RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

siRkid -> RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production (1/6/2008 1:51:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ny59giants quote: Also are carrier squadron fragments created on another CV or land bases after a battle now convertible to the core squadron when the carrier sinks? If not, can they at least draw replacement air frames now? Jim Burns asked this question on page 2 during the initial onslaught of posting, but I did not see an answer. [:(] I just had a CV vs CV and 2 fragments landed on another CV. Will I be able to disband those fragments into existing squadrons?? I don't want fragments running around for 15 months waiting for the respawn version to come back. [:D] If not, can they accept replacements?? Will I be able to destroy planes on a CV so I get below the 110% threshold to continue to launch missions?? Good question!

trojan58 -> RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production (1/7/2008 5:06:40 AM)
will the database include art and specifications for "what if" aircraft and German/Italian planes for example.

timtom -> RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production (1/7/2008 5:20:36 AM)
There's a healthy helping of the kind of aircraft that would/might have been deployed post-8/45. No Germans or Italians though, I'm afraid.

trojan58 -> RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production (1/7/2008 6:33:03 AM)
Oh well guesstimating again

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production (1/7/2008 6:55:10 PM)
Sorry if this has been asked before: Currently all air operations except "transfer" are round-trip missions from/to the same air base. Will the AE allow for "shuttle bombing" (admittedly rarely used in the PTO) and "stage through" (very common) missions? Like basing B-17s at Townsville, landing at PM to refuel and then bombing Rabaul - as was done historically?

TheElf -> RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production (1/8/2008 12:17:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget Sorry if this has been asked before: Currently all air operations except "transfer" are round-trip missions from/to the same air base. Will the AE allow for "shuttle bombing" (admittedly rarely used in the PTO) and "stage through" (very common) missions? Like basing B-17s at Townsville, landing at PM to refuel and then bombing Rabaul - as was done historically? No. OTS

Rainerle -> Escorting Recon (1/8/2008 10:48:10 AM)
Hi, any chance that fighters on escort will stop to escort Recon flights ? EDIT:Additionally will fights between (very) small numbers of planes become more bloody on occasion (i.e. when the fight only stops with elemination or running out of ammo?)

Yakface -> RE: Escorting Recon (1/10/2008 12:07:26 PM)
Is the 'bounce routine' being changed at all. Ive noticed it is very one dimensional: If you are sending a big sweep to an enemy base protected by large number numbers of fighters, you can pretty much guarantee that the first unit will get bounced to buggery and wiped out - doesn't matter what they are flying or what their experience is. The second unit into fight will suffer much the same fate. However all your other units will fight on a fairly even footing. Very easy to work around as the Japanese - you send a couple of army squadrons (I favour using the 3rd and 209th partially sighted Sentais) in ahead of your zero's. As army fighters always fight first tfhe IJN pilots to clean up once the bounce is gone. I'd like to see a bit more of a random element allowing the attacker to be able to gain the bounce occassionally but with the defender more likely to have the advantage because of radar/sound detector.

TheElf -> RE: Escorting Recon (1/10/2008 3:16:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yakface Is the 'bounce routine' being changed at all. Ive noticed it is very one dimensional: If you are sending a big sweep to an enemy base protected by large number numbers of fighters, you can pretty much guarantee that the first unit will get bounced to buggery and wiped out - doesn't matter what they are flying or what their experience is. The second unit into fight will suffer much the same fate. However all your other units will fight on a fairly even footing. Very easy to work around as the Japanese - you send a couple of army squadrons (I favour using the 3rd and 209th partially sighted Sentais) in ahead of your zero's. As army fighters always fight first tfhe IJN pilots to clean up once the bounce is gone. I'd like to see a bit more of a random element allowing the attacker to be able to gain the bounce occassionally but with the defender more likely to have the advantage because of radar/sound detector. Yes.

jwilkerson -> RE: Escorting Recon (1/11/2008 6:51:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yakface Is the 'bounce routine' being changed at all. Ive noticed it is very one dimensional: If you are sending a big sweep to an enemy base protected by large number numbers of fighters, you can pretty much guarantee that the first unit will get bounced to buggery and wiped out - doesn't matter what they are flying or what their experience is. The second unit into fight will suffer much the same fate. However all your other units will fight on a fairly even footing. Very easy to work around as the Japanese - you send a couple of army squadrons (I favour using the 3rd and 209th partially sighted Sentais) in ahead of your zero's. As army fighters always fight first tfhe IJN pilots to clean up once the bounce is gone. I'd like to see a bit more of a random element allowing the attacker to be able to gain the bounce occassionally but with the defender more likely to have the advantage because of radar/sound detector. Actually my belief is different - thought not necessarily better. It turns out - that well over a year ago - after extensive testing - I was able to determine that - all other things being equal - which was tough to get to in the first place - took a pile of time in the editor - a large sweeping fighter group would always win big against a defending fighter group. When we traced the cause of this - it turns out that it is hard coded that a given sweeping fighter will shoot first 2/3rds of the time. So turns out this is totally on purpose. Another aspect of this is that multiple sweep attacks - launched from multiple ranges - so they come in separately will "wear out" the defenders such that subsequent bombing attacks can be successful. I finally sold Moses on all this in our game - when he sent 100+ fighters to Port Morseby and I unhinged this beast - by launching a small fighter sweep from Lae (which always got slaughtered) following by a smaller fighter sweep from the admiralties - which didn't do too well - and finally followed by a huge raid from Rabaul with escorted Betty's ... I think one turn I killed 250 planes in the air and on the ground (he also had staged a big pile of bombers to PM) and I think I lost under 100. This convinced him that multiple - small sweeps - exploiting the sweep bonus - was the way to crack fighter defenses. He has used it successfully against me ever since. Check out my AAR - I know it is demonstrated there. === So what about this "sweep bonus" ... does it make sense??? Some say yes - I'm still not convinced. But I think it is still there. I have raised this to Ian. === And BTW - I'm not sure how accurate the "bounce messages" are - I never pay attention to those - I just look at the results. I think at one point we determined some of the bounce messages were backwards - not sure whether that has been corrected or not.

witpqs -> RE: Escorting Recon (1/11/2008 9:32:58 AM)
Who is Ian?

TheElf -> RE: Escorting Recon (1/11/2008 10:50:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs Who is Ian? me...

Hortlund -> RE: Escorting Recon (1/11/2008 11:24:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson I finally sold Moses on all this in our game - when he sent 100+ fighters to Port Morseby and I unhinged this beast - by launching a small fighter sweep from Lae (which always got slaughtered) following by a smaller fighter sweep from the admiralties - which didn't do too well - and finally followed by a huge raid from Rabaul with escorted Betty's ... I think one turn I killed 250 planes in the air and on the ground (he also had staged a big pile of bombers to PM) and I think I lost under 100. This convinced him that multiple - small sweeps - exploiting the sweep bonus - was the way to crack fighter defenses. He has used it successfully against me ever since. Check out my AAR - I know it is demonstrated there. How do you time the missions to make the small sweep go first and the large strike go last?

Reg -> RE: Escorting Recon (1/11/2008 11:53:41 AM)
Range to target perhaps....

Shark7 -> RE: Escorting Recon (1/11/2008 3:59:16 PM)
It seems to me over my time playing that sometimes you're even better off using several smaller bomber strikes as opposed to the 1 big one as well. The cumulative effect is often greater than the shock strike is. Granted, I don't think I'd be sending single squadrons of G4Ms against 100s of fighters stationed in 1 spot, but in China and the DEI I've noticed it to be much more effective to send several raids rather than the single massed raid. It works on the same principle as the fighter sweeps. Multiple attacks wear down the defenders. But has anyone else experienced this, or am I seeing skewed results simply due to playing mostly the AI?

jwilkerson -> RE: Escorting Recon (1/11/2008 7:27:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund How do you time the missions to make the small sweep go first and the large strike go last? Range - it isn't perfect - but it is fairly reliable. So, in my example, Lae is closer to PM than Admiralties which is closer to PM than Rabaul. I'd say probably 4 out of 5 times the missions went in in range order. Moses does the same to me in Burma with about the same frequency of sequence control.

jwilkerson -> RE: Escorting Recon (1/11/2008 7:30:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 It seems to me over my time playing that sometimes you're even better off using several smaller bomber strikes as opposed to the 1 big one as well. The cumulative effect is often greater than the shock strike is. Granted, I don't think I'd be sending single squadrons of G4Ms against 100s of fighters stationed in 1 spot, but in China and the DEI I've noticed it to be much more effective to send several raids rather than the single massed raid. It works on the same principle as the fighter sweeps. Multiple attacks wear down the defenders. But has anyone else experienced this, or am I seeing skewed results simply due to playing mostly the AI? Multiple attacks on the same CAP do wear done that CAP - in fact this is actually too predictable and hence can be exploited - in fact IIRC Nik and I started using a house rule against multi-sweeps to remove the ability to exploit this. It is actually kind of a hidden "anti-Uber CAP" feature. But you will never notice it if you only launch single large strikes at enemy bases. But once you try launching multiple smaller strikes it becomes obvious.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Escorting Recon (1/11/2008 10:06:14 PM)
Oh, Oh, Oh!!! Has the target selection for air vs ground units been moved so that the strike comes in one wave, endures CAP, then splits? Right now the strike "splits" in order to hit multiple LCUs before the CAP phase, allowing CAP to hit each packet seperately. IMO, I think this split should come after CAP...much like a/c selecting individual ships in a TF. What are your feelings on this?

witpqs -> RE: Escorting Recon (1/11/2008 10:09:59 PM)
I feel the split before CAP encounter is okay, it's the CAP intercept model that should be improved (cap should be more fragmented, ammo limits or equivalent, etc.). I thought that improvements there were mentioned earlier? Don't remember specifically.

jwilkerson -> RE: Escorting Recon (1/12/2008 2:49:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Oh, Oh, Oh!!! Has the target selection for air vs ground units been moved so that the strike comes in one wave, endures CAP, then splits? Right now the strike "splits" in order to hit multiple LCUs before the CAP phase, allowing CAP to hit each packet seperately. IMO, I think this split should come after CAP...much like a/c selecting individual ships in a TF. What are your feelings on this? After agonizing about it a good bit over the years - I have to say I think it is better the way it is. The current way actually maximizes the chance of being able to hit many of the LCUs in the hex - and to really wear out the hex - you need to spread your attacks out across potentially 10-20 LCUs. Of course bombing the AF and port at the same time are also good things to do. Moses has been refining his bombing of my big stack at Akyab - and now that he is spreading his attacks out across all target - AF/Port/all LCUs .. .I really am running out of stuff faster than I can get fresh stuff there. If enemy CAP is heavy - then hit it will multiple sweeps - if allowed in your game - this will wear out the cap and your strikes can go in.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Escorting Recon (1/12/2008 3:44:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson If enemy CAP is heavy - then hit it will multiple sweeps - if allowed in your game - this will wear out the cap and your strikes can go in. Making multiple use of the "sweep bonus" has a faintly "gamey" oder to it..., don't you think?

jwilkerson -> RE: Escorting Recon (1/12/2008 5:24:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson If enemy CAP is heavy - then hit it will multiple sweeps - if allowed in your game - this will wear out the cap and your strikes can go in. Making multiple use of the "sweep bonus" has a faintly "gamey" oder to it..., don't you think? In the WITP community at least, many "gamey" activities" seem to be subject to variations of player preferences. Hence, house rules exist. I used it in my game with Moses, but explained the tactic exactly to him and he has used it to great effect back at me. In any situation we must adapt to the situation. So I have tried to - but there is (so far - July 43) no defence against Corsair sweeps in Burma. On the contrary in our playtesting of Nik's GuadMod, we determined that multi-sweeps were an exploit - and made a rule against them. So, I've done it both ways. But it is interesting, that a tactic to defeat Uber Cap over land targets - already exists - the multi-sweep. Just doesn't work against carriers - can't sweep them.

TheElf -> RE: Escorting Recon (1/12/2008 2:32:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson but there is (so far - July 43) no defence against Corsair sweeps in Burma. Joe, don't you think Corsair Sweeps in Burma are gamey????[;)]

treespider -> RE: Escorting Recon (1/12/2008 3:30:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson If enemy CAP is heavy - then hit it will multiple sweeps - if allowed in your game - this will wear out the cap and your strikes can go in. Making multiple use of the "sweep bonus" has a faintly "gamey" oder to it..., don't you think? In the WITP community at least, many "gamey" activities" seem to be subject to variations of player preferences. Hence, house rules exist. I used it in my game with Moses, but explained the tactic exactly to him and he has used it to great effect back at me. In any situation we must adapt to the situation. So I have tried to - but there is (so far - July 43) no defence against Corsair sweeps in Burma. On the contrary in our playtesting of Nik's GuadMod, we determined that multi-sweeps were an exploit - and made a rule against them. So, I've done it both ways. But it is interesting, that a tactic to defeat Uber Cap over land targets - already exists - the multi-sweep. Just doesn't work against carriers - can't sweep them. Wonder how it would play out against multiple LRCAPS?

jwilkerson -> RE: Escorting Recon (1/13/2008 2:11:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheElf quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson but there is (so far - July 43) no defence against Corsair sweeps in Burma. Joe, don't you think Corsair Sweeps in Burma are gamey????[;)] I don't happen to - I had my fun Zero sweeping him why shouldn't he have his fun Corsair sweeping me? But this is why I say players must be able to adjust to each others styles in order to sustain a game.

witpqs -> RE: Escorting Recon (1/13/2008 2:23:56 AM)
Just illustrating - this kind of flexibility is why I favor PDU. Not abusing it by going to all 4E, etc., just for the legitimate flexibility analogous to what you're describing. [8D]

herwin -> RE: Escorting Recon (1/13/2008 9:49:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson If enemy CAP is heavy - then hit it will multiple sweeps - if allowed in your game - this will wear out the cap and your strikes can go in. Making multiple use of the "sweep bonus" has a faintly "gamey" oder to it..., don't you think? In the WITP community at least, many "gamey" activities" seem to be subject to variations of player preferences. Hence, house rules exist. I used it in my game with Moses, but explained the tactic exactly to him and he has used it to great effect back at me. In any situation we must adapt to the situation. So I have tried to - but there is (so far - July 43) no defence against Corsair sweeps in Burma. On the contrary in our playtesting of Nik's GuadMod, we determined that multi-sweeps were an exploit - and made a rule against them. So, I've done it both ways. But it is interesting, that a tactic to defeat Uber Cap over land targets - already exists - the multi-sweep. Just doesn't work against carriers - can't sweep them. Carriers control the time and place of their operations. That means they can surge when desired. If you hit a land airbase, the CAP consists of the aircraft in the air and on ground alert at that time. If you hit a carrier, it can be everyone. Similarly, a land base generates sorties at some steady rate--they don't surge (generate three times the usual number of sorties for a couple of days) that often because it's inefficient. A carrier can send everyone when necessary and keep it up for a couple of days, because maintenance will have a chance to recover afterwards.

mdiehl -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (1/14/2008 6:56:45 PM)
quote: YOU CAN'T GIVE THE IJ PLAYER BREATHING ROOM. Then it's probably borked from the start. The look and feel of WW2 was that the Japanese could not afford to give the Allies breathing room, which forced them into a situation where their need to keep up the pace of attacks could not be met by the existing logistical services and industrial organization. Time was on the Allies' side, not on Japan's. The only way this is gonna work is if Japanese logistics has been brought back to earth, hopefully somewhere in the vicinity of RL. Hopefully the days of the invasion of India, Australia, Hawaii, or Panama, or hundreds of betties basing out of Rabaul in 1942 will be long gone.

Skyland -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (1/14/2008 7:18:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl quote: The only way this is gonna work is if Japanese logistics has been brought back to earth, hopefully somewhere in the vicinity of RL. Hopefully the days of the invasion of India, Australia, Hawaii, or Panama, or hundreds of betties basing out of Rabaul in 1942 will be long gone. You mean that, in AE, Japanese player cannot win anymore ?

mdiehl -> RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production (1/14/2008 7:59:54 PM)
Depends on what you mean by "win." I always figured that sort of thing was handled by victory conditions when one is dealing with games that purport to be about WW2. That war was not a "fair fight" nor were the orders of battle remotely balanced. Invading India, Australia, Hawaii, or Panama were so far beyond any real world capability of Japan's armed forces (other than nuisance raids) that it was never seriously attempted, nor even operationally planned. Indeed, prior to the opportunity handed to the US at Midway, the Allies' plan was precisely to build up an irresistable force and begin to counterattack in mid-1943. In contrast, Japan's plan was to attempt to FORCE a decisive battle (in which they presumed they'd ne victorious) in 1942, knowing full well that they'd not be able to compete with the Allies after that. So if you want a game about WW2 that hands the players the same strategic problems and power projection abilities as the combatants, something other than Global Conquest is in the offing for Japan.

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.921875