Is air combat now TOO deadly?

Is air combat now TOO deadly? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific

Message

PBYPilot -> Is air combat now TOO deadly? (12/2/2002 2:44:15 PM)
We've seen a number of posts regarding the new "brutality" (read: high loss rate) of air combat in UV 2.1. I've seen some of the same results myself. I think that everyone will agree that it is a definitely a change from v2.0 and prior versions. I went to the text I read most recently, "Fire in the Sky" by Eric Bergerud, that I read in preparation for the game. I was looking for something specific regarding loss rates. I didn't find anything specific in a quick look, because essentially the whole book is the answer. So I have to use my admittedly incomplete recollections as a summary. My impressions were that until the arrival of very inexperienced Japanese pilots in late 1943, that heavy casualties in fighter-fighter (and I include escort vs. interceptors in this category) combat was rare. Part of this was the dynamics of the combat. Typically, after initial contact the fight dissolved into a series of individual and small unit (section and flight) combats. Fairly quickly, advantage was gained by one side or the other, and the disadvantaged side would attempt to disengage, usually successfully (although at the cost of becoming tactically uninvolved). My guess is that it this progression of individual combats that the new model of air combat in UV 2.1 was trying to emulate. I think that's great, along with essentially all the changes that have been introduced in an effort to increase the realism and feel of the game. But the new results seem less than historic. I've had several combats (in the first few days of combat) where both attackers and defenders were decimated. There have been multiple posts to that effect posted here, some as "bug" reports, and some as general information. 30 -50% destroyed and damaged among attackers and as much as 100% damaged and destroyed among defenders isn't unusual So was this typical of raids in the campaign for the Southwest Pacific? If so it would have been over pretty quickly. If UV is going to produce combat results based on this new air combat model, I think the parameters are going to need to be looked at again. Personally, the old numbers seemed reasonable. A little light, perhaps, but not out of line, especially for a campaign One other comment I can make is about the relationship between fatigue and combat losses. Some comments by the UV staff on the forums suggested that high early losses in UV 2.1 are based on higher initial fatigue of the IJN air units. But I've got to suggest fatigue is going to produce fewer casualties among the fatigued units due to a higher propensity to disengage early. Now this may be bad for the bombers they escort, but would produce lower losses. So, folks at 2x3 and Matrix, please take a look at the numbers. Does the new air combat systems produce long term results that are in the same range as the original campaign? So what do people think? Short of putting the game "on the shelf," will this produce a long term game that is interesting, fun and has the feel of realism? It's certainly something to discuss (politely). PBYPilot "Slow airplanes and fast women"

Inigo Montoya -> (12/2/2002 3:53:22 PM)
I've only played the patch over the weekend, but so far, I like the Air to Air Combat better. I have more fun and feel more immersed with 2.1. It may not be historically accurate, I have no clue, but I give it my stamp of approval.

HARD_SARGE -> (12/2/2002 5:31:22 PM)
Hi PBYpilot < please take a look at the numbers. Does the new air combat systems produce long term results that are in the same range as the original campaign? > how can you expect the same results as the real thing ?, we do not play the game as the real people "played" the war in most of my games vs the AI (Scen 14) I have Rebaul surrounded by Dec 42, so how can I expect Historical results during the game I am playing people are complaining about loseing some planes, but nobody complains about losing the whole IJN navy during the game in the last few patches, I would have hundreds of planes sitting in stock, now maybe I will have to use some of them my first try at the new game, the biggest air loss, the bad guys took, was when two of there CV's sank HARD_Sarge

Raverdave -> (12/2/2002 8:12:34 PM)
Yes the air loses do seem larger than before, but on the whole it seems much more balanced now. Before V2.10 my P-40 squadrons would shoot down 1 or 2 Zeros before being wiped from the skies....now they shoot down 5 or 6 before they get wiped from the skies....and when I say wiped I am talking 80% loss in one action ! (Yeah laugh it up DoomedMantis...YOUR day will come!):p

USSMaine -> (12/2/2002 8:45:02 PM)
I'm not enough of a grognard to know if the results are historical/accurate or not but having played through the first 17 days of Scenario 17 as the Allies it sure "feels" right to me. If I recall, this was a period when the Allied forces (e.g. Americans and Australians at this point) were developing tactics that allowed them to fight the Japanese on much more even footing - different methods of engagement and all that. The time of the Japanese rolling over everything that opposed them was over.

Admiral DadMan -> Shred It, Baybay, Shred It (12/2/2002 11:55:50 PM)
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 09/17/42 Weather: Partly Cloudy Air attack on Rossel Island , at 25,44 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 68 G3M Nell x 20 G4M1 Betty x 24 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 13 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 5 destroyed G3M Nell x 1 destroyed G3M Nell x 1 damaged G4M1 Betty x 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 6 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat x 5 damaged LTJG M.Sanders of VF-2 is credited with kill number 4 Allied ground losses: Men lost 12 Airbase hits 2 Runway hits 10 Attacking Level Bombers: 6 x G4M1 Betty at 8000 feet 2 x G4M1 Betty at 8000 feet 6 x G3M Nell at 8000 feet 2 x G3M Nell at 8000 feet 6 x G4M1 Betty at 8000 feet 9 x G4M1 Betty at 8000 feet 5 x G3M Nell at 8000 feet 6 x G3M Nell at 8000 feet --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Von Rom -> (12/3/2002 12:03:11 AM)
What difficulty setting are you all using? It would be interesting to see the same air battle (and the results) played on both the normal and very hard settings. . . Cheers!

Yamamoto -> (12/3/2002 12:59:05 AM)
I like the 2.1 air to air settings. It shows the importance of CAP and Escorts. In 2.0 fighters seemed to do nothing. As was mentioned above, ship lose rates are many times greater than historical because players are more agressive than their historical counterparts so why should airplanes be any different? Yamamoto

HARD_SARGE -> (12/3/2002 1:11:31 AM)
Hi Yamamoto yes that is the point I was trying to make, in real life, you gamble or push, and people die, or more people die then should normally die, in game, it is a gamble, it works great, it don't, you can replay the turn or give up and start up a new war in my new game, had a huge air battle over Luga, as the Allies I lost around 90 planes, the IJN lost around 150, I got some hits in, they didn't, so I had to give chase before they got away, looks like they had 9 Zeros left to fly cap, but I was only putting out strikes of 5 F4F's and 6 SBD's, so it was interesting, as you are hopeing for the one lucky strike that will end it chased them 2/3 of the to Truk, got one, damaged 2 more, and am running for home now, before the landbase air regroups having a blast HARD_Sarge

Nikademus -> Think 2.1 is closer to the mark (12/3/2002 1:47:43 AM)
Yes, fighter vs fighter casualties did tend to be light on both sides during the early war period but there were some definate exceptions that were downright bloody. More importantly though, bomber vs fighter tended to be much more contested (but not always.....depending on positional/situational format at the start) and often got bloody (but not to the point where dozens were falling) The problem with 2.0 was that almost every single engagement seemed to embrace the former example, regardless of situation, thus making CAP's an almost moot point. Big raid, small raid, heavy escort, light escort (and with certain bomber types, no escort (B-17)) the fighters seemed to dance on the shadows never even getting a damaged out of the mix (and remember "damage" can be anything from a smoking engine to a bullet-hole in the fuslage) You could also count on the CAP never touching the bombers 9 out of 10 times if there was an escort that was near equal to the total CAP in numbers. Now? You cant take anything for granted. If the escort is particularily heavy you'll see your CAP's hard pressed to get at the bombers (but not totally impossible) If more even, often some CAP elements will be able to take a crack or two (though with disruption) All in all I like what i am seeing. As others have related, CAP and Escorts now "mean" something and more thought has to be given as to how a player is going to balance out his/her fighter assignments. I've already adjusted my USN defaults a tad bit to allow more escorts, not being able to count anymore on my bombers with a 2-4 F4F escort to be able to thumb their noses at the enemy CAP's. Same goes for the IJN when attacking.....watch out for diving F4F's screaming down in the bombers. One note that should be made.....because the action "appears" more intense, FOW is playing an even greater factor in the game. Since the action has intensified, so have the "claims" for both sides gone up. A good example was my first test of 2.10. I had transfered the Tainen air group to Lae and sent them on a fighter sweep after a short rest. The air battle "seemed" intense, with 5 Zeros lost to 4 P-39's and 1 or 2 P-40's with generous "Kills" being awarded to multiple pilots. The reality the turn after was that 1 Tainen fell during the fight, not 5. Allied losses were also lighter. What makes things hard to access properly though is that FOW works on both sides vs just the enemy side....a slightly annoying facet i have to admit. What that means is that when you access your own side's losses, the "claims" are the same whether you are the Allied player or the IJN player (i've checked both sides repeatedly during test games to see what the "actual" losses are So if FOW is on.....the only way to "really" know what both side's losses are is to check each air group on both sides. I'd like to see this changed but its a low priority issue.....just my personal opinion that when accessing one's own losses that FOW should not be exagerating them, only the enemies.

USSMaine -> (12/3/2002 2:00:20 AM)
I play at normal difficulty versus the AI. If I want a harder game I play pbem - which am about to start a new scenario 17 with the same opponent that trashed me in the "Green Hell" scenario. I lost but had a blast ! Unfortunately too many of my ships had the wrong version of blast........

PBYPilot -> (12/3/2002 12:46:56 PM)
Well, now that Matrix has indicated there's a possible "undocumented feature" :) affecting air combat results in 2.1 (uncovered, I understand, by Nikademus' hard work and investigations. Kudos, old chap!), I'm very happy to wait and see how the fix affects things. My gut feel (with little to back it up) was that air combat results should end up somewhere between that of v2.0 and before and 2.1. And that's where it looks like they might be headed. I'm admittedly surprised by some people's lack of concern about consistently ahistorical results. I'm not condemning it, just, well, surprised. Why play UV then? I mean it's not for the action or the graphics (no offense to UV) I've began to think of UV as "radio" drama, as opposed to modern special effects movies. We hear the sounds, we read the reports and we form a picture of the action in our minds. Very powerful in it's own way and certainly appropriate to the period covered! And Re: "damage", I think there's a more specific measure being used in UV. Specifically, it's when the amount of damage isn't repairable by a plane crew (crew chief and support) overnight, then it's "Damaged." That's when it affects aircraft availability the next day. And that's more than a bullet hole in the fuselage. So lets wait and see! PBYPilot "Slow airplanes and fast women"

Deathifier -> (12/3/2002 4:44:48 PM)
Just to throw some numbers into the mix: Prelude: Games been pretty quiet, after the initial carrier massacre and trading blows with their LBA Lexington and Yorktown have spent months being repaired, the carriers that replaced them carried out a less successful carrier massacre but did manage to eliminate the majority of their airforce. Because of that I moved everything except troops out of PM so they can rest and upgrade aircraft and build up a nice pool for when the battles start again. As a side effect PM has only needed one minor resupply in months, but that supply effort revealed the increasing buildup of enemy fighters (but no bombers, still, 3 bombers that survive can put torps into things, like my carriers!). So in an effort to curb their LBA and prevent any more poor troops at PM losing their lives I launched a major resupply effort. 18 Medium AP's loaded 2 new base forces and a pile of supplies and headed in. Their CAP, arriving the same day the ships were to reach PM, consisted of: 3x24 P-40E Warhawk 2x24 P-40E Kittyhawk 6x24 P-39D Airacobra all at full strength, rested and in high morale. Enemy attacks recently had been on and off over PM, the last two days saw around 20-30 zeros and a couple of bombers and a week back about 70 zeros and around 6 bombers made the same sort of raid. With all that in mind, this is what happened... AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 10/26/42 Weather: Overcast Air attack on TF, near Port Moresby at 10,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 77 A6M3 Zero x 20 G3M Nell x 6 G4M1 Betty x 11 Allied aircraft P-39D Airacobra x 79 P-40E Kittyhawk x 21 P-40E Warhawk x 27 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 72 destroyed A6M2 Zero x 3 damaged A6M3 Zero x 22 destroyed G3M Nell x 3 destroyed G3M Nell x 1 damaged G4M1 Betty x 8 destroyed G4M1 Betty x 3 damaged Allied aircraft losses P-39D Airacobra x 67 destroyed P-39D Airacobra x 12 damaged P-40E Kittyhawk x 17 destroyed P-40E Kittyhawk x 4 damaged P-40E Warhawk x 13 destroyed P-40E Warhawk x 8 damaged 1LT R. Allison of 40th FS is credited with kill number 7 LCDR M.Matsuyama of F2/1st Daitai is KILLED Allied Ships AP President Jackson, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage [45 sys, 56 float] Attacking Level Bombers: 3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF, near Port Moresby at 10,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 37 A6M3 Zero x 5 G4M1 Betty x 6 Allied aircraft P-39D Airacobra x 33 P-40E Kittyhawk x 13 P-40E Warhawk x 21 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 35 destroyed A6M3 Zero x 1 destroyed G4M1 Betty x 1 destroyed G4M1 Betty x 2 damaged Allied aircraft losses P-39D Airacobra x 13 destroyed P-39D Airacobra x 5 damaged P-40E Kittyhawk x 3 destroyed P-40E Kittyhawk x 1 damaged P-40E Warhawk x 4 destroyed P-40E Warhawk x 2 damaged 1LT R. Allison of 40th FS is credited with kill number 8 CPT J. Wilson of 41st FS is KILLED Allied Ships AP President Adams AP John Penn Attacking Level Bombers: 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aftermath: All but 4 airgroups have less than 8 flying craft, most have 3 to 5 damaged. There are enough kittyhawks and warhawks in the pool but the airacobra have enough to replenish about 3 airgroups (due to all the upgrades that have been going on, there are over 100 P-400's available). Was playing with FOW off and the AI on historical. - Deathifier

David Heath -> (12/3/2002 10:16:19 PM)
Hi Guys Take this as the official word that YES Air Combat Loses are to high. They will be high then hifger in general but not to the extreme you are seeing. Let me also say that a lot of the really extreme results are also do to gamers bad tactics. The new version should be available very soon. David

Erik Rutins -> Comments... (12/4/2002 12:43:12 AM)
Dave, quote: Let me also say that a lot of the really extreme results are also do to gamers bad tactics. Nothing like a little diplomacy to stir things up, eh? ;) Dave is right though that your tactics, logistics, etc. can make a HUGE difference in your losses in this game, all within your control as a player. Regards, - Erik

Nikademus -> (12/4/2002 1:23:44 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Deathifier [B]Just to throw some numbers into the mix: ... AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 10/26/42 Weather: Overcast Air attack on TF, near Port Moresby at 10,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 77 A6M3 Zero x 20 G3M Nell x 6 G4M1 Betty x 11 Allied aircraft P-39D Airacobra x 79 P-40E Kittyhawk x 21 P-40E Warhawk x 27 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 72 destroyed A6M2 Zero x 3 damaged A6M3 Zero x 22 destroyed G3M Nell x 3 destroyed G3M Nell x 1 damaged G4M1 Betty x 8 destroyed G4M1 Betty x 3 damaged Allied aircraft losses P-39D Airacobra x 67 destroyed P-39D Airacobra x 12 damaged P-40E Kittyhawk x 17 destroyed P-40E Kittyhawk x 4 damaged P-40E Warhawk x 13 destroyed P-40E Warhawk x 8 damaged 1LT R. Allison of 40th FS is credited with kill number 7 LCDR M.Matsuyama of F2/1st Daitai is KILLED Allied Ships AP President Jackson, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage [45 sys, 56 float] Attacking Level Bombers: 3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF, near Port Moresby at 10,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 37 A6M3 Zero x 5 G4M1 Betty x 6 Allied aircraft P-39D Airacobra x 33 P-40E Kittyhawk x 13 P-40E Warhawk x 21 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 35 destroyed A6M3 Zero x 1 destroyed G4M1 Betty x 1 destroyed G4M1 Betty x 2 damaged Allied aircraft losses P-39D Airacobra x 13 destroyed P-39D Airacobra x 5 damaged P-40E Kittyhawk x 3 destroyed P-40E Kittyhawk x 1 damaged P-40E Warhawk x 4 destroyed P-40E Warhawk x 2 damaged 1LT R. Allison of 40th FS is credited with kill number 8 CPT J. Wilson of 41st FS is KILLED Allied Ships AP President Adams AP John Penn Attacking Level Bombers: 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aftermath: All but 4 airgroups have less than 8 flying craft, most have 3 to 5 damaged. There are enough kittyhawks and warhawks in the pool but the airacobra have enough to replenish about 3 airgroups (due to all the upgrades that have been going on, there are over 100 P-400's available). Was playing with FOW off and the AI on historical. - Deathifier [/B][/QUOTE] Wow....I have yet to see such a result in any of my major air battles. No wonder some players were complaining about excessive losses.

Toro -> (12/4/2002 6:29:32 AM)
David & Erik: I'm not seeing results such as this, but could be I suppose, since my tactics may not be as conscious as I would wish. So, to the point: any clues as to what kinds of bad tactics you think folks are using? Think of it as sort of an insiders whack on the sides of our heads to say, "Hellooooo! You're probably doing this wrong." Chalk it up to the concept that we (as theatre commanders) probably should have the tactics down anyway; but, being just gamers, maybe we're a bit off? Any insight would be greatly appreciated (at least by me). :)

Mike Wood -> (12/4/2002 7:58:20 AM)
Hello... SPOILER: Although not Eric or David, I do have some insight into the issue. I coded the calculations used in the air to air combat system. Fatigue and morale are the big killers. In versions 2.0 or less they meant a lot of damaged planes or planes that would not engage, the reason CAP often did nothing. In version 2.10, they meant dead pilots. In version 2.11, they will mean something in between. In this game, the Zero is a highly maneuverable, but fragile airplane. Flying daily missions to Port Morseby from Rabaul will quickly wear down a group. It will reduce morale. It will increase the "fatigue" factor, which is pilot fatigue, ground crew fatigue and aircraft fatigue. Flying too many missions will cause fatigue to rise greater than 35%, approximately the point at which the group commander may start grounded experienced pilots and refusing to fly missions. The solution to this is to fly fewer missions. When I play Japanese, say in the May 1942 campaign, I transfer the air groups from the Shoho to Lae, so that I can make daily fighter sweeps and interdict shipping to Port Moresby. I make sure my crews are rested to less than 10% in Lae, or I do not fly them. I run sweeps from Rabaul about every three or four days with Zeros and rest them the other two. They do not fly, if fatigue is more than 5%. If morale falls below 90% or average experience falls 5 points below beginning values, I put the group on training to train up the rookies. I put my Betty group on night bombing against Port Moresby and bomb very two or three nights. The goal here, is to split the Allies aircraft into day and night groups and make them fly CAP constantly, as they cannot be sure when they will be attacked. Fatigue and operational losses will count against them. I will be flying fresh and in large numbers when I choose. I leave my Nells on naval interdiction/rest, so that they can attack unloading task forces or other naval forces wandering into their range. If I am expecting Allied carrier forces within range, I rest all my Zeros at Rabaul and put them on zero CAP and escort. Once I have reduced Allied fighter numbers with sweeps over Port Moresby, I can start bombing it, with Bettys. I make sure they are escorted by aircraft from Lae and Rabaul and come in at 19,000 feet. I reduce this altitude each turn, until they are bombing from 8000 feet. My point is, if used carefully, Japanese aircraft have a tremendous advantage in the early war, due to their range. The Japanese player can decide when to fight and when to rest and the Allied player can only respond, in general to broadly perceived threats. Tactics such as these worked fine for me in Great Naval Battles II, PacWar, UV version 2.0 and earlier and they work fine for UV version 2.1. Please note that there will sometimes be disasters, where your forces get annihilated. The game allows for this. A close study or the war in the Pacific would indicate to some that unexpected and unreasonable results, whether Leyte Gulf, Savo Island or Midway Atoll seemed to be the rule. But, one thing for certain is that the Japanese cannot win a battle of attrition. You must be clever and make decisive plays. Hope this Helps, feel free to disagree... Michael Wood __________________________________________________ [QUOTE]Originally posted by Toro [B]David & Erik: I'm not seeing results such as this, but could be I suppose, since my tactics may not be as conscious as I would wish. So, to the point: any clues as to what kinds of bad tactics you think folks are using? Think of it as sort of an insiders whack on the sides of our heads to say, "Hellooooo! You're probably doing this wrong." Chalk it up to the concept that we (as theatre commanders) probably should have the tactics down anyway; but, being just gamers, maybe we're a bit off? Any insight would be greatly appreciated (at least by me). :) [/B][/QUOTE]

Erik Rutins -> Comments... (12/4/2002 11:53:26 AM)
An excellent post by Mike, read it thoroughly! :) I follow much the same plan with the Japanese, though I am slightly more generous in the amount of fatigue morale or experience loss I allow before resting/training squadrons. You have to find your own balance of tempo and losses. That's a big part of winning with either side. Regards, - Erik

Apollo11 -> Michael can you please explain if this is a typo? (12/4/2002 3:25:06 PM)
Hi all, [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Wood [B]Hello... SPOILER: Although not Eric or David, I do have some insight into the issue. I coded the calculations used in the air to air combat system. Fatigue and morale are the big killers. In versions 2.0 or less they meant a lot of damaged planes or planes that would not engage, the reason CAP often did nothing. In version 2.10, they meant dead pilots. In version 2.11, they will mean something in between. In this game, the Zero is a highly maneuverable, but fragile airplane. Flying daily missions to Port Morseby from Rabaul will quickly wear down a group. It will reduce morale. It will increase the "fatigue" factor, which is pilot fatigue, ground crew fatigue and aircraft fatigue. Flying too many missions will cause fatigue to rise greater than 35%, approximately the point at which the group commander may start grounded experienced pilots and refusing to fly missions. The solution to this is to fly fewer missions. When I play Japanese, say in the May 1942 campaign, I transfer the air groups from the Shoho to Lae, so that I can make daily fighter sweeps and interdict shipping to Port Moresby. I make sure my crews are rested to less than 10% in Lae, or I do not fly them. I run sweeps from Rabaul about every three or four days with Zeros and rest them the other two. They do not fly, if fatigue is more than 5%. If morale falls below 90% or average experience falls 5 points below beginning values, I put the group on training to train up the rookies. I put my Betty group on night bombing against Port Moresby and bomb very two or three nights. The goal here, is to split the Allies aircraft into day and night groups and make them fly CAP constantly, as they cannot be sure when they will be attacked. Fatigue and operational losses will count against them. I will be flying fresh and in large numbers when I choose. I leave my Nells on naval interdiction/rest, so that they can attack unloading task forces or other naval forces wandering into their range. If I am expecting Allied carrier forces within range, I rest all my Zeros at Rabaul and put them on zero CAP and escort. Once I have reduced Allied fighter numbers with sweeps over Port Moresby, I can start bombing it, with Bettys. I make sure they are escorted by aircraft from Lae and Rabaul and come in at 19,000 feet. I reduce this altitude each turn, until they are bombing from 8000 feet. My point is, if used carefully, Japanese aircraft have a tremendous advantage in the early war, due to their range. The Japanese player can decide when to fight and when to rest and the Allied player can only respond, in general to broadly perceived threats. Tactics such as these worked fine for me in Great Naval Battles II, PacWar, UV version 2.0 and earlier and they work fine for UV version 2.1. Please note that there will sometimes be disasters, where your forces get annihilated. The game allows for this. A close study or the war in the Pacific would indicate to some that unexpected and unreasonable results, whether Leyte Gulf, Savo Island or Midway Atoll seemed to be the rule. But, one thing for certain is that the Japanese cannot win a battle of attrition. You must be clever and make decisive plays. Hope this Helps, feel free to disagree... Michael Wood __________________________________________________ [/B][/QUOTE] First of all thanks for your info Michael - very interesting read! And now one sentence you used: [QUOTE] They do not fly, if fatigue is more than 5% [/QUOTE] Can you please explain if this is a typo (I think that your quoted 5% is really way too small)? Thanks in advance! Leo "Apollo11"

BK6583 -> Air Tactics Question (12/4/2002 10:44:26 PM)
Somewhere in a previous post Cap and Gown asked how the Japanese can reinforce Lae with fighters [and bombers?] w/o stirring a strong Allied fighter escort and bomber airfield attack there. After reading Mike's excellent post above I still have the same question. My mind reading Allied opponent (probably more like he just used consistent recon over Lae and Buna) would constantly attack my airbase at Lae, never giving my fighters there a real chance to rest - I've read previous tactisc posts before about how Jap fighters flying escort and CAP from Lae to PM greatly reduces their acuumulated turn by turn fatigue, but I've never had a chance to put this to my own test because of those Allied [counter] strikes on Lae. Comments?

HARD_SARGE -> (12/4/2002 11:21:08 PM)
HI BK6583 interesting, I was thinking that yesterday myself I just started up a IJN side game to see what they were like with the heavy combat losses going on, I moved two Zero units down to Lea after seeing the heavy Fat levels after the first raid on PM, the next day a sweep hit the base, but my little cap beat them off, the next day, 9 B-17's came over, and I have not been able to take off or leave the field since ! 9 B-17's totalled the field ?, greeesh, in my Allied games, I can do over 170 runway hits on a base and not shut it down (FOW is on, so maybe not as many hits as I am seeing, but still) I have hit Shortlands, with 50 B-17's and 70 B-26's, keep that up till the recon reports show 95 + damage, and still the JP can get it's fighters up (or should I say AI can) {oops, my bad, I am comparing 1.40 vs 2.0 vs 2.10 vs 2.11, so not really fair to say this happens here, but may be 2 or 3 patches ago} oops, but still, I agree, how do you keep your fighters/bombers on the ground long enough to get any rest with a war on ? as the Allies, I try to get around 4 or 5 bases all with in range of a target, and then attack around the clock from all the bases, this way, you can shut one or two bases down for rest, and the others keep the pressure on (okay talking Dec/Jan 43 in Scen 14 here) maybe they got nicer bad guys then we face ? HARD_Sarge

Nikademus -> (12/5/2002 1:33:02 AM)
great post Mike. Fully agree. one reason I was very happy with 2.11 Since i was playing SC19, i knew the AI-IJN had a different OOB and thus had the capability to differ from the historical outcome by being able to conduct mass fighter sweeps and heavily escorted raids. Coupled with my deliberate decision to try to contest these agressive moves with every fighter i could lay a finger on, the resultant bloody attrtion over a month's period was to me, a very logical outcome. (Like too how the AI is playing smarter or at least appears to be in this SC......it's resting it's airgroups and launching periodic night raids, keeping me guessing to a degree) Never saw the mass attrtion in single battles reported by others, though for some of them, still didn't seem out of wack when one considers FOW. "claims" on both sides tend to go up preportionately in relation to the size and intensity of the air battles. This is why you can often seem X planes "damaged" outnumbering the actual # that attacked....partly because of FOW but also because the game tallies each report of "damage" as a seperate event....even if the same plane is being damaged over and over. It does the same for destroyed as well. If you learn from history and try not to repeat the mistakes of the past....your going to get a different result....thats the whole point of wargaming after all...to try to get a different result, hopefully more favorable to the side your playing. :)

Erik Rutins -> Comments... (12/5/2002 1:44:26 AM)
I always make it a priority to first send some large engineer units and a few extra base units to Lae, escorted and with CAP, of course. Once they are unloaded, the field becomes much more difficult for the allies to shut down. If Lae is not shut down, the Japanese can pretty much always win superiority over PM. Regards, - Erik

HARD_SARGE -> (12/5/2002 1:51:45 AM)
Hi Erik okay I can buy that based on what I have seen, the bases I can not shut down should have tons of eng's in place, and in my case, what I seen with the JP side, I was not able to get any more troops to the base then what it had to start with HARD_Sarge

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.0625