RE: 18th November: (Full Version)

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



Message

Nemo121 -> RE: 18th November: (1/24/2012 5:56:38 AM)

Harlock,

Hmm, numbers alone don't tell the whole story but in my view the USN CV TFs don't have to "win" anything at this stage. They just have to not lose.

What I mean by that is that USN CV TFs exist in order to secure the unhindered passage of amphibious TFs to their targets. In order to do that they don't have to conduct strikes ( beyond whatever naval strikes are necessary to clear the waters ), they just have to be able to mount a strong numerical CAP.

Japanese escorts exist only to absorb "firing passes" in-game ( given the way the code currently works - if you're interested you can read two threads discussing this and suggesting changes which would improve the code's ability to model plausible outcomes in the Tech forum ). Once that is done and the fighters get at the bombers what matters is not their quality ( since even a Wildcat is more than good enough to shoot down a laden Judy or Netty ) but their numbers ( again, up to a certain point beyond which numbers don't matter due to the way the code currently works ).

Bottom line though, I'm not sure that USN CV fighter quality actually matters much in the defensive role since the fighter vs fighter and fighter vs bomber combat rounds seem to be resolved independently without carry-over of results ( so, for example, if there are 300 fighter vs fighter firing passes that doesn't impact the number of fighter vs bomber firing passes ---- whereas historically the longer you spent fighting the fighters ( fighter vs fighter firing passes ) the less time ( fewer firing passes ) you'd have in the fighter vs bomber phase.

I've thought about this a little tonight once the model was clarified by michaelm and given the current CAP vs strike model the determinant of whether or not a USN CV TF CAP is successful or not actually lies in Japanese hands and is independent of USN CV TF fighter technical-tactical characteristics. In other words, given the number of fighters USN CV TFs can put up 1,000 Wildcats are likely to do just as well against an optimal strike package as 1,000 F8F Bearcats. Obviously against sub-optimal strike packages the Bearcats would do better since sub-optimal strike packages wouldn't be designed to negate US technical-tactical superiority.

I've looked into it and while my basic approach is still valid this code issue definitely favours larger co-ordinated strikes with large numbers of Ki-264s/G9Ms along in order to "absorb" firing passes until the hard-coded limit is reached as a means of relatively sparing the much more fragile single-engined and twin-engined strike aircraft. With this in mind I'm going to look at co-ordinating G9M strikes with single and twin-engined strike groups from now on once USN CVs are in range. I believe G9Ms, on their own, can tackle CVEs/CVLs TFs.

So, technical-tactical issues matter but given the way CAP vs bomber fights are modelled at present there are ways to utterly negate this advantage if one is willing to pay the cost. For Japan that also means a further shift away from attrition to a series of pulsed battles in which there are long periods of very little combat followed by short periods in which almost the entire air force is committed, en masse, into a very high risk environment accepting massive losses over a short period of time in order to overwhelm Allied defences.


So, yes, the Bearcat is better than the F6F5 but defensively I don't think it actually matters much which he deploys. Offensively it matters a lot. To my mind if I were the Allies this would mean that I would reverse the usual doctrinal approach of sending lesser quality planes along to act as escorts since higher quality planes would do better as escorts but wouldn't do substantially better in the CAP role. What it also means is that one should preferentially use fighters with the heaviest armament in the CAP role so as to maximise the odds that each of the limited number of firing passes would result in a kill.

So, there are a lot of ramifications to this code issue and certainly my conclusions seem to support the view that it is much more complex than just looking at the technical-tactical characteristics would seem to suggest. There's an interplay between technical-tactical characteristics, role and code base and combining all three of those factors appropriately will yield the optimal outcome.

Of course, the solution is to fix the code base so that this sort of gap doesn't actually exist OR to HR it so that no side attacks with more than x planes and no side defends with more than y but that sort of HR would be laborious and relatively impossible to enforce given that Japanese strike packages are formed during the resolution phase without recourse to the player.


In terms of ueber-fighters... Well the P-51H is better than any of mine except, perhaps, the J7W2 so I'm not sure about ueber-fighters. I definitely have tried to build the best I could afford though - it was the only way I was ever going to be competitive vs his numbers and quality.



rader -> RE: 18th November: (1/24/2012 6:09:06 AM)


quote:

Japanese escorts exist only to absorb "firing passes" in-game


I always knew they were only ablative armor (as someone else said).



Capt. Harlock -> RE: 18th November: (1/24/2012 9:00:33 PM)

quote:

What I mean by that is that USN CV TFs exist in order to secure the unhindered passage of amphibious TFs to their targets. In order to do that they don't have to conduct strikes ( beyond whatever naval strikes are necessary to clear the waters ), they just have to be able to mount a strong numerical CAP.


I'm not wholly convinced. At this point the greatest threat to USN amphibious TF's is clearly Japanese LBA. Therefore, the USN CV's should be able to neutralize at least some of the nearby airfields. Otherwise, leakers are inevitable. Actually, now that I think about it, leakers are highly likely in any case. The CV's need to be able to reduce the number to a level causing acceptable losses.


quote:

Japanese escorts exist only to absorb "firing passes" in-game ( given the way the code currently works - if you're interested you can read two threads discussing this and suggesting changes which would improve the code's ability to model plausible outcomes in the Tech forum ). Once that is done and the fighters get at the bombers what matters is not their quality ( since even a Wildcat is more than good enough to shoot down a laden Judy or Netty )


Hmm -- what about the Ki-264's and G9M's?[:D] My understanding of the code is that an intercepting fighter must still maneuver to attack an incoming bomber, which is not too difficult but by no means certain. An F8F would have a better chance of getting into firing position, and a better chance of downing the heavier bombers.


What a difference three days makes:

1/21/2012
quote:

As it is now my new generation of fighters are, I believe, more than a match for the P-51H and other sweeping Allied fighters at long range.


1/24/2012
quote:

Well the P-51H is better than any of mine except, perhaps, the J7W2 so I'm not sure about ueber-fighters.



Nemo121 -> RE: 18th November: (1/24/2012 9:28:16 PM)

Rader,

Interestingly enough I read my post differently. I think that once the raid is more than 200 strike aircraft escorts aren't necessary at all. Below 200 they may have a purpose, above 200 I don't see that they actually do ( vs large CAPs ). Caveat - that's given the current code base and the issue which has recently been discovered limiting the number of firing passes fighters have vs bombers to 200 --- no matter how many fighters there are on CAP.


Harlock,
Well, USN CV TFs ARE able to neutralise nearby airfields if they wish. I just think that's not necessarily the best use of USN CV TFs. If my opponent wants to go around blasting airfields I'm happy to take the opportunity to inflict significant losses on him in letting him do so - opening him up to a counter-thrust.

As to G9Ms and Ki-264s. I don't understand how your point relating them relates to the quote. Could you clarify?


As to the quotes.... You appear to have missed a crucial portion of the quotes.

1st quote: My fighters are more than a match for the P-51H and other sweeping fighters AT LONG RANGE. A mission flown to 20 hexes by P-51 Hs operating at high altitude can result in those fighter pilots having 20 to 40 points of fatigue by the time they reach the target. Previously I've established ( in testing and this game ) that fatigue acts to functionally reduce a pilot's A2A skill so that a 70 A2A skill pilot who has 30 fatigue might function like a 55 A2A skill pilot. In-game testing has shown me that P-47Ns can handle my Ki-94IIs when they are flying 10 hexes ( to Ishigaki ) or so but when they are flying 18 to 20 hexes ( to Nago or to Japan from Iwo Jima ) my Ki-94s tend to get the better of them. This is why Allied sweeps of Formosa and Ishigaki tend to result in about a 1:1 exchange rate for J7Ws and Ki-94s while Allied sweeps over Japan proper have been utterly abandoned ( since they are flown at longer range, have higher fatigue and tend to result in hugely disproportionate casualties. ).

The last time the Allies did a sweep over Ishigaki they actually got a bit better than a 1:1 exchange rate vs my planes. The last time the same planes swept Japan proper they took roughly 80% casualties ( about 28 out of 35 lost ) in return for minimal friendly casualties ( I believe I lost 3 or 4 planes ). I was defending with an equivalent mix of fighters each time. The difference was distance. Pilot experience should have been identical and this isn't a one-off, this is something I've seen happen when the same unit swept at close range and then, a couple of days later, was order to sweep at long range.

2nd quote: Technical-tactical characteristics of the P-51H are definitely better than any of mine except the J7W2. I stand by that statement. With that said a brilliant plane ( the P-51H ) flown by an exhausted pilot ( if they conduct very long range sweeps ) can be easy meat due to the effect of fatigue.

When I tried to turn the tables and used my own Ki-94s to conduct long-range sweeps I found they got absolutely slaughtered by the Allies ( in this situation the fatigue differential was entirely in the Allies' favour). When I keep them on the defensive ( minimising fatigue on my part and maximising it on the enemy's part - making the fatigue differential work in my favour ) I find they do 1:1 at short range and considerably better as we move into extended range ( for the Allies ).

I really think the effect of fatigue on performance is huge -- and magnified by the latest game code changes to stratospheric sweeps ( which tend to make them a much less attractive option and have had the effect in-game in this game to reduce sweep altitudes back down to 25,000 to 30,000 feet or so from the previous high of 35,000 feet or 40,000 feet ). Certainly most of my CAP is now flying at 25,000 feet in order to avoid becoming excessively fatigued.

Hopefully that helps clarify the internal consistency of those two posts. Obviously you're free to disagree but my opponents seem to agree with me since they've stopped long-range sweeps in favour of short to medium-range sweeps. They wouldn't be doing that if they felt the P-51Hs were a match for mine at long-range but they still evidently feel free to use them at short range ( over Ishigaki ). Hell Damian sweeps Ishigaki all the time but won't even sweep Nago because of the difference in fatigue at those two ranges. One would be a normal range sweep, the other is an extended range sweep ( which is where the problems begin ).



Schlemiel -> RE: 18th November: (1/25/2012 12:53:07 AM)

There's no contradiction there at all. Nemo's plans have been to keep the P-51s out of anything but extreme sweep range for as long as possible. Basically, he believes his fighters can match and exceed the P-51H when it has fatigue from long range, but are inferior at close ranges when the fight is more equal. Sensible.



Capt. Harlock -> RE: 18th November: (1/25/2012 3:33:53 AM)

quote:

As to G9Ms and Ki-264s. I don't understand how your point relating them relates to the quote. Could you clarify?

The point was that G9Ms and Ki-264s are not Judys or Netties. I doubt the Wildcats are equal to Bearcats in their ability to shoot down Japan's more advanced bombers.

The point about long-range sweeps raises on off-topic issue. (Although, everything about the P-51H is off-topic since they cannot fly from CV's, which was the original issue.) The P-47N had rudder pedals that folded down and transformed into leg rests for long-range flying, as well as a primitive auto-pilot and the spacious cockpit that all Thunderbolts were known for. This seems to have been an advantage at least for one 1st Lt Oscar F. Perdomo, who became an ace in a single day when doing a sweep over the Korean peninsula in August 1945. But I imagine the code is not sophisticated enough to model fatigue rating for individual aircraft!



Nemo121 -> RE: 18th November: (1/25/2012 1:41:58 PM)

Aye well, unfortunately the way the game works the Bearcats don't have much more luck than the Wildcats. A bit more but not much - 20mm cannon are not 4-engined killers. The 4-engineds appear to have a prime utility in "absorbing firing passes" allowing the other bombers accompanying them to get through.

As re: the code: No there is no modelling for that sort of thing in code. Same way as there's no modeling of the fact that B-29s and Ki-94s ( due to pressure cabins ) shouldn't have the same penalties for flying high as other planes. While there are still significant issues with the basic bombing model ( and other areas ) I think that those sorts of lovely to have minutiae will remain untouched as michaelm focuses on the bigger stuff.



Nemo121 -> RE: 18th November: (1/26/2012 2:02:05 PM)

Given the outcome of GJ and Rader's recent battle and the fact that in the pivotal round of that combat 1200 US fighters were held off the bombers by 474 Japanese escorts such that, according to Greyjoy's pics in his AAR, not a single strike aircraft was shot down by defending CAP I am planning to approach my opponent to ask whether or not he wishes to introduce HRs re: maximum CAP size or maximum strike size in this game.

I don't believe that with 700+ extra fighters the USN would, in real life, have been unable to intercept a single one of the strike aircraft and so I think it is only fair to ask if he wants to HR this. Otherwise when he comes near the Home Islands and I unleash 3,000 planes vs his Coronet style operation I'm worried I might actually sink a sizeable percentage of the US fleet in a day --- when really I shouldn't be doing so.



Capt. Harlock -> RE: 18th November: (1/26/2012 8:37:13 PM)

quote:

I don't believe that with 700+ extra fighters the USN would, in real life, have been unable to intercept a single one of the strike aircraft and so I think it is only fair to ask if he wants to HR this. Otherwise when he comes near the Home Islands and I unleash 3,000 planes vs his Coronet style operation I'm worried I might actually sink a sizeable percentage of the US fleet in a day --- when really I shouldn't be doing so.


I have to agree -- and I salute you for your sportsmanship.



Schlemiel -> RE: 18th November: (1/26/2012 8:56:21 PM)

Nemo, I'm curious what you think might be an in-game counter to make the fleet less vulnerable. For something like GreyJoy's situation (with the IJN surface assets mostly attrited) would it be wiser to split carriers into 2 or maybe even 3 adjacent hexes with a cap range of 1? Or would that further dilute the effect of CAP to the point of making all formations more vulnerable at once? I'm wondering whether the desire to stack everything doesn't, in fact, make the carriers more vulnerable late war. At least, I would think, splitting up the fleet slightly more might make each individual element more vulnerable, but it would seem to me to make a complete disaster somewhat less likely, especially as ship FlAK doesn't seem to work the same way as ground FlAK (I haven't tested, but I imagine that even if GreyJoy had had every Allied BB, CA, CL, and CLAA in that hex it wouldn't have been the same as ground stacked FlAK).



Nemo121 -> RE: 18th November: (1/27/2012 2:21:42 AM)

Harlock,
Well, if I win or lose I want to win or lose based on play and not on something unfair. Obviously though I play the game as opposed to following history rigidly so I'm fine with sending in 100 PT boats in a night, if they're in range etc etc. With that said, where I draw the line is where I draw the line and I wouldn't want to beat Damian in some sense just because the code F'ed up.


Schlemiel,
To be honest I don't think that spreading CV TFs out is much of a defence. At best it would just reduce your losses since only a single hex worth of CVs would get slaughtered. I think that the testing I'm planning this weekend should help actually put a statistical basis on this. Until that data is in I'm not really sure how the Allies can counter this except by not getting themselves into situations where the Japanese can throw such huge numbers at them. Actually that's pretty easy because so long as you don't invade the Home Islands you shouldn't be facing such massive strikes.

Damian's initial take is that an HR would be impossible to enforce and, in any case, he isn't going to be doing something as silly as running up to within 100 miles of the coast of Japan with his CVs ( which is purely suicidal if Japan isn't utterly devastated already ). GJ's error was not in the tactics of his defence etc ( although his altitude band staggering was wasteful and his CAP settings were poor ) but the fact that he ever put that operation into motion. That operation should have been aborted the instant it was thought of.



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 9 [10]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8886719