RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A)

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (Full Version)

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

Message

SqzMyLemon -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/13/2016 11:36:11 PM)
I mentioned having no radar, so yes the detection times matter, but are you telling me that 34 Zero fighters set to 50 CAP and 20 Rest have no chance of interdicting a raid of Dauntless DB's flying from Ambon? There was only a 5k difference in altitude so it wasn't like they were totally out of the picture. This is what I'm upset about. There should have been aircraft already airborne as indicated in the combat report with 4 fighters intercepting now...I didn't get a single pass at the bombers, including a post-air attack phase as I mentioned. That's not right. We currently have a 25k max altitude HR. I make the same argument as you about warning times over Wagga Wagga on the 14th. The Allies had only 5 mins notice, yet I got my ass handed to me. I swept Wagga Wagga at 25k, with five minutes warning I should have been able to trounce his initial CAP until his standby aircraft reached the scene. Same situation and both end up badly for Japan. Again, that's not right. This whole game just feels wrong to me now.

SqzMyLemon -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/13/2016 11:47:53 PM)
I understand I'm the only one in this forum that seems to have a problem. I used to actually enjoy playing Japan, it was challenging and tense, but still fun. This mod is nothing short of an exercise in frustration for me now.

SqzMyLemon -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/14/2016 12:23:17 AM)
I'm going to take a break from the AAR and forum for awhile. The stress of losing my job, the stress of playing this frustrating mod, the disappointment of yet another PBEM being dead in the water with my opponent (Chickenboy) completely AWOL, has me hating WitP at the moment. I don't need the aggravation. I'm sure Francois will keep things going, but I need a break from posting the complete frustration I have playing this game right now.

BBfanboy -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/14/2016 1:37:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon I mentioned having no radar, so yes the detection times matter, but are you telling me that 34 Zero fighters set to 50 CAP and 20 Rest have no chance of interdicting a raid of Dauntless DB's flying from Ambon? There was only a 5k difference in altitude so it wasn't like they were totally out of the picture. This is what I'm upset about. There should have been aircraft already airborne as indicated in the combat report with 4 fighters intercepting now...I didn't get a single pass at the bombers, including a post-air attack phase as I mentioned. That's not right. We currently have a 25k max altitude HR. I make the same argument as you about warning times over Wagga Wagga on the 14th. The Allies had only 5 mins notice, yet I got my ass handed to me. I swept Wagga Wagga at 25k, with five minutes warning I should have been able to trounce his initial CAP until his standby aircraft reached the scene. Same situation and both end up badly for Japan. Again, that's not right. This whole game just feels wrong to me now. What number of hexes did you set the CAP to patrol? If those 34 aircraft had to go off several hexes in all directions very few would be available close to home base ...

FeurerKrieg -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/14/2016 2:13:20 AM)
quote: We currently have a 25k max altitude HR. I make the same argument as you about warning times over Wagga Wagga on the 14th. The Allies had only 5 mins notice, yet I got my ass handed to me. I swept Wagga Wagga at 25k, with five minutes warning I should have been able to trounce his initial CAP until his standby aircraft reached the scene. Same situation and both end up badly for Japan. Again, that's not right. I was under the impression that the changes to the aircraft stats in DBB were partly done to avoid the need for altitude HRs. The difference between high and low mvr was increased so there is now a bit of cat and mouse with doing CAP low or high and using the right planes in the right roles. Maybe its just me, but we have no HR for altitude and I haven't seen anything lopsided or unrealistic yet. If you CAP at 30,000+ feet, the bombers barely get touched, so you have to have a mix. BTW - I'm not saying you aren't doing this, just saying that without a HR you can't just set everything to max all the time. At least that's my experience with DBB. Maybe you should consider scrapping this HR?

PaxMondo -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/14/2016 2:17:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon I'm still not playing well and still haven't recovered from the changes in DBB. Everything from aircraft performance, reduced aviation and naval support and the extreme reduction in endurance of many classes of combat & patrol ships is taking its toll. I'm not liking having to mass so many support units at a base to have any combat capability. It feels artificial and contrived to me in comparison to 80% of my previous gaming experience with WitPAE. I know most of you love it, I still don't and can't buy into it for some reason. Too bad they didn't get it 'right' the first time with the stock version. I'm a product of too many stock scenario's to embrace this mod I guess. Don't feel bad. I don't play DBB for the same reasons. If it had been launched this way, maybe. But now, too difficult to shift and for the IJ early on VERY hard to get used to. The allied player has several years to get adjusted.

PaxMondo -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/14/2016 2:19:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon Weather should affect both sides equally, no? I've been getting screwed by weather all game anyway whenever I perform offensive missions. Fatigue was not an issue. These aircraft had been performing light CAP duties over Sydney or training before the sweep. Weather will impact aircraft that have to fly further ... you are on attack, it impacts you far more.

PaxMondo -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/14/2016 2:22:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon This is becoming ridiculous. The Zero is absolute **** in DBB. I can't get intercepts or kills against unescorted Allied bombers now. Really? I don't have any radar yet of course, but these kinds of raids against CAP should be getting decimated. Instead, the Zero can't penetrate the defensive fire. These Mitchell's are indestructible when I face them. AAR follows: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on 33rd Division, at 90,167 (Sydney) Weather in hex: Light rain Raid spotted at 18 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 5 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 23 Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 7 Allied aircraft Mitchell II x 8 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses Mitchell II: 3 damaged Aircraft Attacking: 8 x Mitchell II bombing from 10000 feet Ground Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb CAP engaged: 3rd Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (3 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling) 3 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 25000 Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes Zuiho-1 with A6M2 Zero (3 airborne, 7 on standby, 0 scrambling) 3 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 25000 Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes Hosho-1 with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 3 on standby, 0 scrambling) 1 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 15000 Time for all group planes to reach interception is 23 minutes 50th Sentai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (2 airborne, 5 on standby, 0 scrambling) 2 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 15000 Time for all group planes to reach interception is 17 minutes Well, here you only had 7 Zeros and 2 Oscar able to intercept prior to bomb run. All the others were tail chasing ... poor odds. So at best you had 9 vs 8. But actually much worse. You had 3 v 8 followed by 3 v 8 followed by 1 v 8 followed by 2 v 8.

PaxMondo -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/14/2016 2:33:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon I mentioned having no radar, so yes the detection times matter, but are you telling me that 34 Zero fighters set to 50 CAP and 20 Rest This means 17 set to CAP: 1/3 up, 1/3 standby, 1/3 ready on AVERAGE. So, that would be 6/6/6. BUT, that's an average. What you see is from 3 - 9 at any of the 3 slots because the planes rotate. Gary handles this with his usual randomness. So if you have 4 Zeros up and they are facing say 20 Db's, there is a chance they wont' attack as they are so out numbered. Leader skills of course impact this as well as pilot skills, but never forget the randomness. Further, if there is any weather, odds drop as they may simply not find them (Random outcome). So are you getting some tough rolls? yeah. But also, you simply don't have enough fighters allotted to stop the size of raids coming in.

SqzMyLemon -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/14/2016 5:06:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote: ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon I mentioned having no radar, so yes the detection times matter, but are you telling me that 34 Zero fighters set to 50 CAP and 20 Rest This means 17 set to CAP: 1/3 up, 1/3 standby, 1/3 ready on AVERAGE. So, that would be 6/6/6. BUT, that's an average. What you see is from 3 - 9 at any of the 3 slots because the planes rotate. Gary handles this with his usual randomness. So if you have 4 Zeros up and they are facing say 20 Db's, there is a chance they wont' attack as they are so out numbered. Leader skills of course impact this as well as pilot skills, but never forget the randomness. Further, if there is any weather, odds drop as they may simply not find them (Random outcome). So are you getting some tough rolls? yeah. But also, you simply don't have enough fighters allotted to stop the size of raids coming in. I appreciate you trying to explain things, but in this case I just don't buy it. Here's why. This is a combat report of the same unit based at Manado the day before flying LRCAP of an amphibious TF. It intercepts this raid at a range of 4 hexes and the time to target is 4 mins. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on TF, near Loewoek at 73,102 Weather in hex: Overcast Raid spotted at 11 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 4 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 4 Allied aircraft SBD-3 Dauntless x 9 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses SBD-3 Dauntless: 3 destroyed, 2 damaged Japanese Ships xAK Meisho Maru, Bomb hits 1 xAK Midori Maru, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires Japanese ground losses: 90 casualties reported Squads: 1 destroyed, 5 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 3 (1 destroyed, 2 disabled) Aircraft Attacking: 4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000' Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb 1 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000' Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb CAP engaged: Yamada Det S-2 with A6M2 Zero (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 4 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 12000. Raid is overhead Granted, I'm closer in altitude so is that the only reason I get an intercept? Four Zero's and three shot down Dauntless' is pretty damn good shooting considering it was LRCAP. Now back to the original example. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Ternate at 78,102 Weather in hex: Heavy cloud Raid spotted at 17 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 6 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 14 Allied aircraft SBD-3 Dauntless x 6 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 damaged Japanese Ships xAK Yosyu Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage Aircraft Attacking: 6 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000' Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb CAP engaged: Chitose Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (4 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling) 4 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 21000 Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes Ok, I'm a little high for this one. This CAP was 50/20 as previously mentioned and set to a range of 0. I had two phases to intercept, the original bombing run and the post-air attack phase. OK, so the Dauntless' are in and out before I can intercept? I find it ridiculous that I have LRCAP over a TF that can intercept an enemy bombing raid at sea, but CAP assigned to patrol Ternate specifically can't interdict 6 unescorted bombers in two combat phases? And for DBB, having 34 Zero's available is a lot. This is my biggest complaint against the numbers argument. I simply can't have 50-75-100 fighters at every base in DBB. In any other situation, 34 fighters assigned to CAP a base is a decent defence, especially against such a small raid. I get the randomness, but as always, I'm a little tired of being on the short end. I have no control over how my CAP is committed. I'm staggering CAP (when I have the luxury of enough aviation support for more than one air unit) and my minimum settings for CAP when I expect an attack are 50 CAP 20 Rest. If it's so easy for six or eight unescorted bombers to exploit my CAP so be it. Why assign CAP at all then as Japan with no radar, because it's apparently a complete crapshoot if they'll even engage. I might as well stick to playing the lottery, I have as much chance to win that as I do to get some decent combat results in this game. I no longer have the patience for this kind of inconsistency. The paratroop drop I mentioned earlier is a perfect example. I'm sure someone will point out, well your leadership roll failed and that's why. Well, I say why did it fail in the first place. Fully prepped for the target against disrupted and routed troops and because of a failed roll they get wiped out? Well, what **** luck for me I guess. I should be used to it by now and have no need to complain.

SqzMyLemon -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/14/2016 5:12:48 PM)
I appreciate the comments. I'm out of here for awhile though, because the game just isn't that fun to play anymore when every turn I have to try and figure out what went wrong this time.

JocMeister -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/14/2016 5:40:33 PM)
Inconsistency = randomness = built into the game. You spend way too much time fretting about stuff like this. You lost two xAKs. Next time your opponent will lose something. Its just the nature of the game. There is a randomness built into the game and a lot of times this messes things up. Despite doing everything "right" things will still go "wrong" at times. Just accept that things go bonkers from time to time. Its part of the game.

Lokasenna -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/14/2016 7:48:06 PM)
Those results really look in the realm of expected to me. It's like rolling a 5 vs. rolling a 2 on a d6. Of course, the higher altitude might've applied a penalty to your roll, and "heavy cloud" might be a degree worse on weather than "overcast" - easier for strikes to slip through with no defending radar sets. I've never bought into the 1/3 ready, 1/3 standy, 1/3 airborne "rule." I don't think it works that way at all. I also think setting 50% CAP and 20% rest can mess with your units with regards to forced rest. I much prefer to set Range 0 on my CAP units, even LRCAP, and set the percentage I want covering while also leaving rest at 0.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/14/2016 9:05:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna I also think setting 50% CAP and 20% rest can mess with your units with regards to forced rest. I much prefer to set Range 0 on my CAP units, even LRCAP, and set the percentage I want covering while also leaving rest at 0. I may be way off, but I always thought to set Rest to some non-zero to allow airframe maintenance, rather than pilot rest.

PaxMondo -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/14/2016 9:07:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Inconsistency = randomness = built into the game. You spend way too much time fretting about stuff like this. You lost two xAKs. Next time your opponent will lose something. Its just the nature of the game. There is a randomness built into the game and a lot of times this messes things up. Despite doing everything "right" things will still go "wrong" at times. Just accept that things go bonkers from time to time. Its part of the game. +1 Also, you get a 'good' result and too often think that is norm. Like your Loewoek at 73,102 example. I don't know if that was a 5 on a 6 sided die or a 6, but pretty sure it was a good roll. Given that, you need to accept that you will also get just as many 1's and 2's. It is the way Gary creates his games. We are NOT in control, specifically by design. We are only able to create better probabilities, that's it. And if you are 'lucky' like me, I roll 2's and 3's pretty much all the time with a '6' once in a while. I finally figured out that all of my 4's and 5's must be used during my work hours. I can't seem to find many in the game. [:D] My point though is that I don't see too many of the 1's, not that I don't roll them (I'm sure I do), but since I'm prepared for the 2's/3's I just don't see the really bad outcome hit me. what does that mean? simple. I'm either there, or I'm not. Not halfway. So, if I think I need to protect against 20 DB's, I would not have 1x36 group of Zeros present. I would have at least 2x48 groups of Zeros present. Probably another 1x49 group of Nates as well. When those DB's come in, my intention is to splash all of them and move on. Or, I have no fighter CAP at all. I cannot recall the last time I had a single fighter group on a 50 CAP/20 rest profile. That never works for me. Or better to say that I too often would get a 4 Zero loss, 0 DB loss outcome that I am not prepared to accept using a 50 CAP/20 rest profile. Caveat: of course my games are much different than yours. In Jan '42 in my games, the allies have 3x the number of planes compared to me, 2x the replacement rates, replacement pilot pools are 60 exp (so higher than the pilot I just shot down in most cases). I have to pick and choose my fights.

Lokasenna -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/14/2016 9:16:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna I also think setting 50% CAP and 20% rest can mess with your units with regards to forced rest. I much prefer to set Range 0 on my CAP units, even LRCAP, and set the percentage I want covering while also leaving rest at 0. I may be way off, but I always thought to set Rest to some non-zero to allow airframe maintenance, rather than pilot rest. Yes, I do this, but it does force some of the pilots and/or planes to rest for the day. Unless I absolutely need to do it for plane/pilot fatigue reasons, I leave Rest alone. I also assume that the rest percentage refers to pilots, not airframes, so in cases where your pilots outnumber your airframes and you wanted to rest the frames for sure you would need to calculate that out in order to make sure you rested enough pilots that they didn't fly all the available planes. The percentages may apply to both pilots and planes. Thinking of these examples: 1) Unit on Training 100%, but only a couple of planes for many more pilots. Observation shows more pilots can skill up than there are planes on a given day (even more than 2x as many planes), so clearly the Training 100% is applying to pilots (and also planes). 2) Unit of CAP with 80%, 25 planes and 33 pilots. My observations show that 20 planes will be flying CAP - not all 25 as would be the case if it were applying to pilots. So... I don't know what rest does, exactly. Which is why I use it only when necessary. quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Inconsistency = randomness = built into the game. You spend way too much time fretting about stuff like this. You lost two xAKs. Next time your opponent will lose something. Its just the nature of the game. There is a randomness built into the game and a lot of times this messes things up. Despite doing everything "right" things will still go "wrong" at times. Just accept that things go bonkers from time to time. Its part of the game. +1 Also, you get a 'good' result and too often think that is norm. Like your Loewoek at 73,102 example. I don't know if that was a 5 on a 6 sided die or a 6, but pretty sure it was a good roll. Given that, you need to accept that you will also get just as many 1's and 2's. It is the way Gary creates his games. We are NOT in control, specifically by design. We are only able to create better probabilities, that's it. And if you are 'lucky' like me, I roll 2's and 3's pretty much all the time with a '6' once in a while. I finally figured out that all of my 4's and 5's must be used during my work hours. I can't seem to find many in the game. [:D] I don't accept that things "go bonkers" sometimes. There's always a reason for it. Sometimes it's just a random, but if you know what the random is and why it's there, you don't perceive the game as "going bonkers."

PaxMondo -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/14/2016 9:21:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna I also think setting 50% CAP and 20% rest can mess with your units with regards to forced rest. I much prefer to set Range 0 on my CAP units, even LRCAP, and set the percentage I want covering while also leaving rest at 0. I may be way off, but I always thought to set Rest to some non-zero to allow airframe maintenance, rather than pilot rest. It will do both. As to which is most important, that depends upon your pilot/plane ratios, damage on last mission, base size, AV, etc. etc. etc.

BBfanboy -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/14/2016 10:55:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna I also think setting 50% CAP and 20% rest can mess with your units with regards to forced rest. I much prefer to set Range 0 on my CAP units, even LRCAP, and set the percentage I want covering while also leaving rest at 0. I may be way off, but I always thought to set Rest to some non-zero to allow airframe maintenance, rather than pilot rest. It will do both. As to which is most important, that depends upon your pilot/plane ratios, damage on last mission, base size, AV, etc. etc. etc. I think there is some benefit in the ongoing maintenance of the airframe using the % rest option. If the airframe gets to 30 fatigue and is pulled out for "maintenance" you get a message in the ops report (which hints it is important) and it is gone for some time. Keeping them maintained below 20 keeps them in the game and may help reduce ops losses.

ny59giants -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/14/2016 11:18:32 PM)
Besides looking at the skills of my pilots along with their fatigue from too many missions, I now spend more time looking under "Planes" for my air groups that have spent lots of recent time active. I've stood them down or fly them away to have extended periods of rest to get the airplanes fatigue down. I look at this as another area 'under the hood' that may not be understood by us players that effects how many planes actually fly and how long they stay in the A2A battle before they return to base. Maybe it's the AFB in me, but I try not to lose airframes in '42 as Allies as I'm short of them everywhere due to high fatigue levels. C-47s are my one plane that I have that their op losses are like Japan's as many die on a regular basis from too much use.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/14/2016 11:27:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna I also think setting 50% CAP and 20% rest can mess with your units with regards to forced rest. I much prefer to set Range 0 on my CAP units, even LRCAP, and set the percentage I want covering while also leaving rest at 0. I may be way off, but I always thought to set Rest to some non-zero to allow airframe maintenance, rather than pilot rest. Yes, I do this, but it does force some of the pilots and/or planes to rest for the day. Unless I absolutely need to do it for plane/pilot fatigue reasons, I leave Rest alone. I also assume that the rest percentage refers to pilots, not airframes, so in cases where your pilots outnumber your airframes and you wanted to rest the frames for sure you would need to calculate that out in order to make sure you rested enough pilots that they didn't fly all the available planes. The percentages may apply to both pilots and planes. Thinking of these examples: 1) Unit on Training 100%, but only a couple of planes for many more pilots. Observation shows more pilots can skill up than there are planes on a given day (even more than 2x as many planes), so clearly the Training 100% is applying to pilots (and also planes). 2) Unit of CAP with 80%, 25 planes and 33 pilots. My observations show that 20 planes will be flying CAP - not all 25 as would be the case if it were applying to pilots. So... I don't know what rest does, exactly. Which is why I use it only when necessary. I always assumed Training was its own universe, since you have ground school for the pilots without a cockpit. If the Rest command refers to both planes and pilots, and not just planes, how would that be calculated when you have more pilots? Say 20 planes. Are 20 pilots pulled from the roster and put into planes, and then 20% of them are pulled out again and 20% new pilots are pulled from the roster to sit in the airframe? Seems weird to me. I just always thought that 20% of the planes "rested" in maintenance and thus de facto some pilots stayed in bed that day and recovered fatigue as a side benefit. I also agree with BBfanboy above that it seems better to keep up with the airframe fatigue maintenance as a daily thing rather than wait for the full-blown "pull off the line" that the Ops report provides. Both for ops loss chances as well as duration of the plane being out. Never ceases to amaze me the things I don't know.

Lokasenna -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/15/2016 2:50:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna I also think setting 50% CAP and 20% rest can mess with your units with regards to forced rest. I much prefer to set Range 0 on my CAP units, even LRCAP, and set the percentage I want covering while also leaving rest at 0. I may be way off, but I always thought to set Rest to some non-zero to allow airframe maintenance, rather than pilot rest. It will do both. As to which is most important, that depends upon your pilot/plane ratios, damage on last mission, base size, AV, etc. etc. etc. I think there is some benefit in the ongoing maintenance of the airframe using the % rest option. If the airframe gets to 30 fatigue and is pulled out for "maintenance" you get a message in the ops report (which hints it is important) and it is gone for some time. Keeping them maintained below 20 keeps them in the game and may help reduce ops losses. For squadrons I care about, I don't let them get even that far unless there's a really good reason. If I see 20's and I don't have a pressing need to keep them operational, I stand them down. Because of this: quote: ORIGINAL: ny59giants Besides looking at the skills of my pilots along with their fatigue from too many missions, I now spend more time looking under "Planes" for my air groups that have spent lots of recent time active. I've stood them down or fly them away to have extended periods of rest to get the airplanes fatigue down. I look at this as another area 'under the hood' that may not be understood by us players that effects how many planes actually fly and how long they stay in the A2A battle before they return to base. Maybe it's the AFB in me, but I try not to lose airframes in '42 as Allies as I'm short of them everywhere due to high fatigue levels. C-47s are my one plane that I have that their op losses are like Japan's as many die on a regular basis from too much use.

SqzMyLemon -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/17/2016 8:10:45 AM)
Let's try this again. A few things of note. First, it looks like I have a new job. I interviewed last week and was tendered a job offer a few days ago. I will accept. My stress level has gone down significantly. Second, I have to admit my Australian gambit has failed. A poor understanding of the DBB mod and the constraints imposed by the reduction of logistical support for Japan is one major reason. The other is poor execution and too many mistakes on my part have squandered any chance of further significant gains on the continent. The overall tactical position is not good and it will be impossible to advance in enough strength against Allied positions, without severely limiting the ability to defend my growing perimeter. I have decided to withdraw from Australia. My stress level has gone down considerably even more. Third, I want to give Francois a good game. Continuing on the present course is a recipe for disaster. There are too many problems with too few troops, in too many theatres, to deal with them all if I stay committed to Australia. It's time to change course and play for the long haul. As to sweating the small stuff, I disagree. I don't care about losing two transports for example. What I do care about is why my forces seem to be underperforming and understanding what it is I'm doing consistently wrong. Shooting down enemy aircraft and sinking enemy ships is a big deal in this game. I need to figure out why I'm not. So, does that mean I still won't get frustrated? Most likely not, but if I can figure out how to punish my opponent, for what I sense is a growing overconfidence and lack of prudence considering the date, I'll probably start feeling much better about the game. I've played quite badly so far, which has made my opponent look quite good. Nothing against Francois' game play, but I need to turn things around if for nothing else than my own self-respect. I've made it far too easy on him. With my personal life looking a lot more positive right now, I hope I can turn the AAR around and make it more enjoyable to follow once again.

Encircled -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/17/2016 8:31:03 AM)
Still following anyway! Congrats on the new job btw

PaxMondo -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/17/2016 1:11:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon Let's try this again. A few things of note. First, it looks like I have a new job. I interviewed last week and was tendered a job offer a few days ago. I will accept. My stress level has gone down significantly. CONGRATS!!! Very, very stressful being unemployed. Can't express how happy I am for you.

Lowpe -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/17/2016 1:42:01 PM)
That was a very fast new job! You must be in demand! Congratulations.[sm=happy0065.gif]

BBfanboy -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/17/2016 2:38:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote: ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon Let's try this again. A few things of note. First, it looks like I have a new job. I interviewed last week and was tendered a job offer a few days ago. I will accept. My stress level has gone down significantly. CONGRATS!!! Very, very stressful being unemployed. Can't express how happy I am for you. Pax Mondo said it for me! Re: the Australian Gambit - I thought you did a great job considering the stretch and the difficulties. Certainly entertaining for the kibitzers and maybe someone else will now plan a similar opening, knowing what issues they will need to deal with (like KB fuel and sortie replenishment).

Lowpe -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/17/2016 2:43:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy Re: the Australian Gambit - I thought you did a great job considering the stretch and the difficulties. Certainly entertaining for the kibitzers and maybe someone else will now plan a similar opening, knowing what issues they will need to deal with (like KB fuel and sortie replenishment). It was Rockhampton and those lousy cruisers.[:@]

SqzMyLemon -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/17/2016 5:00:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy Re: the Australian Gambit - I thought you did a great job considering the stretch and the difficulties. Certainly entertaining for the kibitzers and maybe someone else will now plan a similar opening, knowing what issues they will need to deal with (like KB fuel and sortie replenishment). It was Rockhampton and those lousy cruisers.[:@] It was a lot of things, too many to mention individually, but the initial debacle at Rockhampton definitely had a major impact on the operation getting derailed.

SqzMyLemon -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/17/2016 5:22:14 PM)
Thanks for the comments regarding the job. It was hard to get through the last five weeks being so stressed. It definitely had an impact on my ability to enjoy the game and life in general. The numerous setbacks really had me seeing red at times, and came out in the AAR. I still dislike the mod and the bad rolls are still taking their toll, but perhaps the game won't set me off like it has been lately, now that I know RL is taken care of for the moment. This job just fell into my lap and the whole process has been a whirlwind. I was laid off Jan. 12th and remained in contact with a supervisor who had been laid off roughly a month before I had. Two weeks after I had been laid off, I sent him an e-mail mentioning I too had lost my job. Within days, he mentioned he'd talked to his new boss about me and that I should submit a resume and they'd interview me. I submitted my resume on Feb. 5th, was called the same day to set up an interview on the 9th, and by the 12th I was sent an offer. I have a few questions and want to try and negotiate the wage, vacation or benefits, but otherwise feel good about the offer considering the recession in Alberta at the moment. I do pipeline construction data management and this new company wants to diversify and expand into pipeline construction. They want me to set up everything up for them and get their company ready to hit the ground running for their first project. I can't help but feel this is almost fate and it seems like a great opportunity. All I know is that my previous position was working for a mismanaged (inept now comes to mind) company with an extremely toxic work environment. This may be the best thing that has happened in my work career, getting the hell out of there.

SqzMyLemon -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (2/17/2016 5:28:37 PM)
Ok, a screenshot of Australia. I'm getting worried here for a number of reasons. I won't go into detail, but realizing I dropped the ball and missed the opportunity to capitalize on my initial success, there isn't any reason to stay longer. Allied strength is growing faster than I can counter (my own fault for not closing the door) and the nature of my position is making it too difficult to mount both an adequate offense and defence. Recent events now indicate it is time to cut and run. [image]local://upfiles/33192/7775571D82474E7C893DB8E160E7E7DD.jpg[/image]

Page: << < prev 20 21 [22] 23 24 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.171875