quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Is Mac around somewhere close by. His moment is coming very early now.[sm=happy0065.gif]

I look at the troops present at Manila, and scratch my head in disbelief. [sm=00000007.gif]

It is only x2 terrain, so not great to defend in, but certainly an important base that should be properly defended. If John's understanding of ground warfare is so poor, you should be running riot. Of course, that is not your plan...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Another air battle tactical note: In LBA battles, I have found that fighters flying escort are dead meat, always. I try to avoid combined missions, even for Death Star strikes against land targets. Better to sweep with fighters and let the 2EB and 4EB fly unescorted...even if that means that sometimes the fighters come in after the bombers (or don't fly at all, when the fighters happen to be operating from a separate field shut down by weather). Every now and then a mission contrary to this doctrine manages to assemble and go in, with results that refresh my resolve to prevent it from happening again, if possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Is Mac around somewhere close by. His moment is coming very early now.[sm=happy0065.gif]

I look at the troops present at Manila, and scratch my head in disbelief. [sm=00000007.gif]

It is only x2 terrain, so not great to defend in, but certainly an important base that should be properly defended. If John's understanding of ground warfare is so poor, you should be running riot. Of course, that is not your plan...

An HQ of some type would sure help him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

With regard to fighters escorting bombers, I see similar results whatever the quality of the fighter and fighter pilot. Corsairs get chewed up; Hellcats too; Lightnings too. Thunderbolts perhaps not quite as bad, but it doesn't make sense to accept 1:1 Thunderbolt results on escort missions when they would score 2:1 or 3:1 by sweeping.

My experience with escort missions is that they are never worth it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: morejeffs

That are a lot of dead Franks.....

In the city (Manila) do you get a bonus for having armor (when he does not)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
The Japanese have few anti-tank weapons in the early game (in stock - not sure about John's scenario that give the IJ forces more goodies) but by 1944 their infantry should have hand held PIAT type a/t weapons, and they should have more "rapid fire gun" (a/t) units available.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwolf

From the map annotations: "But it looks like [John] is not yet ready to commit his carriers." I can understand his apparent reluctance at going against a presumably superior foe, but the relative balance of strategic power is not likely to improve for the Japanese at this point. And if Luzon is not the hill to die for, then what is?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

With regard to fighters escorting bombers, I see similar results whatever the quality of the fighter and fighter pilot. Corsairs get chewed up; Hellcats too; Lightnings too. Thunderbolts perhaps not quite as bad, but it doesn't make sense to accept 1:1 Thunderbolt results on escort missions when they would score 2:1 or 3:1 by sweeping.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Joseph, I'm not positive I understand your question, but I'll answer as best I can.

I do not mix LCRCAP with sweep missions intentionally, but rarely I might end up with that combination (usually after I've set LRCAP over ground troops and a few days later decide to sweep the hex).

I don't worry about maximizing sweep numbers. Usually my fighter squadrons go in individually or broken up or somewhat combined. I might have 25 Thunderbolts followed by 18 Corsairs followed by 3 Thunderbolts followed by 6 Lightnings, etc.

You'd think that 25 Thunderbolts going up against 100 Franks and 20 Georges would be a bad equation, but it doesn't work that way. Those Thunderbolts tend to hold there own, wearying the defenders and performing decently - usually at least 1:1. Then the later arriving squadrons or elements feast on the tuckered-out enemy fighters, scoring much higher kill ratios.

I keep my Spitfires low - usually anywhere from 10k to 15k, with 12k the norm; Thunderbolts usually take the middle ranges - from 15k to 25k. Lightnings and Corsairs usually (but not always) fly higher, from perhaps 20k to 30k. I seldom have sweeping fighters set higher than 30k.

I may be facing subpar resistance, but I can't say for certain since I don't ask John and he doesn't tell me. I suspect that the biggest factor is pilot quality - I know mine has been good since late 1942, almost always outperforming enemy pilots in good planes. Airfield size might be a factor - I'm almost always flying from big fields with lots of aviation support; I suspect, but I'm not positive, that John may often have supply or aviation support issues.

I'm also willing to allow my 4EB to absorb losses - sometimes heavy losses. I imagine the JFBs reading John's AAR revel in the number of kills he gets. From a pure ratio standpoint it may look that way, but usually there are many layers to the strategy. For example, once I used 4EB daily for about eight months to keep Port Moresby suppressed. That helped turn the area into a vortex that drew John's rapt attention far, far longer than it should have. We know that he kept KB posted in the Solomon Sea while the Allies were (relatively speaking) unopposed in the DEI. I lost a lot of 4EB in that campaign, but I am persuaded that the net results were decisively favorable to the Allies. The number of 4EB I lost were a truth, but far from the whole truth.