Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian800000

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

BTW, the issue with planes not attacking troops in a hex you own has been fixed.  It was a bug.  It should be in the next beta release.  I don't think it's in the one that is currently up.

Bill

Is there also possibly a bug with ACMs? I thought that they keep your mines from going under 150 if disbanded in a port, but mine are still eroding.

The section says: "6.6.1.2.2 MINEFIELD TENDERS.
A special class of ships, Minefield Tenders (ACM type) reduces the decay rate of minefields at
bases. Each ACM can protect (i.e. service and repair) 150 mines from decay."

Reduces, not prevents. There are still randoms involved I believe. ACMs give a lower chance of decay/better chance of a good random.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

1)  Losses due to damaged planes crashing are counted as ops losses.  Are your Catalinas being lost at the same rate in safe places like the west coast as they are in combat zones?  You should see the losses in combat zones be higher as they get shot up by CAP and flak and are lost on the way home or crash on landing.

2) You should put them in Rest mode to recover.  They should repair a bit quicker that way too, though there are other factors like still being in combat, malaria zones, etc.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian800000

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

1)  Losses due to damaged planes crashing are counted as ops losses.  Are your Catalinas being lost at the same rate in safe places like the west coast as they are in combat zones?  You should see the losses in combat zones be higher as they get shot up by CAP and flak and are lost on the way home or crash on landing.

2) You should put them in Rest mode to recover.  They should repair a bit quicker that way too, though there are other factors like still being in combat, malaria zones, etc.

Bill

Thanks for the reply.

In regards to #1, the west coast units are crashing quite a bit as well. A few squadrons are closing in on 50% op losses in less than 3 months.

In regards to #2, I'm referring to units for which rest mode isn't an option. For example, those at Singapore while it is under siege. What is best to do with those units? (I'm not discussing those that are completely ineffective that should be evacuated, but those that are perhaps 60/90, that could be much better with repairs but are still useful in their current state).

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian800000

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian800000

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

1)  Losses due to damaged planes crashing are counted as ops losses.  Are your Catalinas being lost at the same rate in safe places like the west coast as they are in combat zones?  You should see the losses in combat zones be higher as they get shot up by CAP and flak and are lost on the way home or crash on landing.

2) You should put them in Rest mode to recover.  They should repair a bit quicker that way too, though there are other factors like still being in combat, malaria zones, etc.

Bill

Thanks for the reply.

In regards to #1, the west coast units are crashing quite a bit as well. A few squadrons are closing in on 50% op losses in less than 3 months.

In regards to #2, I'm referring to units for which rest mode isn't an option. For example, those at Singapore while it is under siege. What is best to do with those units? (I'm not discussing those that are completely ineffective that should be evacuated, but those that are perhaps 60/90, that could be much better with repairs but are still useful in their current state).

I think I discovered the answer to #1. I was setting the range by first going to the max, and then reducing a couple of hexes. For example, if the maximum range was 20, I was searching at 18. Unfortunately for my pilots, normal range tended to be 16. I've set all my patrols back to the normal range, with a few exceptions. Hopefully being a patrol pilot won't be the most dangerous job in the war any longer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Assign 20% of the squadron to rest and their fatigue level and operational losses should reduce.  I do that and have now built up quite a surplus of patrol planes (early '44).

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian800000

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Assign 20% of the squadron to rest and their fatigue level and operational losses should reduce.  I do that and have now built up quite a surplus of patrol planes (early '44).

When I put the sqadrons on 50% search, what are they doing with the other 50% of their time? I assumed it was basically rest.

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

Unless you specify a percentage to rest, the remaining pilots/planes are on standby to launch what ever primary mission type you have selected for the squadron. Even if that mission is Naval Search and you set 50% to Search, the other 50% are not stood down, and sleeping, etc, but are "ready" to launch. There is much more benefit for reducing fatigue and morale problems if you specifically order a percentage to rest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian800000
In regards to #1, the west coast units are crashing quite a bit as well. A few squadrons are closing in on 50% op losses in less than 3 months.

quote:

In regards to #2, I'm referring to units for which rest mode isn't an option. For example, those at Singapore while it is under siege. What is best to do with those units? (I'm not discussing those that are completely ineffective that should be evacuated, but those that are perhaps 60/90, that could be much better with repairs but are still useful in their current state).

quote:

That is still too far. Anything beyond 12 hexes is going to be iffy regarding actually spotting anything, and even 12 hexes is more than the range listed on page 217 of the manual.

The longer the search range the higher the fatigue and ultimately the greater the potentail for operational losses. At a range of 16 the marginal return IMO is not worth it.

Operational losses are also greatly affected by pilot (in)experience.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian800000

I had put a regiment, defense battalion, and CD unit at Canton so that it was at a little over 5,000 men. Enough supplies were there so that it wasn't practical to wipe them out. The Japanese attacked it with a large carrier fleet and landed quite a few troops, but the invasion was quickly defeated.

So the question comes up: if an enemy puts close to 6k of combat troops on an atoll, is it effectively impossible to take? If not, how do you do it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian800000

Believe it or not, another question.

Before attacking a base, how do you get a sense of what is there? I'm about to land a couple of Aussie Divisions on Luganville, and have been sending a B17 group as recon to give me a heads up on what is there. I still don't have a good handle on it. But when I eventually want to attack the Marianas or the Marshall Islands, you can't send recon planes. Is there a way to get a sense of what is there besides the random SigInt report, or do you just make a guess and find out when your guys land on shore?

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian800000

Another question: I've trained a number of medium bombers for naval attack, and they are bombing at 7k. They are up to 60+ in naval bombing skill, and to date they have been highly effective in making huge splashes around enemy ships. Less effective at hitting them.

Have I done something wrong, had bad luck, or are level bombers from 7k just worthless on naval attack?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian800000

Another question: I've trained a number of medium bombers for naval attack, and they are bombing at 7k. They are up to 60+ in naval bombing skill, and to date they have been highly effective in making huge splashes around enemy ships. Less effective at hitting them.

Have I done something wrong, had bad luck, or are level bombers from 7k just worthless on naval attack?

Most people around here do use their medium bombers on naval attack. I personally think it is a misallocation of resources. If well trained in naval attack skill and operating from a low enough altitude they will get some hits but not enough to make it really worthwhile. Concentrate medium bombers on land targets, sea targets should be primarily reserved to dive and torpedo bombers (or other plane types capable of laucning a torpedo).

To get a good feel for the effectiveness of any particular tactic or strategy, you would be well rewarded in reading various AARs rather than just asking these sorts of questions out of context in this thread. AARs provide the necessary context to properly appraise your own performance and to understand why some things work better under some circumstances and not others.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian800000

Another question: I've trained a number of medium bombers for naval attack, and they are bombing at 7k. They are up to 60+ in naval bombing skill, and to date they have been highly effective in making huge splashes around enemy ships. Less effective at hitting them.

Have I done something wrong, had bad luck, or are level bombers from 7k just worthless on naval attack?

Most people around here do use their medium bombers on naval attack. I personally think it is a misallocation of resources. If well trained in naval attack skill and operating from a low enough altitude they will get some hits but not enough to make it really worthwhile. Concentrate medium bombers on land targets, sea targets should be primarily reserved to dive and torpedo bombers (or other plane types capable of laucning a torpedo).

To get a good feel for the effectiveness of any particular tactic or strategy, you would be well rewarded in reading various AARs rather than just asking these sorts of questions out of context in this thread. AARs provide the necessary context to properly appraise your own performance and to understand why some things work better under some circumstances and not others.

Alfred

MBs are useful in both roles, although I disagree that DB/TB can take over the same roles that a naval attack trained medium bomber
squad.

Range makes a real difference. If your mission is naval denial, deterrence or ASW, a good anti shipping medium bomber squad simply can
cover more territory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian800000

Another question: I've trained a number of medium bombers for naval attack, and they are bombing at 7k. They are up to 60+ in naval bombing skill, and to date they have been highly effective in making huge splashes around enemy ships. Less effective at hitting them.

Have I done something wrong, had bad luck, or are level bombers from 7k just worthless on naval attack?

Most people around here do use their medium bombers on naval attack. I personally think it is a misallocation of resources. If well trained in naval attack skill and operating from a low enough altitude they will get some hits but not enough to make it really worthwhile. Concentrate medium bombers on land targets, sea targets should be primarily reserved to dive and torpedo bombers (or other plane types capable of laucning a torpedo).

To get a good feel for the effectiveness of any particular tactic or strategy, you would be well rewarded in reading various AARs rather than just asking these sorts of questions out of context in this thread. AARs provide the necessary context to properly appraise your own performance and to understand why some things work better under some circumstances and not others.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian800000
Thanks Alfred, but in a sense I'm asking this more as a general inquiry rather than for specific help in my game (which at this point is more of a tutorial for me to learn how to play the game). I've spent about 3.5 months training some medium bombers up to a decent naval bomb skill. I didn't use low naval bombing because some on the forum seemed to think the results were too effective. But now at 7k I'm not getting any results against APs and AKs. Those 3.5 months seem to have been wasted.

Now against the AI I'm not too concerned about running into CAP in an unexpected place, but I know if I was a Japanese player watching wave after wave of unescorted bombers I might be inclined to sneak a nearby carrier over to provide some CAP and cut those planes to pieces. If this tactic is ineffective against the AI, it would seem to be even moreso against a human--where it would also be reckless.