Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Alfred covered the CAP topic brilliantly, as always.

I only like to add that different settings, such as LRCAP or CAP, do not reserve
a specific plane for a specific mission for the whole day. It only displays the probability
of mission type assigned for a specific plane which is about to be launched.

If you set a squad to 60% CAP, 40% LRCAP for example, expect a lot more than 40% of total a/c
affected by the percentage flying LRCAP mission.
Since LRCAP naturally results in a much higher attrition rate because of distance, air time,
plane fatigue, and so on, a high percentage of planes return from LRCAP to refuel/rearm/maintenance
during the resolution phase, with negative impact on any planes available to be launched on CAP missions,
or react to incoming strikes immediately.

It might be this added to the low readiness numbers to counter the first strike.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I am a little surprised at how bent out of shape the JFBs seem to be getting over a little free intel going the Allies way in a game that completely fails to model the HUGE intel advantage the Allies actually had.

How about we just suppose the allies intercepted the orders and decoded them....wait....no that can't happen in RL!!!

This whole JFB/AFB is starting to get to me. Hans, have you ever played the Japanese? Perhaps experience things on that end of the spectrum and then make your comments. Many of the things you gripe about are included for play balance...right or wrong. It's a GAME. Japan needs some help, otherwise you don't have a game, you have a simulation. Frankly, who wants that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Apologies, it looked in the post like you used hybrid settings, which you say was not the
case.

You could be right that the numbers of standby are a sideeffect of you CAP% settings.
What was the rest set to? Rest, or not assigned?

quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

a coordinated strike of 600 planes sounds too sci-fi to me.

Even at the beginning of the war Japs sent two wave of 108 planes each as coordinated strike. And each of the pilot in the attack is an ACE!

So later in the war with worse quality of pilots it's just so unrealistic for a 600 planes in a single wave and they attack the fleet at the same time?

Come on. System definitely failed here.

The air combat simulation of large number planes involved is broken. Totally.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Apologies, it looked in the post like you used hybrid settings, which you say was not the
case.

You could be right that the numbers of standby are a sideeffect of you CAP% settings.
What was the rest set to? Rest, or not assigned?

Not assigned. Cause i wanted them to be ready to scramble...

Settings were very simple:

CAP 60
LRCAP 0
Rest 0

Range Hex 0

I thought this would guarantee me a solid 40% of my fighter forse (say 450 fighters) ready to scamble, while 600 of my fighters should have been already in the air ready to reach the raid.... Was i wrong?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

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.

Understood, my point being that you were already limiting your maximum theoretical CAP - see LoBaron's post #6029. Still having 1000 fighters for CAP is only of value if properly set.

(4) but this wasn't my fault, right? just bad dice and rolls?

Not your fault in terms of silly error, but your fault in terms of the natural consequence of your decisions. It is most definitely not the result of bad dice rolls and you need to understand that you were not the victim of circumstances beyond your control. In the circumstances which developed you were always going to have some CAP out of position, the question is whether your decisions exacerbated problem.

(5) Got it...

Like everything there is always a pro and a con to every decision. Allied players tend to have only 1 CV TFs in 1942 to avoid the coordination penalties. By 1944 they can move to a 2 CV structure and not suffer the coordination penalties. However doing so does increase the likelihood of having CAP slightly out of position. More importantly, as the intent of your carriers was to not launch a strike but only to provide protection to the transports at the beach and over the carriers themselves, concern about strike penalties was moot. IOW you could have operated a single giant CV TF.

(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?

No. Whatever CAP level you set, 1/3 of the quantum will be in the air, 1/3 of the quantum is refueling and the other 1/3 of the quantum is on the ground. So by upping the CAP per centage rate you automatically increase the quantum. Having a CAP ratio merely increased the quantum on the ground thus had you gone with a 30% CAP rate the quantum already in the air would have been even smaller.

(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...

Yes but you only have to fear 3 kamikaze altitude attack profiles; low (means 100'), medium and high (above most of your midwar fighter latitude ceilings). This means that the real issue is that low kamikazes will arrive over the target before fighters higher up can get down to intercept. With regard to the other two attack profiles you don't need to have multi staggered CAP levels in each profile as most fighters will be able to get to the bandits in time. Thus in addition to setting a low level altitude CAP, having one mid level and one high level CAP altitude generally suffices. Plus accept that just as in real life, some kamikazes will get through and cause some damage but not necessarily enough to sink a capital ship.

(8) true...but sooner or later i had to try, right?

Not necessarily. Depends on whether the tactical risk/reward was consistent with the overall strategic plan. Assuming it is a good strategic plan. In this instance if Sadogashima was to be invaded, then the Allied carriers had to be used.

As always thanks for your insight mate!

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

GJ, you set CAP to 60%/no mission 40%.

The standby numbers include those planes belonging to the 60% CAP, but
also the 40% without mission.

Remember, the combat report shows every plane, not only those assigned to CAP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

GJ, you set CAP to 60%/no mission 40%.

The standby numbers include those planes belonging to the 60% CAP, but
also the 40% without mission.

Remember, the combat report shows every plane, not only those assigned to CAP.

I know LoBaron, every plane (meaning CAP assigned + not assigned) but not those on LRCAP over other hexes (the 280 Hellcats-3 that were over the invasion fleet).

However, as i stated before, in these 3 years of gameplay CAP leaving 30% on CAP and 70% of non assigned has given great results. Over Karachi, over Tulagi, over Hakkodate...those planes not assigned were always scrambling in time to reach the target...they were ready on the strip with warmt engines... Don't know why this time it happened exactly the opposite...that's why i say also a bad dice and roll kicked in... but maybe, as alfred said, LBA battles are very different from Carrier battles...

Anyway...next time (if i will even get another chance) i'll place a solid 100% CAP with 3 bands of altitudes

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


... With 2 days turn the 100% CAP can be really a problem because the second day, after a day of battles, will result in your crews having more than 50 fatigue accumulated...

• fly only at normal range
  
• if possible avoid using drop tanks but if used, then fly only at the new "normal" range
  
• choose only wothwhile missions
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

What I'm curious about, and this may have been mentioned earlier and I missed it, but was there no LBA fighter cover on LR CAP? Seems that would have helped quite a bit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Oct 18, 19 1944

The news reached Washington and London almost immediately...the operation Dust N Bones was a complete fiasco...no, not a fiasco...a disaster!

3/4 of the allied Carrier Fleet was sunk...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Sadogashima at 115,54

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 40 minutes

Japanese aircraft
     A6M2 Zero x 22
     A6M3a Zero x 64
     A6M5 Zero x 48
     A6M5b Zero x 15
     A6M5c Zero x 142
     A7M2 Sam x 33
     B7A2 Grace x 235
     D4Y4 Judy x 34
     J2M3 Jack x 48
     N1K1-J George x 81
     Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 21



Allied aircraft
     Corsair II x 97
     F4U-1A Corsair x 330
     F4U-1D Corsair x 129
     F6F-3 Hellcat x 72
     F6F-5 Hellcat x 555


Japanese aircraft losses
     A6M5 Zero: 3 destroyed
     A6M5c Zero: 2 destroyed
     B7A2 Grace: 15 destroyed, 32 damaged
     B7A2 Grace: 17 destroyed by flak
     D4Y4 Judy: 3 destroyed, 7 damaged
     D4Y4 Judy: 4 destroyed by flak
     J2M3 Jack: 1 destroyed
     N1K1-J George: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
     F4U-1A Corsair: 2 destroyed
     F6F-5 Hellcat: 1 destroyed

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Star Wars.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

What I'm curious about, and this may have been mentioned earlier and I missed it, but was there no LBA fighter cover on LR CAP? Seems that would have helped quite a bit.

You get massive coordination penalties from LBA LRCAPPing carriers. That said, "every little helps".

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


Tough loss. This will certainly change the game quite a bit!

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

You get massive coordination penalties from LBA LRCAPPing carriers. That said, "every little helps".

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


Tough loss. This will certainly change the game quite a bit!

Yes, but if the final pourpose of a game is entretainament, this is exactly what the best match should do. A constant changing of fortunes...

The allies were clearly winning...were sieging Japan...and now, when the hope seemed lost for the rising sun...BOOM...le coup de teatre that changes everything back again!

This will keep the game very entretaining till 1946...may prove to be a good happening for everbody (GJ, Rader, JFBs and even AFBs...)

And i won't sit on my thumbs for the rest of the war. This is a promise

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

Sorry to drag this out further GJ, but I've just had another look at the big strike on your CVs. Your CAP managed to shoot down 25 a/c. Twenty-Five.

Lets all remember that only a handfull of F4Fs managed to shoot down 15 attacking Jap bombers at Midway. No matter how much of your CAP was out of position/scrambling/refuelling/taking a **** that is a ridiculous result. Hell you cannot even blame it on this "200 firing passes limit" that is being talked about. Something is just plain screwed.