Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Uber P39's

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Uber P39's Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Uber P39's - 12/2/2002 7:05:35 AM   
DoomedMantis


Posts: 1922
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		Playing a game as the Allies against a IJN PBEM opponent, and while its good for me in the game my P39's hold down 4 of my top 5 Pilots with the 6th spot going to a P400. So I now have 4 P39 Aces and 1 P400 Ace (the other ace is a P40E who died valiently after downing 9 aircraft)

Its about the 20th of May and I have 2 squadrons of P39's with about 13 aircraft in each, one P400 with 9 aircraft and 2 P40's with 11 and 9 respectively.

The 2 squadrons of P39's have shot down 40 aircraft
The P400's 16
The P40E's 33 (9 to one pilot)

I wasn't getting these types of results prior to v2.10

Only 2 turns had occurred in v2.0, and there was little to no air combat in these 2 days.

Has anyone else encountered this

One thing I have noticed though is that the P39's tend to shoot down more bombers than fighters

_____________________________

I shall make it a felony to drink small beer.

- Shakespeare
Post #: 1
2.1 reporting many more kills for pilots - 12/2/2002 7:25:05 AM   
ssclark

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 12/2/2002
Status: offline 		One thing I noticed last night with version 2.1 was a dramatic increase in the reporting of pilots getting kills, etc. Dramatic! One F4F pilot got like 6 kills on one mission, for example!

In 2.0, only rarely did I get reports of pilots getting kills. Now, there are tons of such reports.

Also, in the first 4 major air strikes from US carriers vs. IJN carriers, the Dauntless seems much less effective. Very few hits, although in just a small sampling, so far.

Note, I really like Uncommon Valor and am a long-time fan of Grigsby games. Just noting how 2.1 is alot different from 2.0 in some ways...

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 2
- 12/2/2002 7:37:02 AM   
DoomedMantis


Posts: 1922
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		What I am trying to highlight is the fact that my P39's are shooting down more than my P40E's which is a far better plane and have pilots with more experience. In all previous versions my P40's outperformed the P39's sometimes to the tune of 2-1, and definetely received more casualties.

_____________________________

I shall make it a felony to drink small beer.

- Shakespeare

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 3
- 12/2/2002 7:44:42 AM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		In my PBEM game with Luskan, I am finding that my Zeros are still shooting down as many P-39s as before V 2.10:D

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 4
- 12/2/2002 7:45:40 AM   
Mush Morton

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 12/2/2002
From: Virginia
Status: offline 		May 2, 1942...Japs raid PM at 13,000' w/18 Betty & 42 Zero. PM defended by 8 Uber Iron Dogs set to CAP at 10,000'. Final tally was:

Jap losses - 6 Zero destroyed, 13 damaged. 4 Betty destroyed 4 damaged.
Allied losses: 2 Uber Iron Dogs damaged.

All of this was in air - air combat. Japs lost further 2 Betty to flak. All I can say is IRON DOGS RULE!!! I never saw P-39s do this well EVER!! I'll see what happens if they have the guts to return next turn.

Mush

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 5
- 12/2/2002 7:54:22 AM   
Ross Moorhouse


Posts: 2354
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		Was the battle started in a game prior to v2.1 ?

Also dont forget that the P39 has a canon and also Bettys should go up like nothing else as they where known to burn real easy. If my memory serves me correctly the the betty had no armour around the fuel tanks.

_____________________________

Ross Moorhouse

Project Manager
www.csosimtek.com
Email: rossm@csogroup.org

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 6
- 12/2/2002 7:56:24 AM   
DoomedMantis


Posts: 1922
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raverdave
[B]In my PBEM game with Luskan, I am finding that my Zeros are still shooting down as many P-39s as before V 2.10:D [/B][/QUOTE]

And in my game against you my zeros seem to do alright against your Warhawks. I still haven't had a reply to this one yet Dave, but I bet that one hurt:D

_____________________________

I shall make it a felony to drink small beer.

- Shakespeare

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 7
- 12/2/2002 7:56:37 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		Yo, Doomed,

Seeing the same things myself. The P-39's rule, baby! The Kittyhawks blow big time!

Almost looks like some greater than signs were changed to less than. :D

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 8
- 12/2/2002 8:07:00 AM   
Mush Morton

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 12/2/2002
From: Virginia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ross Moorhouse
[B]Was the battle started in a game prior to v2.1 ?

Also dont forget that the P39 has a canon and also Bettys should go up like nothing else as they where known to burn real easy. If my memory serves me correctly the the betty had no armour around the fuel tanks. [/B][/QUOTE]

Ross, just started w/2.1, was rather amazed at the outcome. Not so much with the Bettys as a kite was sturdier, but the Zero tally kind of amazed me. Needless to say my son (opponent) was none to happy and now is considering Seppuku. Oh well now PM gets rest. :D

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 9
- 12/2/2002 8:11:00 AM   
DoomedMantis


Posts: 1922
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ross Moorhouse
[B]Was the battle started in a game prior to v2.1 ?

Also dont forget that the P39 has a canon and also Bettys should go up like nothing else as they where known to burn real easy. If my memory serves me correctly the the betty had no armour around the fuel tanks. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes the game was started in V2.0 but we had only done two turns with little combat. My concern is that P39's should not be more effective than P40E's, and previously they weren't. But now they are shooting down over a third more planes than the P40E's

_____________________________

I shall make it a felony to drink small beer.

- Shakespeare

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 10
- 12/2/2002 8:14:37 AM   
DoomedMantis


Posts: 1922
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown
[B]Yo, Doomed,

Seeing the same things myself. The P-39's rule, baby! The Kittyhawks blow big time!

Almost looks like some greater than signs were changed to less than. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

The P40E's should rule though, especially as they are piloted by the fearsome Aussie pilot, unequalled in all the world

_____________________________

I shall make it a felony to drink small beer.

- Shakespeare

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 11
- 12/2/2002 8:19:07 AM   
Ross Moorhouse


Posts: 2354
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by DoomedMantis
[B]

Yes the game was started in V2.0 but we had only done two turns with little combat. My concern is that P39's should not be more effective than P40E's, and previously they weren't. But now they are shooting down over a third more planes than the P40E's [/B][/QUOTE]

From the v2.1 readme ....
quote:

Saved Games: Campaigns that were started with version 2.0 or earlier can be played with version 2.10. There may be some bugs, however, caused by database changes and the first turn in version 2.10 may have some problems. The VCR replay for the first turn played in the new version may have errors. After that, everything should be ok.
... I would play a few more turns and see if things don't balance back out.

_____________________________

Ross Moorhouse

Project Manager
www.csosimtek.com
Email: rossm@csogroup.org

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 12
- 12/2/2002 8:28:38 AM   
DoomedMantis


Posts: 1922
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ross Moorhouse
[B]

From the v2.1 readme .... ... I would play a few more turns and see if things don't balance back out. [/B][/QUOTE]

we are now 2 weeks into the campaign and still getting similar results, in fact it was the battle from my last turn dated the 14th May that prompted my small investigation.

Will keep monitoring now in all my games

_____________________________

I shall make it a felony to drink small beer.

- Shakespeare

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 13
My turn - 12/2/2002 8:59:09 AM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Example of the first turn of air combat on 2.10
******************************
Air attack on Kourouratopo , at 52,48

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 45
A6M3 Zero x 36
D3A Val x 52
B5N Kate x 52

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 17
P-39D Airacobra x 8

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 9 destroyed
A6M3 Zero x 10 destroyed
D3A Val x 1 destroyed
D3A Val x 1 damaged
B5N Kate x 1 destroyed
B5N Kate x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 10 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 7 damaged
P-39D Airacobra x 5 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 3 damaged
********************************
Actual IJN losses were 8 A6m2's dest and 8 A6m3's dest. Allied losses would be less than stated and some of them may be from being destroyed on the ground.

In the prior turns (ver 2.0) leading up to this combat, the zeros were downing the allied fighters at about 2 or 3 to 1 with similar numbers of total a/c to above.

Another 3-4 turns like this and my CV's will have zero zeros.

I'll monitor the situation but it does seem like there has been a major swing in the allies favour.

I did note that all my fighter casualties for the turn were destroyed (not damaged). Does 2.10 somehow emphasise the fragility of the Jap fighters?

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 14
Re: My turn - 12/2/2002 9:13:09 AM   
DoomedMantis


Posts: 1922
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo
[B]Example of the first turn of air combat on 2.10
******************************
Air attack on Kourouratopo , at 52,48

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 45
A6M3 Zero x 36
D3A Val x 52
B5N Kate x 52

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 17
P-39D Airacobra x 8

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 9 destroyed
A6M3 Zero x 10 destroyed
D3A Val x 1 destroyed
D3A Val x 1 damaged
B5N Kate x 1 destroyed
B5N Kate x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 10 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 7 damaged
P-39D Airacobra x 5 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 3 damaged
********************************
Actual IJN losses were 8 A6m2's dest and 8 A6m3's dest. Allied losses would be less than stated and some of them may be from being destroyed on the ground.

In the prior turns (ver 2.0) leading up to this combat, the zeros were downing the allied fighters at about 2 or 3 to 1 with similar numbers of total a/c to above.

Another 3-4 turns like this and my CV's will have zero zeros.

I'll monitor the situation but it does seem like there has been a major swing in the allies favour.

I did note that all my fighter casualties for the turn were destroyed (not damaged). Does 2.10 somehow emphasise the fragility of the Jap fighters? [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes I have noticed this as well, but have kept it out of this discussion so far. The poor old zeros are getting slaughtered, and its not just the fighters that are doing the damage, bombers are regularly getting to Ace status ( I saw one bomber shoot down 5 planes in one engagement)

_____________________________

I shall make it a felony to drink small beer.

- Shakespeare

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 15
- 12/2/2002 9:22:35 AM   
Ross Moorhouse


Posts: 2354
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		I asked Mike Wood and Rich to have a look at this and Rich has said that no changes have been made to the data base files for the planes. Mike said that planes shoot more now and also said this
quote:

Looking at the Zero pilots at Rabaul, you will find they start the game pretty tired. If they start flying missions before they rest up, they will not perform so well. And they will get worse, each day. They will continue to get more tired and replacement pilots for those lost will bring down the average pilot skill.


Hope this helps.

_____________________________

Ross Moorhouse

Project Manager
www.csosimtek.com
Email: rossm@csogroup.org

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 16
- 12/2/2002 9:35:17 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		Well, I have been fooling around against the AI some here and I am not very pleased with what I am seeing. I moved F1/Tainan to Lae, had it rest up a turn, then started escorting bombers from Rabaul to PM. The results were rather disappointing. The zeros did a rather poor job against P-39's. They did alright against the P-40's. They did manage well against the Wirraways. My bombers, however, seemed to do a much, if not more damage than the zeros. Not only that, the number of attacks against my bombers was generally higher than I have seen before as if the escort was not there.

I am beginning to think that I should back out of 2.1 and go back to 2.0. Don't know if I could convince my opponent to do likewise, however.

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 17
- 12/2/2002 9:36:08 AM   
DoomedMantis


Posts: 1922
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ross Moorhouse
[B]I asked Mike Wood and Rich to have a look at this and Rich has said that no changes have been made to the data base files for the planes. Mike said that planes shoot more now and also said this

Hope this helps. [/B][/QUOTE]

A question

If I have LRCAP flying 4 hexes against bombers flying from 8 hexes, who should be more tired over target?

Does the time of the attack have any bearing on this?

As in if it is a morning attack, the CAP should still be fresh, but more tired in the arvo.

_____________________________

I shall make it a felony to drink small beer.

- Shakespeare

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 18
- 12/2/2002 9:39:10 AM   
DoomedMantis


Posts: 1922
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown
[B]Well, I have been fooling around against the AI some here and I am not very pleased with what I am seeing. I moved F1/Tainan to Lae, had it rest up a turn, then started escorting bombers from Rabaul to PM. The results were rather disappointing. The zeros did a rather poor job against P-39's. They did alright against the P-40's. They did manage well against the Wirraways. My bombers, however, seemed to do a much, if not more damage than the zeros. Not only that, the number of attacks against my bombers was generally higher than I have seen before as if the escort was not there.

I am beginning to think that I should back out of 2.1 and go back to 2.0. Don't know if I could convince my opponent to do likewise, however. [/B][/QUOTE]

Especially when you consider your experience is higher.

I have also noticed that more planes are getting through CAP to attack bombers. If I have 50 escorts against 20 CAP, very few fighters should have a chance to attack the bombers, they will be too busy trying not to get shot down themselves.

_____________________________

I shall make it a felony to drink small beer.

- Shakespeare

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 19
Re zeros - 12/2/2002 11:48:52 AM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		I've just decided to start a game as Japs against the AI in scen 17 to monitor the changes (air and sea), rather than make costly assumptions in my PBEM games.

I did the following opening attacks.

1 A6m2 squadron made two sweeps against PM (after resting for 3 days before and then for 1 day between missions) - result was my top land based A6m2 sqdn lost 33% casualties (8 a/c and pilots lost) while shooting down 5 allied a/c (P39's).

3 G3M/G4M squadrons attacked PM in daylight unescorted. Result was about 10% casualties each time they were intercepted but their defensive fire was more effective than in 2.0 (dam/dest about the same no of CAP fighters).

Fought the battle of Coral Sea (IJN - 2CV, 1 CVL vs USN 2 CV's). The IJN had increased their total a/c from a port stop, so they went in with about 60 fighters. Result was USN lost 1 CV while IJN had CV and CVL med damage. Noted that the A6m2's suffered very heavy casualties (about twice the F4F losses). The USN strike got about 80% of their a/c through the CAP while the IJN got about 60% through.

PM launched strikes against my CV force after the battle. 12 fighters and 20+ bombers brushed aside the CAP (after roughing up the A6m2's) and got almost their full strike home (but missed everything).

All up, 2.10 feels a lot more realistic except for the over the top attrition for zeros (on what I've seen, the Japs have no chance of preserving their fighter pilot quality once combat is joined). If high Zero attrition and ease of allied strikes to penetrate CAP is now part of things, I wonder whether the Japs can maintain much of an early offensive with their CV's?

Mind you, surface combat is fun.:p

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 20
- 12/2/2002 1:14:56 PM   
Ross Moorhouse


Posts: 2354
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		Here is an answer for you...

"The bombers crews would be more tired, but the long range combat air patrol would be at the disadvantage, because of higher disruption"

_____________________________

Ross Moorhouse

Project Manager
www.csosimtek.com
Email: rossm@csogroup.org

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 21
- 12/2/2002 2:36:32 PM   
DoomedMantis


Posts: 1922
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ross Moorhouse
[B]Here is an answer for you...

"The bombers crews would be more tired, but the long range combat air patrol would be at the disadvantage, because of higher disruption" [/B][/QUOTE]

Does this answer though why I am losing twice as many zeros to bombers? His bombers are flying every day, and I have been rotating 2 from 6 squadrons and resting the other 4 (fatigue was too great otherwise - flying from Lunga to Irau), and I now have squadrons down to 2 fighters left in some of them. My zeros have been getting slaughtered and far outstripping replacements.

It didn't help when I had a battle with 140 zeros (both 2's and 3's) over Cooktown escorting 12 Betties against 60 F4's and 12 P40's and lost 76 fighters and 6 betties to CAP and he lost 30 F4's and a few P40's.

My fatigue before I flew was 0 and the average experience was around the 65 level

_____________________________

I shall make it a felony to drink small beer.

- Shakespeare

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 22
AIR Losses - 12/2/2002 7:47:08 PM   
Cutman

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 10/26/2002
From: Florida
Status: offline 		Doomed,
It's bad enough that your p-39's shot down all of my aircraft
but now you have to post IT?;)

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 23
Re: AIR Losses - 12/2/2002 8:26:52 PM   
DoomedMantis


Posts: 1922
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cutman
[B]Doomed,
It's bad enough that your p-39's shot down all of my aircraft
but now you have to post IT?;) [/B][/QUOTE]

well I was trying to help;)

plus it was anonomous (or something like that spelling anyway), and I wasn't just including you.

I noticed though that you didn't send them back this turn:D

_____________________________

I shall make it a felony to drink small beer.

- Shakespeare

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 24
my 2 cents worth - 12/2/2002 8:53:46 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		With V2.10 I am finding that you have to rest the Zero pilots more often than before so that they retain their edge....I am rest my Zero Squadrons two days out of three. Hope this helps.

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 25
il n'est pas de ceux-la qui gardent une offense - 12/2/2002 10:16:08 PM   
zed

 

Posts: 268
Joined: 5/20/2002
Status: offline 		Rereading portions of [B]SAMURAI[/B] Sakai reguarly shot down Mitchells and Marauders and Airacrobras. He thought b-17s extremely tough and frequently the bombers shot down the attackers. the Airacobra was slower than the Zero and less manuverable. Perhaps 2.1 assumes they are King Cobras (p-63s). Remember too that Sakai said the Wildcat presented problems.

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 26
My Experience against the AI... - 12/2/2002 11:41:27 PM   
kbullard

 

Posts: 55
Joined: 5/27/2002
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		This weekend, after a UV hiatus, I started Scenario 17 (version 2.10) as the Allies versus the AI. All realism options were on, including variable reinforcements. It's now 7/25. I took a quick peek as the Japanese to confirm the numbers:

Allied Losses
----------------
36 x P-39D
35 x P-40E
31 x P-400
16 x Wirraway

My top ten pilots (3 KIA) have 44 kills: 24 in P-39D, 8 in P-400, 7 in P40E, 5 in F4F (I've managed to avoid a major naval engagement).

Japanese Lossses
-----------------------
174 x Zero
62 x Betty
37 x Nell

The top ten Japanese pilots also have 44 kills, all attributed (of course) to the Zero except for one Rufe pilot with 3 kills! However, [B]all[/B] of the top 7 Japanese pilots were KIA/MIA.

There are lots of other variables, but the P-39D certainly appears to be doing well -- more than holding its own against the Zero. And the Japanese are lossing their qualitative edge in a huge hurry. This is despite my previous experience (probably 1.4 based) that the AI would play very conservatively.

Kurt

P.S. - I noticed the reported aircraft losses were [I]identical[/I] as the Allies and Japanese. In other words, as the Allies, I saw the exact Japanese losses, and vice versa. Is that right?

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 27
Re: My Experience against the AI... - 12/3/2002 1:24:11 AM   
Yamamoto

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by kbullard
[B]P.S. - I noticed the reported aircraft losses were [I]identical[/I] as the Allies and Japanese. In other words, as the Allies, I saw the exact Japanese losses, and vice versa. Is that right? [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, that is correct. Fog of War doesn't affect the number of planes reported killed on each side. The only thing it affects in terms of victory points is the ships sunk. Therefore, you can work backwards from the total victory points and accurately calculate the true value of ships sunk. I do this when I want to know if I've just sunk an important ship like a CV.

Yamamoto

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 28
- 12/3/2002 3:44:31 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by DoomedMantis
[B]

The P40E's should rule though, especially as they are piloted by the fearsome Aussie pilot, unequalled in all the world [/B][/QUOTE]

You might be right DM....right now i'm at the beginning of SC19, (couple months in) and the IJN-AI is making a fierce air-bid over the skies of PM.

My faithful No's 75 and 76 RAAF squadrons were nearly destroyed through sheer attrition before i finally rotated them when two new P-400 FG's activated. By this time both units were done to 6 planes for one and 3 planes for the other.

Yet during the whole period, regardless of loss or damage......their Morale never wavered, staying at 80 to 90 the entire time! :eek:

You guys are animals baby... must be the beer. ;)


(on P-39's and 40's)

P-39's are suffering far more heavily than my 40's and deploying Wirraways was proved in combat to be the desperation ploy that it was (i'm getting wacked with 60+ Zero raids and need all the help i can get)

The 39's get some licks in but they're paying the $$$ for it. Dont see anything "uber" about them. I'd reduce them to ground support or night duty if the AI wasn't playing so agressively (love it......cant wait to see if the AI will really try to assault PM or not.....they've got Gili Gili and Buna, but PM has been battering their transports and i've sunk a dozen confirmed so far......but only one IJN warship so far (a small DD)

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 29
- 12/3/2002 4:18:10 AM   
Yamamoto

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]
Yet during the whole period, regardless of loss or damage......their Morale never wavered, staying at 80 to 90 the entire time! :eek:
[/B][/QUOTE]

Unlike my A6M2 pilots whose morale seems to drop down to the 30s very quickly no matter what. I don't know what the formula is for calculating morale changes but, personally, I would think that every time a group shoots down an enemy plane their morale should go up (the shooters, that is, not the shootees ).

Yamamoto

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Uber P39's Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.469