RE: Blood in the skies

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Blood in the skies

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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Blood in the skies

Page: << < prev 158 159 [160] 161 162 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/27/2011 2:30:09 AM

Cribtop

Posts: 3890
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

If I was the RL FDR, I'd be horrified at the risk and casualties of your Hairy Downfall proposal.

As a reader, I'm thrilled to watch it just for the cool factor. Note that your strat bombing can still serve a useful purpose for the invasion - namely destroying the hordes of planes that he could use over the invasion beaches and the factories that build them.

This is the Roosevelt strokes out in early '44 scenario.. The election theme is "Quit **** footing around and level Japan !!!.." .

_____________________________

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 4771

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/27/2011 11:18:33 AM

jmalter

Posts: 1673
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline

hi GJ,

's good to see that you're continuing the 4E strat campaign, despite 'orrid losses to the CVE fleets.

so i'll assume that bulk resupply to Hokkaido was successful, and new resupply is en route.

don't play to the gallery (all of us commenters) for the next offensive, just to make good AAR reports. i prefer you build up overwhelming forces for the Ominato invasion - you're gonna need them.

(in reply to Cribtop)

Post #: 4772

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/27/2011 11:24:52 AM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

hi GJ,

's good to see that you're continuing the 4E strat campaign, despite 'orrid losses to the CVE fleets.

so i'll assume that bulk resupply to Hokkaido was successful, and new resupply is en route.

don't play to the gallery (all of us commenters) for the next offensive, just to make good AAR reports. i prefer you build up overwhelming forces for the Ominato invasion - you're gonna need them.

Yes, the supply is flowing very good in Hokkaido. By now i have 3,3 millions supplies in Hokkaido and 1,5millions in the Kuriles...with more 800,000 coming along the way....

I play for the gallery, for my self and for Rader, but that doesn't mean i won't looking for a winning campaign. Simply i'll accept losses that FDR woulnd't accept in a RL environement...but i think that's pretty much what every AE player does

Now i'm looking forward for the next turn...if Rader plays as i think it's gonna be a damned bloody turn

(in reply to jmalter)

Post #: 4773

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/27/2011 1:40:06 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
The BC Reknown, along with 3 CAs and 10 DD/DMS will try to bomb Ominato, challenging the 200 cm guns there and the mines left by Rader...as soon as the sun comes up 650 bombers will took off from Hakkodate and will bomb Ominato...

not sure it would be a good idea to challenge 200cm guns!

_____________________________

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 4774

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/27/2011 1:53:28 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

not sure it would be a good idea to challenge 200cm guns!

BTW, I was always unclear about this: Is it possible, by another means besides taking the port, to destroy CD guns? Seem no matter what I do they keep firing until the port is taken

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 4775

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/27/2011 2:02:01 PM

Dan Nichols

Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
The BC Reknown, along with 3 CAs and 10 DD/DMS will try to bomb Ominato, challenging the 200 cm guns there and the mines left by Rader...as soon as the sun comes up 650 bombers will took off from Hakkodate and will bomb Ominato...

not sure it would be a good idea to challenge 200cm guns!

The Rate of Fire is probably low for those 200cm guns.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 4776

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/27/2011 3:25:24 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

I know it's not a good idea...i ordered my BC and CAs to bombard only with the biggest calibers (30miles distant). Those 200 cm guns have a range of 35miles...so i risk to be badly damaged...i know...and there are mines too.... but i cannot let Ominato stand unchallenged...I have a port with a repair yard 1 hex away (Hakkodate) and i hope to get my damaged ships back still afloat....
And even if i manage to get only a couple of shots on the runaway...full of thousands of bombers....well, it would have been worth the risk!

I cannot night bomb cause it's a night with 0% moon....

...

(in reply to Dan Nichols)

Post #: 4777

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/27/2011 3:45:51 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

I had a large Japanese SC TF four hexes away from Soerbaja and set react to 3 hexes. It reacted to the PT boats two hexes away and then again into Soerbaja to go after a few transports. Only my BB and CAs survived and they were out of the war for months.

Beware of those large static CD guns.

_____________________________

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 4778

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/27/2011 3:57:09 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

I know it's not a good idea...i ordered my BC and CAs to bombard only with the biggest calibers (30miles distant). Those 200 cm guns have a range of 35miles...so i risk to be badly damaged...i know...and there are mines too.... but i cannot let Ominato stand unchallenged...I have a port with a repair yard 1 hex away (Hakkodate) and i hope to get my damaged ships back still afloat....
And even if i manage to get only a couple of shots on the runaway...full of thousands of bombers....well, it would have been worth the risk!

I cannot night bomb cause it's a night with 0% moon.......

Dude! 200cm guns (200cm = 2 meters!) shoot tiny battleships for ammunition so they have a range of a lot more than 35 miles!

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 4779

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/27/2011 4:19:37 PM

kfsgo

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

not sure it would be a good idea to challenge 200cm guns!

BTW, I was always unclear about this: Is it possible, by another means besides taking the port, to destroy CD guns? Seem no matter what I do they keep firing until the port is taken

Destroy, reliably? I don't think so, really - absent weeks and weeks of bombing they'll tend to fix disablements reasonably quickly. If you disrupt the containing LCUs (through port or, depending on what type of LCU container they're in, airfield attacks) enough they can be neutralised more or less effectively, but you have to keep up the effort - it's no good bombing a port for a week and then landing a week later hoping everything's still a wreck, because the LCUs will have recovered from the disruption by then. And, obviously, there's no direct indicator of disruption per se, so you're stuck hoping it's enough. Which...makes sense, I guess, however frustrating.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 4780

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/27/2011 6:21:08 PM

jeffk3510

Posts: 4132
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline

God Speed Admiral, this turn could be nasty.

_____________________________

Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Currently chasing three kids around the Midwest.

(in reply to kfsgo)

Post #: 4781

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/27/2011 8:19:23 PM

Rhetor

Posts: 117
Joined: 1/31/2005
From: Gdansk, Poland
Status: offline

I have finally, after more than a month, managed to read the entire 160-page thread. From the Slough of Despond to the peak of success in less than a year (real time). Well Done, GreyJoy!

(in reply to jeffk3510)

Post #: 4782

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/28/2011 3:23:22 AM

Kapitanma

Posts: 13
Joined: 1/24/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

I know it's not a good idea...i ordered my BC and CAs to bombard only with the biggest calibers (30miles distant). Those 200 cm guns have a range of 35miles...so i risk to be badly damaged...i know...and there are mines too.... but i cannot let Ominato stand unchallenged...I have a port with a repair yard 1 hex away (Hakkodate) and i hope to get my damaged ships back still afloat....
And even if i manage to get only a couple of shots on the runaway...full of thousands of bombers....well, it would have been worth the risk!

I cannot night bomb cause it's a night with 0% moon.......

Dude! 200cm guns (200cm = 2 meters!) shoot tiny battleships for ammunition so they have a range of a lot more than 35 miles!

Won't be much left of anything if a 200cm shell lands within a few miles of his ships either.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 4783

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/28/2011 3:26:13 AM

erstad

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

However, often Jap bombers will use the the special 800kg bomb during these attacks, whilst the Allies are stuck with the crappy 500lb bomb (maybe they use 1000lb bomb as well but I have never seen this happen yet).

I see lots of 1000 lb bombs in port attacks, but mostly starting in late 43 and continuing in 44, so there might be a calendar dependence.

However, the ones I see in port attacks are mostly (maybe exclusively) the 1000 lb GP bombs, not the 1000 lb SAP bombs that will be used in naval attacks.

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 4784

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/28/2011 2:23:42 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

Seems like me and Rader we both had the same idea at the same time....

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jul 20, 44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 62 encounters mine field at Ominato (119,54) - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

180 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
     DMS Ellyson, Shell hits 18, heavy fires, heavy damage
     DMS Hobson, Shell hits 5, on fire
     DMS Howard, Shell hits 19, heavy fires, heavy damage
     DMS Southard, Shell hits 3, on fire
     CA Louisville, Mine hits 1

Mutsu Bay Fortress firing at DMS Ellyson
Mutsu Bay Fortress firing at DMS Hobson
Mutsu Bay Fortress firing at DMS Howard
Mutsu Bay Fortress firing at DMS Southard
34 mines cleared

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Utsonomiya at 119,67

Japanese Ships
     E Kunashiri
     E No.27
     E Manju

Allied Ships
     SS Scorpion, hits 26, heavy damage

SS Scorpion is located by E Kunashiri
E No.27 attacking submerged sub ....
E Manju fails to find sub, continues to search...
E No.27 fails to find sub and abandons search
E Manju fails to find sub, continues to search...
E Manju attacking submerged sub ....
E Manju fails to find sub, continues to search...
E Manju fails to find sub, continues to search...
E Manju fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Ominato at 119,54 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

Japanese aircraft
     no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
     Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 11 damaged
     Ki-49-IIa Helen: 1 destroyed on ground
     Ki-44-IIc Tojo: 3 damaged
     Ki-44-IIc Tojo: 4 destroyed on ground
     Ki-84a Frank: 2 destroyed on ground

87 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
     BC Renown
     CA Exeter
     CA Louisville
     CA Portland

Japanese ground losses:
     45 casualties reported
        Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
        Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 4 disabled
        Engineers: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
     Vehicles lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)

Runway hits 6

BC Renown firing at Ominato
Walrus II acting as spotter for CA Exeter
Mutsu Bay Fortress firing at CA Exeter
CA Exeter firing at Mutsu Bay Fortress
CA Louisville firing at Mutsu Bay Fortress
Mutsu Bay Fortress firing at CA Louisville
CA Portland firing at Mutsu Bay Fortress
Mutsu Bay Fortress firing at CA Portland

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Hakodate , at 119,53

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 118 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 37 minutes

Japanese aircraft
     Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 21
     Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 213
     Ki-49-IIa Helen x 90
     Ki-49-IIb Helen x 47
     Ki-84a Frank x 102

Allied aircraft
     Spitfire VIII x 16
     Thunderbolt I x 9
     P-38J Lightning x 41
     P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 112
     P-51B Mustang x 48
     F4U-1A Corsair x 71
     F6F-3 Hellcat x 97

Japanese aircraft losses
     Ki-44-IIc Tojo: 2 destroyed
     Ki-49-IIa Helen: 17 destroyed, 7 damaged
     Ki-49-IIa Helen: 1 destroyed by flak
     Ki-49-IIb Helen: 9 destroyed, 4 damaged
     Ki-84a Frank: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
     Spitfire VIII: 1 destroyed on ground
     P-38J Lightning: 38 damaged
     P-38J Lightning: 4 destroyed on ground
     P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 5 damaged
     P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 5 destroyed on ground
     P-51B Mustang: 4 damaged
     P-51B Mustang: 1 destroyed on ground
     F4U-1A Corsair: 9 damaged
     F4U-1A Corsair: 2 destroyed on ground
     B-24J Liberator: 11 destroyed on ground
     Beaufighter VIf: 3 destroyed on ground
     B-29-1 Superfort: 8 destroyed on ground
     PB4Y-1 Liberator: 1 destroyed on ground
     Liberator B.VI: 3 destroyed on ground
     P-70A-1 Havoc: 2 destroyed on ground
     TBM-1C Avenger: 1 destroyed on ground
     P-61A Black Widow: 2 destroyed on ground
     OS2U-3 Kingfisher: 1 destroyed on ground
     F-5A Lightning: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied ground losses:
     11 casualties reported
        Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
        Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
        Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Airbase hits 38
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 45

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Hakodate , at 119,53

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 117 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 37 minutes

Japanese aircraft
     Ki-49-IIa Helen x 26

Allied aircraft
     Spitfire VIII x 16
     Thunderbolt I x 9
     P-38J Lightning x 38
     P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 105
     P-51B Mustang x 45
     F4U-1A Corsair x 70
     F6F-3 Hellcat x 97

Japanese aircraft losses
     Ki-49-IIa Helen: 11 destroyed, 6 damaged
     Ki-49-IIa Helen: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
     B-29-1 Superfort: 1 destroyed on ground

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Ominato , at 119,54

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 23 minutes

Japanese aircraft
     no flights

Allied aircraft
     Liberator B.III x 9
     Liberator B.VI x 25
     Thunderbolt I x 7
     Wellington B.X x 15
     B-24D1 Liberator x 24
     B-24J Liberator x 94
     B-25C Mitchell x 10
     B-25D1 Mitchell x 30
     B-25G Mitchell x 15
     B-25H Mitchell x 60
     B-25J1 Mitchell x 3
     B-29-1 Superfort x 58
     FM-2 Wildcat x 18
     F4U-1 Corsair x 29
     F4U-1A Corsair x 46
     PB4Y-1 Liberator x 30
     PBJ-1D Mitchell x 43
     PV-1 Ventura x 28

Japanese aircraft losses
     Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 12 destroyed on ground
     Ki-49-IIa Helen: 6 destroyed on ground
     Ki-49-IIb Helen: 4 destroyed on ground
     Ki-44-IIc Tojo: 15 destroyed on ground
     E13A1 Jake: 2 destroyed on ground

Allied aircraft losses
     B-24D1 Liberator: 1 damaged
     B-24J Liberator: 1 damaged
     B-29-1 Superfort: 2 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
     38 casualties reported
        Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
        Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
        Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled

Airbase hits 110
Airbase supply hits 7
Runway hits 271

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Ominato , at 119,54

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 74 NM, estimated altitude 42,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 22 minutes

Allied aircraft
     P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 131

No Allied losses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jul 21, 44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Hakodate , at 119,53

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 112 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 35 minutes

Japanese aircraft
     Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 21
     Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 205
     Ki-49-IIa Helen x 38
     Ki-49-IIb Helen x 18
     Ki-84a Frank x 99

Allied aircraft
     Spitfire VIII x 9
     Thunderbolt I x 8
     P-38J Lightning x 26
     P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 109
     P-51B Mustang x 37
     F4U-1A Corsair x 69
     F6F-3 Hellcat x 96

Japanese aircraft losses
     Ki-44-IIc Tojo: 5 destroyed
     Ki-49-IIa Helen: 4 destroyed, 4 damaged
     Ki-49-IIb Helen: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged
     Ki-84a Frank: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
     Spitfire VIII: 1 damaged
     Spitfire VIII: 1 destroyed on ground
     P-38J Lightning: 5 damaged
     P-38J Lightning: 1 destroyed on ground
     P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 1 destroyed on ground
     B-29-1 Superfort: 2 destroyed on ground
     B-24J Liberator: 1 destroyed on ground
     PB4Y-1 Liberator: 1 destroyed on ground
     B-24D1 Liberator: 1 destroyed on ground

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Ominato , at 119,54

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 78 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 22 minutes

Japanese aircraft
     no flights

Allied aircraft
     Liberator B.III x 11
     Liberator B.VI x 31
     Thunderbolt I x 7
     Wellington B.X x 15
     B-24D1 Liberator x 20
     B-24J Liberator x 80
     B-25C Mitchell x 10
     B-25D1 Mitchell x 18
     B-25G Mitchell x 3
     B-25H Mitchell x 48
     B-25J1 Mitchell x 3
     B-29-1 Superfort x 56
     P-51B Mustang x 5
     FM-2 Wildcat x 18
     F4U-1 Corsair x 29
     F4U-1A Corsair x 60
     PB4Y-1 Liberator x 36
     PBJ-1D Mitchell x 43
     PV-1 Ventura x 27

Japanese aircraft losses
     Ki-49-IIa Helen: 44 destroyed on ground
     Ki-84a Frank: 20 destroyed on ground
     Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 9 destroyed on ground
     Ki-44-IIc Tojo: 30 destroyed on ground
     Ki-49-IIb Helen: 22 destroyed on ground
     J1N1-C Irving: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied aircraft losses
     Liberator B.VI: 1 damaged
     B-24D1 Liberator: 1 damaged
     B-24J Liberator: 2 damaged
     B-29-1 Superfort: 2 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
     33 casualties reported
        Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
        Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
        Engineers: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled

Airbase hits 117
Airbase supply hits 8
Runway hits 378

....can't wait to see how many bombers i lost on the ground...damned CAP that never works

...waiting for the turn....

(in reply to erstad)

Post #: 4785

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/28/2011 3:55:39 PM

pat.casey

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline

His af probably still closed ... You did like 400 runway hits
Yours should be open again I suspect

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 4786

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/28/2011 6:55:48 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

Yikes!! Big losses on both sides. You guys will be flying biplanes before this is over. Wonder what his Claude pools look like?

_____________________________

(in reply to pat.casey)

Post #: 4787

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/28/2011 7:06:58 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

Here's the result.... 100-400 on my side. Not bad...but i thought after the first raid the strip would be closed and the second day raid would have been a slaughter in my favour...instead most of his fighters (not bombers) were still flying!

Interesting to detect that our two big raids crossed over each other on their way to Hakkodate and Ominato ...can you imagine the scene??

However we killed 100 planes in the air and nearly 250 on the ground...not bad...we have lost only 1 pilot today while he for sure has lost several...

However i still consider my CAP very inefficient...i had taken all my precautions...had several squadrons flying CAP and the air battle, as usual, lasted very few shots despite the raid was detected very early....

My BC bombardment group passed the trial...only some minor sys damage on one CA due to a mine...for the rest those 200 cm guns were able to shoot only my DMSs...

I hoped in something more...but i cannot complain considering the risks i was taking....

Anyway this CAp system clearly means that my fleet is not secure...no matter how many fighters i set on CAP....even on a lvl 9 AF with 20 radars and plenty of air HQs....

BUT....plans aren't changing....we're landing in Honshu by the end of August....

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by GreyJoy -- 12/28/2011 7:07:30 PM >

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 4788

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/28/2011 7:41:28 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

not sure it would be a good idea to challenge 200cm guns!

BTW, I was always unclear about this: Is it possible, by another means besides taking the port, to destroy CD guns? Seem no matter what I do they keep firing until the port is taken

Yes. Aerial "port" bombardment does a good job of disrupting / rendering inoperative CD guns. I'd have to have more data about whether it truly destroys guns per se versus just rendering them inoperative.

ETA: Squeezing off supply to CD guns helps lower their ROF dramatically as well.

< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 12/28/2011 10:38:53 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 4789

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/28/2011 10:35:32 PM

pat.casey

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline

At the risk of sounding hectoring, what does this op gain you?
Seems like using your twin engine planes like this, especially when resting yur four engines makes sense, but why waste the big boys on a tactical op?

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 4790

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/29/2011 6:52:22 AM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

At the risk of sounding hectoring, what does this op gain you?
Seems like using your twin engine planes like this, especially when resting yur four engines makes sense, but why waste the big boys on a tactical op?

IMHO it was a Godsend to have sent the 4Es to ominato. If my 4Es were resting on the strip at Hakkodate their ground losses would have been a lot higher! Instead most of them were flying while the Helens arrived on their first raid and so my day was, imho, saved right because of the decision you're anot agreeing with....
A part from that, which -however- was pure luck on my side, i didn't read Rader's intentions very well....i thought he was going for another run against my fleet...while he went against my bomber fleet... and the chance of destroying the whole japanese torpedo bomber army in one single shot was too juicy not to try it with everything i had.
Overall the operation wasn't a failure. We got a decent 4-1 in terms of losses and we have probably killed some 50/60 japanese pilots.

I've seen on the dedicated thread that many people thinks that the the CAP system as it is modelled right now works perfectly. I don't know what to say...i don't clearly have the experience to argue about that...i just feel that something has changed along the way...our air battles, no matter what, seems to become the less bloody every day...I remember once, over Karachi, we had days where 300 Tojos swept against 500 P-40/Hurricanes and we had at least 50/60 losses on both sides...now fighters seem to avoid each other... but maybe is just a feeling...

However, we carry on! This is not going to stop us!!

(in reply to pat.casey)

Post #: 4791

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/29/2011 8:19:26 AM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

I remember once, over Karachi, we had days where 300 Tojos swept against 500 P-40/Hurricanes and we had at least 50/60 losses on both sides...now fighters seem to avoid each other... but maybe is just a feeling...

However, we carry on! This is not going to stop us!!

What is the morale of the fighter squadrons like currently?

_____________________________

Surface combat TF fanboy

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 4792

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/29/2011 8:20:56 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

don't worry greyjoy, you got enough experience (more than many of those saying the world is beautiful and perfectly right) because of the fact you have driven your game well into 44 while the "experts" mostly dump around in 42 never seen a bigger air engagement than 100 ac on one side and 120 on the other side.

Now a 6 year old that roughly got a clue about numbers (and no clue about air battles) would smell the flaw when you see 50 ac shot down when 200 ac clash in the air but only 20 are shot down when 1000 meet each other, of the same types, same pilots, same conditions. But hey, seriously, there can't be something wrong... NO WAY CAN THERE BE SOMETHING WRONG THEN. Heck, people even argued months after the pre Cap flak BUG was squashed that there was no problem. Not even the official statement there was a bug made a difference. Same for strato sweeps, for 12 months, all was so perfectly well and then the official statement it would be an "exploit" to use them which implies there isn't all so perfectly well. Be aware, it seems you either are joining the vocal PBEM minority or the dark side, where you have to close your eyes and ears or shut down common sense.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 12/29/2011 8:21:40 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 4793

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/29/2011 9:53:58 AM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

I remember once, over Karachi, we had days where 300 Tojos swept against 500 P-40/Hurricanes and we had at least 50/60 losses on both sides...now fighters seem to avoid each other... but maybe is just a feeling...

However, we carry on! This is not going to stop us!!

What is the morale of the fighter squadrons like currently?

The morale of my fighter squadrons is everywhere above 80. Most of them have 99 morale.
Those who were involved in the disaster at Uruppu were all crack squadrons, with exp above 60 (a2a skill in the 70s) and morale on 99.

Same goes for those squadrons involved in the latest battle over Hakkodate. The enmy raid was detected early enough to let all the fighters to reach the combat area in time.

Anyway...i get the fact that there's something "hidden" in the code. And i even like this idea that i cannot know everything....but if it's so i'd like to see more variable outcomes...while 9out of 10 times a radi arrived heavily escorted the result (i repeat on BOTH SIDES) seems to be the same: very few fighters engage each other and the bombers always get through.

however...let's pass over guys...i wanna focus on the war and not on the game mechanics!!

(in reply to String)

Post #: 4794

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/29/2011 11:54:28 AM

Miller

Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline

I simply think its down to the fact the engine cannot handle huge a-historical numbers of a/c. Lets be honest, how many times in the real war did 800 fighters face off against each other in one big battle? Never. You will just have to live with it, at least it seems to effect both sides equally.........

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 4795

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/29/2011 12:51:45 PM

yubari

Posts: 365
Joined: 3/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

I simply think its down to the fact the engine cannot handle huge a-historical numbers of a/c. Lets be honest, how many times in the real war did 800 fighters face off against each other in one big battle? Never. You will just have to live with it, at least it seems to effect both sides equally.........

Yep, it looks like that to me as well. If such a battle was to happen once then it could be explainable as being due to bad weather, bad luck or something else but it has happened over and over again. I almost like the idea of 300 fighter pilots on each side happily waving to each other as the strike passes.

I also don't think that your thread in tech support will change anything. I remember finding a bug in the old WITP that allowed the Japanese player to rerun turns an infinite number of time creating a different result each time. I then spent hours trying to figure out what caused it, how it could be recreated etc and eventually worked out that it was due to the weather being generated differently. My reward for the hours of research? To be called delusional by one of the mods. The lesson, don't challenge the mods. (they fixed the bug for AE).

Edit: Good luck with the invasion, I cannot remember it happening in any AAR before!

< Message edited by yubari -- 12/29/2011 12:54:32 PM >

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 4796

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/29/2011 2:28:48 PM

viberpol

Posts: 838
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

don't worry greyjoy, you got enough experience (more than many of those saying the world is beautiful and perfectly right) because of the fact you have driven your game well into 44 while the "experts" mostly dump around in 42 never seen a bigger air engagement than 100 ac on one side and 120 on the other side.

Now a 6 year old that roughly got a clue about numbers (and no clue about air battles) would smell the flaw when you see 50 ac shot down when 200 ac clash in the air but only 20 are shot down when 1000 meet each other, of the same types, same pilots, same conditions. But hey, seriously, there can't be something wrong... NO WAY CAN THERE BE SOMETHING WRONG THEN. Heck, people even argued months after the pre Cap flak BUG was squashed that there was no problem. Not even the official statement there was a bug made a difference. Same for strato sweeps, for 12 months, all was so perfectly well and then the official statement it would be an "exploit" to use them which implies there isn't all so perfectly well. Be aware, it seems you either are joining the vocal PBEM minority or the dark side, where you have to close your eyes and ears or shut down common sense.

Well, I always thought the Americans are proud of their freethinkers, independency of opinions, freedom of doubts, democracy etc... But it seems that many simply just can't imagine going out of the box and asking questions...

Don't know why persons who have different opinions are criticised so strongly ?

Castor... there must be someone/something that is wrong!

I know! If it's not us, not them, then it must be the "combat report that is wrong"...

No.. sorry... not wrong, it's just presenting the right data in the wrong way.... it's not 500 fighters on CAP. The number is just a potential, and there're only 6 fighters in the air. The number "500" is given expecially for Castor to hide in the shadows the fact that the CAP is suffering from the same coordination lacks that the sweep and bombing raids...

It's not 20 fighters "interecepting now" -- it's 20 fighters trying to intercept!

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 4797

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/29/2011 3:44:24 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

don't worry greyjoy, you got enough experience (more than many of those saying the world is beautiful and perfectly right) because of the fact you have driven your game well into 44 while the "experts" mostly dump around in 42 never seen a bigger air engagement than 100 ac on one side and 120 on the other side.

Now a 6 year old that roughly got a clue about numbers (and no clue about air battles) would smell the flaw when you see 50 ac shot down when 200 ac clash in the air but only 20 are shot down when 1000 meet each other, of the same types, same pilots, same conditions. But hey, seriously, there can't be something wrong... NO WAY CAN THERE BE SOMETHING WRONG THEN. Heck, people even argued months after the pre Cap flak BUG was squashed that there was no problem. Not even the official statement there was a bug made a difference. Same for strato sweeps, for 12 months, all was so perfectly well and then the official statement it would be an "exploit" to use them which implies there isn't all so perfectly well. Be aware, it seems you either are joining the vocal PBEM minority or the dark side, where you have to close your eyes and ears or shut down common sense.

Well, I always thought the Americans are proud of their freethinkers, independency of opinions, freedom of doubts, democracy etc... But it seems that many simply just can't imagine going out of the box and asking questions...
Don't know why persons who have different opinions are criticised so strongly ?

Castor... there must be someone/something that is wrong! I know! If it's not us, not them, then it must be the "combat report that is wrong"... No.. sorry... not wrong, it's just presenting the right data in the wrong way.... it's not 500 fighters on CAP. The number is just a potential, and there're only 6 fighters in the air. The number "500" is given expecially for Castor to hide in the shadows the fact that the CAP is suffering from the same coordination lacks that the sweep and bombing raids... It's not 20 fighters "interecepting now" -- it's 20 fighters trying to intercept!

I think the concern is that "Marianas Turkey Shoot" is not happening for some reason. That is the situation where hundreds of aircraft with wide differences in experience resulted in hundereds of airplanes being shot down ... over a series of engagements quite the opposite is happening .. .Then there is the Coral sea situation where hundreds of airplanes met and so many weere lost it began the crippling of the IJNAAF ..

Big battles of huge pilot losses ends up benifiting the Allies .. in the end .. it was one of the major factors for the IJ defeat. Now we are seeing multiple air battles where the results are just mediocre with planes not getting engaged and attrition numbers are not showing ..

I can see the IJFB's really liking this behavior ..

I do not think it is having a different opinion is the question -- the presentation has little to be desired ...

MILLER: Battle of Philipine Sea ...is just one example ..

< Message edited by Crackaces -- 12/29/2011 3:45:57 PM >

(in reply to viberpol)

Post #: 4798

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/29/2011 3:57:33 PM

Miller

Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline

Philippine Sea? Maybe 150 Jap escort fighters facing 300?? Hellcats.......In a series of 4 seperate strikes. Maybe if the game split these huge air armadas into "chunks" the engine would give better results.

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 4799

RE: Blood in the skies - 12/29/2011 4:01:08 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

don't worry greyjoy, you got enough experience (more than many of those saying the world is beautiful and perfectly right) because of the fact you have driven your game well into 44 while the "experts" mostly dump around in 42 never seen a bigger air engagement than 100 ac on one side and 120 on the other side.

Now a 6 year old that roughly got a clue about numbers (and no clue about air battles) would smell the flaw when you see 50 ac shot down when 200 ac clash in the air but only 20 are shot down when 1000 meet each other, of the same types, same pilots, same conditions. But hey, seriously, there can't be something wrong... NO WAY CAN THERE BE SOMETHING WRONG THEN. Heck, people even argued months after the pre Cap flak BUG was squashed that there was no problem. Not even the official statement there was a bug made a difference. Same for strato sweeps, for 12 months, all was so perfectly well and then the official statement it would be an "exploit" to use them which implies there isn't all so perfectly well. Be aware, it seems you either are joining the vocal PBEM minority or the dark side, where you have to close your eyes and ears or shut down common sense.

Well, I always thought the Americans are proud of their freethinkers, independency of opinions, freedom of doubts, democracy etc... But it seems that many simply just can't imagine going out of the box and asking questions...
Don't know why persons who have different opinions are criticised so strongly ?

Castor... there must be someone/something that is wrong! I know! If it's not us, not them, then it must be the "combat report that is wrong"... No.. sorry... not wrong, it's just presenting the right data in the wrong way.... it's not 500 fighters on CAP. The number is just a potential, and there're only 6 fighters in the air. The number "500" is given expecially for Castor to hide in the shadows the fact that the CAP is suffering from the same coordination lacks that the sweep and bombing raids... It's not 20 fighters "interecepting now" -- it's 20 fighters trying to intercept!

If it would be that way I would ask the simple question: why is the game so stupid and out of 500 available, let's say 300 combat ready fighters and 40 min pre warning time, only 5 are attacking? Or is there someone seriously trying to say that if there are 500 fighters only 5 would be combat ready and 495 would be refulling, rearming, being repainted or whatever when there was no engagement before this day? No matter if we are wrong, they are wrong, the combat report being wrong, fact is, the result is wrong and total BS and I will deliberately call everyone braindead who is trying to find a reason why hundreds of fighters would only be able to take down 5 attackers when the conditions are nothing but perfect for the defending fighters and this is only happening in huge battles.

to ask a different question that should not even allow a discussion on those big raids, why on Earth doesn't this happen when small numbers clash? All those funny "explanations" some people bring up to justify this silliness are true for 1000 aircraft in one battle but not for 100? Lol, the world is getting funnier each day.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 12/29/2011 4:04:59 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to viberpol)

Post #: 4800