Carrier Battle with !scary! results

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Carrier Battle with !scary! results

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 >> Carrier Battle with !scary! results

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 2:06:46 AM

WITPPL

Posts: 290
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline

Hi.
The game is under newest patch. Its a stock Guadalcanal PBEM. I am leading Japanese forces and these results scared me to death.

Situation is as follows:

IJN TFs composed of:
I) Zuikaku Group under Cpt Abe with Chikuma, Atago, Kinugasa and 3x AA243ASW4 DDs and 3xAA214ASW4 DDs for a total AA value of 2778. Air group composition is 27/27/17 (F/DB/TB) Exp >80; Fat <10, Morale >95
II) Shokaku Group under RADM Yamaguchi with Tone, Takao, Furutaka and 2xAA243ASW4 DDs and 3xAA214ASW4 DDs for a total AA value of 2778 Air group composition is 29/16/19 (F/DB/TB) Exp >80; Fat <10, Morale >95
III) Ryujo and Unyo Group under Matsunaga with Chitose and 5xAA243ASW2 DDs for an AA total of 2319. Air group composition is 24/-/8 (F/DB/TB) Exp >80; Fat <10, Morale >95

IJN combined air force is 80F, 43DB, 44TB. Elite. Fresh.

and we are against Saratoga and Enterprise and their support groups.

Results ARE SCARY!

1st Strike:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Luganville at 116,149

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 39
B5N1 Kate x 15
D3A1 Val x 15
D3A2 Val x 42

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 39

Japanese aircraft losses - All DBs and TBs reached the target!
A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed
B5N1 Kate: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
B5N1 Kate: 2 destroyed by flak
D3A1 Val: 2 destroyed, 13 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed by flak
D3A2 Val: 2 destroyed, 11 damaged
D3A2 Val: 2 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 4 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Saratoga
CV Enterprise, Bomb hits 2
CLAA Atlanta
CLAA San Juan

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg AP Bomb
11 x D3A2 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg AP Bomb
6 x D3A2 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg AP Bomb
8 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg AP Bomb
3 x D3A2 Val releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg AP Bomb
2 x D3A2 Val releasing from 10000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg AP Bomb
7 x D3A2 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg AP Bomb
13 x B5N1 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm T91 Mod 3 Torp
12 x D3A2 Val releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg AP Bomb

USN Strike:

Morning Air attack on TF, near Torres Islands at 117,146

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 76 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 30 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 39

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 27
SBD-3 Dauntless x 60
TBF-1 Avenger x 30

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 6 destroyed
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed by flak
TBF-1 Avenger: 1 destroyed

Japanese Ships
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA Chikuma, Bomb hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage CA Kinugasa
DD Makigumo
CA Atago, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DD Samidare, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage DD Murasame

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
3 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
13 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
10 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
15 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
11 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

Lets make some calculations:
IJN results: 57DBs with 2 hits = 3,51% TBs = 0%
USN Results: 60DBs with 58 on target and 12 hits = 20,69% ! They were dropping from 4000 feets!

Both carrier TFs were groupped together in a single hexes. We went through CAP nicely and our CAP done a very good job

however

It looked like my planes just could not get through USN AA fire. I have not observed any real impact of mine in exchange. I am waiting for data from my opponent but it looks like We have to be even braver to play IJN these times!

P.S.
No, it is not a weather. It is damn heavy and damn accurate flak.

< Message edited by WITPPL -- 1/10/2012 2:21:51 AM >

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 2:19:25 AM

Dan Nichols

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

Not weather related? The USN TF was in a hex listed as having severe storms and the IJN TF was in a hex listed as having heavy cloud. There is a difference, but I really don't know how much difference it might make.

It also appears that the USN fighters were successful in attacking the IJN bombers. Even if they don't shoot them down, the accuracy is severely reduced.

< Message edited by Dan Nichols -- 1/10/2012 2:21:23 AM >

(in reply to WITPPL)

Post #: 2

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 2:26:12 AM

WITPPL

Posts: 290
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline

Dan,

Strike force went through CAP unscratched. They were attacked once more AFTER the strike plus lots of planes were damaged by flak. Nearly every single wave. From animation screen I can tell You: All were on targets and most were damaged by flak. It looks like 44-45 USN flak in 42. Seriously. It was a flak. Scary! Plus hey, my TFs were close to 3000 AA vlaue although I have not observed any impact of my flak at all.

< Message edited by WITPPL -- 1/10/2012 2:28:11 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Dan Nichols)

Post #: 3

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 2:41:09 AM

Richard III

Posts: 710
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

Kates are the ship killers and it looks like less then 50% of them launched.

Were they all set on Naval Strike ?

_____________________________

�History would be a wonderful thing � if it were only true.�

� Leo Tolstoy

(in reply to Dan Nichols)

Post #: 4

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 3:26:56 AM

House Stark

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/30/2011
Status: offline

I agree with Dan, I think the storms over the US carriers played a big part. Just as in real life, if your carriers are sheltered by a squall, they're much harder to hit. The flak probably just make things even worse.

(in reply to Richard III)

Post #: 5

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 4:29:59 AM

AcePylut

Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

Weather is the single greatest factor.

_____________________________

(in reply to House Stark)

Post #: 6

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 4:47:38 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

The severe storms are going to kick the dive bombers all over the sky in a dive. The Val was not a very steady diver anyway. It had a tendency to kick around and took a lot of skill and strength to stay on target. With heavy storms, the Japanese are lucky they found the USN.

There were few Kates on the strike and the carriers probably steered around the fish in the water.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to AcePylut)

Post #: 7

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 5:01:48 AM

AcePylut

Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

And heavy could cover over the Japanese fleet actually "hid" the US DB's from CAP... but then there was a small break in the coulds... and screaming down through this heaven-sent break in the coulds...the brave airmen dropped their hideous death unto the might of the IJN.

_____________________________

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 8

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 5:20:59 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Edited for relevance to result.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Luganville at 116,149

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 39
B5N1 Kate x 15
D3A1 Val x 15
D3A2 Val x 42

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 39

A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed
B5N1 Kate: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
B5N1 Kate: 2 destroyed by flak
D3A1 Val: 2 destroyed, 13 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed by flak
D3A2 Val: 2 destroyed, 11 damaged
D3A2 Val: 2 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 4 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Saratoga
CV Enterprise, Bomb hits 2
CLAA Atlanta
CLAA San Juan

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg AP Bomb
11 x D3A2 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg AP Bomb
6 x D3A2 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg AP Bomb
8 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg AP Bomb
3 x D3A2 Val releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg AP Bomb
2 x D3A2 Val releasing from 10000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg AP Bomb
7 x D3A2 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg AP Bomb
13 x B5N1 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm T91 Mod 3 Torp
12 x D3A2 Val releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg AP Bomb

Morning Air attack on TF, near Torres Islands at 117,146

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 76 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 30 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 39

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 27
SBD-3 Dauntless x 60
TBF-1 Avenger x 30

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 6 destroyed
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed by flak
TBF-1 Avenger: 1 destroyed

Japanese Ships
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA Chikuma, Bomb hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA Kinugasa
DD Makigumo
CA Atago, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DD Samidare, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Murasame

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
3 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
13 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
10 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
15 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
11 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

Rest depends on CAP availability/distribution which is not shown, but there were not enough Kates on strike plus (bad) luck with weather.

IJN strike had the advantage of late detection, with better weather and more torps could have been a nice attack, if weather already was similar
before the battle DL could be affected as well.

Edit: The IJN Carriers are awfully far south, beyond the Japanese patrol range. I bet the DL was lopsided.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 1/10/2012 5:44:07 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to WITPPL)

Post #: 9

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 7:14:49 AM

WITPPL

Posts: 290
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III

Kates are the ship killers and it looks like less then 50% of them launched.

Were they all set on Naval Strike ?

TBs - there were a group of lone 17 or 18 Kates which missed the main strike and which came as a separate, unescorted second strike. They were hammered by remaining CAP. Poor lads. Rest was set on Nav search. I do not trust float planes. I always set some of my carrier based assets on limited search if i want a good coordinated attack. i think that weather was a major factor here.

_____________________________

(in reply to Richard III)

Post #: 10

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 7:16:35 AM

WITPPL

Posts: 290
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Edit: The IJN Carriers are awfully far south, beyond the Japanese patrol range. I bet the DL was lopsided.

Why?

they are not. IJN can cover whole coral sea with search arcs.

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 11

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 7:18:14 AM

WITPPL

Posts: 290
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The severe storms are going to kick the dive bombers all over the sky in a dive.� The Val was not a very steady diver anyway.� It had a tendency to kick around and took a lot of skill and strength to stay on target.� With heavy storms, the Japanese are lucky they found the USN.�

There were few Kates on the strike and the carriers probably steered around the fish in the water.

Bill

Is this game actually modeling things like this or is this just our RPG element?

_____________________________

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 12

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 7:18:48 AM

n01487477

Posts: 4779
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

Apart from the logical and rational reasons you've been given ...

I'm playing the same scenario as you under one of the early beta's with Floyd and I think I've sunk 3 maybe 4 Allied CV's so far. But it could have easily gone the other way ... There is just the winds of war sometimes...

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to WITPPL)

Post #: 13

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 7:21:03 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

TBH I think that the most deciding factor was your carriers were in a very exposed
position, too far south for your LBA to help, while Allied LBA was able to assist
in navS.

This was clearly enhanced by bad weather over the USN CVs, but it was a bad location
to seek battle in the first place.

_____________________________

(in reply to WITPPL)

Post #: 14

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 7:26:56 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Edit: The IJN Carriers are awfully far south, beyond the Japanese patrol range. I bet the DL was lopsided.

Why? they are not. IJN can cover whole coral sea with search arcs.

From where? Shortlands? Munda? Tassafaronga? NavS loses much of its effect at ranges greater than 10-12, even if
you search arcs reach as far down as Luganville, chances are high you wont find anything that far from base.

OTOH you were perfectly in range for any search plane located anywhere from Santa Cruz Isl. to New Caledonia.

Thats a grave disadvantage. NavS is one of the deciding factors in those battles.

_____________________________

(in reply to WITPPL)

Post #: 15

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 7:35:12 AM

WITPPL

Posts: 290
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline

Second strike results:

IJN:
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Luganville at 116,149

Weather in hex: Light cloud
Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 25
B5N1 Kate x 21
D3A1 Val x 5
D3A2 Val x 11

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 19

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed
B5N1 Kate: 11 damaged
B5N1 Kate: 1 destroyed by flak
D3A1 Val: 1 damaged
D3A2 Val: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged
D3A2 Val: 2 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Enterprise, Bomb hits 1
CV Saratoga, Torpedo hits 3, on fire

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x D3A2 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg AP Bomb
13 x B5N1 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm T91 Mod 3 Torp
7 x B5N1 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm T91 Mod 3 Torp
1 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
3 x D3A2 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg AP Bomb
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
4 x D3A2 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg AP Bomb

USN:
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Torres Islands at 117,146

Weather in hex: Heavy rain
Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 31 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 28

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 12
SBD-3 Dauntless x 41
TBF-1 Avenger x 27

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 4 destroyed
SBD-3 Dauntless: 9 destroyed, 6 damaged
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed by flak
TBF-1 Avenger: 1 destroyed, 5 damaged
TBF-1 Avenger: 2 destroyed by flak

Japanese Ships
CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires
CA Tone

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
6 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
12 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
6 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
12 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

CAP and flak looks really heavy on USN side and damn accurate too. Scary.

< Message edited by WITPPL -- 1/10/2012 7:38:42 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to WITPPL)

Post #: 16

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 7:40:11 AM

n01487477

Posts: 4779
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

Yeah�

- 3 destroyed, 12 damaged to A2A. V 14 destroyed 11 damaged to A2A

Think you need to re-assess my friend.

< Message edited by n01487477 -- 1/10/2012 7:41:31 AM >

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to WITPPL)

Post #: 17

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 7:44:47 AM

WITPPL

Posts: 290
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

From where? Shortlands? Munda? Tassafaronga? NavS loses much of its effect at ranges greater than 10-12, even if
you search arcs reach as far down as Luganville, chances are high you wont find anything that far from base.

OTOH you were perfectly in range for any search plane located anywhere from Santa Cruz Isl. to New Caledonia.

Thats a grave disadvantage. NavS is one of the deciding factors in those battles.

IJN hace plenty of Nav search cap. My carrier TFs had plenty of search cap. Subs can add too. I came undetected and I was able to strike Luganville turn earlier. Yes, I was detected after Luganville atack.

Results are OK for me. Wasp is gone to sub. Sara wont make it. Enterprise is out of action with explosions and severe casualties. Tactical victory for USN. Operational victory for IJN.

< Message edited by WITPPL -- 1/10/2012 7:45:09 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 18

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 7:46:40 AM

castor troy

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

It clearly was weather. Severe storms vs. heavy cloud. Everything that is not something with rain is "good" weather when it comes down to hits and everything from light rain to thunderstorms is bad. It hits both sides the same and we have seen this happening how many times already?

wow, in two days I turn into a game defending ranter.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 1/10/2012 7:49:02 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to WITPPL)

Post #: 19

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 7:48:09 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Ok just to clearify what I mean:

USN: 116, 149
12 Hexes from Tulagi (if Japanese), 12 Hexes from Tassafaronga (if Japanese), 16 Hexes from Munda

IJN: 117, 146
5 Hexes from Luganville, 5 Hexes from Ndeni, 8 Hexes from Efate, 10 Hexes from Koumac

While the Japanese LBA is much to far away to make a difference, your position is right in the sweet
spot for any Allied patrol plane. You got outsighted before the battle even started, and with roughly
equal forces thats always a bad thing.

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 20

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 7:49:59 AM

WITPPL

Posts: 290
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

Yeah� - 3 destroyed, 12 damaged to A2A. V 14 destroyed 11 damaged to A2A

Think you need to re-assess my friend.

I know results from CRep but i was also watching animations very closely. IJN DBs and TBs literally bounced (and missed targets in result) from USN AA fire while USN were not giving a damn about it.

Any way: 2% vs 20% is something that should be noticed. In 42 with fresh elite IJN.

_____________________________

(in reply to n01487477)

Post #: 21

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 7:52:36 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL
IJN hace plenty of Nav search cap. My carrier TFs had plenty of search cap. Subs can add too. I came undetected and I was able to strike Luganville turn earlier. Yes, I was detected after Luganville atack.

Ok so add pilot fatigue and increased USN situational awareness due to Luganvillle strike.

I know a couple of players (including myself) who would have sent you back to Shortlands in rafts,
with low damage to their own fleet. You were lucky given the situation.

_____________________________

(in reply to WITPPL)

Post #: 22

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 7:52:45 AM

WITPPL

Posts: 290
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

It clearly was weather. Severe storms vs. heavy cloud. Everything that is not something with rain is "good" weather when it comes down to hits and everything from light rain to thunderstorms is bad. It hits both sides the same and we have seen this happening how many times already?

wow, in two days I turn into a game defending ranter.

Troy, where am I against the game exactly?

Probably weather, although based on animated combat reports I blame USN flak.

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 23

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 7:54:01 AM

WITPPL

Posts: 290
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline

@LoBaron: Pilots were under 15 fatigue.

_____________________________

(in reply to WITPPL)

Post #: 24

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 7:55:14 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Every bit helps.

_____________________________

(in reply to WITPPL)

Post #: 25

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 7:56:57 AM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

One result is not enough to evaluate the model. Any good combat model will have a wide range of outcomes. This is not chess. Given the complexities of layering different models together and expecting the overall result to be the "expected outcome" is unrealistic. The chaos inherent with modeling combat that has very few observations and multiple contributing factors requires this range of outcomes so you can achieve a "Midway" like outcome.

Somebody has to pick up the slack now that Herwin has passed.........

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to WITPPL)

Post #: 26

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 8:01:55 AM

WITPPL

Posts: 290
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline

That is why we love this game so much.

Edit: I hate apple keyboards

< Message edited by WITPPL -- 1/10/2012 8:02:22 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to denisonh)

Post #: 27

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 11:40:15 AM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

One result is not enough to evaluate the model. Any good combat model will have a wide range of outcomes. This is not chess. Given the complexities of layering different models together and expecting the overall result to be the "expected outcome" is unrealistic. The chaos inherent with modeling combat that has very few observations and multiple contributing factors requires this range of outcomes so you can achieve a "Midway" like outcome.

Somebody has to pick up the slack now that Herwin has passed.........

You're not there, yet. I actually understood what you were saying.

, , , to Herwin

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to denisonh)

Post #: 28

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results - 1/10/2012 2:09:17 PM

witpqs