Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

The Right Tool for the Job

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The Right Tool for the Job Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The Right Tool for the Job - 6/30/2015 5:31:50 PM   
dave sindel

 

Posts: 488
Joined: 3/13/2006
From: Millersburg, OH
Status: offline 		Good afternoon everyone,

I’ve spent a good part of the morning searching the forum for information about the “best” use of various aircraft types and models. I’ve seen numerous posts about the relative merits of various planes in head to head comparisons – “Corsair vs Thunderbolt” for example – but so far I’ve not seen any sort of “Guide” in the manner of LoBaron’s “The Air Mission Coordination Guide” or Alfred’s “Logistics 101”.

Does such a guide or summary exist? Is so, could someone direct me to it?

A corollary question would be, are successful air missions more the function of better pilots or better aircraft? In a ground attack role for example, will an A-20 group with experienced pilots outperform a B-25 group with good pilots? [/font]
Post #: 1
RE: The Right Tool for the Job - 6/30/2015 5:47:36 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		Quantity can be its own quality, but if you want hits... you need skilled pilots. You'll do better attacking an airfield with half as many planes flying with at least 50+ Exp/50+ Skill compared to pilots fresh from flight school (usually Exp 30 or so, and skill 30 or so).

In general, I'm finding:

Lower SR planes are better for CAP than higher SR planes. If you have a choice in a particular location, use the low SR planes for CAP and the higher SR planes for your sweep missions. The reason for this is damaged planes with a high SR take longer to repair (duh!), and you're not likely to sweep with the same squadron for more than 2 days in a row.

There is a balance between altitude and flak: the lower you fly, the more hits you'll get. And the more you'll get hit. This will require experimentation on your part.


The "best" use for a plane depends more on your tactical and strategic situations than it does on the individual plane.

(in reply to dave sindel)
Post #: 2
RE: The Right Tool for the Job - 6/30/2015 5:56:30 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline 		AE as a game tends to attract players who like complexity and are often highly quantitative in their analysis style and world-view. It's the biggest bear in the wargaming woods by a lot. Look in the General forum at how many Matrix customers are actually scared of it. So it's not unusual that a lot of beginners want "bibles" from old hands on "the best this and that." If you have a min-max POV there ought to be rules, right?

But as Loka says, there aren't really. The game allows for a great deal of personal style. Hundreds of times in this forum I've read somebody say "you must . . ." and thought "I never do that . . ."

Experiment. Play the AI; that's what it's for. Develop your own bible. It's half the fun.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to dave sindel)
Post #: 3
RE: The Right Tool for the Job - 6/30/2015 6:24:37 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Read some AARs, they are usually pretty full of different planes usages. But there is usually a counter the Japanese can use...

Often times the terrain, weather, detection levels, training, fatigue (plane and pilot), morale, experience, altitude, AA (type,size,number, morale, disruption,etc), enemy CAP, enemy radar, local AV support, runway size, leadership, HQa, target size, distance to target can be more important than which frame you fly.

Also important for the Allies is your replacement/production/reinforcement rates for said planes.



< Message edited by Lowpe -- 6/30/2015 7:25:22 PM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 4
RE: The Right Tool for the Job - 6/30/2015 8:29:44 PM   
dave sindel

 

Posts: 488
Joined: 3/13/2006
From: Millersburg, OH
Status: offline 		Good comments and advice. I love the complexity of the game, and all of the nuances. I have a yellow legal pad on my desk to write myself notes about "do this" and "dont do that again". I've almost finished with a Guadalcanal scenario as the Allies. My attitude is that this is a "learning" exercise so I've been experimenting with different tactics to see what works. Thanks to all who responded.

One follow-up question. What does "FM" stand for ? I noticed it as an option for an upgrade on an A-20 unit. There was an A-20 "FM" and a B-25 "FM" listed as options.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5
RE: The Right Tool for the Job - 6/30/2015 9:23:09 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

AE as a game tends to attract players who like complexity and are often highly quantitative in their analysis style and world-view. It's the biggest bear in the wargaming woods by a lot. Look in the General forum at how many Matrix customers are actually scared of it. So it's not unusual that a lot of beginners want "bibles" from old hands on "the best this and that." If you have a min-max POV there ought to be rules, right?

But as Loka says, there aren't really. The game allows for a great deal of personal style. Hundreds of times in this forum I've read somebody say "you must . . ." and thought "I never do that . . ."

Experiment. Play the AI; that's what it's for. Develop your own bible. It's half the fun.


+1 moose

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 6
RE: The Right Tool for the Job - 6/30/2015 9:58:36 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

I have a yellow legal pad on my desk to write myself notes


That's all...

I have notebooks, dozens of note papers, stacks of printed forum material, and a dedicated voice recorder. Am I too far gone?

quote:

One follow-up question. What does "FM" stand for ? I noticed it as an option for an upgrade on an A-20 unit. There was an A-20 "FM" and a B-25 "FM" listed as options.


Sorry don't know, but if its an aircraft item I'm pretty sure its automatic and will occur at a date specified in the editor.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 7
RE: The Right Tool for the Job - 6/30/2015 11:06:09 PM   
Dante Fierro


Posts: 330
Joined: 2/23/2012
From: Idaho Falls
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

That's all...

I have notebooks, dozens of note papers, stacks of printed forum material, and a dedicated voice recorder. Am I too far gone?

If you're attempting too play AE GC you're already to far gone!

I have multiple folders and files on my computer. Each one with a different subject/category. As I peruse the forums (or search for specific subjects) I copy/paste paragraphs or sentences regardin anything that is relevant or is a good tip/idea. The AARs are also a goldmine of information.

IMO you can't just read the current manual and then play AE. 1) There's too much missing instructions in the manual as it is 2) There are too many nuances to the game you won't be able to simply glean from just reading the manual

AE is like signing up for a college course. And even when you finish the course, you're just ready to get started as an intern.

Is it worth it? Just read the AARs. Yes it's worth it.

< Message edited by Dante Fierro -- 7/1/2015 2:42:40 AM >

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 8
RE: The Right Tool for the Job - 6/30/2015 11:55:36 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dave sindel

Good afternoon everyone,

I’ve spent a good part of the morning searching the forum for information about the “best” use of various aircraft types and models. I’ve seen numerous posts about the relative merits of various planes in head to head comparisons – “Corsair vs Thunderbolt” for example – but so far I’ve not seen any sort of “Guide” in the manner of LoBaron’s “The Air Mission Coordination Guide” or Alfred’s “Logistics 101”.

Does such a guide or summary exist? Is so, could someone direct me to it?

A corollary question would be, are successful air missions more the function of better pilots or better aircraft? In a ground attack role for example, will an A-20 group with experienced pilots outperform a B-25 group with good pilots? [/font]



Not as detailed as a 101 guide would be but read posts #354 and #356 from me in this noob thread.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2580654&mpage=12&key=naval%2Cattack�

Alfred

(in reply to dave sindel)
Post #: 9
RE: The Right Tool for the Job - 7/1/2015 12:49:56 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dave sindel

One follow-up question. What does "FM" stand for ? I noticed it as an option for an upgrade on an A-20 unit. There was an A-20 "FM" and a B-25 "FM" listed as options.


I looked in one of my games and don't see this. Do you have a screenshot?

There's a Wildcat variant with 'FM' in the model number, but you're talking bombers.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to dave sindel)
Post #: 10
RE: The Right Tool for the Job - 7/1/2015 3:39:22 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: dave sindel

Good afternoon everyone,

I’ve spent a good part of the morning searching the forum for information about the “best” use of various aircraft types and models. I’ve seen numerous posts about the relative merits of various planes in head to head comparisons – “Corsair vs Thunderbolt” for example – but so far I’ve not seen any sort of “Guide” in the manner of LoBaron’s “The Air Mission Coordination Guide” or Alfred’s “Logistics 101”.

Does such a guide or summary exist? Is so, could someone direct me to it?

A corollary question would be, are successful air missions more the function of better pilots or better aircraft? In a ground attack role for example, will an A-20 group with experienced pilots outperform a B-25 group with good pilots? [/font]



Not as detailed as a 101 guide would be but read posts #354 and #356 from me in this noob thread.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2580654&mpage=12&key=naval%2Cattack�

Alfred


For the most part I agree with your posts there, but I do feel that medium bombers (well, attack bombers in particular, such as the B-25D1 and B-25G) are useful in naval attack roles. I've sunk several CLs and more than several DDs with those 500lb SAP bombs. Have also put damage on CAs. Their ability to suppress flak is extremely useful. If you are "clever" in assigning their range such that they won't fly to an actual enemy base (or small area around it), then unless they are striking against CVs they fare much better. Very useful in denying control of areas of ocean. SBDs do hit harder, but they also aren't able to completely deter bombardment TFs in the same way that B-25s are able to do so - due to range. Numbers aren't an issue as much. I've had success with them near Australia, in the Solomons/New Britain, and in the Gilberts. Not as much success in Burma - too many fighters to oppose them, outside of effective escort/LRCAP range with the default SE Asia OOB in 1943 and early 1944.

TBFs, on the other hand... I loathe Allied aerial torpedoes. Good ASW platform, though.

Still, those are rather fine points and by no means do I use all of my attack bombers in this fashion. If both the naval and ground attacks by ABs didn't use the Strafe skill, I doubt I would be using them like this, as I would rather they were bombing airfields and exposed troops when those are "ready" to be bombed.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 11
RE: The Right Tool for the Job - 7/1/2015 11:59:16 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		I don't disagree re the Attack Bombers.  But they don't arrive until early to mid 1943.  Plus they must be flown by suitably trained pilots.  Training in Low Naval is not a high priority in 1942.

The same good qualities are in evidence with the Australian torpedo equipped medium bombers.  But again they are limited until later in 1942.  The thread I linked dealt with early war usage.

Alfred

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 12
RE: The Right Tool for the Job - 7/1/2015 12:15:42 PM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline 		I guess "FM" stands for "Field Modification" - regarding A-20s and B-25s it is a modification done by Pappy Gunn on those ships - by adding .50 cals to the nose for use as low altitude strafers. In that case I think Dave is playing some kind of Mod.

_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 13
RE: The Right Tool for the Job - 7/1/2015 1:17:01 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		The air model for this game(at its' HUGE scale) will not be accurate to real life.

The P 39 is a great example. IRL it was somewhat an under-powered dog in the air when the USAAC removed the planned superchargers. In game however, the P 39 is a good defense fighters because it gets an "inline bonus" for its' MG's over the engine cowling and cannon in the nose. These guns alone trump those of the A6m2..

In a much smaller scale, (planes vs planes and nothing else), a game would take a lot more into account, like wing-loading, power lost in a turn, etc..

_____________________________




(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 14
RE: The Right Tool for the Job - 7/1/2015 1:48:24 PM   
dave sindel

 

Posts: 488
Joined: 3/13/2006
From: Millersburg, OH
Status: offline 		I'm playing the "stock" Guadalcanal Scenario, not any mod. Barb's idea on FM meaning "field modification" makes a lot of sense to me. I'll try and get a screenshot posted. The game is on my home computer, and I'm at work.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 15
RE: The Right Tool for the Job - 7/1/2015 6:01:57 PM   
reg113


Posts: 368
Joined: 3/21/2002
From: MS, USA
Status: offline 		Always remember, "Your Mileage May Vary..."

_____________________________

"Life's a b***h, then you die."

(in reply to dave sindel)
Post #: 16
RE: The Right Tool for the Job - 7/2/2015 11:27:11 PM   
dave sindel

 

Posts: 488
Joined: 3/13/2006
From: Millersburg, OH
Status: offline 		I finally had the opportunity to get some screenshots of the "FM" units I referred to. The 3rd BG/8th BG stationed at Noumea and currently flying A-20A Havocs. The first shot is of the upgrades available




Attachment (1)

(in reply to reg113)
Post #: 17
RE: The Right Tool for the Job - 7/2/2015 11:29:24 PM   
dave sindel

 

Posts: 488
Joined: 3/13/2006
From: Millersburg, OH
Status: offline 		The A-20 "FM" data screen




Attachment (1)

(in reply to dave sindel)
Post #: 18
RE: The Right Tool for the Job - 7/2/2015 11:34:21 PM   
dave sindel

 

Posts: 488
Joined: 3/13/2006
From: Millersburg, OH
Status: offline 		The B-25 "FM"




Attachment (1)

(in reply to dave sindel)
Post #: 19
RE: The Right Tool for the Job - 7/2/2015 11:53:09 PM   
dave sindel

 

Posts: 488
Joined: 3/13/2006
From: Millersburg, OH
Status: offline 		I checked the aircraft data screen for the A-20 FM and the B-25 FM, and they list more, and heavier machine guns on the FM models. To me, that reinforces Barb's idea of "field modifications".

(in reply to dave sindel)
Post #: 20
RE: The Right Tool for the Job - 7/3/2015 6:21:09 AM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline 		Yup, I would go for Field Modification. 3rd Bomb Group was the first to use planes in strafing configuration as modified by Maj. Paul "Pappy" Gunn. They were quite low on aircraft after the loss of A-24s at Java and Port Moresby. Actually Pappy had to "borrow" B-25s from the Dutch - they had 16 brand new planes sitting idle while their crews were being trained. So Pappy and few pilots went for them and "requisitioned" them. There is a tale, he had to actually go back once more to pick up the bomb sights :D
The HQ wasn't quite happy about that, but stepped back as Pappy got those B-25s into combat in record time.

He later went on to modify them - first with just putting more guns into the plexi-glass nose. Later the complete new nose was designed. The bottom gun turret was also removed - nobody would follow a plane that low!
He went so far as to put a total of 14 or 16 guns on a plane. But the vibrations were so severe they had to pull some out :)

Then Gen. Kenney added his 100lbs Parachute retarded fragmentation bombs... Later the standard 500lbs GPs were wrapped in metalic cable - the explosion fragmented the cable creating the "Daisy cutter" :)

< Message edited by Barb -- 7/3/2015 7:24:04 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to dave sindel)
Post #: 21
RE: The Right Tool for the Job - 7/3/2015 9:22:47 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		As is mentioned above there are often planes sitting in the pool which are unusable because of they belong to a different nation than "the one currently under consideration". If any one trait might be attributable to the Allies and not to the Japanese it would seem their willingness to do what was expedient in a given situation. Pappy Gunn's requisition of otherwise idle B-25s is a case in point. By the same token I imagine the Dutch got their planes eventually when they were ready for combat. I might add that the USAAF wasn't the only ones that came up with field modifications. In the field the USN got rid of the bombardiers window on their PV-1 Venturas and substituted a 3 x .50 cal gun pack thereby increasing their forward firepower to (with the top turret facing forward) to 7 center mounted .50 cals. This field modification was incorporated into all later model PV-1s and all PV-2s from the get-go. Historically valid field modifications to aircraft should be something that the game accommodates. A nominal political point cost might be imposed although from what my father told me about his "modified PV-1" neither he nor his mechanics much cared about what Admiral King thought of their handiwork.

It would also seem that a relatively small political point cost could be imposed to allow a squadron re-equip with some alternate and available plane when its own pool is empty (at least in a location that has lots of supply).

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 22
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The Right Tool for the Job Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.234