Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM

Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM (Full Version)

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

Message

Sieppo -> Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM (8/2/2013 5:47:58 PM)
"I'm sorry guys, too much sake yesterday at the officers mess, AM really is too early for us. Let's talk about it again in the afternoon. Only 100-200 enemy fighters residing at Luganville for a month or so, so you'll manage." While this being the most probable explanation, what else on earth could have happened? It's really hard to take this game as realistical when things like this happen :( (I'm sure there is an explanation so sorry in advance for the complaining).. Escorts were set to the same altitude as bombers, target set to Vanua Lava, which is normal range away from Ndeni for both Zero models. Only CAP 10 and rest 10 (could they fly the CAP AM??). Stacking limit was not exceeded as far as I remember. There propably was no recon of the LRCAP in Luganville because of heavy CAP but it really is a known "fact". AM, Zero aces sleeping on sake: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on TF, near Vanua Lava at 121,148 Weather in hex: Heavy rain Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 15 minutes Japanese aircraft D3A1 Val x 35 Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 9 Allied aircraft P-400 Airacobra x 10 P-40B Warhawk x 11 P-40E Warhawk x 28 Japanese aircraft losses D3A1 Val: 24 destroyed Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 2 destroyed No Allied losses ------------------------------------------------------ PM, zero aces woken up: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Vanua Lava at 121,148 Weather in hex: Severe storms Raid spotted at 34 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 12 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 30 A6M3 Zero x 29 D3A1 Val x 11 Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 4 Allied aircraft P-400 Airacobra x 10 P-40B Warhawk x 10 P-40E Warhawk x 28 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed A6M3 Zero: 3 destroyed D3A1 Val: 2 destroyed Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 2 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-400 Airacobra: 2 destroyed P-40B Warhawk: 1 destroyed P-40E Warhawk: 3 destroyed Allied Ships xAP Wanaka xAP Anhui, Bomb hits 1 Aircraft Attacking: 4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000' Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb 2 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000' Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb 2 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000' Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb 1 x A6M3 Zero sweeping at 11000 feet 6 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 11000 feet

KenchiSulla -> RE: Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM (8/2/2013 6:06:03 PM)
Well, unescorted strikes (due to coordination problems, bad weather, partially recalled strikes) happened during the war. What you see sucks to witness when it happens too you but I wouldn't call it unrealistic. Trust me, there is not a player on these forums that didn't take a bite out of his keyboard due to this game...

Sieppo -> RE: Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM (8/2/2013 6:12:08 PM)
Thanks for the sympathy :). I just mean, what realistical explanation could there be to send helpless bombers to a certain death.. Who would do that? Did it happen in the war when it absolutely was not a necessity? I guess I'll have to put it down as a misinterpretation of failed recon and a failure of my bit-truppen to remember what happened to the previous five bomber groups over Luganville and Vanua Lava 1-2 weeks ago.

Sardaukar -> RE: Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM (8/2/2013 6:24:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sieppo Thanks for the sympathy :). I just mean, what realistical explanation could there be to send helpless bombers to a certain death.. Who would do that? Did it happen in the war when it absolutely was not a necessity? I guess I'll have to put it down as a misinterpretation of failed recon and a failure of my bit-truppen to remember what happened to the previous five bomber groups over Luganville and Vanua Lava 1-2 weeks ago. Very many times. Prime example was VT squadrons (torpedo bombers) during Battle of Midway.

Sieppo -> RE: Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM (8/2/2013 6:30:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar quote: ORIGINAL: Sieppo Thanks for the sympathy :). I just mean, what realistical explanation could there be to send helpless bombers to a certain death.. Who would do that? Did it happen in the war when it absolutely was not a necessity? I guess I'll have to put it down as a misinterpretation of failed recon and a failure of my bit-truppen to remember what happened to the previous five bomber groups over Luganville and Vanua Lava 1-2 weeks ago. Very many times. Prime example was VT squadrons (torpedo bombers) during Battle of Midway. I thought the bombers just lost the escorts during the trip and the escorts eventually helped the dive bombers to get the hits by engaging the CAP. Of course the TB's were annihilated. But yes, I understand what you mean. My only problem is what commander would do it on purpose when orders are especially not to. Maybe some did and paid for it with their lives [:D]..

topeverest -> RE: Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM (8/2/2013 6:33:00 PM)
poor coordination in CV strikes is common in this game. I would argue that it is the norm, and pure coordination (no sharding of the attack into multiple separate attacks) in large attacks is what is uncommon. CAP will get its due.

KenchiSulla -> RE: Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM (8/2/2013 6:37:10 PM)
Remember there is "the plan" and there is "the execution of the plan"... Those are different things. If you have managed/lead people in whatever situation (military or civilian life) you know this to be true.

Sieppo -> RE: Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM (8/2/2013 6:42:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder Remember there is "the plan" and there is "the execution of the plan"... Those are different things. If you have managed/lead people in whatever situation (military or civilian life) you know this to be true. True true. And war is where uncoordinated s*** happens.

Sardaukar -> RE: Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM (8/2/2013 9:38:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sieppo quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar quote: ORIGINAL: Sieppo Thanks for the sympathy :). I just mean, what realistical explanation could there be to send helpless bombers to a certain death.. Who would do that? Did it happen in the war when it absolutely was not a necessity? I guess I'll have to put it down as a misinterpretation of failed recon and a failure of my bit-truppen to remember what happened to the previous five bomber groups over Luganville and Vanua Lava 1-2 weeks ago. Very many times. Prime example was VT squadrons (torpedo bombers) during Battle of Midway. I thought the bombers just lost the escorts during the trip and the escorts eventually helped the dive bombers to get the hits by engaging the CAP. Of course the TB's were annihilated. But yes, I understand what you mean. My only problem is what commander would do it on purpose when orders are especially not to. Maybe some did and paid for it with their lives [:D].. Waldron (CO of VT-8) definitely disobeyed orders and proceeded unescorted. Only one person in his squadron lived (Ensign Gay, who had "fish-eye view" of the battle). Also, VT-8, who had fighter escort, but fighters run out of fuel and had to turn back, lost 10 out of 14 planes.

Richard III -> RE: Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM (8/2/2013 9:50:03 PM)
Even in an AI game, more so against in VS live one, you need to sweep them several times and gain air superiority over the base before sending in the bombers. It`s very difficult to suppress any US airbase, anywhere, with anything less then massed bomber attacks, which are hard for the J`s to put together. Naval bombardments by capped TF`s against AB`s are far more rewarding IMHO. I re-read LeBarons: The Air Mission Coordination Guide v2.1 v once a week [8D]! [ORIGINAL: Sieppo Thanks for the sympathy :). I just mean, what realistical explanation could there be to send helpless bombers to a certain death.. Who would do that? Did it happen in the war when it absolutely was not a necessity? I guess I'll have to put it down as a misinterpretation of failed recon and a failure of my bit-truppen to remember what happened to the previous five bomber groups over Luganville and Vanua Lava 1-2 weeks ago. [/quote]

Mongol_Horde -> RE: Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM (8/2/2013 10:03:17 PM)
pretty bad dice roll: The AM 'strike' met Heavy Rain, while the PM strike faced Severe storms..... SNAFU

Knyvet -> RE: Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM (8/3/2013 9:09:41 PM)
>>Escorts were set to the same altitude as bombers, target set to Vanua Lava, which is normal range away from Ndeni >>for both Zero models. Only CAP 10 and rest 10 (could they fly the CAP AM??). Stacking limit was not exceeded as >>far as I remember. There propably was no recon of the LRCAP in Luganville because of heavy CAP but it really is >>a known "fact". Even with common altitude and the bad weather considered, there are so many other possible factors and combinations of factors it is almost a black hole, however, the good news is that you control them to a large degree: * low moral (I've seen % of planes balking at escort duty when below 50 and downright refusals to fly escort below 30) * high unit/pilot fatigue (watch out in malaria zones - increases faster and longer range missions = more escort pilot fatigue) * escorts and bombers flown from same base? if not, lots of possible coordination issues (see LoBaron's coordination guide for tips and details) http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2382494) * really bad weather + not flown from same base = yikes * missed a leadership check (unit commander's leadership rating influences # of planes that can fly in mission) * aircraft fatigue - not sure if high aircraft fatigue impacts whether a particular plane will fly a mission even though it is not in repair status * not sure if type and quality of air command LCU unit influences % of planes that will fly a given mission In sum and echoing others, you likely had a bad roll or rolls against numerous checks you had to pass to fly, but you may be able to "best guess" which check(s) your unit missed to lower the odds of happening again. Note that tracker retains various historic units stats that can help answer why and compare it to turns when/places where everything went right. Also don't forget regression to the mean can be your friend (and foe).

Sieppo -> RE: Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM (8/3/2013 9:18:42 PM)
Thanks for the info!

Halsey -> RE: Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM (8/4/2013 1:16:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sieppo "I'm sorry guys, too much sake yesterday at the officers mess, AM really is too early for us. Let's talk about it again in the afternoon. Only 100-200 enemy fighters residing at Luganville for a month or so, so you'll manage." While this being the most probable explanation, what else on earth could have happened? It's really hard to take this game as realistical when things like this happen :( (I'm sure there is an explanation so sorry in advance for the complaining).. Escorts were set to the same altitude as bombers, target set to Vanua Lava, which is normal range away from Ndeni for both Zero models. Only CAP 10 and rest 10 (could they fly the CAP AM??). Stacking limit was not exceeded as far as I remember. There propably was no recon of the LRCAP in Luganville because of heavy CAP but it really is a known "fact". AM, Zero aces sleeping on sake: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on TF, near Vanua Lava at 121,148 Weather in hex: Heavy rain Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 15 minutes Japanese aircraft D3A1 Val x 35 Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 9 Allied aircraft P-400 Airacobra x 10 P-40B Warhawk x 11 P-40E Warhawk x 28 Japanese aircraft losses D3A1 Val: 24 destroyed Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 2 destroyed No Allied losses ------------------------------------------------------ PM, zero aces woken up: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Vanua Lava at 121,148 Weather in hex: Severe storms Raid spotted at 34 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 12 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 30 A6M3 Zero x 29 D3A1 Val x 11 Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 4 Allied aircraft P-400 Airacobra x 10 P-40B Warhawk x 10 P-40E Warhawk x 28 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed A6M3 Zero: 3 destroyed D3A1 Val: 2 destroyed Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 2 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-400 Airacobra: 2 destroyed P-40B Warhawk: 1 destroyed P-40E Warhawk: 3 destroyed Allied Ships xAP Wanaka xAP Anhui, Bomb hits 1 Aircraft Attacking: 4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000' Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb 2 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000' Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb 2 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000' Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb 1 x A6M3 Zero sweeping at 11000 feet 6 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 11000 feet Hmm... According to the report, it looks like you had them some of them on sweep, not escort. Might want to double check your fighter groups to make sure they are all on escort.

Sieppo -> RE: Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM (8/4/2013 2:48:23 AM)
How can I have a plane escort and sweep at the same time? I mean I had two Zero groups there and both set to escort, not sweep (10 CAP, 10 rest) . Maybe it's a technical term or something like that, that happens in an air fight?

Halsey -> RE: Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM (8/4/2013 3:17:46 AM)
You could be right... Looks strange, though.[&:] The other things to look for are altitude settings. Best results are obtained with all air groups set at same altitude. Here's the air coordination guide list. It's pretty good. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2382494

LoBaron -> RE: Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM (8/4/2013 8:52:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sieppo How can I have a plane escort and sweep at the same time? I mean I had two Zero groups there and both set to escort, not sweep (10 CAP, 10 rest) . Maybe it's a technical term or something like that, that happens in an air fight? Usually the sweep tag in the combat report hints that the fighters were not actively escorting the strike at all, but were in the same hex at the same combat pulse for a different reason. This is what I think to be the case in your particular example (although without having seen the pre turn save and the replay it is obviousely only best guess). The crucial part in your description is that, if I understand correctly, you set target Vanua Lava for the escort fighters. This never works well with naval attacks - if it works at all. The target setting is for strikes against land targets only, and there too it is a tradeoff. I assume that your strikes went in unescorted against the TF because the escorts were held back for a ground attack which never materialized. I also assume that what seems to you to be an escorted PM strike, in reality was, again, an unescorted strike. The fighters appearing over target at the same time might have been due to their target setting, going in seperately as sweeps as there were no strikes against land targets. In case you are not using the latest beta but the latest official patch, they might also have appeared over target because of a coordination glitch in the air model which was only resolved in beta. Whatever the case might have been the bottom line is: If you assume naval strikes possible in an area of operations, and your bombers have naval attack mission set as primary - even if the secondary is a ground target - NEVER designate a target for your escorts. Leave it to the strike commander.

Sieppo -> RE: Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM (8/4/2013 12:44:19 PM)
You might be right, it just gets a bit confusing because the manual states in 7.2.1.7: "The setting of a Target is a critical factor in determining where non-Naval Attack Offensive Missions are flown, and which Offensive Missions escorting fighters choose to accompany. Air units without a target will determine their own target for these missions (the computer chooses for you). Although air units on the same base or carrier may have a mixture of missions and targets, this may lead to an unwanted dissipation of effort. If you wish to concentrate your airpower on a given target you are advised to select this critical target as the target for each air unit you want involved." Obviously target should not, as you said and if you are correct, be set by fighters if a naval attack is wanted by bombers. I guess my pixelpilots were in the hex waiting for a GROUND attack escort. Why only in PM is a mystery... The bombers could have been there in the morning also, if primary attack.

Sardaukar -> RE: Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM (8/4/2013 12:54:11 PM)
Bottom line...it's not good to set target for Escort unless attacking a base...if even then. Escorts get fixated to base (since they are set to it) and will most likely not escort it target is TF (might happen with ground units too). I agree with LoBaron with this. Only use target for Escorts if attacking fixed installations.

1EyedJacks -> RE: Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM (8/4/2013 4:56:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar quote: ORIGINAL: Sieppo Thanks for the sympathy :). I just mean, what realistical explanation could there be to send helpless bombers to a certain death.. Who would do that? Did it happen in the war when it absolutely was not a necessity? I guess I'll have to put it down as a misinterpretation of failed recon and a failure of my bit-truppen to remember what happened to the previous five bomber groups over Luganville and Vanua Lava 1-2 weeks ago. Very many times. Prime example was VT squadrons (torpedo bombers) during Battle of Midway. Battle of Midway we knew what we were up against based on intel and recon. The Americans threw everything at the Japanese carriers in that operation including the kitchen sink. The air groups for the most part were un-blooded units. America in truth was pretty lucky when you consider the results of that day. It's too bad there isn't an option for air groups similar to that of wet task forces, where you can assign them to "Safe" as in only with escort, "Normal" as in with or without escort, and "Direct" as in you WILL fly to the target no matter what. The only solace is that the lack of control in regards to deploying air groups cuts both ways.

Sieppo -> RE: Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM (8/4/2013 5:07:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks It's too bad there isn't an option for air groups similar to that of wet task forces, where you can assign them to "Safe" as in only with escort, "Normal" as in with or without escort, and "Direct" as in you WILL fly to the target no matter what. The only solace is that the lack of control in regards to deploying air groups cuts both ways. Great idea and a good point :).

Sieppo -> RE: Escort fighters having an hangover and only flying PM (8/4/2013 5:08:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar Bottom line...it's not good to set target for Escort unless attacking a base...if even then. Escorts get fixated to base (since they are set to it) and will most likely not escort it target is TF (might happen with ground units too). I agree with LoBaron with this. Only use target for Escorts if attacking fixed installations. I will never use a set target again, when needing naval escort [:D]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.578125