Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Manila Falls

 
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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Manila Falls Page: <<   < prev  34 35 [36] 37 38   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Manila Falls - 3/13/2016 9:02:17 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
I have been heavily patrolling an area around Noumea, figuring Jocke will react with something. Well, the upshot of the missing graphic details how I have heavily patrolled a likely area with Iboats and scored 5 torpedo hits on a CV with two ammo explosions during the night. All Allied planes lost.

Jocke is so upset he can't do the turn.

The graphic shows what poor search Jocke has up as only 2 Iboats are spotted, the attacker and one other to the north.

60% moonlight.




I wonder what is up? I tried a different operating system, and still can't see my pictures. Logged in, logged out, reset the computer. Hmmm.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 3/13/2016 9:30:27 PM >

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 1051
RE: Manila Falls - 3/13/2016 9:13:13 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
The combat report...I have pictures.

Sub attack near Mare' at 118,160

Japanese Ships
SS I-160

Allied Ships
CV Yorktown, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CLAA San Diego
CLAA Juneau
DD McCall
DD Helm
DD Clark
DD Selfridge
DD Lang
DD Wilson

SS I-160 launches 6 torpedoes at CV Yorktown
DD Clark fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Selfridge fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Lang fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Wilson fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Selfridge fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Selfridge fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Selfridge attacking submerged sub ....
DD Selfridge cannot establish contact with SS I-160
DD Selfridge fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Mare' at 118,160

Japanese Ships
SS I-160

Allied Ships
CV Yorktown, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
CLAA San Diego
CLAA Juneau
CLAA Atlanta
DD McCall
DD Helm
DD Clark
DD Selfridge
DD Lang
DD Wilson

Ammo storage explosion on CV Yorktown
Ammo storage explosion on CV Yorktown

SS I-160 launches 6 torpedoes at CV Yorktown
DD Clark fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Selfridge fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Lang fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Wilson fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 3/13/2016 9:27:10 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1052
RE: Manila Falls - 3/13/2016 9:28:16 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
computer problems. argh.

Ok, I see the graphic bug is hitting other posters too.

Feel better now. If only Jocke would feel better.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 3/13/2016 9:36:52 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1053
RE: Manila Falls - 3/13/2016 10:31:31 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
KUDOS on sinking Yorktown!!

I truly fear Jap subs in'42 and early '43 than KB. I've lost more CVs and BBs to subs than KB's planes over my playing career during those first 18 months. One of these days I'll play Allies with working TT from the beginning. It would have to be one of the new mods being developed with lots and lots of ships in play.

_____________________________


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1054
RE: Manila Falls - 3/14/2016 9:16:20 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Almost all carriers are undergoing upgrades, or getting new planes, or hiding and awaiting the West Coast Operation.

However, I have a few fast ones I am letting Jocke see...I want him to see a divided KB, prior to their concentration for the West Coast.

I also want him to see the A6M5s on the carriers.

My basic rules for CV operations now are small groups; operate only in heavily land based air searched areas, never ever have detection for more than one day, and don't use in sub infested waters.

Very soon the carriers will be going dark.




Not easy to pull off but potentially great return if you can.

I presume that eventually you are going to reposition these "maskirovka" bait carriers to support the WC operation. If so you might want to leave their air groups in SoPac on land bases showing them to be operating whilst you reposition the carriers at flank. The air groups can generally move faster than the carriers.

Showing the "orphaned" carriers may involve them on ASW operations in SoPac if your opponent floods the area with subs. Or alternatively you could try some Sweeps or Recon missions with them. Depends on which suitable land airfields you have for this maskirovka.

Alfred

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1055
RE: Manila Falls - 3/14/2016 9:24:20 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Chinese have HQs. Japan, no HQs. And Forts 1 is still Forts 1.


I thought of that, but in WITPQS recent fight he had a HQ + bonus. I don't have a HQ malus, nor do the Chinese have a plus.

I am just chalking it up to very bad day for the local commanders....



Just because a + or - is not showing up does not mean you do not have factors affecting your adjusted AV. The fact that it's adjusted AV means that there are always factors...

Just because you don't see a disruption(-), for example, doesn't mean that you aren't suffering some penalty for having some disruption.

This attack looks like partial bad roll to me, and partially that there are some underlying factors that made you vulnerable to a bad roll ruining your attack (poor: morale, leaders, supply, disruption, fatigue).

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1056
RE: Manila Falls - 3/14/2016 9:25:46 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
I wouldn't say that only seeing 2 subs during the night phase is "poor search", particularly for the Allies at this point in the war.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 1057
RE: Manila Falls - 3/14/2016 11:34:28 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Chinese have HQs. Japan, no HQs. And Forts 1 is still Forts 1.


I thought of that, but in WITPQS recent fight he had a HQ + bonus. I don't have a HQ malus, nor do the Chinese have a plus.

I am just chalking it up to very bad day for the local commanders....



Just because a + or - is not showing up does not mean you do not have factors affecting your adjusted AV. The fact that it's adjusted AV means that there are always factors...

Just because you don't see a disruption(-), for example, doesn't mean that you aren't suffering some penalty for having some disruption.

This attack looks like partial bad roll to me, and partially that there are some underlying factors that made you vulnerable to a bad roll ruining your attack (poor: morale, leaders, supply, disruption, fatigue).


Just to add some nuance to Likasenna's point.

When a CR discloses a malus [eg (-) disruption] or even a bonus [eg (+) leader] it simply means that the check has been passed or failed. It is possible for one unit in the stack to pass the check and another unit in the same stack to fail the exact same check. When that happens you see both (+) and (-).

However, irrespective of the check outcome, those factors are taken into account anyway in the fire phase of the combat. IOW, the disruption level in a unit may not result in a (+) or (-) check notification but what ever is the units disruption level, that disruption level is fed into the fire phase of the combat algorithm.

Alfred

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 1058
RE: Manila Falls - 3/14/2016 11:54:36 AM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Chinese have HQs. Japan, no HQs. And Forts 1 is still Forts 1.


I thought of that, but in WITPQS recent fight he had a HQ + bonus. I don't have a HQ malus, nor do the Chinese have a plus.

I am just chalking it up to very bad day for the local commanders....



Just because a + or - is not showing up does not mean you do not have factors affecting your adjusted AV. The fact that it's adjusted AV means that there are always factors...

Just because you don't see a disruption(-), for example, doesn't mean that you aren't suffering some penalty for having some disruption.

This attack looks like partial bad roll to me, and partially that there are some underlying factors that made you vulnerable to a bad roll ruining your attack (poor: morale, leaders, supply, disruption, fatigue).


Just to add some nuance to Likasenna's point.

When a CR discloses a malus [eg (-) disruption] or even a bonus [eg (+) leader] it simply means that the check has been passed or failed. It is possible for one unit in the stack to pass the check and another unit in the same stack to fail the exact same check. When that happens you see both (+) and (-).

However, irrespective of the check outcome, those factors are taken into account anyway in the fire phase of the combat. IOW, the disruption level in a unit may not result in a (+) or (-) check notification but what ever is the units disruption level, that disruption level is fed into the fire phase of the combat algorithm.

Alfred


Looking at your results at Sian I'd say this is to be expected. He's got a lot of troops there, and irrespective of his losses to air strikes and potential overstacking, with the HQs present and 1 fort, with you having only 1:2 ratio in pre-combat AV, I'd think they had a pretty good chance to hold with this kind of a result. I'd guess the dice roll was not a factor other than in making this perhaps a worse result in terms of losses. I have a hard time thinking any roll caused your attack to fail, and that with those forces your best hope would be a 1:2 with somewhat equal losses.

Is the Chinese Expeditinoary Army HQ in range? Any other Army HQs on the way? I forget what the SL is for Sian, and I don't have the game available right now so can't check. Is it around 95k?

Attacking Chinese troops I don't usually want to be in a position where the pre-combat AV is less than a 1:1, or 2:1 in a x3 defensive hex. Even if your quality can theoretically push through, there are too many times when it won't and that can set you back a lot. GJ had this issue at Sian in our game (although we may never know the ultimate result since the game is suspended).



_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 1059
RE: Manila Falls - 3/14/2016 3:47:02 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Showing the "orphaned" carriers may involve them on ASW operations in SoPac if your opponent floods the area with subs. Or alternatively you could try some Sweeps or Recon missions with them. Depends on which suitable land airfields you have for this maskirovka.

Alfred


I am not sure that Jocke is paying enough attention to the replay for this work reliably. He has missed it in the recent past, and I do know he watches the replay on very fast speed and sometimes simply skips watching it.

Here is the attack from two days ago: small air group, updated planes.

Morning Air attack on TF, near Hoorn Islands at 137,155

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 14 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 16
D3A2 Val x 25

No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
xAKL Mapele, Bomb hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
APD Waters, Bomb hits 7, and is sunk

Aircraft Attacking:
13 x D3A2 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
4 x D3A2 Val releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
8 x D3A2 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring APD Waters
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring xAKL Mapele
Massive explosion on xAKL Mapele

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 1060
RE: Manila Falls - 3/14/2016 3:49:05 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Chinese have HQs. Japan, no HQs. And Forts 1 is still Forts 1.


I thought of that, but in WITPQS recent fight he had a HQ + bonus. I don't have a HQ malus, nor do the Chinese have a plus.

I am just chalking it up to very bad day for the local commanders....



Just because a + or - is not showing up does not mean you do not have factors affecting your adjusted AV. The fact that it's adjusted AV means that there are always factors...

Just because you don't see a disruption(-), for example, doesn't mean that you aren't suffering some penalty for having some disruption.

This attack looks like partial bad roll to me, and partially that there are some underlying factors that made you vulnerable to a bad roll ruining your attack (poor: morale, leaders, supply, disruption, fatigue).


I suspect you are correct...supply on my side wasn't double for example.


(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 1061
RE: Manila Falls - 3/14/2016 3:53:59 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I wouldn't say that only seeing 2 subs during the night phase is "poor search", particularly for the Allies at this point in the war.


Maybe, I just flooded Efate with subs the turn before and Jocke knows there are a lot of them operating in the area. I painstakingly moved every sub south west from Efate the day before the Yorktown got nailed.

There are 4 Glen equipped Iboats and 4 normal Iboats within in that oval area. All Glens are doing night search.




(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 1062
RE: Manila Falls - 3/14/2016 3:56:49 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

KUDOS on sinking Yorktown!!

I truly fear Jap subs in'42 and early '43 than KB. I've lost more CVs and BBs to subs than KB's planes over my playing career during those first 18 months. One of these days I'll play Allies with working TT from the beginning. It would have to be one of the new mods being developed with lots and lots of ships in play.


Thanks Michael. It was a lot of clicks, and I was thinking the best case might be an xap or a CA -- something like that.

I shudder to think of the carnage that working torpedoes would do. On the flip side there are still a lot of poor captains and experience initially.




(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 1063
RE: Manila Falls - 3/14/2016 5:50:32 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
End of September 1942

Seeking a victory, the Allied fleets in the Bay of Bengal push forward...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1064
RE: Manila Falls - 3/14/2016 5:55:54 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Unfortunately, a full Sentai of Oscars was on LRCAP elsewhere -- a victim of lost orders due to the frantic pace of turns yesterday.

However, the A6M5 and Tojo IIa are on duty. Some bombs slip thru...but damage is very minor for all ships.

A SC and a PB sunk, the others in good shape. I suspect the Allies will launch their British Battleships forward to close the air base.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1065
RE: Manila Falls - 3/14/2016 5:59:46 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Not a bad day in the air, oversight on my part in not causing more.

I have 180 rested and trained Betty and Nell planes ready to respond with torpedoes...plus plentiful escorts.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1066
RE: Manila Falls - 3/14/2016 6:00:28 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
How was the morale of your units in that attack? It's been my experience that low morale in the attacking units doesn't seem to ever result in a morale(-) on the attacker's side, but it definitely affects your AV.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1067
RE: Manila Falls - 3/14/2016 7:11:30 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

How was the morale of your units in that attack? It's been my experience that low morale in the attacking units doesn't seem to ever result in a morale(-) on the attacker's side, but it definitely affects your AV.


Nope morale was 99 or so.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 1068
RE: Manila Falls - 3/14/2016 7:53:52 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Finished the turn, and of course I am heading south out of Chittagong. Will the Allies predict this and follow into the teeth of four level 4+ air bases? Not sure...

I have been very reserved on sending out attack craft, so he might, he might.

I bought out another division from Fusan and they are headed to Kodiak. Only two to three more divisions to get into place. The 2nd Division should start heading to Alaska soon.

Tojo IIb started production today. More Tojo fighters and I actually have heard many good things about this plane from good Japanese players that actually have used them. Looking forward to them.


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1069
RE: Manila Falls - 3/14/2016 10:00:36 PM   
tiemanjw

 

Posts: 580
Joined: 12/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: tiemanj


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I've not had success sweeping with Spitfires.


really? They are far and away my favorite allied A/C. Use them at medium altitude (and lower than your Jugs), and they tend to arrive first, have good staying power (driving up fatigue for the CAP), and get back with minimal damage. I think the most I lost was 2 in a sweep. Their 3 down sides are 1) their guns suck - so they never kill anything... just damage a bunch of bad guys, and 2) they have a high (for allied) service rating (2 I think), so in a protracted campaign your air groups will have several in repairs and (3) the replacement rate isn't that good.
Once the spits do their job, the Jugs come in and insta-kill a bunch of worn out pilots in beat up planes. (follow it up with 4Es for some real fun)




Why wouldn't you just use them at their maximum altitude? They'd perform even better.


2 reasons... first, because flying lower seems to increase the odds of having the sweepers arrive before the bombers, and 2 from the testing I did, this is not the case (when the opponent has radar).

I'll repeat - in the testing I did, when the defender had radar, in every case I tried except 1 20k ft had a better kill ratio than 35k ft. The one exception was when I boosted the speed of the attacker (KR 1.73 at 20k and 1.89 at 35k - though the 20k killed more enemy A/C...It lost more too).
For the baseline test, increased climb rate test, and increased maneuver test the attackers had a better kill ratio at 20k' compared to 35k'


(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 1070
RE: Manila Falls - 3/15/2016 4:36:03 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tiemanj


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Why wouldn't you just use them at their maximum altitude? They'd perform even better.


2 reasons... first, because flying lower seems to increase the odds of having the sweepers arrive before the bombers, and 2 from the testing I did, this is not the case (when the opponent has radar).


Why would this be the case, and how many times did you test it (did you test that specifically)? For the second bit about radar... why does the defender having radar matter - because their planes climb up to meet yours, if they are lower? Wouldn't you want this, as their performance presumably degrades as their altitude increases whereas the sweeping fighters (George, Frank-r to an extent, Randy-a, Spit-VIII, P-47D25, P-51D, etc.) have superb ratings at their high altitudes and the higher you fight the opposing CAP the better? What I don't understand is why you would want your sweepers to get dived on by the CAP?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tiemanj

I'll repeat - in the testing I did, when the defender had radar, in every case I tried except 1 20k ft had a better kill ratio than 35k ft. The one exception was when I boosted the speed of the attacker (KR 1.73 at 20k and 1.89 at 35k - though the 20k killed more enemy A/C...It lost more too).
For the baseline test, increased climb rate test, and increased maneuver test the attackers had a better kill ratio at 20k' compared to 35k'



What was your 'n' and what were the CAP settings? Was the CAP set at an altitude near the sweepers, so that there may have been more attack runs? The only reason I can think of why radar would make a difference is in the CAP reacting to the sweep by scrambling and climbing, and the higher detection time would mean they can climb farther but...

35K is not strato-sweep for what we're talking about here. Your sweeping planes can all go higher than 35K, and most of the planes you'll find on CAP (simply due to the production numbers in available frames, the super high ceiling fighters can't be in every group) can't climb up to your sweeping altitude of 40K+, so you're always diving on them.

So if you're sweeping at 20K against radar and get detected, every single fighter in the game (except maybe some biplanes) can climb up to 22K to meet your sweep and dive on it, gaining the advantage on your planes. I just don't understand why you would ever intentionally take a disadvantage.

(in reply to tiemanjw)
Post #: 1071
RE: Manila Falls - 3/15/2016 5:20:19 PM   
tiemanjw

 

Posts: 580
Joined: 12/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: tiemanj


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Why wouldn't you just use them at their maximum altitude? They'd perform even better.


2 reasons... first, because flying lower seems to increase the odds of having the sweepers arrive before the bombers, and 2 from the testing I did, this is not the case (when the opponent has radar).


Why would this be the case, and how many times did you test it (did you test that specifically)? For the second bit about radar... why does the defender having radar matter - because their planes climb up to meet yours, if they are lower? Wouldn't you want this, as their performance presumably degrades as their altitude increases whereas the sweeping fighters (George, Frank-r to an extent, Randy-a, Spit-VIII, P-47D25, P-51D, etc.) have superb ratings at their high altitudes and the higher you fight the opposing CAP the better? What I don't understand is why you would want your sweepers to get dived on by the CAP?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tiemanj

I'll repeat - in the testing I did, when the defender had radar, in every case I tried except 1 20k ft had a better kill ratio than 35k ft. The one exception was when I boosted the speed of the attacker (KR 1.73 at 20k and 1.89 at 35k - though the 20k killed more enemy A/C...It lost more too).
For the baseline test, increased climb rate test, and increased maneuver test the attackers had a better kill ratio at 20k' compared to 35k'



What was your 'n' and what were the CAP settings? Was the CAP set at an altitude near the sweepers, so that there may have been more attack runs? The only reason I can think of why radar would make a difference is in the CAP reacting to the sweep by scrambling and climbing, and the higher detection time would mean they can climb farther but...

35K is not strato-sweep for what we're talking about here. Your sweeping planes can all go higher than 35K, and most of the planes you'll find on CAP (simply due to the production numbers in available frames, the super high ceiling fighters can't be in every group) can't climb up to your sweeping altitude of 40K+, so you're always diving on them.

So if you're sweeping at 20K against radar and get detected, every single fighter in the game (except maybe some biplanes) can climb up to 22K to meet your sweep and dive on it, gaining the advantage on your planes. I just don't understand why you would ever intentionally take a disadvantage.


Some good discussion here, and it is true I did not account for every possible setting that could be done. Here is the post I originally made on the topic (just quoted here because Lowpe can't read the original post)

quote:


No posts in a while in part due to lack of time, and in part due to fact that it is groundhogs day right now. I sweep and bomb trying to wear down his air force and destroy his industry / infrastructure. While doing this, I started (possibly) noticing something with respect to sweeps that I wanted to study a bit more.

A little background. At first I was just sweeping with everything at max altitude, figuring it "best practice". JFBs all seem to whine about "the dive", so with no house rules restricting it - hey, why not? But the results were less than satisfactory. I watch nearly every sweep in total, and sure enough I get to dive a few A/C, but after diving on what seemed like between 2 - 5 A/C it started to get mixed up - and he seemed to be doing better in the mix up. To further complicate it, when I did bomb, nearly every time, the sweepers would arrive after the bombers. Useless. There must be a better way. So I started running the bulk of my sweeps between 16k - 20k ft and the results have been much better. F4Us come into their own. Spits seem be unstoppable if only I had more top rate Aussie and Brit pilots (and if they got rid of the damn cannon and put in some 50s). Even the Jugs (especially the D2) seem to have improved their kill ratios. And they almost always arrive BEFORE the bombers!

So is this improved sweeping performance real, or did I just switch right at the critical point when his (probably) limited supply of good pilots began to dry up? So, a test.

The setup:
version 1.7.11.23x9

Using the editor, I modified the Marianas scenario (scenario 11). Specifically:
I added 100000 supply to Ailinglaplap
I made Ailinglaplap a size 5 AF, size 3 port
I added 3 US fighter squadrons at Ailinglaplap flying "jeff fighter" (more below)
I added a base force to Ailinglaplap to which I added a crap ton of support and air support

I added 100000 supply to Maloelap
I made Maloelap a size 5 AF, size 3 port
I added 3 JAF fighter squadrons to Maloelap flying "japan fighter" (more below)
I added a base force to Maloelap to which I added a crap ton of support and air support. For select tests, I added radar (see below)


Each squadron had an average experience of 75. I did not touch the leaders.
The US fighter squadrons had 25 A/C each, all set to sweep at either 20k or 35k (test dependent)
The JAF fighter squadrons had 36 A/C each, all set to 50% CAP. One squadron at 10k, one at 20k, one at 30k. Range = 0
I ran each test 5 times while changing something else in theater (sending combinations of bombers at different bases to attack different bases) in order to change the seed.


For this test, I wanted to normalize the fighters. I modified an A/C (P39D2 for US, Nate for Japan) such that they had all the same attributes. I will vary the attributes of the sweeps in isolation to see if that had any effect on results (or, more accurately, to see what those effects were). The baseline attributes:
Speed = 390
cruise = 270
endurance = 300
range = 25
normal range = 6/8
ext range = 8/10
max alt = 35k
climb rate = 2500
maneuver = 20/20/20/18/14
durability = 30
armor = 1
max load = 500
SR = 1
gun value = 18 (6x.50cal MGs mounted "forward")


Results:
At first I didn't put radar at the Japanese base (I wasn't really thinking about it). Below I've listed the average Japanese fighters killed, average US fighters killed, and kill ratio (expressed as how good the US did), first sweep kill ratio.
The tests include all fighters at baseline stats, US fighters speed bumped to 435 (P47D25 speed), climb rate 3k ft/min (tad faster than spit VIII, a bit slower than hellcat), and US maneuver set to 33/33/33/27/21 (spit VIII) with Japan maneuver set to 26/26/26/20/14 (Frank a)

Baseline 20k 19 9 2.111 .8214
Baseline 35k 16.6 7 2.371 1.625

Speed 435 20k 22 7.4 2.973 1.545
Speed 435 35k 22.6 6 3.767 1.68

climb 3k 20k 14.8 10.8 1.370 .4242
climb 3k 35k 17.6 6.4 2.75 1.389

man spit 20k 23.6 6.6 3.575 2.167
man spit 35k 21 5.2 4.038 2.5


so at first, it appears that higher is better. In all cases, the high altitude sweep outperformed the lower sweep. Some other take aways:
Speed is important, but maneuverability is king - especially in the first engagement.
a good climb rate (for the sweepers) is actually a BAD thing. I don't know if this is because they start chasing the high altitude CAP (instead of going after the lower guys), or what. But if your climb rate is good, it appears to be more important to start on top then if you have a poor climb rate. I don't understand this result, but it was consistent. I would have thought a good climb rate would enable the pilot to "recharge" his energy quicker. It does appear that this handicap disappears as you start higher.
While starting higher is important, it isn't the be all, end all JFBs seem to make it out to be. Since each test is 3 sweeps (occurring in the same phase), it appears the difference is only about 1 A/C per sweep. I typically saw 2 extra Japanese planes getting killed (on average) and 1 fewer US over the 3 sweeps.

Ok, that is without radar. Since the results above didn't seem to match what I was seeing in my game, I tried to think of what was different. Well, he usually "detects" my sweeps - perhaps the radar makes a difference. So I added 4 TaChi7 radar sets to the Japanese base force. The difference was astounding (same table format as above):

Baseline 20k 14.2 15.6 .910 .638
Baseline 35k 11.8 16.4 .719 .500

Speed 435 20k 19.4 11.2 1.73 1.15
Speed 435 35k 17.8 9.4 1.89 1.19

climb 3k 20k 15.2 14.8 1.02 .800
climb 3k 35k 8.4 13.6 .617 .428

man spit 20k 20.4 9.8 2.08 1.20
man spit 35k 16.8 8.8 1.91 .833

It is hard to believe I was measuring the same thing. This seems to confirm my antecedal observations in that flying lower is better. Let me be perfectly clear:
In all conditions except the high speed, allied kill ratios were BETTER at 20kft than at 35kft.
And the high altitude sweep was had a difference of less than 1 A/C per sweep difference.
Any JFB complaining about the dive needs to first check to see if he has adequate radar coverage over the base in question before simply attributing a bad loss ratio to "the dive" (and check pilot quality while you’re at it, though that is outside the scope of my testing).

What's more, if you’re an AFB, you should not just blindly come in at max altitude. Let me say that again: Allied kill ratios were BETTER at 20kft than at 35kft. My spits and corsairs perform perfectly fine in sweeps against Franks, Georges, Tony’s and the like. This was not the case when I was consistently coming in as high as I could. Get your A/C into their max maneuver band, and make sure your pilots are at least equal to his (preferably better). And if possible, try to get the spits to arrive first (closer basing and/or lower altitude), as again, maneuverability is king.





A few limitations of my testing:
I did not measure, or even check leaders. Except for the fact that they were consistent throughout testing (I kept reloading the same save after starting the scenario once), I do not know if / how they influenced the results.
I could not control for weather. I set "advanced weather" to off, but curiously enough I still had days of clear / partly cloudy and other days with heavy rain and thunderstorms.
I made no attempt to measure the effects over time. I did not check damaged A/C (and the effect of service rating on), pilot fatigue, pilot attrition rate, or anything you might look for if fighting an air campaign (as opposed to an air battle)
I set the pilot experience in the editor to 75 which causes the pilots to have average experience between 70-80, air skill 70-80 and def between 70-80. This last one is a big on, as a pilot can be easily trained to 70 air skill and get to 75 experience flying CAP missions that encounter no resistance, however def skill usually has a much large spread. Some have it in the 70s, others in the 50s. I think this is a big deal - as another change I made recently in my campaign was to fill USA sweep units with the highest def pilots (def > 70) with exp over 70, rather than just the most experienced pilots. This dropped my average experience by about 10 points, but I seemed to get a good bump in results. I have not tested this yet, as it would be very time consuming as I'd have to train the pilots first than perform the tests.


A few [mostly] unrelated parting comments:
During testing, if the sweeps didn't fly (or they flew as a combined sweep), I disregarded the test. Nearly every test only had one, or at most 2, cases where the A/C didn't fly. That is except for the baseline 20k and climb 20k when the bad guys had radar. Here, they failed to fly more times than they did fly. It may mean nothing, but it was interesting.

Only a few times did the sweepers come in a combined group (50 or 75 fighters sweeping at once). When they did, I got a message in the combat log about failing to fly due to weather or some such. I thought it a bit interesting that the combat log said "screw it, we aint going", but in the event they joined up for a mega sweep.

In order to ensure a different "seed" in between iterations of like tests, I set bombers to hit some of the other Japanese airfields (not the one where the fighters were based). I had set fog of war off so that I could get accurate combat reports - and found that when I do this the amount of supply destroyed due to airbase supply hits is listed in the report. In case you are curious, it was between 50 - 100 supply points per bomb usually, though on a couple of occasions it was over 200 points for 1 bomb hit.

I didn't explicitly track it, but I did often look at time to detect once I added the Japanese radar. The times were all pathetic - usually around 10 min with a high of 16 min. I know I've seen an AAR or 2 where the Japanese player seemed to think this meant the radar was near worthless. This does not appear so. Even with the poor detection times, results were much, much better for the Japanese with radar than without.



As to your specific questions:
I did not explicitly test getting bombers to arrive after sweeps. I don't think I ever made that claim, but if I did, I apologize. All I was trying to say was that in my game, before I lowered my sweep altitudes, it seemed my bombers were coming in first, and afterwards it seemed like they were arriving after the sweeps (more often than not). It could just be rose colored glasses.
I speculate the reason for this could be that the game computes a time to target from the sweeping base and the bombing base, and that this time to target includes (among other things) the cruise speed of the A/C and [possibly/probably] the amount of time it takes to climb to altitude (as a function of the altitude setting and climb rate).
I will say that I do not claim this this is "proven" in any way... just an observation I made. Since my sweep results were better at medium altitude, my thought process was along the lines of "I'm going to do it anyway for the sweep results alone, any benefit to the bombers is a bonus".

I don't think I mentioned my "n" above - it was 5. Each test was repeated 5 times

True, 35k is not the "strato sweep". It is close. And as I say above, watching the replays the allies only got "the dive" for the first few A/C (and most of them missed - perhaps due to high def skill of the CAP pilots). After that, it seemed he was diving on me more often than not. If you are not convinced, go ahead and test it. I have no problem being wrong (my wife makes sure of that). I do not remember why I chose 35k for the tests - my in game strato sweeps were at 42k. It is possible that there is a difference, but as I said, it did seem that the testing matched my in game results (despite the different altitudes).

I confess, I do not know why the sweeps performed better down low. I could write a bunch of guess here, but they would be exactly that.
I will say (again as it appears without recording data) that it is not uncommon now for me to see him have "the dive" first against my sweeps... though again just for the first couple of A/C. Watching the replays it seems that "the dive" only lasts for a few planes. Good pilots (presumably high def skill, perhaps experience) seem to be able to avoid getting killed by the dive. The main sticking point here is that "the dive" only lasts for a few A/C at the beginning of the combat. This is the case regardless of if you sweep high and dive on him, or sweep low and he dives on you. After that it is all about pilot skill and machine performance.


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by tiemanj -- 3/15/2016 5:21:10 PM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 1072
RE: Manila Falls - 3/15/2016 10:07:04 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
October 1942

Japanese tank units break into the central plains of Chungking with minor losses.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to tiemanjw)
Post #: 1073
RE: Manila Falls - 3/15/2016 10:14:01 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Bay of Bengal

IJN decided to flee...three BBs bombard for temporary damage while the IJN force retreats to the south under a heavy LRCAP presence.

An Iboat fails to penetrate a nice convoy off Ceylon.

The question becomes what happens here when the KB and friends are off the west coast. I have no faith that land based air can stop an invasion, and two elements of the IJA are far forward in India. I am building up the bases, and will contemplate on this further.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1074
RE: Manila Falls - 3/15/2016 10:16:31 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Tanks here...not good news for the Chinese.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1075
RE: Manila Falls - 3/15/2016 11:51:38 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Nice post on sweeps etc Tiemanj. Thanks for sharing.

I will say here, that there are tactics and counter tactics and the wheel has no end. Obvert has mentioned this, and I think it not unreasonable to think that there is not one setting that will guarantee good results -- there are too many variables.

Most Japanese players counter the strato sweep with the strato CAP. Rather, I think there should always be other answers than merely meeting strength with strength.




(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1076
RE: Manila Falls - 3/16/2016 12:02:05 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Tojo IIb arrives, after one day of production I manually upgrade the squadron. They will load onto an AKV tomorrow and will head to Pearl Harbor for final replacements before the West Coast Operation.

I get three squadrons that can now upgrade to the IIb -- what a nice PDU off gift. The Tojo IIa will reamin, until the pool is reduced (204 in pool). So that gives me 5.3 Sentai of Tojo to fight with and their performance defensively has been great.

I have not played with AKVs much before, and never as Japan. I am curious to see if the pilots train while on ship. I think they will, but perhaps at a reduced rate.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1077
RE: Manila Falls - 3/16/2016 12:30:19 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
In other plane news, ground has broken on the Ki61-a Tony Factory. This factory will become fairly large. At present it needs only support two squadrons destined for Burma. A nice boost in a theater that will see a lot of action.

The Aichi Ha 60 and Ha33 engines will reach 500 in the pool this month aiding the r&d of several planes: Judy, Myojo, Dinah III now but with implications for the A6M8, Tony, Judy (later versions), Randy. It will feel good to get the bonus.

Sometime mid-month the Judy will start producing, adding a significant upgrade from the Val.




(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1078
RE: Manila Falls - 3/16/2016 6:06:51 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
A look at the hero of the hour...I-160.

I think Japan is better off with very aggressive sub commanders early on, just try to keep them in deep water. This Iboat fired every single torpedo in their forward tubes...






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 3/16/2016 6:07:35 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1079
RE: Manila Falls - 3/16/2016 6:19:42 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

A look at the hero of the hour...I-160.

I think Japan is better off with very aggressive sub commanders early on, just try to keep them in deep water. This Iboat fired every single torpedo in their forward tubes...



I agree. When compared with USN and the newer Dutch boats, these guys are not good. Low maneuver and not so durable. Short range on some, like this class.

You should have enough to get naval skill over 60 on pretty much every commander too. Obviously you got good results at only 55, but 60+ might mean more chances and more clean escapes.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1080
Page:   <<   < prev  34 35 [36] 37 38   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Manila Falls Page: <<   < prev  34 35 [36] 37 38   next >   >>
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

0.734