quote:

ORIGINAL: Termite2

Clark was at Anzio; sat when he should have moved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Chickenboy commented (in a lighthearted haiku in the War Room) about me having a "million and one" ships in a single hex. I know he's reading and posting in John's AAR.

His comment follows on one made by one of you guys in this thread, perhaps a page back, something to similar effect.

I take it that John or his readers must have an issue with keeping ships tightly together. I've never encountered this complaint before. I won't mention it to John unless he mentions it first.

I suppose I can understand where he's coming from - hey, taking on the Allies in '44 isn't easy. And it shouldn't be easy.

But I conserved my carriers carefully - oh, so carefully - throughout the game, banking against the day when I'd need to strike deep. Now I'm reaping that benefit while John is suffering the consequences of his reckless JEB Stuart ride in the Marshalls in September.

I wouldn't have to keep the Herd so tightly packed if not for a variety of things John takes advantage of: 24-hour carrier and combat ship movement without my ability to respond (that's just part of the game, but it makes it necessary for me to keep my ships protected); the ability to move Netties all across the map and then still strike together in a single day; a cohesive Japanese navy and army cooperating on strikes; etc.

Our beloved AE has many abstractions. As a result, I keep my fleet tightly together. So I ain't playing dumb and spreading them out to make it easier for him to attack.

John wouldn't be having this issue if he hadn't ridden around the Union army prior to Gettysburg.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termite2

Clark was at Anzio; sat when he should have moved.

Didn't he also disobey orders and went to Rome for the glory of being a liberator instead of cutting off the German's escape route?

quote:

IIRC Thomas was the only general to destroy an enemy army in the Civil War at the Battle of Nashville (US Army of the Cumberland vs CSA Army of Tennessee).

quote:

His This Terrible Sound (Chickamauga) is the second finest work of history I've ever read (subjective analysis based upon quality of his writing and level of my interest).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Well, I recall the original AE or WiTP rules specifying very clearly that there was a chance that fighters set to train only had a chance of contesting enemy aircraft in the hex; I've never, ever seen that happen. So I'm leery of counting on a rule in a critical situation unless I'm absolutely sure, and I'm not here.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The P-51A has only 4x .50 cal, so it is better than a P-40K but not so much as it could be.

The P-51B still has only 4x .40 cal but is much faster. But still only the 32 Durability of the A and most of the P-40 line.

Some helpful comparisons even though you didn't ask:
The P-51D has 6x .40 cal but still only 32 Dur (as all P-51 have), and is vulnerable enough against crack IJ pilots, though clearly better than prior USA fighters.

The P-47 benefits a great deal from the 8x .50 cal and the higher Dur (35 IIRC??). Also the P-51 suffers more degradation at high altitudes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The P-51A has only 4x .50 cal, so it is better than a P-40K but not so much as it could be.

The P-51B still has only 4x .40 cal but is much faster. But still only the 32 Durability of the A and most of the P-40 line.

Some helpful comparisons even though you didn't ask:
The P-51D has 6x .40 cal but still only 32 Dur (as all P-51 have), and is vulnerable enough against crack IJ pilots, though clearly better than prior USA fighters.

The P-47 benefits a great deal from the 8x .50 cal and the higher Dur (35 IIRC??). Also the P-51 suffers more degradation at high altitudes.

My experiences with the P-51B are it is no better than a P-40K, even with a great pilot.

To me, the most nerfed models on the Allied side are the whole P-38 line. I don't think the game code gives enough op loss prevention for the second engine, and they don't seem to turn very well for having all that torque. Even the late, late models get eaten alive by Georges and Franks. I've long assigned them to the "meh" bucket in my mind. OK, but nothing to rely on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termite2

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The P-51A has only 4x .50 cal, so it is better than a P-40K but not so much as it could be.

The P-51B still has only 4x .40 cal but is much faster. But still only the 32 Durability of the A and most of the P-40 line.

Some helpful comparisons even though you didn't ask:
The P-51D has 6x .40 cal but still only 32 Dur (as all P-51 have), and is vulnerable enough against crack IJ pilots, though clearly better than prior USA fighters.

The P-47 benefits a great deal from the 8x .50 cal and the higher Dur (35 IIRC??). Also the P-51 suffers more degradation at high altitudes.

My experiences with the P-51B are it is no better than a P-40K, even with a great pilot.

To me, the most nerfed models on the Allied side are the whole P-38 line. I don't think the game code gives enough op loss prevention for the second engine, and they don't seem to turn very well for having all that torque. Even the late, late models get eaten alive by Georges and Franks. I've long assigned them to the "meh" bucket in my mind. OK, but nothing to rely on.

Torque? P-38 had counter-rotating propellers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
The wrong word then. But power, and widely separated rudders. The P-38 was the bedrock of 1943 in several campaigns. In the game they're VP bait.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
The wrong word then. But power, and widely separated rudders. The P-38 was the bedrock of 1943 in several campaigns. In the game they're VP bait.

You really think so? In 1942 I find that they're very effective when used in the high-altitude sweep role. I can see how they would fall off in effectiveness vs later game Japanese aircraft though.