RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB

RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (Full Version)

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

Message

CT Grognard -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/21/2011 11:20:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar Just funny note..but when I see this thread abbreviated from main forum as "RE: Advice Needed: Getting La .."..my first thought was not Land-Based bombers...[:D] Err...I was thinking the same... [8\|]

Erkki -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/21/2011 11:31:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CT Grognard quote: ORIGINAL: herwin The Argentinian Air Force is braver. Don't sell the FAA short! They sortied 430 times on attack missions...sinking two destroyers, two frigates, a RFA landing ship, a container ship, and in addition damaging another two destroyers, six frigates, three RFA landing ships and a fleet stores ship... ...they might have been totally outclassed by the Sea Harriers in air-to-air combat, but their attack pilots still had teeth. Plus the container ship was converted into a "carrier". [;)]

CT Grognard -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/21/2011 11:44:42 AM)
[8D] True...she had quite a potent complement at one stage: Six Westland Wessex helicopters Five HC.1 Chinook helicopters Eight Sea Harriers Six Harrier GR.3s At least they offloaded the Harriers and GR.3s before the Argentines put two Exocets in her, but the loss of the six Wessex's and three Chinooks was strategically significant - without them the Royal Marines and Paras had to yomp/tab all the way from San Carlos to Stanley.

herwin -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/21/2011 2:10:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CT Grognard quote: ORIGINAL: herwin The Argentinian Air Force is braver. Don't sell the FAA short! They sortied 430 times on attack missions...sinking two destroyers, two frigates, a RFA landing ship, a container ship, and in addition damaging another two destroyers, six frigates, three RFA landing ships and a fleet stores ship... ...they might have been totally outclassed by the Sea Harriers in air-to-air combat, but their attack pilots still had teeth. The FAA is a lot braver! My point is the game engine seriously understates the bravery and skill of these pilots by the way it models daytime air operations. It creates a game exploit--all you have to do is mass enough carrier aircraft in a hex, and land based forces will refuse to launch. You can overawe any single base with 10-12 carriers. And that allows you to methodically take out every base in the theatre in turn.

CT Grognard -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/21/2011 2:32:56 PM)
If that is indeed what is the case - then I agree with you that it is an exploit and it would be gamey to use it. A house rule might be in order...

Chickenboy -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/21/2011 5:34:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin I tried a night attack with everything I had. Coordinated night attack by LBA bombers is anathema in this game, as it was IRL for the Allies, mate. I would not expect any degree of launch against KB in this circumstance.

witpqs -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/21/2011 5:40:36 PM)
Aviation support at the launching base: if there is a shortage of av supp, there is a possible penalty on the number of planes that will launch. This (reasonable speculation) might also translate into a lower % to launch at all.

Chickenboy -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/21/2011 5:43:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin My point is the game engine seriously understates the bravery and skill of these pilots by the way it models daytime air operations. It creates a game exploit--all you have to do is mass enough carrier aircraft in a hex, and land based forces will refuse to launch. You can overawe any single base with 10-12 carriers. And that allows you to methodically take out every base in the theatre in turn. I respectfully disagree with your premise and your conclusion. A 10 CV naval air strike arm is a very potent focal force which, like IRL, was capable of taking out single bases when so applied. Fire in the Sky addresses this nicely. Whereas land bases had greater durability and were in it for the long haul, carrier air was a very potent mobile weapon, albeit with less offensive sustainability. Two different weapons 'systems' that can't be compared as equals. Carrier air may be able to take out a few bases in turn, but it will not have the staying power either IRL or in the game to 'take out every base in the theatre in turn' without sustaining unacceptably high casualties to her aircrew or airframes. In my opinion, a clever Allied player would welcome seemingly unending airfield (or better yet) or port strikes by KB's elite. The resultant attritional losses will put the KB in a precarious position when challenged in the future by Allied carrier air.

herwin -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/21/2011 6:41:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: herwin I tried a night attack with everything I had. Coordinated night attack by LBA bombers is anathema in this game, as it was IRL for the Allies, mate. I would not expect any degree of launch against KB in this circumstance. It's definitely a lot more than launch in the daytime!!!

herwin -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/21/2011 6:48:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: herwin My point is the game engine seriously understates the bravery and skill of these pilots by the way it models daytime air operations. It creates a game exploit--all you have to do is mass enough carrier aircraft in a hex, and land based forces will refuse to launch. You can overawe any single base with 10-12 carriers. And that allows you to methodically take out every base in the theatre in turn. I respectfully disagree with your premise and your conclusion. A 10 CV naval air strike arm is a very potent focal force which, like IRL, was capable of taking out single bases when so applied. Fire in the Sky addresses this nicely. Whereas land bases had greater durability and were in it for the long haul, carrier air was a very potent mobile weapon, albeit with less offensive sustainability. Two different weapons 'systems' that can't be compared as equals. Carrier air may be able to take out a few bases in turn, but it will not have the staying power either IRL or in the game to 'take out every base in the theatre in turn' without sustaining unacceptably high casualties to her aircrew or airframes. In my opinion, a clever Allied player would welcome seemingly unending airfield (or better yet) or port strikes by KB's elite. The resultant attritional losses will put the KB in a precarious position when challenged in the future by Allied carrier air. In reality, yes. The carriers can surge and pull out of range to recover. The bases can't. However, in the game, the only thing the bases launch are fighters, so the carrier air can focus on taking out the fighters and stonking whatever is at the bases. My experience is that in a single strike a 10-CV KB can kill half the aircraft on a maximum-sized base, damage the rest, and generate 100% damage on airstrips, facilities, and whatever shipping is in the hex.

SuluSea -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/21/2011 7:02:35 PM)
When I played the Allied side I loved when the Japanese side would attack airstrips with carrier air. The USN pilots have the ability to be trained in better numbers than naval pilots flying for the emperor. You have the ability to have a good amount of AA batteries at all your major bases near contested area's off Oz if you chose. I had the same problem as you're having in my last game which I admit can be frustrating. I built up bases, brought in plenty of air support made sure my bombers had the most aggressive commanders available plus P-38 escort, nothing worked against the 500 fighters in the mega KB. Not long after a carrier battle happened and my land based air flew with the help of USN carriers in the area. You're being caught up in a numbers game.

Chickenboy -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/21/2011 8:25:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: herwin My point is the game engine seriously understates the bravery and skill of these pilots by the way it models daytime air operations. It creates a game exploit--all you have to do is mass enough carrier aircraft in a hex, and land based forces will refuse to launch. You can overawe any single base with 10-12 carriers. And that allows you to methodically take out every base in the theatre in turn. I respectfully disagree with your premise and your conclusion. A 10 CV naval air strike arm is a very potent focal force which, like IRL, was capable of taking out single bases when so applied. Fire in the Sky addresses this nicely. Whereas land bases had greater durability and were in it for the long haul, carrier air was a very potent mobile weapon, albeit with less offensive sustainability. Two different weapons 'systems' that can't be compared as equals. Carrier air may be able to take out a few bases in turn, but it will not have the staying power either IRL or in the game to 'take out every base in the theatre in turn' without sustaining unacceptably high casualties to her aircrew or airframes. In my opinion, a clever Allied player would welcome seemingly unending airfield (or better yet) or port strikes by KB's elite. The resultant attritional losses will put the KB in a precarious position when challenged in the future by Allied carrier air. In reality, yes. The carriers can surge and pull out of range to recover. The bases can't. However, in the game, the only thing the bases launch are fighters, so the carrier air can focus on taking out the fighters and stonking whatever is at the bases. My experience is that in a single strike a 10-CV KB can kill half the aircraft on a maximum-sized base, damage the rest, and generate 100% damage on airstrips, facilities, and whatever shipping is in the hex. Yes, perhaps they can do that degree of damage to one hex. After all, look at what a 6-CV TF did to that Oahu hex early in the war. They won't be able to do that very often in the game (or reality) before losing their operational edge, as SuluSea states above.

herwin -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/21/2011 9:09:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SuluSea When I played the Allied side I loved when the Japanese side would attack airstrips with carrier air. The USN pilots have the ability to be trained in better numbers than naval pilots flying for the emperor. You have the ability to have a good amount of AA batteries at all your major bases near contested area's off Oz if you chose. I had the same problem as you're having in my last game which I admit can be frustrating. I built up bases, brought in plenty of air support made sure my bombers had the most aggressive commanders available plus P-38 escort, nothing worked against the 500 fighters in the mega KB. Not long after a carrier battle happened and my land based air flew with the help of USN carriers in the area. You're being caught up in a numbers game. Amen.

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/21/2011 11:31:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin I�ve wondered many times why my opponent has never tried stonking Noumea and the Australian bases. There would be no opposition in the air. I find the effect P39s on CAP have on Zekes, Vals and Kates very gratifying when the KB strikes these bases in 42. You define opposition maybe differently than I do....I suppose you mean that land-based dive bombers, torp bombers or 2Es will not strike the KB unless it closes. Going back to UV, I have not found this a serious issue. If the enemy wishes to expend his naval aircraft and pilots on attacking airfields, he had better have a very good reason, because that is the break most Allied players are looking for (divided attention) when, like Nimitz, they try and put their carriers in a position to win. You talk of this as an exploit, yet you use a large number of Black Cats in 42 to strike back at night? Harry, the game system cannot protect you from yourself. Mike

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/22/2011 12:06:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin And so in the morning, the KB is observed sailing sedately just to the north of Ndeni as thousands of American airmen wave from the shore. Ndeni has about 200 operational aircraft including about 80 fighters. Neither side launches. My question is 'where are the diminishing returns to scale that led both navies to use right-sized CVTFs'. The first time I played D-Day against my brother--soon after the first release--neither of us noticed the stacking rules, and the campaign was decided when a stack of all the Allied units attacked a stack of all the German units. This game reminds me of that. Harry, you really are starting to sound like a broken record. I thought you had finally accepted that there are aspects of this game that make it a game and not a simulation and you were just going to enjoy it as a game? Your tireless campaign to express your opinion on scale and mass in combat operations is quite wearing to me. Mike

ADB123 -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/22/2011 12:27:43 AM)
Harry likes beating a dead horse, and he also likes implying things rather than stating things. (That's often typical of academic-style thought and discourse.) So let me ask the question that Harry is avoiding: Should the Game Engine be modified so that there is a better chance of LBA taking off and attacking CV Death Stars, whether Japanese or Allied? My vote is for yes. Now, if Michael M would agree, and could do it, my opinion is that it would make for a more interesting game. But if Michael doesn't agree, or can't do it, then we all have to learn how to continue to live with this - the Allies during the first few years of the Game and the Japanese during the last few years of the game.

SuluSea -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/22/2011 12:45:12 AM)
I'm in the camp it shouldn't be modified and it's the game is fine as it stands in regard to this modelling. If medium bombers fly into 500 CAP they will be shredded in short order without sufficient escorts so in effect the developers are protecting us from ourselves. When adequate escorts are available the LB planes will attack and I tried to make that point in my last post. [:)] Whatever the developers do someone will come down on the opposite side of the fence and air gripes.

Puhis -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/22/2011 6:30:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace quote: ORIGINAL: herwin You talk of this as an exploit, yet you use a large number of Black Cats in 42 to strike back at night? Harry, the game system cannot protect you from yourself. He is only complaining when he is losing, or "game engine" favors his opponent. He has no problems at all exploiting the game himself. [8\|] I think his biggest problem is lack of imagination. Everything have to go just like some old manuals said, otherwise it's broken!!!

herwin -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/22/2011 6:55:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace quote: ORIGINAL: herwin I�ve wondered many times why my opponent has never tried stonking Noumea and the Australian bases. There would be no opposition in the air. I find the effect P39s on CAP have on Zekes, Vals and Kates very gratifying when the KB strikes these bases in 42. You define opposition maybe differently than I do....I suppose you mean that land-based dive bombers, torp bombers or 2Es will not strike the KB unless it closes. Going back to UV, I have not found this a serious issue. If the enemy wishes to expend his naval aircraft and pilots on attacking airfields, he had better have a very good reason, because that is the break most Allied players are looking for (divided attention) when, like Nimitz, they try and put their carriers in a position to win. You talk of this as an exploit, yet you use a large number of Black Cats in 42 to strike back at night? Harry, the game system cannot protect you from yourself. Mike If your aircraft only fly at night, you fly at night.

herwin -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/22/2011 7:23:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ADB123 Harry likes beating a dead horse, and he also likes implying things rather than stating things. (That's often typical of academic-style thought and discourse.) So let me ask the question that Harry is avoiding: Should the Game Engine be modified so that there is a better chance of LBA taking off and attacking CV Death Stars, whether Japanese or Allied? My vote is for yes. Now, if Michael M would agree, and could do it, my opinion is that it would make for a more interesting game. But if Michael doesn't agree, or can't do it, then we all have to learn how to continue to live with this - the Allies during the first few years of the Game and the Japanese during the last few years of the game. I'd express it somewhat differently: should the game engine for WitP-II be designed to produce diminishing returns to scale? If so, how? That's where the calibration comes into the discussion, and the programmers start shaking their heads. In WitP-AE, the organisation for combat reflects the game engine, and we discover that players prefer mass over right-sizing, and that doesn't seem right. Players should be using variations on the historical theme--I do--and not be completely ahistorical. After butting my head against the game engine for almost a year using daylight air operations, I tried night, and discovered things were a bit broken in my favour. I'd be happy for night ops to be fixed, but I'd like day ops fixed at the same time. It's a matter of diminishing returns to scale--now an air death star reliably suppresses all opposition, even if the opposition--spread among a few mutually-supporting bases--is double the strength of the death star.

Sardaukar -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/22/2011 10:09:45 AM)
Well..4E bombers do not suffer from "insufficient escort penalty", so if IJN puts 10 CVs together, bring in 10 groups of B-17s/B-24s and set them on Naval Attack.

herwin -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/22/2011 10:37:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar Well..4E bombers do not suffer from "insufficient escort penalty", so if IJN puts 10 CVs together, bring in 10 groups of B-17s/B-24s and set them on Naval Attack. When I was working with USN and USMC attack pilots in the far, far past, they took pride in not needing an escort--being able to take care of themselves in air combat.

Chickenboy -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/22/2011 12:08:33 PM)
Herwin, I'll avoid the personal attacks, as I feel they're unwarranted. If other forumites tire of your posts or your point of view, there are mechanisms that exist to provide them relief. I understand some of your frustration at the game engine. It does most things well, but some things not so well. Perhaps this is one of those things. I think perhaps the scale (numbers) of CVs throws the computer matrix into a tizzy. Other reasonable posters have observed this generality with the air model: that large scale combat changes the tenor and tone of the overall combat. 'Twas a common observation with WiTP in years past too. I propose a test: Set up 4 Japanese CVs (original KB minus CarDiv 5) plus their retinue in a single CVTF. Put Nagumo in charge. Put it 4-5 hexes NW of Midway, a level 4 airfield. Put a hodge podge of USMC, USAAF bombers and USNAF recon Catalinas there and see what launches. IRL, there were several 'bitsa' attacks, frequently unescorted, against Nagumos carrier force. Will the game allow this to occur 8 or 9 times out of 10? As we know now, these attacks were crucial in invoking delay, thereby allowing KB to be pounded by Allied CVTF naval air shortly thereafter. Can the game faithfully replicate the role of under or unescorted LBA in one of the most pivotal battles of the Second World War? I've not seen this test...

Chickenboy -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/22/2011 12:12:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ADB123 Harry likes beating a dead horse, and he also likes implying things rather than stating things. (That's often typical of academic-style thought and discourse.) Let's avoid the ad hominim commentary here, shall we? As for the 'typical' discourse of academia, I've been swimming in it for many years now and not seen this typical thought or discourse pattern that you suggest. Perhaps it's a more local or regionalized communication modality that you're confusing with inherent academic thought? Perhaps you shouldn't generalize in this manner?

herwin -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/22/2011 1:23:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy Herwin, I'll avoid the personal attacks, as I feel they're unwarranted. If other forumites tire of your posts or your point of view, there are mechanisms that exist to provide them relief. I understand some of your frustration at the game engine. It does most things well, but some things not so well. Perhaps this is one of those things. I think perhaps the scale (numbers) of CVs throws the computer matrix into a tizzy. Other reasonable posters have observed this generality with the air model: that large scale combat changes the tenor and tone of the overall combat. 'Twas a common observation with WiTP in years past too. I propose a test: Set up 4 Japanese CVs (original KB minus CarDiv 5) plus their retinue in a single CVTF. Put Nagumo in charge. Put it 4-5 hexes NW of Midway, a level 4 airfield. Put a hodge podge of USMC, USAAF bombers and USNAF recon Catalinas there and see what launches. IRL, there were several 'bitsa' attacks, frequently unescorted, against Nagumos carrier force. Will the game allow this to occur 8 or 9 times out of 10? As we know now, these attacks were crucial in invoking delay, thereby allowing KB to be pounded by Allied CVTF naval air shortly thereafter. Can the game faithfully replicate the role of under or unescorted LBA in one of the most pivotal battles of the Second World War? I've not seen this test... I might as well climb the learning curve. OK, by the first of the year.

USSAmerica -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/22/2011 1:24:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar Well..4E bombers do not suffer from "insufficient escort penalty", so if IJN puts 10 CVs together, bring in 10 groups of B-17s/B-24s and set them on Naval Attack. When I was working with USN and USMC attack pilots in the far, far past, they took pride in not needing an escort--being able to take care of themselves in air combat. This has absolutely nothing to do with the game, and contributes absolutely nothing to any discussion about the game. [sm=nono.gif]

herwin -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/22/2011 1:34:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: USS America quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar Well..4E bombers do not suffer from "insufficient escort penalty", so if IJN puts 10 CVs together, bring in 10 groups of B-17s/B-24s and set them on Naval Attack. When I was working with USN and USMC attack pilots in the far, far past, they took pride in not needing an escort--being able to take care of themselves in air combat. This has absolutely nothing to do with the game, and contributes absolutely nothing to any discussion about the game. [sm=nono.gif] "Players should be using variations on the historical theme, and not be completely ahistorical." Until I was 18, I played tournament chess, but I knew the difference between what happened on the chessboard and what happened when I was carrying a pack and a rifle in manoeuvres. It's when a game sits in between that I get confused.

pharmy -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/24/2011 3:10:43 PM)
Chickenboy might have a point with the large number of CVs "throwing the matrix into a twizzy" Found a good example using Combat Reporter March 1942 - raided PH with CarDiv 1,2,3 plus CV Hiyo, CVL Nisshin (60% CAP), - not 1 LBA attack (but plenty of detection by Catalinas) Split force in two after that: fast CVs (Soryu,Hiryu,Shokaku,Zuikaku)raided Alaska - received altogether about 10 attacks from Bolos,Kittyhawks,Marauders,Warhawks in 3 turns near Seward. Flights ranged from 20 a/c to 3 unescorted Marauders The other force (Akagi,Kaga,Nisshin,Hiyo joined by Hosho and Taiyo) received 25 separate LBA attacks from Townsville in 3 turns ranging from 3 to 10 Hudson, Banshees, Wirraways to attacks of 30 a/c with escorts (one day got 13 attacks, and indeed the final one by 3 Hudsons and 5 Banshees actually scored a hit on Taiyo, as my CAP was non-existent after raid 9 of the day)

Cap Mandrake -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/24/2011 4:11:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar Just funny note..but when I see this thread abbreviated from main forum as "RE: Advice Needed: Getting La .."..my first thought was not Land-Based bombers...[:D] [:D][:D]

bigred -> RE: Advice Needed: Getting Land-Based Air to Launch Against the KB (11/24/2011 11:43:32 PM)
Hi Harry.� Recently in my game w/FatR he brought the KB down w/in 2 hexes of Rossel island. I had 50 transports unloading that could not outrun the KB.. So I made a mental check list from my forum reading and prepared for the worst and hoped for the best. 43-7-20: size five AF. 32000 supply 15 deployed pt boats and 7 subs to harrass the KB egress/exit. 1 air HQ 3 AA units Adjacent size one AF-dont remember the name not enough Aviation support(-25% off all attacking planes) but did not overstack the AF(another -25% if AF overstacked). Set all sqns to same HQ--paid the PPs Brought in the only one b24 sqn trained on high naval attack!!!!! 4x SBDs sqns 1xTBF 1xBeaufort--which did score a torp hit on the Akagi 8xFTR sqns set to escort---no cap� (8x18 planes avg size-142 ftrs) Set all to 10000ft(because the DBs will dive attack from 10 to 14000ft only). Looked at KB recon and noted # of carriers and estimated the amount of ftr would be 60% on CAP.� In this case I figured 300 IJN fighters total w/ 180 on CAP.� I wanted at least 1 to 2 ratio of my escort to his defense because I read that is what u need to get into the KB.� So I lose 25% because I dont have aviation supprt so instead of 142 escort I figured I would have about 120... It did fly and I get 3 hits...and all my stuff got shot up..oh well.. I believe if FatR had the KB cap at 80% then I would not have launched..not sure but a guess. So I made a guess he was set at 50/60 CAP and allocated my ftr/bomber ratio accordingly for the attack...If his tendancy had been to use more CAP I would have loaded more ftrs into Rossell with less of a bomber mix.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1