CAP Morale Checks (Full Version)

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



Message

Big B -> CAP Morale Checks (1/31/2009 10:05:31 PM)

Ok,

Why do CAP units with morale above 50 (according to the e-book) need to pass two additional 'moral checks' to fly their assigned number of aircraft... and why would all seven squadrons - all with moral between 83-99 - and and experience between 60-75, fatigue below 5, more than enough aviation support, more than enough airfield size (level 8, with only 200 aircraft), 'TWO' Air HQ's in hex, multiple RADAR sets, 55,000 supply (only requiring 11,000 supply),...and not in a malaria zone - fail their 'morale checks'?

Why would a situation as above - that meets every possible criteria - why would all seven squadrons fail their two 'moral checks' and only manage 50% CAP.... instead of 70% CAP as assigned? I notice CVs never suffer this in the game.

For that matter...hey, I was in the military - and I sure had to do what I was assigned to do - no matter how my 'morale' was at the time...

I just don't get it.

Point #1) What game mechanic is at work here?
Point #2) Conceptually - morale checks to fly a mission is absurd; low morale would not keep pilots from flying (what...are they all on the sick list this morning? 30% of pilots with the duty today???) - it would only affect performance 'while carrying out' a mission.

Any explanations of game mechanics here?... cynical minds would like to know.




herwin -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (1/31/2009 10:58:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Ok,

Why do CAP units with morale above 50 (according to the e-book) need to pass two additional 'moral checks' to fly their assigned number of aircraft... and why would all seven squadrons - all with moral between 83-99 - and and experience between 60-75, fatigue below 5, more than enough aviation support, more than enough airfield size (level 8, with only 200 aircraft), 'TWO' Air HQ's in hex, multiple RADAR sets, 55,000 supply (only requiring 11,000 supply),...and not in a malaria zone - fail their 'morale checks'?

Why would a situation as above - that meets every possible criteria - why would all seven squadrons fail their two 'moral checks' and only manage 50% CAP.... instead of 70% CAP as assigned? I notice CVs never suffer this in the game.

For that matter...hey, I was in the military - and I sure had to do what I was assigned to do - no matter how my 'morale' was at the time...

I just don't get it.

Point #1) What game mechanic is at work here?
Point #2) Conceptually - morale checks to fly a mission is absurd; low morale would not keep pilots from flying (what...are they all on the sick list this morning? 30% of pilots with the duty today???) - it would only affect performance 'while carrying out' a mission.

Any explanations of game mechanics here?... cynical minds would like to know.




It's the game engine working as designed.

I suspect the designers really didn't have a clear understanding of how combat works, and these additional checks are there to make up for the utter bloodiness of the game engine if you don't throw sand in the gears to slow it down. I have read there was an early decision to increase the probability of hits to make the game more interesting, with a parallel reduction in the effectiveness of hits, but that allowed large units--all the various death stars--to rapidly blast away their opposition. To slow things down to a reasonable pace, die roll checks were inserted so your typical death star only attacks a fraction of the time.

In reality, there are other constraints on operations and long-term operational effectiveness.



Big B -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/1/2009 12:09:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

It's the game engine working as designed.

I suspect the designers really didn't have a clear understanding of how combat works, and these additional checks are there to make up for the utter bloodiness of the game engine if you don't throw sand in the gears to slow it down. I have read there was an early decision to increase the probability of hits to make the game more interesting, with a parallel reduction in the effectiveness of hits, but that allowed large units--all the various death stars--to rapidly blast away their opposition. To slow things down to a reasonable pace, die roll checks were inserted so your typical death star only attacks a fraction of the time.

In reality, there are other constraints on operations and long-term operational effectiveness.


Gotta love it....[8|]



Cathartes -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/1/2009 12:49:37 AM)

Tell us, how badly mauled did you get that prompted the post? [:D]



Big B -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/1/2009 1:06:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cathartes

Tell us, how badly mauled did you get that prompted the post? [:D]

[:D][:D][:D]

Well - for YOU...I'll tell you.

It's February 28th 1942. My PBEM opponent kicked the USFFEAF out of Bataan, so, we all went to Singapore. Yes, that's right, Singapore.[;)]

I flew in the AVG to help, and with the Brits, we have 232 fighters (85% P-40s) guarding Singapore...with 48 B-17s, among other beasties.[:)]....well with 10 brigades and 200,000 supply - we didn't feel like leaving.

We are flying 70% CAP, and then my opponent flys in 183 Zeros but we only get up 80 some aircraft. They get mauled about 80 lost to 44 Zeros. - it's not terrible, he paid for it, but I'm thinking "where were the other 40 CAP planes?"


WitP.... oh well...[:@]




Howard Mitchell -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/1/2009 8:04:15 AM)


I've always rationalised things like this on the basis that, as all aircraft in the air over a target seem to become involved in combat, it represents those with low morale not engaging aggressively – as herwin says, a fudge to reduce the bloodiness of the combat in the game. Though with around 80 P-40s lost from the 80 or so you had in the air, not a very successful fudge. [:(]

Roll on AE! [:)]



herwin -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/1/2009 8:29:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cathartes

Tell us, how badly mauled did you get that prompted the post? [:D]

[:D][:D][:D]

Well - for YOU...I'll tell you.

It's February 28th 1942. My PBEM opponent kicked the USFFEAF out of Bataan, so, we all went to Singapore. Yes, that's right, Singapore.[;)]

I flew in the AVG to help, and with the Brits, we have 232 fighters (85% P-40s) guarding Singapore...with 48 B-17s, among other beasties.[:)]....well with 10 brigades and 200,000 supply - we didn't feel like leaving.

We are flying 70% CAP, and then my opponent flys in 183 Zeros but we only get up 80 some aircraft. They get mauled about 80 lost to 44 Zeros. - it's not terrible, he paid for it, but I'm thinking "where were the other 40 CAP planes?"


WitP.... oh well...[:@]




It's amazing how big the swing is when he flies in a death star of bombers (~240) and all your fighters are grounded by weather. Had that happen a couple days ago at Rabaul.



Japan -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/1/2009 4:34:53 PM)

Well, I have a Group for Level Bombers in India, who have been ordered to do a Ground Attack mission on a unit comming dwon from Karachi, they have had this order for 13 days in a row now, they have escort and good leders,  130 000 supplies and 300 aviation support,  they are on a huge airbase and weather have allowed the attack for  9 of the 13 days
They have a good Air HQ, and morale of 99 experience of 86! But they still refuse to obay order.



Barb -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/1/2009 4:41:23 PM)

did you try to raise a DL of the ground units by running recon mission? [:D]



stuman -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/1/2009 4:42:08 PM)

I am convinced that a huge number of my pilots have drinking problems and must be severely hung over most days. That is the only explanation I can come up with for the similar situations I have encountered.



wwengr -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/1/2009 5:52:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

did you try to raise a DL of the ground units by running recon mission? [:D]


This is really important. There are a large number of factors that go into how many strike aircraft go on a mission. Reduction by the game factors must be viewed in a broader context than what most people think. Air strikes were (and are) very deliberately planned. Aircraft are not launched at targets unknown.

Morale, leadership, experience matter greatly. Planning and orders from higher HQ matter greatly. As the top level commander, you may see a port, like Rangoon and say "I want to bomb the snot out of it". Air HQ can't plan strikes, if they don't have target data. Air HQ will not order 240 aircraft to bomb ships in a port, if they do not know where the targets are and don't know what the targets are.

Mission factors such as weather, navigation, and a variety of challenges effect the success. A well rested, well lead, high morale group of bombers is more likely to make the extra effort to find the target. Tired, low morale units with low quality leaders will abort in the face of adversity, go on sick call more frequently, fail to complete preparation tasks adequately, and have mechanical problems more frequently.

Those factors apply in the real world and WITP attempts to model this uncertainty.



AW1Steve -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/1/2009 5:59:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Ok,

Why do CAP units with morale above 50 (according to the e-book) need to pass two additional 'moral checks' to fly their assigned number of aircraft... and why would all seven squadrons - all with moral between 83-99 - and and experience between 60-75, fatigue below 5, more than enough aviation support, more than enough airfield size (level 8, with only 200 aircraft), 'TWO' Air HQ's in hex, multiple RADAR sets, 55,000 supply (only requiring 11,000 supply),...and not in a malaria zone - fail their 'morale checks'?

Why would a situation as above - that meets every possible criteria - why would all seven squadrons fail their two 'moral checks' and only manage 50% CAP.... instead of 70% CAP as assigned? I notice CVs never suffer this in the game.

For that matter...hey, I was in the military - and I sure had to do what I was assigned to do - no matter how my 'morale' was at the time...

I just don't get it.

Point #1) What game mechanic is at work here?
Point #2) Conceptually - morale checks to fly a mission is absurd; low morale would not keep pilots from flying (what...are they all on the sick list this morning? 30% of pilots with the duty today???) - it would only affect performance 'while carrying out' a mission.

Any explanations of game mechanics here?... cynical minds would like to know.





While you are right about doing what you were supposed to do , how many pilots suddely develop "head colds" , and other conditions that ground them. In my community we had a saying "no one gets grounded on a good-deal flight". Perhaps that what the moddeling attempts to re-create. Pilots returning due to "engine or mechanical" trouble. It's generally pretty easy to find something wrong with an airplane. That's were morale might come in. When a pilot really wants to go on a mission , he tends to overlook such things as "minor gripes" and if he doesn't want to go on a mission they become "major grounding gripes". Fliers are funny that way. [:D]



stuman -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/1/2009 6:01:49 PM)

I must admit that I have not routinely run recon missions before attempting  hit certain sites such as airfields, ports, resources. Should I be doing that always ? If so then with another group, and or what if I have selected recon as a secondary task ? This actually makes some sense if true, I just never thought that I needed to recon a target  always before bombing it. Can we assume that if we assign one group at a base to recon a target that there will then be communication with the groups actually assigned to do the bombing ? Am I over thinking this ?



Barb -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/1/2009 6:06:00 PM)

Just imagine an effort one strike in 8th AAF should take?

Months of analysis of enemy vulnerability, recent reports, you need to date photos of the target area, you need to know where enemy flak concentrations are stationed, you need damage assesment from previous raids. Weather reports over target, whole path of flight, own airfields. You had to give exact orders for hundreds of squadrons, to prepare crews, planes, load them with proper bombs according to target, check them, briefing them, take off, organize them over the england, get number of escort fighters into the air at the same time, asuume their place in the formation.

This is a huge effort of few thousands of people just to get strike on the way.
And how easy is to have things messed up serriously.

There are missions that require bit less effort like on call CAS, but this also require to have squadrons available, pilots briefed about area, weather, cooperation with ground troops, ...

Whatever you want to strike, you need informations, without them you are as usefull as a rock.



wwengr -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/1/2009 6:07:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Ok,

Why do CAP units with morale above 50 (according to the e-book) need to pass two additional 'moral checks' to fly their assigned number of aircraft... and why would all seven squadrons - all with moral between 83-99 - and and experience between 60-75, fatigue below 5, more than enough aviation support, more than enough airfield size (level 8, with only 200 aircraft), 'TWO' Air HQ's in hex, multiple RADAR sets, 55,000 supply (only requiring 11,000 supply),...and not in a malaria zone - fail their 'morale checks'?

Why would a situation as above - that meets every possible criteria - why would all seven squadrons fail their two 'moral checks' and only manage 50% CAP.... instead of 70% CAP as assigned? I notice CVs never suffer this in the game.

For that matter...hey, I was in the military - and I sure had to do what I was assigned to do - no matter how my 'morale' was at the time...

I just don't get it.

Point #1) What game mechanic is at work here?
Point #2) Conceptually - morale checks to fly a mission is absurd; low morale would not keep pilots from flying (what...are they all on the sick list this morning? 30% of pilots with the duty today???) - it would only affect performance 'while carrying out' a mission.

Any explanations of game mechanics here?... cynical minds would like to know.





While you are right about doing what you were supposed to do , how many pilots suddely develop "head colds" , and other conditions that ground them. In my community we had a saying "no one gets grounded on a good-deal flight". Perhaps that what the moddeling attempts to re-create. Pilots returning due to "engine or mechanical" trouble. It's generally pretty easy to find something wrong with an airplane. That's were morale might come in. When a pilot really wants to go on a mission , he tends to overlook such things as "minor gripes" and if he doesn't want to go on a mission they become "major grounding gripes". Fliers are funny that way. [:D]

Having been a staff officer in a US Army Aviation Brigade, I can assure you this. If a low importance mission, say a long formation training flight, were scheduled for Superbowl Sunday afternoon, you would find an extraordinary number of aircrews grounded becuase of cold-medications and a huge number of aircraft that were grounded for maintenance faults in the hours preceding kick-off.



AW1Steve -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/1/2009 6:10:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wwengr


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Ok,

Why do CAP units with morale above 50 (according to the e-book) need to pass two additional 'moral checks' to fly their assigned number of aircraft... and why would all seven squadrons - all with moral between 83-99 - and and experience between 60-75, fatigue below 5, more than enough aviation support, more than enough airfield size (level 8, with only 200 aircraft), 'TWO' Air HQ's in hex, multiple RADAR sets, 55,000 supply (only requiring 11,000 supply),...and not in a malaria zone - fail their 'morale checks'?

Why would a situation as above - that meets every possible criteria - why would all seven squadrons fail their two 'moral checks' and only manage 50% CAP.... instead of 70% CAP as assigned? I notice CVs never suffer this in the game.

For that matter...hey, I was in the military - and I sure had to do what I was assigned to do - no matter how my 'morale' was at the time...

I just don't get it.

Point #1) What game mechanic is at work here?
Point #2) Conceptually - morale checks to fly a mission is absurd; low morale would not keep pilots from flying (what...are they all on the sick list this morning? 30% of pilots with the duty today???) - it would only affect performance 'while carrying out' a mission.

Any explanations of game mechanics here?... cynical minds would like to know.





While you are right about doing what you were supposed to do , how many pilots suddely develop "head colds" , and other conditions that ground them. In my community we had a saying "no one gets grounded on a good-deal flight". Perhaps that what the moddeling attempts to re-create. Pilots returning due to "engine or mechanical" trouble. It's generally pretty easy to find something wrong with an airplane. That's were morale might come in. When a pilot really wants to go on a mission , he tends to overlook such things as "minor gripes" and if he doesn't want to go on a mission they become "major grounding gripes". Fliers are funny that way. [:D]

Having been a staff officer in a US Army Aviation Brigade, I can assure you this. If a low importance mission, say a long formation training flight, were scheduled for Superbowl Sunday afternoon, you would find an extraordinary number of aircrews grounded becuase of cold-medications and a huge number of aircraft that were grounded for maintenance faults in the hours preceding kick-off.


Yeah , funny how it works that way in naval aviation too. [:D] Even on normal days , I would see very few people available for "bounce flights" (training flights that consisted enitrely of touch and go's, referred to as "crash and dashes" or by non-pilots as "barf-ex's"). Yet when a remain-overnight-for-three-days navigation trainer was schedualed for Bermuda, virtually every crewman in the squadron would be available. And suddenly it would be necessary to have seven or more navigators on board when normally you could not find one. [:D]



stuman -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/1/2009 7:11:27 PM)

Barb, I absolutely understand what you are saying was involved irl for such missions. I was asking about our game mechanics. I know that so many things have to be abstracted in game that I am now unsure whether or not we need to have reconned every target we plane to bomb. If so, then during the preceding turn, or in the same turn and so forth. Really a game design/function issue I guess. I just don't know the importance of running recon missions in game, and how they work in relation to specific bombing missions.



Big B -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/1/2009 7:20:54 PM)

True enough,

But suppose it isn't Superbowl Sunday - it's the Battle of Britain (the example is appropriate to the situation in my game..."make or break time"...and no one is giving the guys at Bataan any goof off days while they fight it out to the last)[;)]

I don't think RAF Fighter Command would have taken too kindly to goofing off at that time.

Moreover - I raised the point because it wasn't a "one time event" it's been happening consistently at several bases in similar condition.

Furthermore this affects only CAP, the offensive missions do not suffer in kind...rather imbalanced?

quote:

ORIGINAL: wwengr


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Ok,

Why do CAP units with morale above 50 (according to the e-book) need to pass two additional 'moral checks' to fly their assigned number of aircraft... and why would all seven squadrons - all with moral between 83-99 - and and experience between 60-75, fatigue below 5, more than enough aviation support, more than enough airfield size (level 8, with only 200 aircraft), 'TWO' Air HQ's in hex, multiple RADAR sets, 55,000 supply (only requiring 11,000 supply),...and not in a malaria zone - fail their 'morale checks'?

Why would a situation as above - that meets every possible criteria - why would all seven squadrons fail their two 'moral checks' and only manage 50% CAP.... instead of 70% CAP as assigned? I notice CVs never suffer this in the game.

For that matter...hey, I was in the military - and I sure had to do what I was assigned to do - no matter how my 'morale' was at the time...

I just don't get it.

Point #1) What game mechanic is at work here?
Point #2) Conceptually - morale checks to fly a mission is absurd; low morale would not keep pilots from flying (what...are they all on the sick list this morning? 30% of pilots with the duty today???) - it would only affect performance 'while carrying out' a mission.

Any explanations of game mechanics here?... cynical minds would like to know.





While you are right about doing what you were supposed to do , how many pilots suddely develop "head colds" , and other conditions that ground them. In my community we had a saying "no one gets grounded on a good-deal flight". Perhaps that what the moddeling attempts to re-create. Pilots returning due to "engine or mechanical" trouble. It's generally pretty easy to find something wrong with an airplane. That's were morale might come in. When a pilot really wants to go on a mission , he tends to overlook such things as "minor gripes" and if he doesn't want to go on a mission they become "major grounding gripes". Fliers are funny that way. [:D]

Having been a staff officer in a US Army Aviation Brigade, I can assure you this. If a low importance mission, say a long formation training flight, were scheduled for Superbowl Sunday afternoon, you would find an extraordinary number of aircrews grounded becuase of cold-medications and a huge number of aircraft that were grounded for maintenance faults in the hours preceding kick-off.




Barb -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/1/2009 7:22:08 PM)

this could be usefull:
http://witp.kodapa.com/index.php?title=Combined_Arms%2C_Miscellaneous#Detection_Levels_.28DLs.29

I think the max DL and MDL is 10. So to have best resulst for AM strike you need to run at least few recon mission (depending on plane type used). Say you have Recon type plane, with all pilots at 99 exp at squadron.

Base starts at 0 DL/MDL
AM phase: 99% chance to get +4 DL to a base
PM phase: 99% chance to get +4 DL to a base
After a turn you have could have 8 DL. You order a morning strike:
Night phase: -1 DL phase reduction
Day phase: -1 DL phase reduction
AM - you are attacking a DL=6 target with MDL=8

To get a better results you could order PM strike:
the 2nd day continue like this:
AM phase: 99% chance to get +4 DL to a base
PM phase: Well you are attacking a DL=10 and MDL =10 target - could have nicer results.

Things are complicated by running no recon type planes as their chance to raise DL is lower. Also planes on strikes could raise DL, but their chances are pretty low.

So: RECON, RECON, RECON, RECON [:D]



Japan -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/1/2009 7:39:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

Barb, I absolutely understand what you are saying was involved irl for such missions. I was asking about our game mechanics. I know that so many things have to be abstracted in game that I am now unsure whether or not we need to have reconned every target we plane to bomb. If so, then during the preceding turn, or in the same turn and so forth. Really a game design/function issue I guess. I just don't know the importance of running recon missions in game, and how they work in relation to specific bombing missions.


Yep Recon is very important before a strike mission.




Something who leads me to asking a interesting question, Have any of you ever seen a Emely on a navel Attack mission ?? She can be set to Navel Attack at Night Time, but I have never seen her actually doing a Night Navel Attack mission.






stuman -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/1/2009 7:53:04 PM)

This has been very helpful. Thanks, once again, for patience and input.



Barb -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/1/2009 8:01:41 PM)

Japan: it is about the same as having Catalina on night attack. I think you need pretty DL of TF being attacked + some night sightings. This could come from subs, sub attack or coastwatchers.

Note from the manual: Japan have coastwatchers on Japan, Korea, Hainan, Formosa, Indochina and China.



Bogo Mil -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/2/2009 11:27:22 AM)

In reality, aircraft can not fly all the day - they have to refuel, need maintenance etc. I think the CAP is still too reliable in the game.

If an incoming strike isn't detected very early, the CAP should never be 100%, imho. I think something like 1/3 of the assigned aircraft at the assigned altitude plus another 1/3 scrambling (lower altitude) should be the standard. Large raids, radar and high DL of the enemy airfields could raise the chances to have more planes up, but I think now there is too much in the air too often.



Big B -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/2/2009 2:18:38 PM)

Well, I think an incoming air raid of around 200 aircraft - detected by multiple RADARs - with only one possible destination of attack (kind of like Henderson Field in 42) should qualify for getting up maximum aircraft for defense.
And as far as passing the morale checks - if fatigue below 5 and morale between 80-99 is an across the board FAIL then I think something is wrong...
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil

In reality, aircraft can not fly all the day - they have to refuel, need maintenance etc. I think the CAP is still too reliable in the game.

If an incoming strike isn't detected very early, the CAP should never be 100%, imho. I think something like 1/3 of the assigned aircraft at the assigned altitude plus another 1/3 scrambling (lower altitude) should be the standard. Large raids, radar and high DL of the enemy airfields could raise the chances to have more planes up, but I think now there is too much in the air too often.




rtrapasso -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/2/2009 2:41:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Japan: it is about the same as having Catalina on night attack. I think you need pretty DL of TF being attacked + some night sightings. This could come from subs, sub attack or coastwatchers.

Note from the manual: Japan have coastwatchers on Japan, Korea, Hainan, Formosa, Indochina and China.


i've never been able to get a nighttime Catalina attack to go UNLESS there is a sub in the same hex... i've had numerous occasions where the enemy unit is spotted by coastwatchers or LCUs in the same hex, etc., but the Catalinas never are seen to attack unless there is a sub there... possibly SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE has had this happen, but i would say not to count on it.



seydlitz_slith -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/3/2009 5:11:44 AM)

Brian,

instead of setting to LRCAP, instead set your planes to ESCORT 90%, max range 0 or 1.  See what that does for you. If I recall correctly, it sidesteps the problem that you are having.



Big B -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/3/2009 3:38:20 PM)

Thanks seydlitz, but I actually wasn't set to LRCAP, I had them on 70% CAP/Sweep (range 0) [:(]
quote:

ORIGINAL: seydlitz

Brian,

instead of setting to LRCAP, instead set your planes to ESCORT 90%, max range 0 or 1.  See what that does for you. If I recall correctly, it sidesteps the problem that you are having.




seydlitz_slith -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/4/2009 1:56:58 AM)

Bummer.



Cathartes -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/4/2009 5:23:10 AM)

quote:

Thanks seydlitz, but I actually wasn't set to LRCAP, I had them on 70% CAP/Sweep (range 0)


70% CAP/Sweep?  You better not have had any fighters on sweep!

Thanks for the Singapore story. [:'(]





Yakface -> RE: CAP Morale Checks (2/4/2009 9:36:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cathartes

Tell us, how badly mauled did you get that prompted the post? [:D]

[:D][:D][:D]

Well - for YOU...I'll tell you.

It's February 28th 1942. My PBEM opponent kicked the USFFEAF out of Bataan, so, we all went to Singapore. Yes, that's right, Singapore.[;)]

I flew in the AVG to help, and with the Brits, we have 232 fighters (85% P-40s) guarding Singapore...with 48 B-17s, among other beasties.[:)]....well with 10 brigades and 200,000 supply - we didn't feel like leaving.

We are flying 70% CAP, and then my opponent flys in 183 Zeros but we only get up 80 some aircraft. They get mauled about 80 lost to 44 Zeros. - it's not terrible, he paid for it, but I'm thinking "where were the other 40 CAP planes?"


WitP.... oh well...[:@]




I could be wrong, but my understanding 80 is the correct figure for 70% CAP without any scrambled reinforcements. From what I have read 70% means 35% in each day phase, which is the 80 figure. Bit p*ss poor not to get any other planes joining the fight.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.796875