RHSRAO Level 7 Comments (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design



Message


herwin -> RHSRAO Level 7 Comments (4/23/2008 12:09:42 PM)

We're at the end of February, and the Japanese are noticing a few anomalies:

1. Naval search is awfully effective bombing. Currently, the Allied search assets are averaging 1-3 hits per turn in the Philippines and DEI.
2. B17s are awfully effective bombing naval targets. Currently, the B17s in the Philippines are averaging 2 hits per three aircraft in the strike.
3. USN ASW is awfully effective. Japan has lost a dozen subs along the sea line of communications to Australia despite deliberately trying to avoid the Hawaiian sea frontier and the zone to the east.
4. Vincents are very successful at evading A6M2 CAP over bases in Borneo and Malaya. Their hit performance is comparable to the B17s.
5. Petes are completely useless at CAP. This is probably accurate against modern land-based aircraft, but against the Dutch rag-tags? Their design mission was to provide CAP support in areas without developed bases.

I'll defer to my opponent (blitzk) to provide the Allied details.




Akizuki -> RE: RHSRAO Level 7 Comments (4/23/2008 3:50:19 PM)

I resolved the USN ASW over-effectiveness by adding armour to the NK subs :
I-subs : 20 to all locations except the turret
Ro-subs : 10 to all locations except the turret
By not giving the turret armour gives the possibility of critical hits
It will on average resolve in : 1 – 2 subs sunk by the end of 1941
4 – 6 subs sunk during 1942
7 – 12 subs sunk during 1943
These numbers is with Japanese sub doctrine “on”
With sub doctrine “off” will resolved in a loss increase by 25-45% depending the level of player aggressiveness
On the down side it resolves in a lot of damaged subs – It’s a more realistic picture [:)]




herwin -> RE: RHSRAO Level 7 Comments (4/23/2008 5:41:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Akizuki

I resolved the USN ASW over-effectiveness by adding armour to the NK subs :
I-subs : 20 to all locations except the turret
Ro-subs : 10 to all locations except the turret
By not giving the turret armour gives the possibility of critical hits
It will on average resolve in : 1 – 2 subs sunk by the end of 1941
4 – 6 subs sunk during 1942
7 – 12 subs sunk during 1943
These numbers is with Japanese sub doctrine “on”
With sub doctrine “off” will resolved in a loss increase by 25-45% depending the level of player aggressiveness
On the down side it resolves in a lot of damaged subs – It’s a more realistic picture [:)]



Which versions of RHS contain these changes?




el cid again -> RE: RHSRAO Level 7 Comments (4/24/2008 12:07:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

We're at the end of February, and the Japanese are noticing a few anomalies:

1. Naval search is awfully effective bombing. Currently, the Allied search assets are averaging 1-3 hits per turn in the Philippines and DEI.

REPLY: Search is too effective. To get realistic play - range limit to number of searching planes divided by 2 - round fractions up.


2. B17s are awfully effective bombing naval targets. Currently, the B17s in the Philippines are averaging 2 hits per three aircraft in the strike.

REPLY: UNLESS you go in low - this is not usually true. I have a game going in which B-17s have hit me only once (but that one 250 lb bomb almost sank a CVE). Doctrinally low level bombing should not be done until 1943. B-17s were intended for high altitude work - and they were not effective when used as intended.

3. USN ASW is awfully effective. Japan has lost a dozen subs along the sea line of communications to Australia despite deliberately trying to avoid the Hawaiian sea frontier and the zone to the east.

REPLY: ALL ASW was too effective. The latest patches have reduced ASW weapons effects - to see if that helps. ASW is hard IRL - so is minesweeping - but not in WITP.

4. Vincents are very successful at evading A6M2 CAP over bases in Borneo and Malaya. Their hit performance is comparable to the B17s.

REPLY: This is unusual and only true if morale is high. They SHOULD penetrate unless you have low level fighters - because they go in low - but they usually miss. Players complain they are "worthless." They are not worthless, but if you don't use them with high morale- they usually don't score.

5. Petes are completely useless at CAP. This is probably accurate against modern land-based aircraft, but against the Dutch rag-tags? Their design mission was to provide CAP support in areas without developed bases.

REPLY: This is not correct. I have a Pete kill on a B-17. They just USUALLY fail. As they should. I use them for low level defense - say against those Vincents or other torpedo bombers. [Not all vincents have torpedoes though] But the good float fighter is the upgrade - the Rufe - due soon in your game. You will like it.

I'll defer to my opponent (blitzk) to provide the Allied details.





Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.765625