Nagumo has too many Zeros? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Carriers At War



Message

Joe D. -> Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/7/2007 3:42:59 AM)

One of the hardest CaW scenarios to play as the Allies is Midway. I think this is because Nagumo's 1st Air Fleet seems to have an inexhaustible supply of planes, while Allied air is usually ineffective, i.e., easilly shot down by IJ CAP and AAA.

So I compared CaW's 249 total planes for both CarDiv 1 and 2 w/other IJN Order of Battle stats at Midway, notably Shattered Sword, which puts the total number of Nagumo's carrier planes at (approximately) 227.

The difference between the above is very close to the 21 Zeros of the 6th Air Group that were being ferried by Nagumo's carriers; these planes were intended to serve as Midway's CAP after Kondo's invasion force took the island and got the airstrip operational.

Although the 6th AG Zeros were carried intact -- Nagumo's CVs had ample room as their own airgroups had been attrited since Pearl Harbor -- and as such were technically "operational," they were stowed away inside the CVs and were not historically used at Midway. But I suspect they are being used in CaW for escort and CAP, making IJN air offense and defense more effective than it should be.

Anyone have an opinion on this?



Rebel Yell -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/7/2007 8:50:59 PM)

Those a/c should be deleted from the scenario OOB.  An additional 21 Zero's definitely changes the matchup from the historical.




OldBoney -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/8/2007 1:31:08 AM)

I don't have a copy of "Shattered Sword" but Morison vol IX gives the total planes for the four carriers as 272. Of that total he shows 93 as fighters.

In another book "Titans of the Seas", Belote says "the four carriers had 93 Zeros, plus 24 being ferried... 86 Vals.. and 93 Kates". Total is 272 not counting the ferried planes. The CAW total of 249 is actually low by comparison. "Shattered Sword" is newer I know, but Morison is usually reliable. Does Shattered Sword break the planes out by type and carrier?

Maybe someone could tell us what references were used by SSG?

BTW I found a source for carrier data at http://www.voodoo.cz/ww2car/ Has some obscure carriers I've never heard of.






Joe D. -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/8/2007 3:34:40 AM)

re Shattered Sword:

In order of Fighters, Dive Bombers, Torpedo Attack, Totals per CV
(I tried to graph this, but no Wisiwig on this forum).

Akagi 18 18 18 54
Kaga 18 18 27 63 + 2 spare Bombers
Soryu 18 16 18 52 + 2 Bomber recon
Hiryu 18 18 18 54

Totals 72 70 81 = 223 + 2 spare + 2 recon = 227

Re 6th Air Group Zeros: Akagi carried 6, Kaga 9, Hiryu and Soryu 3 each. 12 6th AG Zeros were also aboard Junyo.

I've seen similar numbers in Wickipedia, i.e., for Akagi: 19 A6M2, 18 D3A1, 18 B5N2, etc.

in general, it looks like the latter sources list fewer aircraft.



OldBoney -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/8/2007 5:30:02 PM)

The more recent numbers are probably more correct. With the 6th AG planes distributed like that they wouldn't show up as a group. Then there's the issue of spare planes and how they are counted.

I haven't really looked at this aspect, but how does the CAW initial location of forces compare with the actual one? I thought I remembered that the Japanese TG's were strung out over a lot of ocean. When I play the scenario as the US, I'm flooded with contacts by air search. I can either make some rash guesses or wait for more sightings. Waiting is a dangerous option.The IJN has it much easier with fewer targets to guess about.

Most of my references concentrate on the carrier force locations. General comments like "... on board Combined Fleet flagship Yamato several hundred miles to the rear.." don't provide much help. The IJN's Lt carriers didn't play much of a role but in CAW they often get into the thick of things implying (I think) that they are deployed nearer Midway.



Joe D. -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/8/2007 7:51:31 PM)

I know exactly what you mean re the numerous IJN contacts -- as we also have subs scouting there as well as planes -- that make trying to find Nagumo's CVs more difficult. However, in CaW, Nagumo's 1st Air Fleet is just to the NW of Midway, approximately where it should be; so in the future, I think I will send my TG CVs @ flank to the SW -- instead of simply West -- to try and meet Nagumo before the rest of Yamamoto's fleets show up.

Frankly, there are so many IJN fleets in such a "small" area that I suspected CaW was sending the Aleutian Invasion fleet against Midway too, but not so; both the IJN fleets and ships off Midway are historically correct -- even down to their knotts -- they just seem too supportive of one another, which wasn't the case historicaly. This may be because the battle goes on for about a week, giving the other slower fleets time to mingle w/Nagumo's CVs, unless you can find him first.

But there's another problem I discovered when playing the IJN at Midway; although the IJN has missions to both bombard and invade Midway, there is no mission for Nagumo's fleet to (air) attack Midway. As this is a historical scenario, shouldn't that mission be worth as much points as the other missions? I posted this in the CaW support section, but so far no response from the developers.

Midway would be a good opportunity for alternate scenarios, i.e., what if one of the IJN CVs damaged at the Coral Sea battle showed up, or if Naguomo fleet and planes were at full strength as his Kido Butai was attrited about 16% after tearing-up the Pacific for the previous 6 months w/o any refit.



vinboni -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/8/2007 8:21:54 PM)

Well, it's not difficult to add a new warrom card for strike Midway by japanese carriers. I will tray it.



Joe D. -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/8/2007 10:24:10 PM)

Can you actually change an existing CaW scenario w/the editor?

Vino-boni = "good wine"?



OldBoney -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/8/2007 10:48:53 PM)

Sure Just load Midway and save as some other name so your original scenario doesn't get messed up.

It's easy to play with the number of planes and ships starting points. I'm having more trouble dinking with the war cards but I've gotten a couple of simple scenarios to work. The docunentation on the editor could be better. Maybe annotating a simple scenario's war cards using the description block would work.



vinboni -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/8/2007 11:22:44 PM)

It's easy to change AI warcards with the editor. There is a warcard colled "strike landbase" so you have to ad it, but look at the right thread.
Save the scenario file with another name, but better make before a backup of the scenarios directory.

Vin is for Vincent. Boni my last name. "good wine" = "buon vino" in Italian.





Joe D. -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/9/2007 1:39:39 AM)

Guys, I've heard bad things re the editor, at least prior to the new patch. The manual wasn't very encouraging, either.

But if the developers don't do something, I may someday take a chance, make a copy of Midway and attempt to attenuate Nagumo's plane #'s and direct his CVs to fully attack Midway, at least fully enough to keep the AI's attention away from my CV TGs til it's too late.






Unhappy -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/9/2007 3:20:28 AM)

There is no conditional effect for air attacks built into the editor. Therefore, you can not make an air attack a requirement for victory or award points for it (unlike supply or bombardment missions...I think this it too bad but perhaps something SSG will address in the future). You can try to force the AI to carry out an air attack on a landbase (again - with no points awarded) but there is no way to compel a human player to do so.

I find the editor much more stable since the patch, just save your scenario under a different name and you don't really need to worry about 'breaking' anything.

That is my two cents.

Here, you can try this version and see if it is any better.
- reduced number of Japanese planes to 223 (per somebody's schedule above) + 4 spares
- decreased all American operational minimums to '1' so that American squadrons can continue to fly after sustaining heavy casualties
- Landbase attack actions (warcards) are already present in the scenario but I added arm and fuel actions in an effort to make it more likely that the Japanese will carry out those landbase attacks. (Plus if Americans can locate Japanese carriers at Dawn they should be full of armed and fueled planes)

Download the file, unzip it, and place it in your Carriers at War/Scenarios directory.

u Revised Midway.zip

Oh - I only changed the historical scenario...because I was too lazy to change the other one.



Joe D. -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/9/2007 4:18:21 AM)

If that's correct, then it would explain why there is no mission for Nagumo's CV TGs to strike Midway and only Bombard and Invasion missions.

But some AI air actually does attack Midway, I'm just not sure where it's coming from.

Re the manual: there is a landbase attack for TGs w/min/max air settings using an "N" to not attack port, attacking the airbase by default.

But I haven't tried the editor and frankly this looks daunting even at 1.01.

But if someone can get Nagumo's TGs to attack Midway airfield, then pse post how you did it.



Unhappy -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/9/2007 4:24:51 AM)

If by chance AlexS reads this - can you please add a landbase attack conditional effect to the list of wants for the next patch?

Thanks



vinboni -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/9/2007 8:27:27 AM)

I found these data about the two strikes agains midway.
If you want see what AI does, select to play as Japan and select AI control on all commands.



Joe D. -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/9/2007 2:37:09 PM)

Vin,

I can't open your attachment, so I don't know what info you have to share.

I think you mean to set just Nagumo's icon to AI control while controllling the other Admirals, and then see what happens at Midway.

Haven't heard hide nor hair from SGS recently; maybe it's a holiday weekend in Merry Ole England.



vinboni -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/9/2007 10:42:39 PM)

Thr atachment is the data of the two strike wave on Midway. Sorry. Thin it in the link
http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-07062005-173306/

[image]local://upfiles/26090/1CCAC29974604DA1B45259DDD492828C.gif[/image]



Joe D. -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/10/2007 3:11:10 AM)

I'm afraid the only thing I can tell from your colorfull chart is that Kaga sent/had the most planes, and the other 3 CVs all had approximately the same number of aircraft, which is confirmed by the numbers given in Shattered Sword.

I have already changed my mind re the so-called limited replayabilty of CaW, but I still think the developers invested too much in its interface and not enough in its scenarios; many of us were unpleasantly surprised at how few scenarios there were.

And after playing the IJN, there are some serious scenario play imbalances against the Allied AI, and Midway is one of them.



Joe D. -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/10/2007 3:16:33 AM)

I just noticed your edit; have you tried your modification? Does it play any better from the Allied side?



Troutie_SSG -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/12/2007 5:04:13 AM)

At the time I did the original research, I relied on Morrison's Official History, Dull's book on Japanese Naval Operations and the US Strategic Bombing Survey's Campaigns of the Pacific War. There was some discrepancy in the various references and I made a 'best guess' as to the numbers of aircraft present. More recent research does suggest that there could be about 20 A6M2s too many in the Japanese Order of Battle. I'm going to make this change in time for the next patch.
We have added a new Start-Up WarCard to the WarRoom which allows a squadron to have its various values changed. In many cases, this is easier (less confusing) than adding an variant squadron and remembering to delete the original.



Joe D. -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/12/2007 5:25:22 AM)

Thank you as any help for the Allies in the Midway scenario is appreciated.



bink -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/12/2007 7:29:31 AM)

[quote[
Haven't heard hide nor hair from SSG recently; maybe it's a holiday weekend in Merry Ole England.
[/quote]

Joe,

SSG is in Australia! And they did have a holiday to celebrate the APEC conference!

bink




Joe D. -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/12/2007 7:55:27 PM)

Ooops.



NimitsTexan -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/23/2007 4:02:36 PM)

Actually, if you read Shattered Sword and look at the Fighter Operations timline in the back, at least 3 of the 6th Kokutai Zeros were launched from Akagi.



Joe D. -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/23/2007 8:15:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NimitsTexan

Actually, if you read Shattered Sword and look at the Fighter Operations timline in the back, at least 3 of the 6th Kokutai Zeros were launched from Akagi.


Unfortunately I didn't get that far in the book, but I recently read (page 149) that the Agagi hikocho, Cdr. Masuda, had "seen no reason not to use the 'cargo' aircraft," so 3 of the 6th Ku Zeros under Lt. Tadashi were sent up as CAP. But I was waiting to get past the battle to determine if any more of these planes were similarly employed before posting another correction. However, since the timeline (Chronology of Jap Fighter Ops, Appendix 9?) is at the back of the book, we can assume that the balance of the wing -- 18 or so planes -- was not used during this battle.

Of course, the 6th Ku were never actually needed as CAP for Midway's airfield, either. Maybe SSG can make an alternative Midway scenario that uses the entire 6th Ku to see what difference it makes.

But if SSG agrees to fix the cloud cover -- see my "other" post -- so that it runs W/E of Midway instead of N/S, this fighter change may not be that important. I guess it depends on how far SSG is willing to go to remain "historical," or if we are just splitting hairs here.



NimitsTexan -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/24/2007 5:09:10 AM)

Arguably, removing the 6th Kokutai from play could also be ahistorical, since those Zeros were available for duty. That more were not launched had probably more to do with IJN doctrine and the generally fouled up condition of the IJN organization and intelligence in the hour or two prior to the SBD strike. At the very least, the Akagi's 6 should be included.



Joe D. -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/24/2007 2:33:33 PM)

Since the entire 6th Ku Zero "cargo" was stowed intact aboard the Kido Butai (and 2 other CVLs), it was all potentially available for duty since it was technically "operational," i.e.., not disassembled for storage.

Although the entire battle of Midway showed how inflexible the Japanese were re their battle plans, Agagi hikocho Masuda proved they were all not "Mr Roboto" when he personally decided to use 3 of his six reserved Zeros as CAP.

Perhaps a dice roll for the probability of using all 6 of the 6th Ku for the Agaki is in order, but if we're going to split hairs here, it gets more complicated w/Midway air; there was an equivalent number of night-capable PBYs that scored the only aerial torpedo strike vs. the IJ, but I don't ever recall any such strikes reported in my CaW games.

So this could get ugly.



Gregor_SSG -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/26/2007 8:26:27 AM)

In this discussion, please remember that Carriers at War is a system for recreating WWII carrier battles, not a simulation, down to the last Zero of any one battle. In any battle there will always be details or incidents that can't be simulated without tying everything in knots. We think we've got all the important elements right for battles like Midway, and lets face it, plus or minus 3 Zeroes wouldn't make any difference to the outcome.

Gregor



Joe D. -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (9/26/2007 3:05:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

... We think we've got all the important elements right for battles like Midway, and lets face it, plus or minus 3 Zeroes wouldn't make any difference to the outcome.
Gregor


Yes, +/- 3 Zeros isn't going to change anything significant, but 20 or more extra IJ CAP might; the play balance of IJ vs. Allies heavilly favors the former, even if the IJ player first attacks Midway w/Nagumo's CV TGs.

This scenario is not really missing anything, but it is misplacing an important element; scattered cloud cover West and East of Midway over both the IJ and Allied TGs. I've played this scenario a dozen or more times from each side, and the (random) clouds North and South of Midway just doesn't work for the current (historical) placement for all the scenario TGs.

Removing (all) the 6th Ku Zeros and shifting the random clouds to an East/West axis along Midway should help balance this scenario, and that's all I'm asking.



NimitsTexan -> RE: Nagumo has too many Zeros? (10/8/2007 5:00:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Removing (all) the 6th Ku Zeros and shifting the random clouds to an East/West axis along Midway should help balance this scenario, and that's all I'm asking.


Well, again, I would not recommend removing all of them. At a bare minimum, 6th Ku A6Ms on Akagi should be included.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.03125