RE: A few newbie questions

RE: A few newbie questions (Full Version)

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

Message

brian800000 -> RE: A few newbie questions (1/23/2011 1:48:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: brian800000 quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson BTW, the issue with planes not attacking troops in a hex you own has been fixed. It was a bug. It should be in the next beta release. I don't think it's in the one that is currently up. Bill Is there also possibly a bug with ACMs? I thought that they keep your mines from going under 150 if disbanded in a port, but mine are still eroding. The section says: "6.6.1.2.2 MINEFIELD TENDERS. A special class of ships, Minefield Tenders (ACM type) reduces the decay rate of minefields at bases. Each ACM can protect (i.e. service and repair) 150 mines from decay." Reduces, not prevents. There are still randoms involved I believe. ACMs give a lower chance of decay/better chance of a good random. Makes sense. I just checked a save game against my current game. There were 6 (and later 7) ACMs at Pearl Harbor for the period, and 1 ACM at Port Moresby. At Pearl Harbor, there were 321 mines on 2/9, and as of 2/19 there were still 321. At Port Moresby, there were 98 mines on 2/9, but only 93 mines on 2/9. So at Port Moresby I was getting some benefit, but not a very good one.

CaptDave -> RE: A few newbie questions (1/24/2011 7:24:01 AM)
You can't move from Singapore to JB because the Japanese own the hex side. No movement is allowed across a hex side owned by the enemy. Note, though, that each hex side really has two sides, and it's the side moved INTO that matters. You can follow them into Singapore, but you can't go back out. (Manual, section 8.3.1.2, p 191.) Of course, this assumes they moved in via land, as usual, rather than by amphibious landing...

brian800000 -> RE: A few newbie questions (1/29/2011 2:42:13 AM)
After a hiatus, a few more questions... 1) Closing in on 3 months of the war, my Catalinas have been undergoing a slaughter. I've lost 66 to op losses alone. Although I've adjusted this at different geographies, I've been putting them on 50% search, 20% training. I've been increasing them to the max number of pilots and decreasing the maximum range by a couple. Am I doing something wrong? 2) The "Reserve" mode seems to be great for recovering from fatigue and disruption, but it doesn't seem to be speeding the repair of disabled devices. Is this a correct theory?

wdolson -> RE: A few newbie questions (1/29/2011 5:01:50 AM)
1) Losses due to damaged planes crashing are counted as ops losses. Are your Catalinas being lost at the same rate in safe places like the west coast as they are in combat zones? You should see the losses in combat zones be higher as they get shot up by CAP and flak and are lost on the way home or crash on landing. 2) You should put them in Rest mode to recover. They should repair a bit quicker that way too, though there are other factors like still being in combat, malaria zones, etc. Bill

brian800000 -> RE: A few newbie questions (1/29/2011 1:20:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson 1) Losses due to damaged planes crashing are counted as ops losses. Are your Catalinas being lost at the same rate in safe places like the west coast as they are in combat zones? You should see the losses in combat zones be higher as they get shot up by CAP and flak and are lost on the way home or crash on landing. 2) You should put them in Rest mode to recover. They should repair a bit quicker that way too, though there are other factors like still being in combat, malaria zones, etc. Bill Thanks for the reply. In regards to #1, the west coast units are crashing quite a bit as well. A few squadrons are closing in on 50% op losses in less than 3 months. In regards to #2, I'm referring to units for which rest mode isn't an option. For example, those at Singapore while it is under siege. What is best to do with those units? (I'm not discussing those that are completely ineffective that should be evacuated, but those that are perhaps 60/90, that could be much better with repairs but are still useful in their current state).

brian800000 -> RE: A few newbie questions (1/31/2011 3:36:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian800000 quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson 1) Losses due to damaged planes crashing are counted as ops losses. Are your Catalinas being lost at the same rate in safe places like the west coast as they are in combat zones? You should see the losses in combat zones be higher as they get shot up by CAP and flak and are lost on the way home or crash on landing. 2) You should put them in Rest mode to recover. They should repair a bit quicker that way too, though there are other factors like still being in combat, malaria zones, etc. Bill Thanks for the reply. In regards to #1, the west coast units are crashing quite a bit as well. A few squadrons are closing in on 50% op losses in less than 3 months. In regards to #2, I'm referring to units for which rest mode isn't an option. For example, those at Singapore while it is under siege. What is best to do with those units? (I'm not discussing those that are completely ineffective that should be evacuated, but those that are perhaps 60/90, that could be much better with repairs but are still useful in their current state). I think I discovered the answer to #1. I was setting the range by first going to the max, and then reducing a couple of hexes. For example, if the maximum range was 20, I was searching at 18. Unfortunately for my pilots, normal range tended to be 16. I've set all my patrols back to the normal range, with a few exceptions. Hopefully being a patrol pilot won't be the most dangerous job in the war any longer.

Alfred -> RE: A few newbie questions (1/31/2011 10:40:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian800000 quote: ORIGINAL: brian800000 quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson 1) Losses due to damaged planes crashing are counted as ops losses. Are your Catalinas being lost at the same rate in safe places like the west coast as they are in combat zones? You should see the losses in combat zones be higher as they get shot up by CAP and flak and are lost on the way home or crash on landing. 2) You should put them in Rest mode to recover. They should repair a bit quicker that way too, though there are other factors like still being in combat, malaria zones, etc. Bill Thanks for the reply. In regards to #1, the west coast units are crashing quite a bit as well. A few squadrons are closing in on 50% op losses in less than 3 months. In regards to #2, I'm referring to units for which rest mode isn't an option. For example, those at Singapore while it is under siege. What is best to do with those units? (I'm not discussing those that are completely ineffective that should be evacuated, but those that are perhaps 60/90, that could be much better with repairs but are still useful in their current state). I think I discovered the answer to #1. I was setting the range by first going to the max, and then reducing a couple of hexes. For example, if the maximum range was 20, I was searching at 18. Unfortunately for my pilots, normal range tended to be 16. I've set all my patrols back to the normal range, with a few exceptions. Hopefully being a patrol pilot won't be the most dangerous job in the war any longer. That is still too far. Anything beyond 12 hexes is going to be iffy regarding actually spotting anything, and even 12 hexes is more than the range listed on page 217 of the manual. The longer the search range the higher the fatigue and ultimately the greater the potentail for operational losses. At a range of 16 the marginal return IMO is not worth it. Operational losses are also greatly affected by pilot (in)experience. Alfred

brian800000 -> RE: A few newbie questions (2/1/2011 2:52:40 AM)
That is very bad news for my pilots because I'm not going to reduce their searches that far! Maybe they are no longer effective at those ranges but it gives me peace of mind having the illusion that they are. It takes a range of about 16 to keep a carrier task force traveling at normal speed to keep from sneaking up on you in one turn. And those tend to be large fleets that I think should be spotted more easily.

John Lansford -> RE: A few newbie questions (2/1/2011 12:54:49 PM)
Assign 20% of the squadron to rest and their fatigue level and operational losses should reduce. I do that and have now built up quite a surplus of patrol planes (early '44).

brian800000 -> RE: A few newbie questions (2/1/2011 2:52:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford Assign 20% of the squadron to rest and their fatigue level and operational losses should reduce. I do that and have now built up quite a surplus of patrol planes (early '44). When I put the sqadrons on 50% search, what are they doing with the other 50% of their time? I assumed it was basically rest.

USSAmerica -> RE: A few newbie questions (2/1/2011 4:58:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian800000 quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford Assign 20% of the squadron to rest and their fatigue level and operational losses should reduce. I do that and have now built up quite a surplus of patrol planes (early '44). When I put the sqadrons on 50% search, what are they doing with the other 50% of their time? I assumed it was basically rest. Unless you specify a percentage to rest, the remaining pilots/planes are on standby to launch what ever primary mission type you have selected for the squadron. Even if that mission is Naval Search and you set 50% to Search, the other 50% are not stood down, and sleeping, etc, but are "ready" to launch. There is much more benefit for reducing fatigue and morale problems if you specifically order a percentage to rest.

henry1611 -> RE: A few newbie questions (2/1/2011 6:09:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: USS America Unless you specify a percentage to rest, the remaining pilots/planes are on standby to launch what ever primary mission type you have selected for the squadron. Even if that mission is Naval Search and you set 50% to Search, the other 50% are not stood down, and sleeping, etc, but are "ready" to launch. There is much more benefit for reducing fatigue and morale problems if you specifically order a percentage to rest. This is the approach I have used in the past, and the approach that would seem to make the most sense. However, with this approach I have not seen the number of missions spread evenly among the pilots. Take a squadron with a Training mission set at 30% Train/70% Rest over several turns. In my experience, the 30% of pilots who flew the mission on the first turn are largely the same 30% of pilots who fly missions on subsequent turns. The majority of the remaining pilots (i.e., those who rested on the first turn) do not fly missions on subsequent turns. I do not see an even spread of missions among all of the pilots over several turns. Some pilots fly 12 missions, while other pilots fly 0 missions. Recently, I have started to set the squadron at 30% Train while leaving the other patrol levels at 0%. With that setting, I have seen all of the pilots rotate through flying missions. The number of missions, experience increase and fatigue seem to be spread more evenly among the pilots with this approach. I have not done an in-depth study of this by any means, so I can't say with certainty that this is the result for all percentage settings or all types of missions. It is just what I have seen, especially on Training, Naval Search, ASW and CAP missions. I use "Rest" to limit the number of pilots/planes that will fly a mission on a particular turn. If I want a naval strike by only half the squadron and I want the remaining half to not fly at all, I will set the squadron at 50% Rest. Has anyone else used this approach or should I go back to setting the squadron to at least some percentage of rest?

inqistor -> RE: A few newbie questions (2/1/2011 11:10:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian800000 In regards to #1, the west coast units are crashing quite a bit as well. A few squadrons are closing in on 50% op losses in less than 3 months. Extended range is the problem. I do not think normal mission range can have great impact. Not, when you actually not fighting at that distance. quote: In regards to #2, I'm referring to units for which rest mode isn't an option. For example, those at Singapore while it is under siege. What is best to do with those units? (I'm not discussing those that are completely ineffective that should be evacuated, but those that are perhaps 60/90, that could be much better with repairs but are still useful in their current state). Not much you can do. Putting them in reserve will keep them from being targeted. But with enemy presence repairs are slow.

brian800000 -> RE: A few newbie questions (2/2/2011 12:32:28 AM)
This is good stuff. Thanks everybody.

Mac Linehan -> RE: A few newbie questions (2/2/2011 2:03:56 AM)
quote: That is still too far. Anything beyond 12 hexes is going to be iffy regarding actually spotting anything, and even 12 hexes is more than the range listed on page 217 of the manual. The longer the search range the higher the fatigue and ultimately the greater the potentail for operational losses. At a range of 16 the marginal return IMO is not worth it. Operational losses are also greatly affected by pilot (in)experience. Alfred USS America: Unless you specify a percentage to rest, the remaining pilots/planes are on standby to launch what ever primary mission type you have selected for the squadron. Even if that mission is Naval Search and you set 50% to Search, the other 50% are not stood down, and sleeping, etc, but are "ready" to launch. There is much more benefit for reducing fatigue and morale problems if you specifically order a percentage to rest. Alfred, USS America: very useful clarifications. I incorrectly assumed that non assigned percentages were resting. Thank You. Mac

obvert -> RE: A few newbie questions (2/2/2011 12:03:14 PM)
So earlier I was discouraged from having units on 30 CAP and 30 train, for the purpose of defending bases where attack is possible but less likely while building up the pilot experience. (I did change most to full train, then got hit by a Nell attack on two transports and lost half a base force. This is in Akyab and the Nells are in Tavoy). Is splitting between any task (like CAP or Search) and training bad in any way? Do they perform less well, or get more fatigue or ops losses? Seems like this would be a good idea for those in between units, almost trained up, and in between bases, close enough to attack but not within any fighter range. As for patrols in less frequented areas, seems like you could have them training for other tasks, like ASW, while on 30 or 50 search. So something like 40 search, 30 train ASW, 30 rest. Would this cause any problems?

brian800000 -> RE: A few newbie questions (2/6/2011 1:17:49 PM)
I had put a regiment, defense battalion, and CD unit at Canton so that it was at a little over 5,000 men. Enough supplies were there so that it wasn't practical to wipe them out. The Japanese attacked it with a large carrier fleet and landed quite a few troops, but the invasion was quickly defeated. So the question comes up: if an enemy puts close to 6k of combat troops on an atoll, is it effectively impossible to take? If not, how do you do it?

Alfred -> RE: A few newbie questions (2/6/2011 2:44:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian800000 I had put a regiment, defense battalion, and CD unit at Canton so that it was at a little over 5,000 men. Enough supplies were there so that it wasn't practical to wipe them out. The Japanese attacked it with a large carrier fleet and landed quite a few troops, but the invasion was quickly defeated. So the question comes up: if an enemy puts close to 6k of combat troops on an atoll, is it effectively impossible to take? If not, how do you do it? A 6k garrison is roughly only 200 AV. Thus barring fortification levels and disruption, a division would suffice. To be on the safe side, a 2 division assault will defeat the 6k garrison. Alfred

USSAmerica -> RE: A few newbie questions (2/6/2011 4:20:58 PM)
Yes, Brian, an attacker can bring as many troops as he can carry to an atoll invasion. He lands, kicks butt as quickly as he can, and then reloads as quickly as he can, leaving behind a garrison under the stacking limit. This limits his severe supply burn penalty for overstacking to just a few turns. In general, atolls are very expensive to attack and take when well defended, but almost impossible to defend if the attacker decides to pay the extra supply costs for a few turns to bring a few divisions to the party.

brian800000 -> RE: A few newbie questions (2/7/2011 3:10:21 AM)
Another question: I've trained a number of medium bombers for naval attack, and they are bombing at 7k. They are up to 60+ in naval bombing skill, and to date they have been highly effective in making huge splashes around enemy ships. Less effective at hitting them. Have I done something wrong, had bad luck, or are level bombers from 7k just worthless on naval attack?

brian800000 -> RE: A few newbie questions (2/7/2011 3:15:22 AM)
Believe it or not, another question. [:)] Before attacking a base, how do you get a sense of what is there? I'm about to land a couple of Aussie Divisions on Luganville, and have been sending a B17 group as recon to give me a heads up on what is there. I still don't have a good handle on it. But when I eventually want to attack the Marianas or the Marshall Islands, you can't send recon planes. Is there a way to get a sense of what is there besides the random SigInt report, or do you just make a guess and find out when your guys land on shore?

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: A few newbie questions (2/7/2011 3:51:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian800000 Believe it or not, another question. [:)] Before attacking a base, how do you get a sense of what is there? I'm about to land a couple of Aussie Divisions on Luganville, and have been sending a B17 group as recon to give me a heads up on what is there. I still don't have a good handle on it. But when I eventually want to attack the Marianas or the Marshall Islands, you can't send recon planes. Is there a way to get a sense of what is there besides the random SigInt report, or do you just make a guess and find out when your guys land on shore? By the time you're ready to invade the Marianas you'll have recon planes with a range of 32, which can base from Eniwetok.

wdolson -> RE: A few newbie questions (2/7/2011 4:17:16 AM)
You can also train some carrier units to do recon. There are some recon versions of navy fighters that are carrier capable. I know the F6F-3P is. Bill

Alfred -> RE: A few newbie questions (2/7/2011 4:40:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian800000 Another question: I've trained a number of medium bombers for naval attack, and they are bombing at 7k. They are up to 60+ in naval bombing skill, and to date they have been highly effective in making huge splashes around enemy ships. Less effective at hitting them. Have I done something wrong, had bad luck, or are level bombers from 7k just worthless on naval attack? Most people around here do use their medium bombers on naval attack. I personally think it is a misallocation of resources. If well trained in naval attack skill and operating from a low enough altitude they will get some hits but not enough to make it really worthwhile. Concentrate medium bombers on land targets, sea targets should be primarily reserved to dive and torpedo bombers (or other plane types capable of laucning a torpedo). To get a good feel for the effectiveness of any particular tactic or strategy, you would be well rewarded in reading various AARs rather than just asking these sorts of questions out of context in this thread. AARs provide the necessary context to properly appraise your own performance and to understand why some things work better under some circumstances and not others. Alfred

LoBaron -> RE: A few newbie questions (2/7/2011 7:15:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred quote: ORIGINAL: brian800000 Another question: I've trained a number of medium bombers for naval attack, and they are bombing at 7k. They are up to 60+ in naval bombing skill, and to date they have been highly effective in making huge splashes around enemy ships. Less effective at hitting them. Have I done something wrong, had bad luck, or are level bombers from 7k just worthless on naval attack? Most people around here do use their medium bombers on naval attack. I personally think it is a misallocation of resources. If well trained in naval attack skill and operating from a low enough altitude they will get some hits but not enough to make it really worthwhile. Concentrate medium bombers on land targets, sea targets should be primarily reserved to dive and torpedo bombers (or other plane types capable of laucning a torpedo). To get a good feel for the effectiveness of any particular tactic or strategy, you would be well rewarded in reading various AARs rather than just asking these sorts of questions out of context in this thread. AARs provide the necessary context to properly appraise your own performance and to understand why some things work better under some circumstances and not others. Alfred MBs are useful in both roles, although I disagree that DB/TB can take over the same roles that a naval attack trained medium bomber squad. Range makes a real difference. If your mission is naval denial, deterrence or ASW, a good anti shipping medium bomber squad simply can cover more territory.

Alfred -> RE: A few newbie questions (2/7/2011 7:57:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred quote: ORIGINAL: brian800000 Another question: I've trained a number of medium bombers for naval attack, and they are bombing at 7k. They are up to 60+ in naval bombing skill, and to date they have been highly effective in making huge splashes around enemy ships. Less effective at hitting them. Have I done something wrong, had bad luck, or are level bombers from 7k just worthless on naval attack? Most people around here do use their medium bombers on naval attack. I personally think it is a misallocation of resources. If well trained in naval attack skill and operating from a low enough altitude they will get some hits but not enough to make it really worthwhile. Concentrate medium bombers on land targets, sea targets should be primarily reserved to dive and torpedo bombers (or other plane types capable of laucning a torpedo). To get a good feel for the effectiveness of any particular tactic or strategy, you would be well rewarded in reading various AARs rather than just asking these sorts of questions out of context in this thread. AARs provide the necessary context to properly appraise your own performance and to understand why some things work better under some circumstances and not others. Alfred MBs are useful in both roles, although I disagree that DB/TB can take over the same roles that a naval attack trained medium bomber squad. Range makes a real difference. If your mission is naval denial, deterrence or ASW, a good anti shipping medium bomber squad simply can cover more territory. LoBaron, Notwithstanding my high regard for your analytical capabilities, I don't think you have quite understood my point.[:)] Remember my comment was given to an Allied player still in the early stages of the war. Yes, as I indicated well trained medium bombers at a suitable height can land bombs on ships. And yes medium bombers do tend to have a greater range. The point is whether it is the best use of them. Consider the following factors which detract from the superficial attractiveness of using medium bombers on naval strike missions. 1. Unescorted bomber strike packages are liable to be shreded by enemy cap. The greater range of a medium bomber over that of a dive/torpedo bomber is therefore not the important range factor. What is the determinative range factor is that of the escorting fighters. 2. My specific comment distinguished between torpedo and bomb carrying medium bombers (and also PBYs etc). Against merchantmen, even 100lb GP bombs can be deadly, let alone 500lb GP bombs. Against Japanese warships, those 500lb GP bombs are much less effective, and against anything bigger than a destroyer will usually bounce off. Only dive and torpedo bombers (with a very few other planes) carry the necessary ordnance to gain full value for any hits they are capable of delivering after having run the gauntlet of Japanese CAP and AA. 3. Most medium bombers consume more supply per sortie than do dive/torpedo bombers. Hence even if they could generate the same hit ratio (which they do not) as similarly skilled dive/torpedo bombers, medium bombers are a more expensive way of delivering their ordnance on target, which even when delivered, causes on average less damage to enemy ships. 4. Most medium bomber pilots enter the game with a much higher ground attack than naval attack skill. Concentrating their primary training on ground attack rather than on naval attack will considerably shorten the time period before the unit becomes combat ready. There really is little value in throwing untrained units into combat before they are ready; doing so will generally just turn them into cannon fodder and fail to achieve their targets anyway. Appropriate player patience is necessary. 5. Against land targets (either enemy LCUs or bases) the efficiency role is reversed. For that medium bombers are superior. It seems to me to be a waste of limited Allied resources to fritter away medium bomber airframes on missions which are not their forte (when much better suited and designed airframes are available for that task) and then find themselve with a much depleted airforce to carry out those tasks they are better suited for. Alfred

LoBaron -> RE: A few newbie questions (2/7/2011 8:26:36 AM)
Touché Alfred. [;)] I have only read your post and so missed the context of your response.

brian800000 -> RE: A few newbie questions (2/7/2011 4:06:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred quote: ORIGINAL: brian800000 Another question: I've trained a number of medium bombers for naval attack, and they are bombing at 7k. They are up to 60+ in naval bombing skill, and to date they have been highly effective in making huge splashes around enemy ships. Less effective at hitting them. Have I done something wrong, had bad luck, or are level bombers from 7k just worthless on naval attack? Most people around here do use their medium bombers on naval attack. I personally think it is a misallocation of resources. If well trained in naval attack skill and operating from a low enough altitude they will get some hits but not enough to make it really worthwhile. Concentrate medium bombers on land targets, sea targets should be primarily reserved to dive and torpedo bombers (or other plane types capable of laucning a torpedo). To get a good feel for the effectiveness of any particular tactic or strategy, you would be well rewarded in reading various AARs rather than just asking these sorts of questions out of context in this thread. AARs provide the necessary context to properly appraise your own performance and to understand why some things work better under some circumstances and not others. Alfred Thanks Alfred, but in a sense I'm asking this more as a general inquiry rather than for specific help in my game (which at this point is more of a tutorial for me to learn how to play the game). I've spent about 3.5 months training some medium bombers up to a decent naval bomb skill. I didn't use low naval bombing because some on the forum seemed to think the results were too effective. But now at 7k I'm not getting any results against APs and AKs. Those 3.5 months seem to have been wasted. Now against the AI I'm not too concerned about running into CAP in an unexpected place, but I know if I was a Japanese player watching wave after wave of unescorted bombers I might be inclined to sneak a nearby carrier over to provide some CAP and cut those planes to pieces. If this tactic is ineffective against the AI, it would seem to be even moreso against a human--where it would also be reckless.

LoBaron -> RE: A few newbie questions (2/7/2011 7:17:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian800000 Thanks Alfred, but in a sense I'm asking this more as a general inquiry rather than for specific help in my game (which at this point is more of a tutorial for me to learn how to play the game). I've spent about 3.5 months training some medium bombers up to a decent naval bomb skill. I didn't use low naval bombing because some on the forum seemed to think the results were too effective. But now at 7k I'm not getting any results against APs and AKs. Those 3.5 months seem to have been wasted. Now against the AI I'm not too concerned about running into CAP in an unexpected place, but I know if I was a Japanese player watching wave after wave of unescorted bombers I might be inclined to sneak a nearby carrier over to provide some CAP and cut those planes to pieces. If this tactic is ineffective against the AI, it would seem to be even moreso against a human--where it would also be reckless. Twin engines were used on low nav missions and were very successful if the experience was decent. Thats why its so dangerous to venture in their range. It is quite realistic as long as you leave the heavies up where they belong. [;)] That for example ia a nice attack from a couple of twins in our PBEM recently, as always beautifully executed by Rob... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on TF, near Soerabaja at 56,104 Weather in hex: Overcast Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 11 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 16 Allied aircraft B-339D x 4 DB-7B x 3 B-25C Mitchell x 9 Hudson III (LR) x 10 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses B-339D: 2 destroyed B-25C Mitchell: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged Hudson III (LR): 1 destroyed, 4 damaged Japanese Ships CM Yaeyama, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage CM Itsukushima xAK Yamagata Maru, Bomb hits 2 xAK Ryuzan Maru, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires xAK Yamahagi Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire Aircraft Attacking: 8 x B-25C Mitchell bombing from 100 feet Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb 3 x DB-7B bombing from 8000 feet Naval Attack: 4 x 250 kg SAP Bomb 8 x Hudson III (LR) bombing from 100 feet Naval Attack: 4 x 250 lb SAP Bomb CAP engaged: Tainan Ku S-1 Det A with A6M2 Zero (2 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling) 2 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 8000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes Junyo-1 with A6M2 Zero (3 airborne, 7 on standby, 0 scrambling) 3 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 32810 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 32000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 18 minutes 4 planes vectored on to bombers The Brewsters really made a lot of difference by tangling with the Zekes.

LoBaron -> RE: A few newbie questions (2/7/2011 7:19:17 PM)
PS: against the AI its maybe a bit unfair because it exposes their convoys too much, but against a human its absolutely ok as he should now about how dangerous they are.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.703125