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: CV Airstrike Coordination

 
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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: CV Airstrike Coordination Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/1/2005 7:21:26 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Just to bang my own drum here, but y'all can test to your hearts content the abilities of CAP, fatigued pilots, and surprise, on my Midway scenario.

ETA for "version zero" is about a week. I've got all the units in place. I ran my first game against myelf last night, mostly just to verify that stuff is working. Looks -very- promising. I'll send it to my PBEM partners for another pass when I'm done (in about a week). I'll Let them play around with it for another week, then send out a few copies for further beta testing (another week). From them I'll need feed-back on success rates (and ease thereof), in order to balance VPs for playability.

That puts "Midway v1.0" available for general consumption in about 3 weeks.

Just so you know, (at least from last night's run), it's more even than you might think. Don't get me wrong. The odds still look pretty long against USN (just looking at the volume of crap arrayed against them). But that's where we tweak VP levels, and all sorts of goodies, in order to create the -possability- (altho not certainty) of a historical super-surprise-really-clobber-em-good strike by USN. (And Midway's defenses don't suck either by the way).

Cheers.
-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 91
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/1/2005 8:08:42 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline 		Hey Halsey, would you post the combat report details from this action? We'd all be very interested to see how the IJNs CAP was attenuated by losses and fatigue in between each of your strikes.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 92
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/1/2005 8:30:54 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Ron, for the final time ... cap losses are taken before additional attacks!

Day Air attack on Khota Bharu , at 24,45 (main raid)

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 24
Ki-21 Sally x 18
Ki-48 Lily x 50

Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 31

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 1 damaged
Ki-48 Lily: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 18 destroyed

Airbase hits 4
Runway hits 5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Khota Bharu , at 24,45 (uncoordinated)

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 56
Ki-46-II Dinah x 3

Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 8 (hmm, wheres your 31 buffalos from above?)

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 1 destroyed

Airbase hits 4
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Khota Bharu , at 24,45

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 3
G3M Nell x 97
Ki-21 Sally x 41

Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 9 (hmm, were's those 31 Buffalos?)

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
Ki-21 Sally: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 2 destroyed, 4 damaged


Allied ground losses:
14 casualties reported

Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 14
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 1

Save is available if you want to see it in action, I am really tired about arguing about *facts*.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 93
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/1/2005 9:06:40 PM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		argueing with a person in the right always puts you in the wrong..
I think that everyone has made their points clear.. does anyone disagree?

< Message edited by freeboy -- 3/2/2005 3:07:14 AM >

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 94
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/1/2005 9:30:08 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Sorry, I zapped the file already. Let's keep track when it happens in our game.

_____________________________


(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 95
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/1/2005 10:04:52 PM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		My observances as an allied player through 12 43 starting 12 41.. also as Jap player, games suspended...

Jap base cap does well as long as the allied has no escorts or escorts are poor quality.. as soon as US puts escorts out that are experienced.. the bombers get through.. and against bases massed heavies usually can get through even at long ranges while suffering horribly in the process.
Against Jap CV cap, again... you can get through and get hits against even heavy cap after 6 42 if you commit some escorts.. say2/3 the number of Cap..
Against the Allies the Japs suffer terribly after hellcat and corsairs come online with limited, under 50 plane cap... I have never used Uber cap.. over 125.. but it does seem to hurt the japs badly from what I have gleened, and they cannot afford to lose pilots ... a catch 22, use you planes early when you can hurt the Allies lossing planes/pilots, and if you sink carriers 18 months later they are back, or wait and attempt to minimize loses and avoid major battles while sniping at the oponent...all the while the advantage slipping away....

Obviously there are as many variations to this as there are players.. but US cap will be a tough nut for the Jap as the war progresses as will JAp cap early in the war...the game is simply designed that way.. Jap cap decreasing reletive to both early jap and concurrent Allied due to the supperior Allied numbers one should expect as the war progresses.

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 96
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/1/2005 10:31:00 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		IIRC in the battle I just had at Midway, sorry I deleted the file already. The IJN CAP was somewhat smaller each time, but so were the escorting fighters. The last attack was by two BR CV's (under 100 AC in that TF). They went in with no escorts. So even with that TF adhering to the 100 AC coordination rule they were still snuffed. About 10 out of 40 Swordfish got past the CAP.

So damaged and destroyed AC appear to be gone from the following strikes. That's as it should be. They were casualties after all. Still the CAP from the combined TF's was awesome.

_____________________________


(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 97
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/1/2005 11:04:35 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Ron, for the final time ... cap losses are taken before additional attacks!

Day Air attack on Khota Bharu , at 24,45 (main raid)

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 24
Ki-21 Sally x 18
Ki-48 Lily x 50

Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 31

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 1 damaged
Ki-48 Lily: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 18 destroyed

Airbase hits 4
Runway hits 5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Khota Bharu , at 24,45 (uncoordinated)

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 56
Ki-46-II Dinah x 3

Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 8 (hmm, wheres your 31 buffalos from above?)

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 1 destroyed

Airbase hits 4
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Khota Bharu , at 24,45

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 3
G3M Nell x 97
Ki-21 Sally x 41

Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 9 (hmm, were's those 31 Buffalos?)

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
Ki-21 Sally: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 2 destroyed, 4 damaged


Allied ground losses:
14 casualties reported

Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 14
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 1

Save is available if you want to see it in action, I am really tired about arguing about *facts*.


So, assume these uncoordinated attacks on Khota Bharu are vs 3 LCUs. One can never have a coordinated strike vs LCUs (unless there is only one LCU present so strike is penalized automatically as uncoordinated the way the mechanics are set up). So, hypothetically, the squadrons, because they split before CAP, now have to deal with the CAP as packets when they should only have to deal with it as a full coordinated strike packet. So, three CAP battles for a total of 48 Buffaloes attacking (31+8+9=48). The CAP should engage before the strike target selection so attacks vs multiple LCUs and TFs in the same hex are not always classed as uncoordinated. The battle, assuming it was between CAP and a coordinated strike, should have been 31 Buffaloes vs 27 Jap fighters and 267 bombers if attacks vs multiple LCUs/TFs in same hex were possible. This is a design oversight which has increased the effect of CAP and vulnerability of bombers when attacking multiple LCUs and TFs in same hex.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 98
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/2/2005 2:58:34 AM   
Bombur

 

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline 		-I think the IJN would have been allowed to have better coordination than the USA Navy in early war, not for tatical/operational skills, but due to the fact the poor speed and range of the TBD made very difficult to organize a coordinated torpedo/dive bomb attack. In contrast, the overall range and speed of Vals and Kates were pretty similar. The longer range of the A6M compared with the F4F helped something too. With the advant of TBF, the coordination advantage of the IJN should come to an end.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 99
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/2/2005 3:13:24 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Just to bang my own drum here, but y'all can test to your hearts content the abilities of CAP, fatigued pilots, and surprise, on my Midway scenario.

ETA for "version zero" is about a week. I've got all the units in place. I ran my first game against myelf last night, mostly just to verify that stuff is working. Looks -very- promising. I'll send it to my PBEM partners for another pass when I'm done (in about a week). I'll Let them play around with it for another week, then send out a few copies for further beta testing (another week). From them I'll need feed-back on success rates (and ease thereof), in order to balance VPs for playability.

That puts "Midway v1.0" available for general consumption in about 3 weeks.

Just so you know, (at least from last night's run), it's more even than you might think. Don't get me wrong. The odds still look pretty long against USN (just looking at the volume of crap arrayed against them). But that's where we tweak VP levels, and all sorts of goodies, in order to create the -possability- (altho not certainty) of a historical super-surprise-really-clobber-em-good strike by USN. (And Midway's defenses don't suck either by the way).

Cheers.
-F-


That sounds like a fun scenario. Thanks for the work and let us know ASAP when it's ready for public consumption.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 100
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/2/2005 3:16:31 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

argueing with a person in the right always puts you in the wrong..
I think that everyone has made their points clear.. does anyone disagree?


Everyone's made their points? The only "point" that's clear to me is that CAP doesn't work realistically.

Sheeesh. How can stuff so utterly plain be so difficult to grasp?

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 101
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/2/2005 3:18:15 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

argueing with a person in the right always puts you in the wrong..
I think that everyone has made their points clear.. does anyone disagree?


Everyone's made their points? The only "point" that's clear to me is that CAP doesn't work realistically.

Sheeesh. How can stuff so utterly plain be so difficult to grasp?



Yeah! No shiite!

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 102
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/2/2005 3:18:54 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bombur

-I think the IJN would have been allowed to have better coordination than the USA Navy in early war, not for tatical/operational skills, but due to the fact the poor speed and range of the TBD made very difficult to organize a coordinated torpedo/dive bomb attack. In contrast, the overall range and speed of Vals and Kates were pretty similar. The longer range of the A6M compared with the F4F helped something too. With the advant of TBF, the coordination advantage of the IJN should come to an end.


What you say re "speed" is true enough but the fact remains IJN strikes were in the main no more or less coordinated than USN strikes, and you can take that to the bank. What's what is what historically speaking and the records are there to prove it.

(in reply to Bombur)
Post #: 103
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/2/2005 3:20:08 AM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		"cap works unrealistically" .. it is after all the best guess of how it should be by the designers.. don't even get started on land combat, major rivers. bridges .. and mio!!!!!!!!

< Message edited by freeboy -- 3/2/2005 9:20:23 AM >

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 104
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/2/2005 3:20:43 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

argueing with a person in the right always puts you in the wrong..
I think that everyone has made their points clear.. does anyone disagree?


Everyone's made their points? The only "point" that's clear to me is that CAP doesn't work realistically.

Sheeesh. How can stuff so utterly plain be so difficult to grasp?



Yeah! No shiite!


Hang in there, friend. Maybe one day you'll wake up and find they've just worn down. (Don't hold your breath, though. )

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 105
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/2/2005 3:23:17 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

"cap works unrealistically" .. it is after all the best guess of how it should be by the designers.. don't even get started on land combat, major rivers. bridges .. and mio!!!!!!!!


You're right, the designers can/could/did design it the way they wanted to--unless, of course, it was just a terrible mistake somehow. But that begs the question: CAP still doesn't perform at all realistically.

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 106
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/2/2005 3:28:03 AM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		says you.. my point is that .. if you read my war flow changes synopsis above is that it changes as the war progresses and even in the early months it can be overwhelmed by supperior numbers... if you are complaining about the TOTALS allowed do to cap cv cordination rules.. that is another issue altogether.

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 107
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/2/2005 3:31:16 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

says you.. my point is that .. if you read my war flow changes synopsis above is that it changes as the war progresses and even in the early months it can be overwhelmed by supperior numbers... if you are complaining about the TOTALS allowed do to cap cv cordination rules.. that is another issue altogether.


Not "says me" but says the history.

I guess you're one of those people Ron was referring to when he mentioned "a book."

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 108
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/2/2005 3:35:06 AM   
Gem35


Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline 		ability to play WitP...$70
cost for secret plans to your pbem oppenent $150
reading your fellow member's gripes and complaints about the game they love....priceless

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 109
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/2/2005 3:42:23 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

says you.. my point is that .. if you read my war flow changes synopsis above is that it changes as the war progresses and even in the early months it can be overwhelmed by supperior numbers... if you are complaining about the TOTALS allowed do to cap cv cordination rules.. that is another issue altogether.


I'm not talking about "totals" (whatever that means) but a realistic treatment of CAP.

Please, let us look at just one of the limiting variables. Planes only carry so much ammunition. A few seconds worth of machine-gun ammo, and if the plane has a cannon then however many shells it has loaded in that magazine as well. Whatever the particular case re ammunition, when that ammo is expended that's all she wrote for that CAP unit. Then it is obliged to go back to base and reload.

That takes a lot of time. Make that a lot of time. To fly back. To land. To be reloaded. To take off again. To gain altitude again. To join the fray again.

Now unless we're to believe these strikes are coming in hours apart . . . and how could any of this be with, say, the strike originating in Rabaul and hitting PM twice daily . . . see what I mean?

It's ridiculous. Whether or not (and I'm sure it's true) the Allies get to blast the Japanese similarily later in the war has nothing to do with the central (and only) thesis: CAP is unrealistic as can be.

Call it an abstraction? I'll say!

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 110
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/2/2005 3:43:28 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35

ability to play WitP...$70
cost for secret plans to your pbem oppenent $150
reading your fellow member's gripes and complaints about the game they love....priceless


Hear! Hear!

(in reply to Gem35)
Post #: 111
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/2/2005 3:44:27 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35

ability to play WitP...$70
cost for secret plans to your pbem oppenent $150
reading your fellow member's gripes and complaints about the game they love....priceless


Hear! Hear!


P.S. That's why they call us grognards.

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 112
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/2/2005 3:57:16 AM   
Bombur

 

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:


What you say re "speed" is true enough but the fact remains IJN strikes were in the main no more or less coordinated than USN strikes, and you can take that to the bank. What's what is what historically speaking and the records are there to prove it.


-Trouble is that we actually had few situations to prove your (or my) point. A sample of two CV vs. CV battles is not exactly impressive (because in Eastern Salomons the USA already had Avengers). And in Coral Sea the CV´s were too close, so the range of TBD´s didn´t have too much influence. In Midway the inability of USA to mount a coordinated attack became quote obvious, while the failure of IJN to launch coordinated strikes was largely related to the multiple tasks given to the CV group and the early destruction of their carriers.

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 113
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/2/2005 4:09:01 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bombur

quote:


What you say re "speed" is true enough but the fact remains IJN strikes were in the main no more or less coordinated than USN strikes, and you can take that to the bank. What's what is what historically speaking and the records are there to prove it.


-Trouble is that we actually had few situations to prove your (or my) point. A sample of two CV vs. CV battles is not exactly impressive (because in Eastern Salomons the USA already had Avengers). And in Coral Sea the CV´s were too close, so the range of TBD´s didn´t have too much influence. In Midway the inability of USA to mount a coordinated attack became quote obvious, while the failure of IJN to launch coordinated strikes was largely related to the multiple tasks given to the CV group and the early destruction of their carriers.


God, help me!

We have the sample(s) that we have. We must work with that/those. What else do we have to go on? Ashes scattered to the wind, tea leaves, somebody's half-baked "intuition"?

This is fact: at no time in World War II did the IJN/IJA demonstrate an overall (consistent) ability to coordinate strikes (be they carrier based or land based) any better than the Allies. Indeed, a good case could be made that if there needed (why does that sound so appropriate to me given that this is one of Gary's Pacific games? ) to be a "coordination bonus" of some kind (or for that matter a CAP bonus--these threads are inter-related, afterall) then it ought to go to the Allies sometime later in the war (say, around 1944).

< Message edited by Tristanjohn -- 3/1/2005 6:10:11 PM >

(in reply to Bombur)
Post #: 114
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/2/2005 4:25:25 AM   
Bombur

 

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:


We have the sample(s) that we have. We must work with that/those. What else do we have to go on? Ashes scattered to the wind, tea leaves, somebody's half-baked "intuition"?


-The data on range/speed of the TBD, Vals and Kates seem to be a pretty good variable to me.....otherwise, you cannot work with historical examples due to the scarcity of them. Maybe you could add the two other battles to increase the sample and you will see the IJN was able to coordinate strikes three times vs. two for USN. On the other hand, the USN should have a CAP coordination bonus since the beginning since they have radar. Some of variables in WiTP must be "abstracted" due to the lack of historical data. We never had, for instance, a confrontation beween Yamatos and South Dakotas, but it can happen in WiTP, what example will you use in that case?

quote:


This is fact: at no time in World War II did the IJN/IJA demonstrate an overall (consistent) ability to coordinate strikes (be they carrier based or land based) any better than the Allies.


-The allies didn´t have land based TBD´s.....

quote:


Indeed, a good case could be made that if there needed (why does that sound so appropriate to me given that this is one of Gary's Pacific games? ) to be a "coordination bonus" of some kind (or for that matter a CAP bonus--these threads are inter-related, afterall) then it ought to go to the Allies sometime later in the war (say, around 1944).


-A CAP bonus for late war allies would be quite correct too.

< Message edited by Bombur -- 3/2/2005 2:25:46 AM >

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 115
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/2/2005 5:57:11 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bombur

quote:


We have the sample(s) that we have. We must work with that/those. What else do we have to go on? Ashes scattered to the wind, tea leaves, somebody's half-baked "intuition"?


-The data on range/speed of the TBD, Vals and Kates seem to be a pretty good variable to me.....otherwise, you cannot work with historical examples due to the scarcity of them. Maybe you could add the two other battles to increase the sample and you will see the IJN was able to coordinate strikes three times vs. two for USN. On the other hand, the USN should have a CAP coordination bonus since the beginning since they have radar. Some of variables in WiTP must be "abstracted" due to the lack of historical data. We never had, for instance, a confrontation beween Yamatos and South Dakotas, but it can happen in WiTP, what example will you use in that case?

quote:


This is fact: at no time in World War II did the IJN/IJA demonstrate an overall (consistent) ability to coordinate strikes (be they carrier based or land based) any better than the Allies.


-The allies didn´t have land based TBD´s.....

quote:


Indeed, a good case could be made that if there needed (why does that sound so appropriate to me given that this is one of Gary's Pacific games? ) to be a "coordination bonus" of some kind (or for that matter a CAP bonus--these threads are inter-related, afterall) then it ought to go to the Allies sometime later in the war (say, around 1944).


-A CAP bonus for late war allies would be quite correct too.


Not "too." Maybe. Perhaps. Assuming Matrix/2by3 wanted to move on it. The Japanese should get no bonus at all in this regard.

(in reply to Bombur)
Post #: 116
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/2/2005 6:21:00 AM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

This is fact: at no time in World War II did the IJN/IJA demonstrate an overall (consistent) ability to coordinate strikes (be they carrier based or land based) any better than the Allies.


OK, let me disagree at Midway the US suffered SEVEAR lack of coordination even though it "lucked" into a succeffful outcome, andthe JAps at Pearl managed 6 carriers worth.. could have doen it again at Midway had they had the same intel capabilities that the allies had... one of the area the game cannot reproduce.. the us reading the JAp maill... rememmber Yammamotto's plane intercepted based on intercepts .. etc... so

You and others..Ron etc.. are crying wolf about a system you say unfairly allows cap to rule.. I disagree.. Cap, against slower planes is Deadly, in any theater of the war...
Cap is even more deadly againt very slow single engine planes that are unescorted.
Cap benifits from radar. Incoming planes have a choice.. fly on or be blasted from the sky... if they manuver.. the formation loses cohesion and the strike is pretty much over ..


So.. while I do understand you see cap as too affective, if players do not use all the cv fighters as cap, and play HISTORICALLY.. sending planes as escorts cap is less affective.
We tend as a group to play VERRY non historically... so if your reasoning was applied I would see almost no carriers of either side lasting very long.. after all... if they where used they wouldn't be able to be defended.. not too historical imo

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 117
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/2/2005 6:38:35 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		Frag,

The thread from back in December :CV Strike Composition" went over all this ground. I think in that thread is was shown that the "CV Strike Coordination" rule was invalid as reflected in the historical data { see multiple posts by Spence and Wilkerson } - and we got significant support for that position.

Also the doctrine issue was discussed. And though some continue to state that the USN had no multi-carrier doctrine pre-war ... are these same people aware that Cdr Genda got the idea to operate 4 carriers together from watching a USN news reel showing 4 carrier operating together ? Or that KB only operated 6 CV together for a few weeks, from mid-Nov through mid-Dec .. conducting precisely one training exercise and precisely one mission ( PH Strike ).

As I did then, I'd still argue for equal treatment for carriers operations in 1942 ... the data support that, and Naval Analysis supports that ( Cpt Huges book FLEET TACTICS op cit in the thread in question ).

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 118
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/2/2005 6:59:03 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I'd say more than bit. 100% rolls for the IJN all 3 times, and losing rolls everytime on the Allies? Also one of the Allied CV TF's had less than 100 AC. It was composed of 2 British CV's, they flew in without their escort. Good officers were in charge.

I'll still call this battle even. It will be 4 for 4. With 2 extra IJN CV's damaged. The other 4 Allied CV's weren't touched.


Sounds like a rather wide spread "problem" in the game in how and when they seed the random number generator.

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 119
RE: CV Airstrike Coordination - 3/2/2005 7:13:04 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bombur

quote:


We have the sample(s) that we have. We must work with that/those. What else do we have to go on? Ashes scattered to the wind, tea leaves, somebody's half-baked "intuition"?


-The data on range/speed of the TBD, Vals and Kates seem to be a pretty good variable to me.....otherwise, you cannot work with historical examples due to the scarcity of them. Maybe you could add the two other battles to increase the sample and you will see the IJN was able to coordinate strikes three times vs. two for USN. On the other hand, the USN should have a CAP coordination bonus since the beginning since they have radar. Some of variables in WiTP must be "abstracted" due to the lack of historical data. We never had, for instance, a confrontation beween Yamatos and South Dakotas, but it can happen in WiTP, what example will you use in that case?

quote:


This is fact: at no time in World War II did the IJN/IJA demonstrate an overall (consistent) ability to coordinate strikes (be they carrier based or land based) any better than the Allies.


-The allies didn´t have land based TBD´s.....

quote:


Indeed, a good case could be made that if there needed (why does that sound so appropriate to me given that this is one of Gary's Pacific games? ) to be a "coordination bonus" of some kind (or for that matter a CAP bonus--these threads are inter-related, afterall) then it ought to go to the Allies sometime later in the war (say, around 1944).


-A CAP bonus for late war allies would be quite correct too.


Not "too." Maybe. Perhaps. Assuming Matrix/2by3 wanted to move on it. The Japanese should get no bonus at all in this regard.


Expectations on this forum about what will realistically get "fixed" and will not need to be examinded from time to time. This whole thread smacks of a "design level" complaint in how CAP and strike coordination occur. I'd say you have a snowball's chance in hell of something like this ever getting addressed, not matter how correct you may be about it. Remember 2x3 is only three guys or so. A designer, and two programmers. They are all off polishing World At War and working on whatever next is coming down the pike. Maybe ONE of them will visit this game from time to time, and that only to fix actual BUGS, not DESIGN issues. And that probably squashing these leader bugs and fixing the remaining CTD's that folks are experiencing. I seriously doubt they are going to redesign and code and test new combat resolution algorithms, unless their "defect" is simple and obvious.

Bottom line, 99.9% of WitP is as it is. What you have is what you are going to have, forever, so learn to live with it. The game is still immently enjoyable. And that is quite typical of game life cycles. Maybe, once sales finally fall off to a trickle, they will release the source code to third parties ala PACWAR and then the devoted WitP fans can mod and prod and message until their hearts are content.

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: CV Airstrike Coordination Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   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

2.094