Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Don´t overestimate the effectiveness of allied ASW. Its all about DL as you know. In our game I had 8-12 CVEs dedicated to nothing but ASW. Still you crippled a bunch of CVs with your subs. If I ever comes around to playing a PBEM again I will dedicate a lot more effort on LBA ASW as well as making sure I have plenty of ASW trained USN pilots.

Allied ships are good for sinking subs but truly sucks at preventing attacks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I had some Dutch subs sent into a nest of at least four Japanese TFs and they were detected and depth charged at least ten times each, usually in a Ping-Pong between two of the TFs. This was early game when the IJN DCs could not go deep, and the subs were in deep water so they survived. I think the DCs only stopped when all of the escorts and Atago CAs ran out!

The point is the Dutch subs came out with crew experience in the high 90s, and thereafter they became deadly at sneaking in on IJN TFs, and almost never miss with their torpedoes (although they still have duds 10% of the time). It seems the same would apply to IJN subs late war - they would get lots of experience from attacks they survived.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I had some Dutch subs sent into a nest of at least four Japanese TFs and they were detected and depth charged at least ten times each, usually in a Ping-Pong between two of the TFs. This was early game when the IJN DCs could not go deep, and the subs were in deep water so they survived. I think the DCs only stopped when all of the escorts and Atago CAs ran out!

The point is the Dutch subs came out with crew experience in the high 90s, and thereafter they became deadly at sneaking in on IJN TFs, and almost never miss with their torpedoes (although they still have duds 10% of the time). It seems the same would apply to IJN subs late war - they would get lots of experience from attacks they survived.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I am not a big fan of the Japanese player creating massive groups. It is a bit gamey as Allies fighter groups can only be 16 to 24 planes in size. This practice would allow not more than 50 Allied planes at a level two field while the Japanese could put 160 there without over stacking and facing a penalty. A measure of reality is called for. As the Allies I expand some naval fighter groups to 36-40 planes to give me some spares and many of the small CVE torpedo squadrons I expand but that is about all. Viperpol told me after our last campaign that he had created massive training groups of 90 planes. He was not anywhere close to running out of pilots. In the end I suppose it did not matter much as I was not having trouble shooting them down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I am not a big fan of the Japanese player creating massive groups. It is a bit gamey as Allies fighter groups can only be 16 to 24 planes in size. This practice would allow not more than 50 Allied planes at a level two field while the Japanese could put 160 there without over stacking and facing a penalty. A measure of reality is called for. As the Allies I expand some naval fighter groups to 36-40 planes to give me some spares and many of the small CVE torpedo squadrons I expand but that is about all. Viperpol told me after our last campaign that he had created massive training groups of 90 planes. He was not anywhere close to running out of pilots. In the end I suppose it did not matter much as I was not having trouble shooting them down.

I thought that in addition to an airfield stacking limit by number of groups, there was a limit by number of engines vs airfield size? Something like 50 engines supported per level? That would make the 160 planes on a level 2 AF overstacked by 60, suffering coordination/fragmentation and maintenance penalties?

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I am not a big fan of the Japanese player creating massive groups. It is a bit gamey as Allies fighter groups can only be 16 to 24 planes in size. This practice would allow not more than 50 Allied planes at a level two field while the Japanese could put 160 there without over stacking and facing a penalty. A measure of reality is called for. As the Allies I expand some naval fighter groups to 36-40 planes to give me some spares and many of the small CVE torpedo squadrons I expand but that is about all. Viperpol told me after our last campaign that he had created massive training groups of 90 planes. He was not anywhere close to running out of pilots. In the end I suppose it did not matter much as I was not having trouble shooting them down.

I thought that in addition to an airfield stacking limit by number of groups, there was a limit by number of engines vs airfield size? Something like 50 engines supported per level? That would make the 160 planes on a level 2 AF overstacked by 60, suffering coordination/fragmentation and maintenance penalties?

Absolutely! Not over stacked by number of groups, much over stacked by number of engines.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I am not a big fan of the Japanese player creating massive groups. It is a bit gamey as Allies fighter groups can only be 16 to 24 planes in size. This practice would allow not more than 50 Allied planes at a level two field while the Japanese could put 160 there without over stacking and facing a penalty. A measure of reality is called for. As the Allies I expand some naval fighter groups to 36-40 planes to give me some spares and many of the small CVE torpedo squadrons I expand but that is about all. Viperpol told me after our last campaign that he had created massive training groups of 90 planes. He was not anywhere close to running out of pilots. In the end I suppose it did not matter much as I was not having trouble shooting them down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I am not a big fan of the Japanese player creating massive groups. It is a bit gamey as Allies fighter groups can only be 16 to 24 planes in size. This practice would allow not more than 50 Allied planes at a level two field while the Japanese could put 160 there without over stacking and facing a penalty. A measure of reality is called for. As the Allies I expand some naval fighter groups to 36-40 planes to give me some spares and many of the small CVE torpedo squadrons I expand but that is about all. Viperpol told me after our last campaign that he had created massive training groups of 90 planes. He was not anywhere close to running out of pilots. In the end I suppose it did not matter much as I was not having trouble shooting them down.

I thought that in addition to an airfield stacking limit by number of groups, there was a limit by number of engines vs airfield size? Something like 50 engines supported per level? That would make the 160 planes on a level 2 AF overstacked by 60, suffering coordination/fragmentation and maintenance penalties?

Absolutely! Not over stacked by number of groups, much over stacked by number of engines.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I am not a big fan of the Japanese player creating massive groups. It is a bit gamey as Allies fighter groups can only be 16 to 24 planes in size. This practice would allow not more than 50 Allied planes at a level two field while the Japanese could put 160 there without over stacking and facing a penalty. A measure of reality is called for. As the Allies I expand some naval fighter groups to 36-40 planes to give me some spares and many of the small CVE torpedo squadrons I expand but that is about all. Viperpol told me after our last campaign that he had created massive training groups of 90 planes. He was not anywhere close to running out of pilots. In the end I suppose it did not matter much as I was not having trouble shooting them down.

This is one thing that I think has to be HRed. For training, fine, but for any kind of combat it's not okay as there is an advantage to larger groups in almost any situation and it's not something the Allies can do, as you say. The only groups I can increase to this size are a few RN groups, and after I just enlarged the two training groups from 40 to 80 planes, which should keep the RAF fighters filled out nicely.

For the USN you have to use FP groups to train fighter pilots, or the replacement groups from CVEs. I haven't tried as it's currently logistically impossible, but maybe I can increase the size of these on the CVs. We'll see.

I have no problem with each side using larger groups fro training, but it should be somewhat equitable. In combat the Allies basically can't do this due to replacement rates, unless the groups are filled out with FM-1.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I am not a big fan of the Japanese player creating massive groups. It is a bit gamey as Allies fighter groups can only be 16 to 24 planes in size. This practice would allow not more than 50 Allied planes at a level two field while the Japanese could put 160 there without over stacking and facing a penalty. A measure of reality is called for. As the Allies I expand some naval fighter groups to 36-40 planes to give me some spares and many of the small CVE torpedo squadrons I expand but that is about all. Viperpol told me after our last campaign that he had created massive training groups of 90 planes. He was not anywhere close to running out of pilots. In the end I suppose it did not matter much as I was not having trouble shooting them down.

This is one thing that I think has to be HRed. For training, fine, but for any kind of combat it's not okay as there is an advantage to larger groups in almost any situation and it's not something the Allies can do, as you say. The only groups I can increase to this size are a few RN groups, and after I just enlarged the two training groups from 40 to 80 planes, which should keep the RAF fighters filled out nicely.

For the USN you have to use FP groups to train fighter pilots, or the replacement groups from CVEs. I haven't tried as it's currently logistically impossible, but maybe I can increase the size of these on the CVs. We'll see.

I have no problem with each side using larger groups fro training, but it should be somewhat equitable. In combat the Allies basically can't do this due to replacement rates, unless the groups are filled out with FM-1.

There are a handful of USMC squadrons (IIRC) that you can resize, but you can also resize the non-replacement CVE groups without waiting for later. You can resize any CV-capable group once all of their coded resizes have occurred, but this isn't until late 1944 or 1945 for almost all of them.

The VRF/VRB/VRT units, despite not having any resizes, are not able to resize.

You can resize some FAA units, but you won't have anywhere near enough CV-capable planes to fill them out. So, good for training.... or LBA, if you're facing mega-Zero units.

All that said, the mega units still suck up aviation support and supplies that much faster. And airfield space.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I had some Dutch subs sent into a nest of at least four Japanese TFs and they were detected and depth charged at least ten times each, usually in a Ping-Pong between two of the TFs. This was early game when the IJN DCs could not go deep, and the subs were in deep water so they survived. I think the DCs only stopped when all of the escorts and Atago CAs ran out!

The point is the Dutch subs came out with crew experience in the high 90s, and thereafter they became deadly at sneaking in on IJN TFs, and almost never miss with their torpedoes (although they still have duds 10% of the time). It seems the same would apply to IJN subs late war - they would get lots of experience from attacks they survived.

They really should not survive. The combination of Allied air superiority and deadly Naval ASW pretty much make Japanese sub attacks a one shot deal after by late 43. Training air units in ASW was useful and necessary for me but by the end of 43 I was no longer doing it. The combination of plenty of well trained searching aircraft and better and more skilled ASW surface craft just means death to Japanese subs. The Mk 9 DC for the Allies is actually less powerful but comes with a significant boost in accuracy and the late model British DC make a big boom. Funny but after 1944 with all of the DEs and PFs that I had the real killers were still the DDs. Every DD coming after 1/44 has excellent exp. My opponent Ark is being much more conservative with his subs this game and practically foregoing hunting merchants in favor of massing them in support of naval operations. I think this is a mistake as the real chance for Japanese subs to feast is in 1942. After that, it matters little how they are used. They are going to sink in droves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I had some Dutch subs sent into a nest of at least four Japanese TFs and they were detected and depth charged at least ten times each, usually in a Ping-Pong between two of the TFs. This was early game when the IJN DCs could not go deep, and the subs were in deep water so they survived. I think the DCs only stopped when all of the escorts and Atago CAs ran out!

The point is the Dutch subs came out with crew experience in the high 90s, and thereafter they became deadly at sneaking in on IJN TFs, and almost never miss with their torpedoes (although they still have duds 10% of the time). It seems the same would apply to IJN subs late war - they would get lots of experience from attacks they survived.

They really should not survive. The combination of Allied air superiority and deadly Naval ASW pretty much make Japanese sub attacks a one shot deal after by late 43. Training air units in ASW was useful and necessary for me but by the end of 43 I was no longer doing it. The combination of plenty of well trained searching aircraft and better and more skilled ASW surface craft just means death to Japanese subs. The Mk 9 DC for the Allies is actually less powerful but comes with a significant boost in accuracy and the late model British DC make a big boom. Funny but after 1944 with all of the DEs and PFs that I had the real killers were still the DDs. Every DD coming after 1/44 has excellent exp. My opponent Ark is being much more conservative with his subs this game and practically foregoing hunting merchants in favor of massing them in support of naval operations. I think this is a mistake as the real chance for Japanese subs to feast is in 1942. After that, it matters little how they are used. They are going to sink in droves.

Every games is a bit different, and of course I'll never really know how you, your opponent or my own opponent has set his forces in game, but I've found Japanese subs can be effective late. They do get radar later, and even in 43 if accompanied by good night and day search they can get through massive fleets and still hit some important targets. It's worth it to lose 15 subs to sink a CV, or even to knock 2-3 three of them out for 6-10 months.

In my game late against Jocke the IJN subs did pretty well, getting to several CVs, some CVEs and a few other major combat ships, with a ton of ASW TFs, search and dedicated ASW patrols all over the place. For this reason I'm really using the same kinds of anti-sub measures I did as Japan, and soon I'll have very good pilots for several different platforms of USN and Marine groups, and even more for Aussie and NZ groups, to combat IJN subs.

Nick seems to be saving them, and I suspect I'll see droves appear once I show my CVs somewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I am not a big fan of the Japanese player creating massive groups. It is a bit gamey as Allies fighter groups can only be 16 to 24 planes in size. This practice would allow not more than 50 Allied planes at a level two field while the Japanese could put 160 there without over stacking and facing a penalty. A measure of reality is called for. As the Allies I expand some naval fighter groups to 36-40 planes to give me some spares and many of the small CVE torpedo squadrons I expand but that is about all. Viperpol told me after our last campaign that he had created massive training groups of 90 planes. He was not anywhere close to running out of pilots. In the end I suppose it did not matter much as I was not having trouble shooting them down.

This is one thing that I think has to be HRed. For training, fine, but for any kind of combat it's not okay as there is an advantage to larger groups in almost any situation and it's not something the Allies can do, as you say. The only groups I can increase to this size are a few RN groups, and after I just enlarged the two training groups from 40 to 80 planes, which should keep the RAF fighters filled out nicely.

For the USN you have to use FP groups to train fighter pilots, or the replacement groups from CVEs. I haven't tried as it's currently logistically impossible, but maybe I can increase the size of these on the CVs. We'll see.

I have no problem with each side using larger groups fro training, but it should be somewhat equitable. In combat the Allies basically can't do this due to replacement rates, unless the groups are filled out with FM-1.

There are a handful of USMC squadrons (IIRC) that you can resize, but you can also resize the non-replacement CVE groups without waiting for later. You can resize any CV-capable group once all of their coded resizes have occurred, but this isn't until late 1944 or 1945 for almost all of them.

The VRF/VRB/VRT units, despite not having any resizes, are not able to resize.

You can resize some FAA units, but you won't have anywhere near enough CV-capable planes to fill them out. So, good for training.... or LBA, if you're facing mega-Zero units.

All that said, the mega units still suck up aviation support and supplies that much faster. And airfield space.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I am not a big fan of the Japanese player creating massive groups. It is a bit gamey as Allies fighter groups can only be 16 to 24 planes in size. This practice would allow not more than 50 Allied planes at a level two field while the Japanese could put 160 there without over stacking and facing a penalty. A measure of reality is called for. As the Allies I expand some naval fighter groups to 36-40 planes to give me some spares and many of the small CVE torpedo squadrons I expand but that is about all. Viperpol told me after our last campaign that he had created massive training groups of 90 planes. He was not anywhere close to running out of pilots. In the end I suppose it did not matter much as I was not having trouble shooting them down.

This is one thing that I think has to be HRed. For training, fine, but for any kind of combat it's not okay as there is an advantage to larger groups in almost any situation and it's not something the Allies can do, as you say. The only groups I can increase to this size are a few RN groups, and after I just enlarged the two training groups from 40 to 80 planes, which should keep the RAF fighters filled out nicely.

For the USN you have to use FP groups to train fighter pilots, or the replacement groups from CVEs. I haven't tried as it's currently logistically impossible, but maybe I can increase the size of these on the CVs. We'll see.

I have no problem with each side using larger groups fro training, but it should be somewhat equitable. In combat the Allies basically can't do this due to replacement rates, unless the groups are filled out with FM-1.

There are a handful of USMC squadrons (IIRC) that you can resize, but you can also resize the non-replacement CVE groups without waiting for later. You can resize any CV-capable group once all of their coded resizes have occurred, but this isn't until late 1944 or 1945 for almost all of them.

The VRF/VRB/VRT units, despite not having any resizes, are not able to resize.

You can resize some FAA units, but you won't have anywhere near enough CV-capable planes to fill them out. So, good for training.... or LBA, if you're facing mega-Zero units.

All that said, the mega units still suck up aviation support and supplies that much faster. And airfield space.

Yeah, any marine or naval fighter group that has carrier capable planes can expand to 36 and then 42 later in the war. I do this with about a half dozen so that I can rotate the groups. (Although replenishment CVEs lessen the need for this) I actually find the 24 plane US army and Marine groups to be about right. They offer a lot of flexibility and the Allies can build up air bases fast enough. The smaller Commonwealth squadrons are a bit of a handicap though.

One caution. When you hit 1/44, all American heavy and medium bomber groups expand. You need to have a crap load of reserve pilots for this event. I got caught short handed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Keep in mind also that once the 2nd gen planes kick in and you start upgrading you will end up with huge pools of older AC. With PDU OFF be careful with what you upgrade so you don´t lose the ability to use older AC in backwaters and/or training!

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Yeah, using the same planes over and over again gets pretty tiresome!

Btw, bought WitW yet?

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Yeah, using the same planes over and over again gets pretty tiresome!

Btw, bought WitW yet?

Not yet. Are you playing? Is it worth taking time away from AE?

It's a lot better when my P-40E are facing Zeros and Oscars (even late war Oscar III) rather than a wall of Tojos and Georges. Although the george and jack arrive soon, one of the reasons I want Ceylon shut down now!

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
Not yet. Are you playing? Is it worth taking time away from AE?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrKane

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Yeah, using the same planes over and over again gets pretty tiresome!

Btw, bought WitW yet?

Not yet. Are you playing? Is it worth taking time away from AE?

It's a lot better when my P-40E are facing Zeros and Oscars (even late war Oscar III) rather than a wall of Tojos and Georges. Although the george and jack arrive soon, one of the reasons I want Ceylon shut down now!

Well, not exactly true, he will be able to produce Jacks and Gorges soon true.However he does not have units to fly it.

Here is list of units:

210 Ku S-2 36 N1K1-J arriving date: Dec 44
301 Ku S-2 27 N1K1-J arriving date: Nov 43
302 Ku S-2 36 J2M2 arriving date: Mar 44.
341 Ku S-1 27 N1K1-J arriving date: Nov 43
341 Ku S-2 27 N1K2-J arriving date: Feb 44
345 Ku S-1 27 N1K1-J arriving date: Jan 44
345 Ku S-2 27 N1K1-J arriving date: Jan 44
S-407 Hikotai 36 N1K1-J arriving date: Mar 44
S-701 Hikotai 36 N1K1-J arriving date: Jul 44

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
Not yet. Are you playing? Is it worth taking time away from AE?

Well worth it I think. I fear I can´t make myself get back to the horrible AE UI again. Whoever designed the WitW air war should get a medal. I can manage the entire Allied air force in 10-15 minutes per turn once I set things up (about 1-2 hours of work for me). Thats 396 Air Units with 8737 planes. And it takes a couple of minutes to manage.

The ground war is still pretty much the best system there is. Air war is getting there and with the next game or two it will be just as good as the ground side. Can´t wait to see what they do to the naval side.

I´ve pretty much played nothing else since I got hooked before Christmas. There are certainly balancing issues, bugs and quirks to be sorted but its a VERY solid game on release.

I´ll write you a more complete review during the week. "Daddyleave" starting tomorrow...

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrKane

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Yeah, using the same planes over and over again gets pretty tiresome!

Btw, bought WitW yet?

Not yet. Are you playing? Is it worth taking time away from AE?

It's a lot better when my P-40E are facing Zeros and Oscars (even late war Oscar III) rather than a wall of Tojos and Georges. Although the george and jack arrive soon, one of the reasons I want Ceylon shut down now!

Well, not exactly true, he will be able to produce Jacks and Gorges soon true.However he does not have units to fly it.

Here is list of units:

210 Ku S-2 36 N1K1-J arriving date: Dec 44
301 Ku S-2 27 N1K1-J arriving date: Nov 43
302 Ku S-2 36 J2M2 arriving date: Mar 44.
341 Ku S-1 27 N1K1-J arriving date: Nov 43
341 Ku S-2 27 N1K2-J arriving date: Feb 44
345 Ku S-1 27 N1K1-J arriving date: Jan 44
345 Ku S-2 27 N1K1-J arriving date: Jan 44
S-407 Hikotai 36 N1K1-J arriving date: Mar 44
S-701 Hikotai 36 N1K1-J arriving date: Jul 44

Interesting. Are there no units already on board with an upgrade path to either plane? I thought there were 2-3 out there. Maybe I'm wrong.

If the same is true for the Frank mid 43 could be a hard time for the Japanese air forces. He does have the Tojo IIc in game and in a group already, but it might only be one group as he's still using the Tojo IIb as well. The Frank is scheduled to arrive in 12/43 last I checked and the Tony Ic should come slightly before that one.