RE: First game questions (Full Version)

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



Message

swatter555 -> RE: First game questions (8/5/2015 3:43:56 AM)

Another question for a Japanese veteran: I have a bunch of short endurance ASW vessels; what is the best way to use them? I assume just forming up ASW TFs that sail around and look for subs is not the most efficient way to employ them. Or maybe so, that's why I ask :)



Numdydar -> RE: First game questions (8/5/2015 4:48:16 AM)

Well that is what I do [:)]

I set them up on short patrol routes around Japan and turn on the computer control button. That way I no longer have to bother with them unless I want to upgrade them.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: First game questions (8/5/2015 6:05:53 AM)

I put them in ASW TFs sitting at choke points with react orders. They will react to subs spotted by air search.



rustysi -> RE: First game questions (8/5/2015 8:23:48 PM)

quote:

I put them in ASW TFs sitting at choke points with react orders. They will react to subs spotted by air search.


Yep. Also you can use them to escort short haul convoy's, such as from Sakhalin, or Port Arthur. And what Numdydar said. So as you can see there are numerous uses for these vessels.



swatter555 -> RE: First game questions (8/8/2015 5:11:24 AM)

I do appreciate all of the advice, I think I have digested much of the basics to the point where I almost understand what is going on. I just need a couple of clarifications:

1) How do you figure out how much space a crated plane will take up?

2) How do you train carrier capable squadrons to carrier trained squadrons?



Yaab -> RE: First game questions (8/8/2015 1:13:47 PM)

1) Not much. I guess a fighter takes 10-12 points of cargo space. Just load the grand campaign as the Allies and try to load different aircraft in San Francisco.



Numdydar -> RE: First game questions (8/8/2015 2:12:43 PM)

On point 2 just put them on a CV and set them to train. In about 3 months they will become carrier trained.

However you can freely use carrier capable planes freely on CVs and the impact on op losses is non-existent as far as I can tell. So I freely use carrier capable and CV trained on CVs as needed.



Alfred -> RE: First game questions (8/8/2015 2:16:49 PM)

The space taken up by crated planes is the same as the cost of buying them.  The quantums are found in the Logistics 101 guide.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2878790&mpage=1&key=supply&#2878790

Alfred



swatter555 -> RE: First game questions (9/3/2015 6:54:39 PM)

I have successfully climbed the learning cliff and am proceeding to play out my game. I have played from May - September '42, as the Japanese. Needless to say, its been a tough road. Little things keep annoying me about the game, little details about managing this or that, but overall I am accepting the game for what it is.

The biggest problem I am having right now is figuring out why the Japanese are sucking in A2A combat. In situations where I am fighting the Allies with the best available fighters with experienced crews (75+) versus allied fighters of unknown skill, but flying in many cases some variant of the P-39 (or lesser types), and on occasion P-40s. In 4+ months of fighting, the Allies have lost very few fighters (probably less than 20 that weren't P-36s)in A2A combat and have equaled or bested my fighter pilots in almost every encounter. The only encounters I could claim to have won were versus P-36s. The AI is hording his carriers, so I haven't even had a chance to go A2A versus Wildcats.

Mind you, we are talking about a variety of situations: CAP, LR CAP, Escort, Sweep. The one time I did an opposed sweep, my Zeros with wiped out. My last A2A encounter, 25 Zeroes escorting a naval strike tangled with 25 P-39s. While the Zeroes did decently occupying the allied fighters, I lost at least 14 Zeroes shot down and 3 damaged to the allies 1 loss. This was probably my best land based squadron, experience wise. I know that any particular result can be explained away, but this is a definite pattern. Also, I will add that in 90% of A2A encounters I have numerical superiority (many times doubling what the allies bring).

I doubt I am missing some major game feature, though I probably am missing some nuisance or other about A2A combat. What am I missing? From other games I have played, I am expecting a bit more competence by the Japanese in A2A combat in 1942.






geofflambert -> RE: First game questions (9/3/2015 7:37:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

On point 2 just put them on a CV and set them to train. In about 3 months they will become carrier trained.

However you can freely use carrier capable planes freely on CVs and the impact on op losses is non-existent as far as I can tell. So I freely use carrier capable and CV trained on CVs as needed.


Actually, in my experience, they will become carrier trained regardless. If you make them operational and do searches or ASW or CAP, whatever, they will become carrier trained.



geofflambert -> RE: First game questions (9/3/2015 7:38:22 PM)

I could be wrong on that because I normally set all squadrons to 20% training except when I'm headed into a battle.



geofflambert -> RE: First game questions (9/3/2015 7:46:11 PM)

I haven't read everything in this thread but in case you didn't know, the AI cheats. Don't worry about it, it'll be different when you have a human opponent, then you'll have to worry more about what he might do, strategy wise and tactical wise.



swatter555 -> RE: First game questions (9/3/2015 10:33:56 PM)

That is worrying. I am paying much closer attention to the altitude capabilities after looking over the A/C db.

On another note, I caught a raiding USN CV TF, I mean straight on. Our carrier TFs ran into surface combat in the middle of the day. It was 4 heavy and 2 light IJN carriers versus 2 USN heavy carriers. Luckily for the USN, there was heavy cloud cover which messed up my dive bombers. Unluckily for the USN, it didn't affect my Kates. They lost the Lexington and the Wasp for one bomb hit on the Hiryu. The AI raided effectively in May, but I was ready for them this time.



geofflambert -> RE: First game questions (9/3/2015 11:32:14 PM)

You can also use those short range DDs etc. to escort long range convoys. They will refuel from the cargo ship's own tanks as needed. This will slow the convoy down a little but generally that's ok. The best use might be to escort AO's as their range is irrelevant then and they are as good as anything else you might assign.

edit: Don't put them in CV TFs if you can avoid it because they will demand refueling at the worst possible times.



Alpha77 -> RE: First game questions (9/4/2015 5:49:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

You can also use those short range DDs etc. to escort long range convoys. They will refuel from the cargo ship's own tanks as needed. This will slow the convoy down a little but generally that's ok. The best use might be to escort AO's as their range is irrelevant then and they are as good as anything else you might assign.

edit: Don't put them in CV TFs if you can avoid it because they will demand refueling at the worst possible times.


The short range subchasers are actually the best ASW ships Japan has up to 43 when E´s and upgraded DDs come online...

They have 4 DCs with the better type 95 (the older type 95 can not reach deep subs [:@])...

Also interesting most of the early E and PCs do not have DCs at all....



Alpha77 -> RE: First game questions (9/4/2015 5:59:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Do not worry about the HQ structure for any power in AE. It does not matter. It is not like it is in Hearts of Iron for example.



I only played HOI 1 and tried 2 for a short time. HOI1 was kinda fun with certain mods you needed. Seems HOI3 has changed a lot cause I can not remember that HOI1/2 had a HQ structure at all.

Question re. HQ bonus: I had several times HQs prepped for a base where a combat then occured. I never saw a "HQ" bonus in the combat report. [:(] Yes, they were in range... Will the bonus only apply if prepped 100% and only with super leaders of the HQ. I never ever saw that I got a bonus.

Another curious thing, is leaders. I rarely get a Leader + bonus. But the leaders of the bigger, better divs are good. I got a + AND - however, does this mean 1 unit has a good leader the other(s) a bad one ?



swatter555 -> RE: First game questions (9/8/2015 4:38:27 AM)

Thanks guys!

I am just wondering something else: I am getting really high miss rates with my carrier based dive bombers (the elite ones 80+). Just a rough estimate in my head, I am getting hits in about 1 in 40 (or much worse in some cases) sorties. I have gone 0 hits in many multiple 50+ DB raids. I do realize weather is an important factor, but even a wisp of clouds causes super high miss rates.

I also realize and recall situations (IRL)in which small ships could evade large numbers of enemy dive bombers. At the same time, once my carrier TFs run out of torpedoes, they are impotent. In addition, USN dive bombers seem to be much more effective, though I am positive they are still inferior quality wise.

On the other hand, my Kates, Nells, and Bettys are freaking awesome versus anything bigger than a CL. I am torn about many things in this game.



PaxMondo -> RE: First game questions (9/8/2015 5:02:54 AM)

There are a lot of variables involved with successful db attacks, particularly against defended targets. Opposing fighters, AA, weather, type of target, group leader skillsets .... all I can do is assure you that when you get the right set of variables, US DB's are far more worrisome to the IJ than TB's ... at least for me they are. [;)]



Yaab -> RE: First game questions (9/8/2015 5:06:55 AM)

Weather is a factor, but maybe the attacked TFs had high concentration of big calibre DP guns. A CA+DDs combo with lots of DPs is hard to hit from the air.



Alpha77 -> RE: First game questions (9/8/2015 10:55:53 AM)

Strange for me Vals are better than Kates (but Kate is good too on low nav with bombs not so much with torps). [:D] Vals are the best in early game for me vs. ships. Betty etc. not so much only vs. cargo.


Can I repeat this question:
----
" I had several times HQs prepped for a base where a combat then occured. I never saw a "HQ" bonus in the combat report. Yes, they were in range... Will the bonus only apply if prepped 100% and only with super leaders of the HQ. I never ever saw that I got a bonus.

Another curious thing, is leaders. I rarely get a Leader + bonus. But the leaders of the bigger, better divs are good. I got a + AND - however, does this mean 1 unit has a good leader the other(s) a bad one ?"
--
Even if this is my 2nd game, I wonder. Or does the HQ effect not show as bonus in the combat report?





GetAssista -> RE: First game questions (9/8/2015 5:12:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77
Strange for me Vals are better than Kates (but Kate is good too on low nav with bombs not so much with torps). [:D] Vals are the best in early game for me vs. ships. Betty etc. not so much only vs. cargo.

Vals are better for soft targets, but only Kates can seriously hurt large armored ships like battleships. You just don't see a lot of those early when Vals/Kates are relevant. And this is why you have that first CV squadron resize in the summer of 1942 (more Vals and fighters, less Kates). Kates are also kings of port strikes with their 800kg bombs, but you dont have many of those too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77
" I had several times HQs prepped for a base where a combat then occured. I never saw a "HQ" bonus in the combat report. Yes, they were in range... Will the bonus only apply if prepped 100% and only with super leaders of the HQ. I never ever saw that I got a bonus.

HQ bonus does not show on the report to the best of my knowledge, but it is very noticeable in case of prepped Command HQs, which can almost double adjusted AV. Other HQs not so much as them can add max 10% AV.



Alpha77 -> RE: First game questions (9/8/2015 5:27:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

Vals are better for soft targets, but only Kates can seriously hurt large armored ships like battleships. You just don't see a lot of those early when Vals/Kates are relevant. And this is why you have that first CV squadron resize in the summer of 1942 (more Vals and fighters, less Kates). Kates are also kings of port strikes with their 800kg bombs, but you dont have many of those too.




Yes, both planes are good, as long they have good escort and do not face lots of enemy fighters alone.

I would be content to not sink eg. cruisers or BBs, but damage them enough even if it is only sys and/or eng damage. Tbh I had not have a large sea/air battle in this game as Japan. But I remember also as the Allies that Dauntless were good enough to eg. sink carriers. You do not need torps in any case. Also torps may not be available at any base or may all be gone on CVs. So the secondary role of Kate as low level bombers (or the port attack you mention) is quite important. Consequently they are trained for that role as well asw when time allows.

But Val is the best of them up to now. Nelly and Betty just cannot be trusted. But that is no wonder, as they are female [;)]



reg113 -> RE: First game questions (9/8/2015 6:01:48 PM)

Val is short for Valerie [:D]



Alpha77 -> RE: First game questions (9/8/2015 8:54:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: reg113

Val is short for Valerie [:D]


Nope Valentine. I hope. [;)]

Yeah I know that bombers have female codenames. This is reflected in their performance. Fighters and floats in comparison do fine.



swatter555 -> RE: First game questions (9/9/2015 2:29:54 AM)

Thanks for the input. Perhaps I am experiencing a particularly bad stretch, the weather has been consistently poor lately.



swatter555 -> RE: First game questions (9/10/2015 3:21:36 PM)

In my current game I have gone through October '42 achieving a major victory, but I noticed a few odd things that were bugging me about the AI.

1) I know he had at least 3 fleet carriers that were hiding somewhere. He was letting amphib task forces attempt to land whole divisions without carrier support. They lost their butt more than once. Where were his carriers?

2) I noticed the AI was starting to build up a nice bomber force, but really wasn't hitting me where he should.

So, I decided to load up the game and see what the heck the AI was doing. It turns out he had 4 large USN carriers in Columbo!!!The AI also had it in its power to destroy any base it wanted to in the SW Pacific in a couple of days with heavy bombing. Yet, it simply was not selecting its targets well.

This leads me to a couple of questions:

1) Keep in mind I am using the '42 scenario from bigbshipyard. Is the AI really this bad normally or are the AI scripts in the scenario messed up? I wouldn't mind starting over with a December 7 scenario if the AI scripting is better. The AI is just not up to the job.

2) How in the heck can the Japanese player work against Allied bombers in late 42 and early 43? When I switched over to the Allies I had them direct an airfield attack against my best prepared airbase, Port Moresby. I had over 80 A6M3 zeros there with a base force that had radar. They nearly obliterated it in one attack without losing an aircraft. Previously, as I was playing Japan, the Allies regularly sent over 3 plane B-25 raids over Port Moresby, that at times would not only bomb the base but kill a couple of Zeros and damage several more in the air. I was powerless against 3 plane B-25 raids! Freaking powerless. Not to mention the B-17s, which no matter how many fighters intercept, would never lose a plane.

Whether the B-25 were historically invincible or whether B-17s ruled the skies in 42 without fear of loss is beside the point I suppose. I see absolutely no point in playing the game, really. If the Allied bomber force in late 42 is invincible, everything else doesn't matter. It doesn't, nothing else matters. Why would anyone want to play Japan, especially against a human being? All your going to do is hit them with your carriers on occasion until the Allies sink them and build up your bases against the inevitable amphib attacks. That's an awful lot of work to move a few of the final point totals around, considering the hundreds or thousands of hours you would have to put into playing the entire war. Your literally playing to sink a few more carriers than historical, as if a moral victory meant something. I think whoever designed the game let the Allied bomber potency get way out of hand, way too soon. I was literally impotent to stop them the minute a B-25 was within range of one of my bases. Opposed raids should not be riskless affairs, as they are here. Raiding a highly prepared target should be tough, especially when your just sending early model B-25s and 17s without escort.

I am not sure what to think at this point. Having invested maybe 200+ hours into the game thus far, I do enjoy it. At the same time, my enjoyment is taking a steep dive here as I realize that the game is even more lopsided than I thought. Even if I played the Allies, its an awful lot of work to achieve something where the outcome is certain on day one.




Yaab -> RE: First game questions (9/10/2015 3:29:17 PM)

ad 2.

Create a flak trap using heavy (8cm-12cm) flak guns. They will not probably shoot down any bombers but will disrupt their aim which will translate into fewer hits. Try to gather 5 guns per 1 bomber, so a 50 bomber raid faces 250 heavy guns.



GetAssista -> RE: First game questions (9/10/2015 5:16:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: swatter555
1) Is the AI really this bad normally or are the AI scripts in the scenario messed up?
2) How in the heck can the Japanese player work against Allied bombers in late 42 and early 43?


#1. Game is complex and script-based AI really can't compare with Brain 1.0. To have an enjoyable game longer you have to restrict yourself. Like play historically, dont do deep raids or amphib operations, allow AI ships (notably carriers) run away if them get themselves into stupid charge. Also try scenarios where AI is given more material like AndyMac's Ironmans/Nasties, as AI has problems with concentrating assets for his offensives. And don't load game on the AI side because the stupid things you see there might traumatize you forever ;)

#2. 4Es are supposed to be the menace by design as them is the only upside allies have in 1942. Concentrated AA and next-generation fighters like George help. Zeros are supposed to be fragile as them were designed with sacrificing protection for range and maneuver.
BTW, I've shot down some b17s with Nates so they are not invincible. Surely much more Nates went down in flames than b17s in that standoff )

All in all, allied AI is capable of defeating Japan in the end given historical play. Also, human Japan is capable of wiping the floor with AI if playing for the win, like capturing everything except US by 1943. But the latter would not be as enjoyable



swatter555 -> RE: First game questions (9/10/2015 9:10:07 PM)

"And don't load game on the AI side because the stupid things you see there might traumatize you forever ;)"

[:D]

I know Zeros are fragile, but not being able to shoot down a B-25 is a bit much ;-)

I posed the bomber dilemma more from the perspective of me playing against a human someday. The AI wasn't targeting very well, so their bomber forces were of limited effectiveness. Yet, at its finger tips were the means of wiping out my bases at the end of October 1942.



GetAssista -> RE: First game questions (9/10/2015 9:43:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: swatter555
I posed the bomber dilemma more from the perspective of me playing against a human someday.

All Japan AARs are sweating over massed 4E in 1942-43. The ability of 4E strikes to close whatever particular airfield with couple massive raids no matter the opposition is a given. But it's not wunderwaffe - running sustained 4E bombing campaign is hard: replacement rates are low, supply usage is high. If Japan adds some more attrition with AA and bombings/bombardments of airfields, campaign would stop faster. And then George/Jack come



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.640625