine. Hence me asking for EXTENDED aircraft carrier capabilities to try and model distance & ground operations from CAG - Realistically.
XO
