GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Alfred (3) IIRC, approximately 40% of the potential Allied fighter CAP was already tasked to provide LRCAP over the transports at the beachhead some hexes away. That was a player decision and not the victim of the game code (4) Much of the remaining available Allied CAP had a time to interception longer than the time to target of the incoming bombers, thus it was out of position. Being out of position is a major factor in determining whether it gets a chance to participate in combat at all or when it does, such as pre or post the raid (5) With multiple CV TFs located in the same hex there is an opportunity for the CAP of all the TFs to participate but only the CAP of the computer targetted TF is in the optimal position to intercept. The CAP of the adjacent TFs has to move into position (6) Allied CAP was set to only 60%. In view of (a) the short journey, (b) the short term exposure of the carriers and (c) the anticipated heavy enemy response (evidenced by the carriers having bomber units replaced by additional fighter units), a good argument could be made that 100% CAP should have been set (7) CAP altitude was too staggered. The main reason why one wants to stagger CAP is to counter sweeps. Generally speaking a maximum of 3 altitudes suffices to counter sweeps. Again 3 altitudes, albeit at different heights, generally suffices to meet kamikazes. To counter normal enemy bomber strikes 2 maybe 3 CAP altitudes will normally suffice for the enemy bombers have set attack profile runs. Bottom line, by having so many different CAP altitudes, more CAP fighters were already being placed out of position to quickly respond and get into optimal position (8) GreyJoy had no prior experience of handling the massed Allied carrier fleet. LBA and CV based air have one thing in common; they both fly through the air. Otherwise there are some significant differences between the two regarding how the player should approach their utilisation. So once again before jumping on the bandwagon of criticising the game engine people would do well to consider what player made decisions contributed to the outcome. As to the overall strategy employed here and previously, I will maintain my continued silence. Alfred (3) Alfred, the numbers present in the combat report were fighters all set to CAP and not LRCAP. I placed on LRCAP only the Hellcats-3, while Hellcats-5 (plus a small % of Hellcats 3) and the corsairs were all on CAP (60% or 70%) with range 0. So i had more than 1000 fighters on CAP over my CVs. (4) but this wasn't my fault, right? just bad dice and rolls? (5) Got it... (6) I see...i set the CAP at 60/70 because i wanted to avoid what seems to have happened...that our fighters weren't ready to scramble when needed because all of them were out of position. The problem i see is the "stand-by" position when the raid arrived...to me that means that my fighters were refueling ...wouldn't have been better, in retrospective, to have say 30% on CAP and the rest ready to scramble? (7) well...i feared the Kamikaze Nemo's approach...meaning lots of different altitudes (from 42k to 100 feet) in order to catch the CAP anaware... (8) true...but sooner or later i had to try, right? As always thanks for your insight mate!
|