Oh, no carrier battles again

Oh, no carrier battles again (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific

Message

afenelon -> Oh, no carrier battles again (4/30/2003 7:17:41 AM)
First impressions of CV battles in v2.30. I feel there is something wrong with the engine, now favoring the IJN. I had 3 CV battles against human opponents. A marginal victory and a overhelming victory as IJN and a overhelming defeat as USN -Battle#1. Scen#19. Near PM. A US CV TF (3CV´s-Yorktown, Hornet and Saratoga) was patrolling near PM, when it was attacke by IJN CV´s. As IJN had lost 3CV´s and 1 CVL in the former battle, the USN wasn´t expected another IJN incursion. However, the IJN attacked with their remainin CV´s (Hiryu, Akagi, Kaga, Junyo) and 2CVL´s (Zuiho and Ryujo). AF estimated: 260 for USN and 320 for IJN Outcome. USN crews extremely tired(30-40) from sustaing high levels of CAP (90% with some units recovering from LR-CAP in the former days). US CV´s able to fight the first wave with 80 F4F´s, but two squadrons simply gave up in the middle of battle, an so caused small losses to the incoming bombers. US couterattacked with SBD´s almost unescorted. Three USN CV´s sunk against no damage to IJN CV´s. -My comments. Not an unexpected result, althought I think my CAP should have performed better. -Battle#2. Scen #17.Clash of two super CV groups near Lunga. IJN 5 CV´s plus 3 CVL´s (Sho, Zui, Hiryu, Kaga, Akagi, Zuiho, Shoho, Ryujo-450 CV´s) USN 5CV´s (Yorktown, Hornet, Enterprise, Saratoga, Wasp-420 planes). Distance: 8 hexes Outcome: IJN planes attacked with heavy fighter escort. A6M´s shot down no less than 57 F4F´s (with 41 losses). F4F´s (98 F4F´s flying CAP in 1st wave-around 60-70 in the remaining attacks)and flak, however, decimated IJN bombers. No less than 130 Vals and Kates shot down. However, Hornet was heavily damaged (he sunk a few days after, only 1 hex far from Lungaville) and other 3 CV´s suffered light damage. USN unable to mount a credible counterattack. Just 18 SDB´s attacked (escorted by less than 10 F4F´s), and 13 were shot down by A6M´s. IJN CV´s intact -Comment: No credible explanation for the enemy being unable to counterstrike(?) -Battle#3. A premature USN counteroffensive in Lunga clashed with a super CV-TF (6CV´s+3CVL´s , Zui, Hiryu, Soryu, Kaga, Akagi, Junyo, Zuiho, Shoho, Ryujo-500 planes). USN had 4 CV´s (Hornet, Enterprise, Wasp, Saratoga-350 planes). My enemy had all his fighters in 100%CAP, two of them had fatigue around 28 and two 32. My CAP was 50%. Both sides put their figters flying at 18000 feet (I divided mine between 18000 and 13000 feet) Here are the results. I was able to sink 4 CV´s with minimal losses. Game over, since my enemy already had lost two CV´s AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/31/42 Weather: Partly Cloudy Sub attack near Taivu at 39,40 Japanese Ships SS I-2, Shell hits 6, on fire, heavy damage Allied Ships AK Alchiba, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage DD Walke DD Ralph Talbot DD Henley Allied ground losses: Men lost 42 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on Lunga , at 38,40 Japanese aircraft A6M3 Zero x 9 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 18 B-25D Mitchell x 22 B-26B Marauder x 26 Japanese aircraft losses A6M3 Zero x 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 destroyed B-26B Marauder x 1 damaged Japanese ground losses: Men lost 55 Airbase hits 3 Runway hits 17 Attacking Level Bombers: 3 x B-26B Marauder at 4000 feet 3 x B-26B Marauder at 4000 feet 3 x B-26B Marauder at 4000 feet 9 x B-25D Mitchell at 4000 feet 3 x B-26B Marauder at 4000 feet 3 x B-26B Marauder at 4000 feet 3 x B-25D Mitchell at 4000 feet 3 x B-25D Mitchell at 4000 feet 3 x B-25D Mitchell at 4000 feet 3 x B-26B Marauder at 4000 feet 4 x B-25D Mitchell at 4000 feet 3 x B-26B Marauder at 4000 feet 5 x B-26B Marauder at 4000 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on Tassafaronga , at 37,39 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 22 no losses -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF, near Taivu at 39,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 57 A6M3 Zero x 29 D3A Val x 125 B5N Kate x 108 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 74 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 10 destroyed A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged A6M3 Zero x 11 destroyed D3A Val x 8 destroyed D3A Val x 12 damaged B5N Kate x 27 destroyed B5N Kate x 50 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 17 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat x 4 damaged ENS F.Townsend of VF-71 is credited with kill number 3 Allied Ships CV Wasp, Bomb hits 10, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage CV Saratoga, Bomb hits 8, Torpedo hits 2, on fire DD Patterson, Bomb hits 1 CV Enterprise, Bomb hits 3 CLAA Atlanta, Bomb hits 2, on fire CV Hornet, Bomb hits 11, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage DD Fanning, Bomb hits 2, on fire CL Phoenix, Bomb hits 4, on fire CLAA San Diego, Torpedo hits 1, on fire CLAA Juneau -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sub attack at 40,40 WO C.Matsumoto of EIII-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 2 LCDR R. Johnson of VB-8 bails out and is RESCUED Japanese Ships SS I-5, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage Allied Ships CV Enterprise DD Farenholt DD Ellet DD Maury -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF, near Irau at 42,43 Japanese aircraft G4M1 Betty x 3 Japanese aircraft losses G4M1 Betty x 2 damaged Allied Ships AO Kanawha Attacking Level Bombers: 3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF, near Taivu at 39,40 Japanese aircraft G3M Nell x 24 G4M1 Betty x 31 Japanese aircraft losses G3M Nell x 4 destroyed G3M Nell x 14 damaged G4M1 Betty x 1 destroyed G4M1 Betty x 25 damaged Allied Ships AP Wharton CA Canberra, Torpedo hits 1, on fire CL Achillies, Torpedo hits 2, on fire DD Conyngham, Torpedo hits 1, on fire AP Heywood, Torpedo hits 1 AP Leedstown AP George Clymer, Torpedo hits 2, on fire AP Zeilin, Torpedo hits 2 DD Drayton DD MacDonough AP President Hayes DD Arunta Allied ground losses: Men lost 10 Guns lost 2 Attacking Level Bombers: 2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 2 x G3M Nell at 200 feet 3 x G3M Nell at 200 feet 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 4 x G3M Nell at 200 feet 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 4 x G3M Nell at 200 feet 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 3 x G3M Nell at 200 feet 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 4 x G3M Nell at 200 feet 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF, near Taivu at 39,40 Japanese aircraft G4M1 Betty x 7 Japanese aircraft losses G4M1 Betty x 1 destroyed G4M1 Betty x 7 damaged Allied Ships DD Farragut, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage DD Lamson, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage Attacking Level Bombers: 3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF, near Taivu at 39,40 Japanese aircraft G3M Nell x 3 G4M1 Betty x 27 Japanese aircraft losses G3M Nell x 3 damaged G4M1 Betty x 4 destroyed G4M1 Betty x 30 damaged Allied Ships AP American Legion DD Alwin CL Honolulu AP Monrovia, Torpedo hits 1 CL Leander DD Perkins DD Hammann, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage AP George F. Elliot Attacking Level Bombers: 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 3 x G3M Nell at 200 feet 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF, near Taivu at 39,40 Japanese aircraft G4M1 Betty x 3 Japanese aircraft losses G4M1 Betty x 1 damaged Allied Ships AP Esperance Bay, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage Allied ground losses: Men lost 23 Attacking Level Bombers: 3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF, near Taivu at 39,40 Japanese aircraft G3M Nell x 3 Japanese aircraft losses G3M Nell x 3 damaged Allied Ships AK Electra, Torpedo hits 1, on fire Attacking Level Bombers: 3 x G3M Nell at 200 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 40,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 51 A6M3 Zero x 21 D3A Val x 106 B5N Kate x 70 Japanese aircraft losses D3A Val x 1 damaged Allied Ships CV Enterprise, Bomb hits 11, Torpedo hits 5, on fire, heavy damage DD Mahan CLAA San Diego, Bomb hits 5, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage CL Phoenix, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage CV Hornet, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage CV Saratoga, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 6, on fire, heavy damage CLAA Atlanta, Torpedo hits 1, on fire DD Patterson, Bomb hits 1 DD Ellet, Bomb hits 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 40,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 24 D3A Val x 24 B5N Kate x 16 no losses Allied Ships CV Enterprise, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage DD Mahan DD Selfridge, Bomb hits 1, on fire CLAA Juneau, Bomb hits 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -Comment. I simply can´t understand: 1-Why my enemy was unable to rise more than 70 F4F´s 2-Why the F4F´s gave up fighting (he started with 74 F4F´s, but then 60 of them gave up) despite the fact they were winning (F4F´s shot down 30 planes, vs 21 losses) 3-As he still had one CV with light damage after the first wave, he should be able to put some resistance against the second attack -On the other hand, I think his lack of counterattack is the result of no fighters being released for escort duties? -What do you guys think on those results?

Oleg Mastruko -> (4/30/2003 8:38:10 AM)
I am very sorry to have to say this, but I feel you're one of those anal types, using games not to play, but to over-analyze every **** result, and always look after "bugs", "strange results" etc. and present them with very definitive, authoritative tone... Please, don't take this (too) personally, there are more of your "sort" on this board, but now it's you. There are players among us that logged tens of hours of playing under 2.30, both against AI, and in PBEM, and don't complain. Now, to answer your main points. CV vs CV battles are ALWAYS huge gambles for BOTH sides, as it should be in my opinion (remember Midway?). 2.30 didn't change a thing here. Players basing their strategies solely on CVs sometimes get incredibly disappointed, when the gamble goes against them, but it's their fault! To say 2.30 favors IJN is to admit you haven't played enough under 2.30. I played PBEM's under 2.30 from both sides, and have seen nothing but defeats for IJN (be it me, or my opponent). Recently, playing as IJN, I lost 2 CVs and CVL (with another 2 CVLs damaged) to inflict only minor damage to USN CVs. Also, playing as USN, I defeated ultra-strong IJN CV TF, when his planes simply REFUSED to attack my CVs (not enough escorts to defeat my super-CAP). Under 2.30, I've seen like 8-10 IJN CVs go down (mine, and my opponent's), and only 1 USN CV (in my game against Tanaka, he caught Enterprise alone, seeing the end is near, I tried to escape, unloaded the planes, and he managed to sink the thing, not being protected by CAP etc.) O.

pasternakski -> (4/30/2003 9:05:17 AM)
I see nothing wrong with the results you cite. (1) You describe the US problem yourself: pilots tired from a former battle, "patrolling" with depleted airgroups. When you get a win, get the hell out and come back fresh later with an even better winning edge. As any bomber pilot knows, you don't loiter over the target to admire your results. (2) Again, the answer is in your remarks: "distance 8 hexes." This is extended range for SBDs and beyond the range that they can be escorted by F4Fs. The US here is a victim of superior IJN carrier aircraft range. (3) A superior IJN air combat TF defeats an inferior Allied air combat TF. This is a wrong outcome because ... ? The myriad factors that go into the AI's calculations of how, what, and where to attack are largely unmentioned. It could have been better, it could have been worse. What more do you want from a wargame?

afenelon -> (4/30/2003 9:52:40 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski [B]I see nothing wrong with the results you cite. (1) You describe the US problem yourself: pilots tired from a former battle, "patrolling" with depleted airgroups. When you get a win, get the hell out and come back fresh later with an even better winning edge. As any bomber pilot knows, you don't loiter over the target to admire your results. -Agree with you, however, what worries me is the fact that in 2/3 battles, F4F´s simply gave up fighting. In battle#1, this could be the result of extreme fatigue values. In battle#3 the fatigue values don´t explain the poor performance of US CAP, does it? (2) Again, the answer is in your remarks: "distance 8 hexes." This is extended range for SBDs and beyond the range that they can be escorted by F4Fs. The US here is a victim of superior IJN carrier aircraft range. -What is the best range of F4F´s? I don´t remember. Some F4F´s actually escorted the SBD´s. When I played this game, my opponent complaine about the fact and I checked the bomber ranges. SBD´s have a range only marginally worse than Vals and Kates. (3) A superior IJN air combat TF defeats an inferior Allied air combat TF. This is a wrong outcome because ... ? -This is not a wrong outcome. I just expected to pay a high cost for that victory. I didn´t understand why a extremely defensive stance couldn´t have shot down a large number of incoming bombers. It could have been better, it could have been worse. What more do you want from a wargame? [/B][/QUOTE]

afenelon -> (4/30/2003 10:12:15 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko [B]I am very sorry to have to say this, but I feel you're one of those anal types, using games not to play, but to over-analyze every **** result, and always look after "bugs", "strange results" etc. and present them with very definitive, authoritative tone... -I really don´t understand this hysterical crisis. I have the right to point to some atypical results. A few months ago I complained about some unexpected results, and some of my complains were actually adressed in v2.20, so my point wasn´t so wrong. If I play three battles vs human opponents and all three gave victories for IJN beyond of that expected for that situation, it may point to some imbalance of the results. However, it can have an explanation, that´s why I put the question here. It seems v2.20 DECREASES the effectiveness of large CAP formations, thus making results more unpredictable. This may have influenced those results. CV vs CV battles are ALWAYS huge gambles for BOTH sides, as it should be in my opinion (remember Midway?). -In Midway both sides had almost the same number of planes (actually the USA had more planes) and the Japanese were virtually blinded due to lack of recon planes. This was due to SURPRISE, but I don´t know if UV models surprise (as the old Pacific war did). Players basing their strategies solely on CVs sometimes get incredibly disappointed, when the gamble goes against them, but it's their fault! -They also may become disappointed when they win battles and have the strange feeling that the thing was not fair. To say 2.30 favors IJN is to admit you haven't played enough under 2.30. I played PBEM's under 2.30 from both sides, and have seen nothing but defeats for IJN (be it me, or my opponent). Recently, playing as IJN, I lost 2 CVs and CVL (with another 2 CVLs damaged) to inflict only minor damage to USN CVs. -The question is not who wins, but how. In the three examples I quoted, the IJN was in better shape, but the extremely poor performance of USN wasn´t expected. If it happens one time, it´s ok., but three times in a row..... Also, playing as USN, I defeated ultra-strong IJN CV TF, when his planes simply REFUSED to attack my CVs (not enough escorts to defeat my super-CAP) -How many carriers and planes on CAP did you have? This isn´t a...historical outcome, is it? In what historical situation a CV force REFUSED to attack the enemy due to expectation of high losses? Under 2.30, I've seen like 8-10 IJN CVs go down (mine, and my opponent's), and only 1 USN CV (in my game against Tanaka, he caught Enterprise alone, seeing the end is near, I tried to escape, unloaded the planes, and he managed to sink the thing, not being protected by CAP etc.) -Again, what were the circumstances?

Mr.Frag -> (4/30/2003 10:46:24 AM)
Why don't you try something somewhat even remotely close to reality instead and use CAP at somewhat realistic values, such as 30%. It never stops amazing me that people continue to throw history out the window and wonder why the game engine does oddball things as a result. Your pilots fly multiple missions during the day. If you are looking at them and you see 40% average fatigue, by the second air combat phase they are probably in the 60% range, and rather unlikely to fight at all once you take a couple of losses, hence your results of watching your CAP run away after taking some hits. Perfect game engine there. You made the mistake, not the game. Second example you say that almost 3 of the 5 squadrons of F4F's are flying CAP (I suspect you probably were LRCAP'ing) or running at VERY high %CAP settings to get that many up in the air. Your planes do not attack in gross numbers, yet your (a) don't mention the weather, (b) don't mention search and (c) don't mention fatigue. It is obvious from the %CAP that you were flying very tired pilots once again here, hence the high loss rates. 96 planes showed up to intercept. 5 CV's at 36 planes per CV = 53% CAP on the intercept (so you must have had a MINIMUM of 60% CAP running since not all planes ever make the intercept). 60% CAP = tired pilots. Again, perfectly normal result. Third example: 100% CAP? There is no 100% CAP option. You mean LRCAP. I suggest you read the manual to learn the major penalty imposed when LRCAP'ing CV's as you might as well ground the planes for all the effectiveness they have. NEVER fly LRCAP over CV's, it's like sticking a kick me sign on your back and turning around. I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of your results given how you are using your CV's. ;)

Fred98 -> (4/30/2003 10:50:42 AM)
I have never found an option to fly CAP over a CV. Instead there is an option to fly LRCAP. If I don't use LRCAP, then how do I protect CVs with fighters?

denisonh -> (4/30/2003 10:52:44 AM)
My only comment would be that air combat is very bloody. In my estimation, it is too bloody. That makes a big CAP a force field that can't be penetrated. Nothing in combat is a sure thing, but a big enough CAP in UV will protect you from everything and anything. It was more realistic before when bombers could penetrate the CAP, albeit with losses and damage, as opposed to the utter destruction that takes place in 2.3. There is always the possibility, as chaos is the rule in combat.

Fred98 -> (4/30/2003 10:54:33 AM)
And there is no real need for me to check the pilot fatigue level. Example: the enemy attacks: Option 1: rest the pilots and watch my CVs sink Option 2: send tired pilots into the fight and watch my CVs sink Option 3: retire the CVs and then watch my transports sink (the REAL job of a CV is to provide air support to other ships and to ground troops) And so it is that the pilot fatigue level seems not so relevant to me. But I lose every game so I suppose I am missing something.

JohnK -> Ummmm.... (4/30/2003 10:58:11 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe 98 [B]I have never found an option to fly CAP over a CV. Instead there is an option to fly LRCAP. If I don't use LRCAP, then how do I protect CVs with fighters? [/B][/QUOTE] You'll notice if a fighter group is set to things like "sweep" or "escort", below the list of missions there's a setting where you can set the % of that group set to "CAP" in 10% increments. The highest you can set it is 90%; this means 90% of that squadron will fly regular CAP and the other 10% will sweep or escort or whatever. It's been a game basic since the first version. LRCAP causes massive fatigue. This is why you are "losing every game." Just out of curiousity, how many games have you played not knowing you can set CV fighters to regular CAP instead of LRCAP? :-) Granted, there have been game aspects I've missed (not covered in the manual) I've only found out reading this board, but this one is pretty basic.

Von_Frag -> Not What I got (4/30/2003 11:24:40 AM)
I'm playing the AI as Japan. Threw 3 fresh CV's at 1 U.S. CV. Sure I sank it but 2 of those fresh new CV's are going back to Japan with lots of damage. Just as said above, carrier battles are a crap shoot. I don't think there was anything wrong with my tactics, all fighter squadrons set to 50% CAP and all bombers set to naval attack. It was just one of those days. The AI did surprise me by putting all of his fighters on escort and when my bombers showed up, they were unaposed. Von Frag

afenelon -> (4/30/2003 11:33:56 AM)
Originally posted by denisonh [B]My only comment would be that air combat is very bloody. -Agree with you In my estimation, it is too bloody. -Again I agree That makes a big CAP a force field that can't be penetrated. -Don´t agree, CAP can be penetrated in v2.3, maybe it´s easier than in v2.2 Nothing in combat is a sure thing, but a big enough CAP in UV will protect you from everything and anything. -Hmmmm #2 points to the opposite. My opponent shot down half of my bombers but had 4 CV´s damaged (1 sank latter) It was more realistic before when bombers could penetrate the CAP, albeit with losses and damage, as opposed to the utter destruction that takes place in 2.3. -Super CAP is unrealistic because it´s impossible to have all the planes in the air at the same time. It´s necessary to rearm and refuel them periodically, and it must be coordinated with bomber operations. A thing that is sadly missed in UV is the old rule of coordination penalty we had in the old PW. This would make super CV´s TF and super CAP´s ineffective, forcing the palyer to divide the CV´s into two or more TF´s

afenelon -> (4/30/2003 12:14:25 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by afenelon [B]Originally posted by Mr.Frag [B]Why don't you try something somewhat even remotely close to reality instead and use CAP at somewhat realistic values, such as 30%. It never stops amazing me that people continue to throw history out the window and wonder why the game engine does oddball things as a result. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -Hmmm...from what I´ve been reading, USN used CAP around 50-60%. CAP of 30% is an invitation to disaster. One of my opponents set CAP to 30% and lost 3 CV´s plus 1CVL in one battle. I used 70% CAP with no losses -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your pilots fly multiple missions during the day. If you are looking at them and you see 40% average fatigue, by the second air combat phase they are probably in the 60% range, and rather unlikely to fight at all once you take a couple of losses, hence your results of watching your CAP run away after taking some hits. Perfect game engine there. You made the mistake, not the game. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -Fatigue in my game as USA was around 40%. It´s ok. I don´t complain about the results. However, they run away in the 1st combat phase, not in the second. My enemy in battle#3 reported that their fatigue was in high 20´s and low 30´s. This don´t explain why they run away in the first wave (despite a good performance, they shot more A6M´s than suffered losses). Still I don´t think fatigued pilots will simply run away in any circumstances when defending their home carriers. They can have poor performance, but running away???? To a carrier that they know will be sunk if they don´t stand and fight? Sorry, there is no perfect game engine here --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Second example you say that almost 3 of the 5 squadrons of F4F's are flying CAP (I suspect you probably were LRCAP'ing) or running at VERY high %CAP settings to get that many up in the air. Your planes do not attack in gross numbers, yet your (a) don't mention the weather, (b) don't mention search and (c) don't mention fatigue. It is obvious from the %CAP that you were flying very tired pilots once again here, hence the high loss rates. 96 planes showed up to intercept. 5 CV's at 36 planes per CV = 53% CAP on the intercept (so you must have had a MINIMUM of 60% CAP running since not all planes ever make the intercept). 60% CAP = tired pilots. Again, perfectly normal result. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -Are you talking about #2. I don´t know what was the CAP% of my enemy. I estimate something near 70%. I can ask him if you want. Note that in this battle, his CAP did very well. He wasn´t LR-CAPing. I don´t mention variables related to my enemie´s bombers because I don´t know them, but he had 180 SBD´s, it´s impossible that all of them were on search. Time was ok to attack my CV´s, since it was ok to allow me to attack theirs.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Third example: 100% CAP? There is no 100% CAP option. You mean LRCAP. I suggest you read the manual to learn the major penalty imposed when LRCAP'ing CV's as you might as well ground the planes for all the effectiveness they have. NEVER fly LRCAP over CV's, it's like sticking a kick me sign on your back and turning around. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -Hmmm..the penalty for flying LR-CAP over own CV´s seem to be around 50% (plus fatigue). This explains why my enemy in#3 had only 50% F4F´s in his CAP. Still don´t explain why these remaining 74 run away, for the reasons explained before. I never use LR-CAP over CV´s. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of your results given how you are using your CV's. ;) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -It´s not me, pay attention. I won 2/3 engagements..... I´m complaining mainly from some victories I feel are not legitimate....so do you think I can be happy with them?

Oleg Mastruko -> (4/30/2003 4:46:38 PM)
>>CV vs CV battles are ALWAYS huge gambles for BOTH sides, as it should be in my opinion (remember Midway?). >In Midway both sides had almost the same number of planes (actually the USA had more planes) and the Japanese were virtually blinded due to lack of recon planes. This was due to SURPRISE, but I don´t know if UV models surprise (as the old Pacific war did). They were not surprised in a sense "oh, look, there's some US carriers around" - ie. they expected US to attack them (be it with carriers or with landbased planes) they just couldn't find USN CVs in time to strike first. "Surprise", as you say, may explain the relative uneffectiveness of IJN strike, but not the fantastic results actually achieved by USN strike. In "UV terms" - Midway would be just another of the outcomes that would prop mega-long thread like this one you started, despite being very "historic" - that's what I am trying to say. >>Players basing their strategies solely on CVs sometimes get incredibly disappointed, when the gamble goes against them, but it's their fault! >They also may become disappointed when they win battles and have the strange feeling that the thing was not fair. I never have that feeling when I win (OK this is joke). >>Also, playing as USN, I defeated ultra-strong IJN CV TF, when his planes simply REFUSED to attack my CVs (not enough escorts to defeat my super-CAP) >How many carriers and planes on CAP did you have? This isn´t a...historical outcome, is it? In what historical situation a CV force REFUSED to attack the enemy due to expectation of high losses? I had three carriers in a single TF, with mucho CAP (80 or 90%). He had many many carriers and CVLs, but he divided them into many smaller TFs (ummm, like IJN actually used to do). It seems they couldn't coordinate strikes among various TFs, so some of the TFs sent strikes against my transport TF that was nearby, and some didn't send strikes at all, as they were pasted before they could send the strikes. Results were devastating for IJN. I guess had he actually sent uncoordinated strike(s) against my 90% CAP he'd be slaughtered anyway. Historic? I wouln't know. But I woudn't like to be in an unarmored torpedo bomber attacking into 100+ CAP, that's for sure. Also, he should have put his Zeros to like 30-40% CAP max. IJN player MUST try to give his unarmored bombers proper protection and escort, he MUST play very offensively, even if it means less protection for his ships. 30-40% CAP is the way to go for IJN. 80-90 for USN. If USN player plays pseudo-offensively, with 30% CAP, he will lose, and lose badly, perhaps that is the reason for the results you complain about? But if USN player plays defensively and puts 80% CAP - in most cases he will do good. His bombers are much more resillient than IJN's, so they may survive even without fighter escort. IJN's can't. Oleg

Fred98 -> (4/30/2003 6:04:00 PM)
/// “Just out of curiosity, how many games have you played not knowing you can set CV fighters to regular CAP instead of LRCAP?” Every game I have ever played since about June last year – 10 months or so. I really want fighters to fly “air defence over the carriers” but there is no such order. So, as my carriers are in the middle of the ocean, what should I do? Are you saying I should fly a Sweep mission over an ocean hex with 90% set to CAP? /// “LRCAP causes massive fatigue” Why? How is this different to flying a Sweep mission over a hex in the middle of the ocean? Does a Sweep mission over 100 miles of empty sea cause less fatigue than a LRCAP mission over 100 miles of empty sea? Whilst I am knowledgable in land combat, you can see my knowledge of CV combat hovers around NIL. But the principles are the same.

Mr.Frag -> (4/30/2003 8:03:16 PM)
Got something against Escort with 30% Cap? If no strikes fly, fighters sit on the ship and rest, only 30% will be tired. If strikes do fly, they fly with enough escort to punch through anything and get bombs on target. One always needs to be aware of the replacement pool rates. Fighters come in at 60 a month, bombers at 20. You can replace 3 fighters for each bomber. Take the losses on the fighter side. I wouldn't go beyond 50% CAP as you will end up with pilots who are completely useless as they are too tired to fight from the way UV handles fatigue. A 0% fatigue pilot will engage 10 aircraft and vs a 40% fatigue pilot MAY run away when his buddy gets shot down. Fatigue is a major force mutipler, the lower side generally wins even though the numbers would seem illogical. I have had 2 CV's running 30% Cap with rested crews hold off 3 CV's worth of air strikes without a problem. You guys seem to run MUCH higher CAP yet STILL take the same hits. The difference is that my 70% ESCORT just MOPPED the other CV's off the planet and all my bombers engaged. Historical CAP was at best 10% during this time period as they really didn't have the ability to manage air cover overhead effectively.

pasternakski -> (5/1/2003 3:02:52 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe 98 [B]/// “Just out of curiosity, how many games have you played not knowing you can set CV fighters to regular CAP instead of LRCAP?” Every game I have ever played since about June last year – 10 months or so. I really want fighters to fly “air defence over the carriers” but there is no such order. So, as my carriers are in the middle of the ocean, what should I do? Are you saying I should fly a Sweep mission over an ocean hex with 90% set to CAP? /// “LRCAP causes massive fatigue” Why? How is this different to flying a Sweep mission over a hex in the middle of the ocean? Does a Sweep mission over 100 miles of empty sea cause less fatigue than a LRCAP mission over 100 miles of empty sea? Whilst I am knowledgable in land combat, you can see my knowledge of CV combat hovers around NIL. But the principles are the same. [/B][/QUOTE] Put your CV fighter squadrons on escort, then assign the percentage you want for CAP. If your torpedo planes and dive bombers are not flying offensive missions, your fighters will provide the percentage of cover you specify while giving some pilots rest in between their turns at CAP. Just remember that higher percentages assigned to CAP result in higher fatigue and running CAP all the time means tired fighter pilots when you get into a battle - both for escort and CAP purposes. When you are convinced that it is safe to do so, stand down your fighters to let the pilots rest, but remember that, if you are wrong, you're gonna get hit by attacks that meet no CAP. There's a little art, a little science, and a lotta guesswork to handling your carrier air assets. You have to play around with it a lot before you start finding things that work, and there are never solutions that are perfect in all situations. Altitude assignments, for example, are a semi-mystical experience all in themselves.

Fred98 -> (5/1/2003 5:32:10 AM)
Thank you. There seem lot be a lot more variables than an infantry assault with air/naval/armour in support.

Mr.Frag -> (5/1/2003 6:42:46 AM)
[QUOTE]There seem lot be a lot more variables than an infantry assault with air/naval/armour in support[/QUOTE] The big difference is quite simple and yet the hardest thing to deal with. You KNOW where YOUR target is with an Assault. It is not playing hide and seek with you, causing your pilots to get tired flying around defending against nothing, causing you to loose sleep waiting for your turn to be returned in the mail. An assault is generally a well planned action. You might not always win, but at least you had the chance to plan :D

afenelon -> (5/1/2003 6:46:01 AM)
Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko They were not surprised in a sense "oh, look, there's some US carriers around" - ie. they expected US to attack them (be it with carriers or with landbased planes) they just couldn't find USN CVs in time to strike first. "Surprise", as you say, may explain the relative uneffectiveness of IJN strike, but not the fantastic results actually achieved by USN strike. In "UV terms" - Midway would be just another of the outcomes that would prop mega-long thread like this one you started, despite being very "historic" - that's what I am trying to say. >>The overall results in Midway were largely due to surprise, because the IJN CV´s were caught before they launched their first strike on CV group. The absence of reliable information on CV´s position led Nagumo to hesitate and use his flight decks as depot for ammunition an planes....had the IJN located the main US force and striked at the same time, the result would be probably a draw with 2 CV´s lost for each side, because (1) A massive attack of the well trained IJN pilots would probably have sunk both the Hornet and the Enterprise and (2) Akagi would probably had survived the SBD attack if her decks were empty (she took only 2 bombs). So I think recon information counts a lot, but it isn´t modeled in UV. And of course, Midway was very historical, it was the only of four 1942 battles that ended with the anihilation of one side (but the winner side still lost a carrier). In my 8 human vs. human CV battles in long campaigns, there were six that ended with the total anihilation of one side withouth ANY losses to the winner. This is worrying...no almost draw results like East Salomons, Coral Sea or Santa Cruz? It maybe that some serious mistakes were commited by one side, but it maybe that the engine is prone to overestimate the effect of fatigue too? >How many carriers and planes on CAP did you have? This isn´t a...historical outcome, is it? In what historical situation a CV force REFUSED to attack the enemy due to expectation of high losses? I had three carriers in a single TF, with mucho CAP (80 or 90%). He had many many carriers and CVLs, but he divided them into many smaller TFs (ummm, like IJN actually used to do). It seems they couldn't coordinate strikes among various TFs, so some of the TFs sent strikes against my transport TF that was nearby, and some didn't send strikes at all, as they were pasted before they could send the strikes. Results were devastating for IJN. I guess had he actually sent uncoordinated strike(s) against my 90% CAP he'd be slaughtered anyway. Historic? I wouln't know. But I woudn't like to be in an unarmored torpedo bomber attacking into 100+ CAP, that's for sure. >Hmmm...that´s really a bad mistake to divide fleets, on the other hand, I woul like to see coordination penalties for Super CV TF´s. Also, he should have put his Zeros to like 30-40% CAP max. IJN player MUST try to give his unarmored bombers proper protection and escort, he MUST play very offensively, even if it means less protection for his ships. 30-40% CAP is the way to go for IJN. 80-90 for USN. If USN player plays pseudo-offensively, with 30% CAP, he will lose, and lose badly, perhaps that is the reason for the results you complain about? >No, actually USN has CAP of 90% in #1, 60-70% in #2 and LR-CAP in #3. CAP did a good job only in #2. But if USN player plays defensively and puts 80% CAP - in most cases he will do good. His bombers are much more resillient than IJN's, so they may survive even without fighter escort. IJN's can't. >Agree with you, we need higher levels of escort for IJN and higher levels of CAP for USN. I use CAP 50% for IJN and 70% for USN. It worked very well, up to now. The only battles I lost against a human were those where I in´t follow this rule (I started to follow it after my second human vs human CV battle, where I lost 6 carriers). I don´t rely on small levels of CAP covering IJN CV´s, if the USN attacks with more than 100 SBD´s, results are devastating. On the other hand 50% escorts give the IJN bombers a reasonable survival chance.

Mr.Frag -> (5/1/2003 7:04:42 AM)
Midway = 1 broken radio and a bunch of flyboys who got lost :D Tough to EVER simulate that combination of events as if either the Japan's search plane had called home OR the main US attack not been the position of a free bombing run due to being lost and having the poor Torpedo guys commit virtual suicide (which had the side effect of removing Japan's CAP), the results could have been quite different. The same case could be made in reverse for the attack on Pearl. What if the fleet had not been home that day? :D The problem you face in wargames is that to code in the luck factor or the super-critical hit factor which really does exist, you end up with results that go too far into the extremes ALL the time when they really should be a one-in-a-million thing. You can either have reliable consistant results that everyone agrees with as reasonable or you can have complete chaos as results swing from bad luck to super-critical rund after round and he who gets that super-critical first wins hands down. It is pretty much impossible to have both without massive complaining about things not being realistic. Realistic is your commander doing the wrong thing at the worst possible moment due to a fouled up comms message and bad intel. For all those snake eyes to be rolled one after another puts you too far into the extremes. If every game consistantly had such extreme results, they would be the norm, no longer extreme results...

afenelon -> (5/1/2003 7:22:00 AM)
The problem you face in wargames is that to code in the luck factor or the super-critical hit factor which really does exist, you end up with results that go too far into the extremes ALL the time when they really should be a one-in-a-million thing. You can either have reliable consistant results that everyone agrees with as reasonable or you can have complete chaos as results swing from bad luck to super-critical rund after round and he who gets that super-critical first wins hands down. It is pretty much impossible to have both without massive complaining about things not being realistic. Realistic is your commander doing the wrong thing at the worst possible moment due to a fouled up comms message and bad intel. For all those snake eyes to be rolled one after another puts you too far into the extremes. If every game consistantly had such extreme results, they would be the norm, no longer extreme results... [/B][/QUOTE] >I don´t know, but I have the impression that the old Pacific War resulted in better results of CV battles, as far as balance results is of concern. Is there anyone who plays the PW Matrix Edition? What are your opinions? And what kind of results are you obtaining in your battles, Mt Fragg? The trouble is that even the most UV addicted guys probably didn´t have more than 20-30 CV battles vs human up to now, and this using many versions, so it´s dificult to get the big picture. Maybe that´s why there isn´t much complain. Maybe I´m too fixared in historical realism....I don´t know.

Oleg Mastruko -> (5/1/2003 8:26:16 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by afenelon [B] The trouble is that even the most UV addicted guys probably didn´t have more than 20-30 CV battles vs human up to now, and this using many versions, so it´s dificult to get the big picture. Maybe that´s why there isn´t much complain. Maybe I´m too fixared in historical realism....I don´t know. [/B][/QUOTE] Isn't it funny - you say you want ultimate "historic realism", and say that most experienced UV players had like 20-30 human vs. human CV battles so far, which, for you, is too little, and yet... ... how many CV battles were there historically? Let's see... 3? Or 4? Midway, Santa Cruz, Coral Sea... ummm? Anything post-43 was too one sided to really matter. So you want game system to "ultimately" represent the "historic realism" of results of those 3-4 battles, even when you play 10s or 100s of experiments in a game? Interesting. Of course you'll get "ahistorical" results! Get used to it. That's what wargames are made for. O.

afenelon -> (5/1/2003 9:58:38 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko [B]Isn't it funny - you say you want ultimate "historic realism", and say that most experienced UV players had like 20-30 human vs. human CV battles so far, which, for you, is too little, and yet... ... how many CV battles were there historically? Let's see... 3? Or 4? Midway, Santa Cruz, Coral Sea... ummm? Anything post-43 was too one sided to really matter. So you want game system to "ultimately" represent the "historic realism" of results of those 3-4 battles, even when you play 10s or 100s of experiments in a game? Interesting. Of course you'll get "ahistorical" results! Get used to it. That's what wargames are made for. O. [/B][/QUOTE] -From this poin t you´re right. Game authors don´t have an adequate sample to make an "historical engine". Furthermore, there wasn´t no Super CV battles, so it can´t be modeled in UV. Still, it i strange that too much battles are ending in "total victories" with 0 losses for the winner side. This didn´t happened even in the Turkey shot (where half og IJN CV´s survived). The question is not to get "ahistorical results", but to get only ahistorical results.

afenelon -> (5/2/2003 6:28:52 AM)
And here is the result of a fourth battle (me IJN vs. AI USN). IJN: 4CV´s (Sho, Zui, Junyo, Hyio) plus 2CVL´s (Ryujo and Zuiho) plus 1 CVE (Unyo) vs. USN 4 CV´s (Enterprise, Hornet, Saratoga, Wasp). Again (3/4 battles) the US Super CAP ran away and again (3/4) battles, the USN bombers didn´t retaliate. And of course, there isn´t anything wrong with the game engine......Here are the results (scen#14 distance 6 hexes) AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 10/17/42 Weather: Overcast Air attack on Lae , at 9,33 Allied aircraft A-20B Havoc x 6 no losses Runway hits 3 Attacking Level Bombers: 6 x A-20B Havoc at 6000 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on Lae , at 9,33 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 15 F-5A Lightning x 4 B-17E Fortress x 35 Allied aircraft losses B-17E Fortress x 1 damaged Japanese ground losses: Men lost 73 Airbase hits 3 Runway hits 53 Attacking Level Bombers: 4 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet 4 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet 5 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet 7 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 40,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 51 A6M3 Zero x 4 D3A Val x 66 B5N Kate x 47 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 130 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 12 destroyed A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged A6M3 Zero x 1 destroyed D3A Val x 15 destroyed D3A Val x 14 damaged B5N Kate x 20 destroyed B5N Kate x 24 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 24 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat x 10 damaged LT L. Barnard of VF-2 is credited with kill number 7 LT M. Hidaka of CII-1 Daitai bails out and is CAPTURED Allied Ships CV Enterprise, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage CV Saratoga, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 2, on fire DD Farragut DD Farenholt CA Australia, Bomb hits 1 CLAA San Juan, Bomb hits 1 DD Morris, Torpedo hits 1, on fire CL Hobart DD Gridley, Bomb hits 2, on fire DD Jarvis, Bomb hits 1, on fire -Comment: 130 fighters and almost 90 ran away. IJN suffered very few losses given the Super CAP. It seems some USN squadrons were on LR-CAP -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 40,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 9 D3A Val x 17 B5N Kate x 9 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 38 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed D3A Val x 7 destroyed D3A Val x 8 damaged B5N Kate x 3 destroyed B5N Kate x 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 5 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 damaged PO2 O.Banno of DII-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 3 Allied Ships CV Hornet, Bomb hits 1 DD Balch CV Wasp, Bomb hits 2, on fire -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on Lae , at 9,33 Allied aircraft Hudson x 11 Beaufort x 10 P-40E Warhawk x 13 F-5A Lightning x 2 B-25D Mitchell x 12 B-26B Marauder x 56 P-39D Airacobra x 10 no losses Japanese ground losses: Men lost 42 Airbase hits 7 Airbase supply hits 1 Runway hits 61 Attacking Level Bombers: 11 x Hudson at 6000 feet 16 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet 12 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet 16 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet 12 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet 10 x Beaufort at 6000 feet 12 x B-25D Mitchell at 6000 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on Port Moresby , at 10,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 16 A6M3 Zero x 16 J1N1-R Irving x 1 Allied aircraft P-39D Airacobra x 19 P-40E Warhawk x 44 P-39D Airacobra x 5 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 4 damaged Allied aircraft losses P-39D Airacobra x 1 destroyed P-39D Airacobra x 1 damaged P-40E Warhawk x 6 destroyed PO2 M. Endo of F1/Tainan Daitai is credited with kill number 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF, near Shortland Island at 29,34 Japanese aircraft A6M2-N Rufe x 7 A6M2 Zero x 22 Allied aircraft B-17E Fortress x 3 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 3 damaged Allied aircraft losses B-17E Fortress x 3 damaged Japanese Ships DD Shikinami Attacking Level Bombers: 3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 37,35 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 52 A6M3 Zero x 12 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 27 SBD Dauntless x 3 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 7 destroyed SBD Dauntless x 3 destroyed PO1 S. Kitahata of DII-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 2 Japanese Ships CV Shokaku -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 37,35 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 50 A6M3 Zero x 12 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 61 SBD Dauntless x 6 B-26B Marauder x 3 B-17E Fortress x 3 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 4 destroyed A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 12 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat x 5 damaged SBD Dauntless x 1 destroyed SBD Dauntless x 6 damaged B-26B Marauder x 1 destroyed B-17E Fortress x 2 damaged PO1 S. Kitahata of DII-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 3 Japanese Ships CV Zuikaku CV Hiyo CV Junyo CVL Ryujo Attacking Level Bombers: 2 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet Comments: The largest attack against IJN CV´s came from Lunga -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 40,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 47 D3A Val x 46 B5N Kate x 17 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 41 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 8 destroyed A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged D3A Val x 7 destroyed D3A Val x 19 damaged B5N Kate x 8 destroyed B5N Kate x 13 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 6 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat x 4 damaged LT F.Lee of VF-71 is credited with kill number 3 Allied Ships CV Wasp, on fire CV Hornet, Bomb hits 2 CL Phoenix CLAA Van Heemskerck -Comment: fatigue started to affect IJN too, more than 50% of bombers ran away, along with Zeroes and F4F´s. It seems all sides gave up fighting...quite realistic -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 40,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 7 B5N Kate x 12 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 7 Japanese aircraft losses B5N Kate x 6 destroyed B5N Kate x 6 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 destroyed LTJG R.Koizumi of DI-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 2 Allied Ships CV Hornet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 40,40 Japanese aircraft B5N Kate x 7 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 14 Japanese aircraft losses B5N Kate x 1 destroyed B5N Kate x 7 damaged Allied Ships CV Saratoga, on fire --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lrfss -> (5/2/2003 6:31:43 AM)
Hi All: For the most part I would have to agree with afenelon. IMHO 2.30 is much more bloody, and more often then not when engaged in a CV battle, the winning side will usually obtain an overwhelming victory! Fatigue is prob over done, even if your tired as hell you will fight when it's for your life! Later, Lrfss

afenelon -> (5/2/2003 6:52:06 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lrfss [B]Hi All: For the most part I would have to agree with afenelon. IMHO 2.30 is much more bloody, and more often then not when engaged in a CV battle, the winning side will usually obtain an overwhelming victory! Fatigue is prob over done, even if your tired as hell you will fight when it's for your life! Later, Lrfss [/B][/QUOTE] -Hmmm...althought CV battles in v2.30 are bloodier, air combat irself isn´t so bloody. This result in higher CV´s losses. And you´re right on fatigue. It´s laughable to have CAP fleeing from combat when the CV´s are being attacked. When a outgunned P-39 runs from Zeroes while defending its airfield, both the P-39 and the airfield can survive to fight another day. Obviously that situation is VERY diferent from that where a F4F is defending its home carrier. The pilots are expected to fight to death, because they won´t have a place to land if CV´s are sunk. And bombers always retaliate even if poorly escorted. The victory in Midway was obtained by unescorted bombers.....in UV world, both the TBD´s and SBD´s would have dropped their bombs and returned home when they saw there wouldn´t be fighter escort....

denisonh -> (5/2/2003 11:50:31 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by afenelon [B]-Hmmm...althought CV battles in v2.30 are bloodier, air combat irself isn´t so bloody. This result in higher CV´s losses. And you´re right on fatigue. It´s laughable to have CAP fleeing from combat when the CV´s are being attacked. When a outgunned P-39 runs from Zeroes while defending its airfield, both the P-39 and the airfield can survive to fight another day. Obviously that situation is VERY diferent from that where a F4F is defending its home carrier. The pilots are expected to fight to death, because they won´t have a place to land if CV´s are sunk. And bombers always retaliate even if poorly escorted. The victory in Midway was obtained by unescorted bombers.....in UV world, both the TBD´s and SBD´s would have dropped their bombs and returned home when they saw there wouldn´t be fighter escort.... [/B][/QUOTE] Or they slaughtered without scoring a single hit.

afenelon -> (5/2/2003 9:15:46 PM)
-Repeated my battle #3 with opponent changing his CAP from LR to 60%, to see if it was the cause of the result. Still, USN bombers failed to attack IJN carriers, and much more than 40% F4F´s took part in raids against Lunga (they escorted LB bombers). It´s becoming more evident we really have a bug here. Here are the results. The overall result was somewhat diferent-only three USN carriers sunk immediately (and the Wasp is damaged-but being hit by two torpedos and four bombs, I doubt he will survive) Men lost 130 Guns lost 1 Airbase hits 4 Airbase supply hits 1 Runway hits 32 Attacking Level Bombers: 3 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet 6 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet 3 x B-25D Mitchell at 6000 feet 3 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet 6 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet 4 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet 3 x B-25D Mitchell at 6000 feet 9 x B-25D Mitchell at 6000 feet 6 x B-25D Mitchell at 6000 feet 3 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet 6 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet 3 x B-25D Mitchell at 6000 feet 3 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet 3 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on Taivu , at 39,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 23 no losses -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF, near Taivu at 39,40 Japanese aircraft G4M1 Betty x 9 Japanese aircraft losses G4M1 Betty x 9 damaged Allied Ships DD Arunta AP Feland CL Achillies, Torpedo hits 1 Attacking Level Bombers: 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF, near Taivu at 39,40 Japanese aircraft G4M1 Betty x 26 Japanese aircraft losses G4M1 Betty x 2 destroyed G4M1 Betty x 24 damaged Allied Ships CA Minneapolis, Torpedo hits 2, on fire AK Etamin MSW Whyalla, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage DD Lamson DD Farragut Attacking Level Bombers: 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF, near Taivu at 39,40 Japanese aircraft G3M Nell x 6 G4M1 Betty x 34 Japanese aircraft losses G3M Nell x 1 destroyed G3M Nell x 3 damaged G4M1 Betty x 5 destroyed G4M1 Betty x 41 damaged Allied Ships DD Perkins, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage DD Hammann CL Honolulu AP American Legion AP President Adams DD Alwin, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage DD Mugford, Torpedo hits 1, on fire Attacking Level Bombers: 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 4 x G3M Nell at 200 feet 3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 1 x G3M Nell at 200 feet 2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF, near Taivu at 39,40 Japanese aircraft G3M Nell x 15 Japanese aircraft losses G3M Nell x 3 destroyed G3M Nell x 14 damaged Allied Ships AP Pierce AP La Salle DD Jarvis DD Balch Attacking Level Bombers: 3 x G3M Nell at 200 feet 2 x G3M Nell at 200 feet 2 x G3M Nell at 200 feet 1 x G3M Nell at 200 feet 4 x G3M Nell at 200 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF, near Taivu at 39,40 Japanese aircraft G3M Nell x 8 Japanese aircraft losses G3M Nell x 1 destroyed G3M Nell x 8 damaged Allied Ships CL St. Louis, Torpedo hits 2, on fire Attacking Level Bombers: 3 x G3M Nell at 200 feet 4 x G3M Nell at 200 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 40,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 16 A6M3 Zero x 14 D3A Val x 53 B5N Kate x 74 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 39 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed A6M3 Zero x 3 destroyed A6M3 Zero x 1 damaged D3A Val x 18 destroyed D3A Val x 23 damaged B5N Kate x 30 destroyed B5N Kate x 38 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 7 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat x 3 damaged LTJG F. Register of VF-6 is credited with kill number 5 Allied Ships CV Saratoga, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage CV Wasp CV Hornet, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage CV Enterprise, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage CA Quincy CLAA Juneau, Bomb hits 3, on fire CLAA San Juan, Bomb hits 1 DD Bagley DD Cummings -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 40,40 Japanese aircraft D3A Val x 19 B5N Kate x 13 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 18 Japanese aircraft losses D3A Val x 3 destroyed D3A Val x 11 damaged B5N Kate x 7 destroyed B5N Kate x 9 damaged LTJG R. Shackford of VF-2 is credited with kill number 3 Allied Ships CV Enterprise, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage CLAA Atlanta CV Wasp, Bomb hits 2 CV Saratoga, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 40,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 16 A6M3 Zero x 13 D3A Val x 54 B5N Kate x 36 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 18 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed A6M3 Zero x 2 destroyed D3A Val x 7 destroyed D3A Val x 1 damaged B5N Kate x 1 destroyed B5N Kate x 14 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 9 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 damaged LTJG G. Kirk of VF-8 is credited with kill number 3 Allied Ships CV Saratoga, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage CV Wasp, Bomb hits 2 CV Enterprise, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage CLAA San Juan, Bomb hits 2, on fire CV Hornet, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage CLAA San Diego -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 40,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 6 D3A Val x 23 B5N Kate x 15 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 15 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed D3A Val x 1 damaged B5N Kate x 1 destroyed B5N Kate x 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 3 destroyed LTJG H. Gustafson of VF-8 is credited with kill number 3 Allied Ships CV Enterprise, on fire, heavy damage CV Hornet, on fire, heavy damage DD Buchanan CV Saratoga, on fire, heavy damage CV Wasp CLAA Juneau, Bomb hits 1, on fire -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on Lunga , at 38,40 Allied aircraft SBD Dauntless x 30 Allied aircraft losses SBD Dauntless x 1 destroyed SBD Dauntless x 7 damaged Japanese ground losses: Men lost 91 Guns lost 1 Airbase supply hits 1 Runway hits 10 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF, near Taivu at 39,40 Japanese aircraft G3M Nell x 7 G4M1 Betty x 19 Japanese aircraft losses G3M Nell x 7 damaged G4M1 Betty x 1 destroyed G4M1 Betty x 20 damaged Allied Ships CL Achillies, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage DD Hull MSW Wollongong, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage CA Canberra, Torpedo hits 2 DD Phelps, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage Attacking Level Bombers: 2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 3 x G3M Nell at 200 feet 3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 4 x G3M Nell at 200 feet 3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet 4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF, near Taivu at 39,40 Japanese aircraft G3M Nell x 3 Japanese aircraft losses G3M Nell x 1 destroyed G3M Nell x 2 damaged Allied Ships CA Minneapolis, on fire Attacking Level Bombers: 2 x G3M Nell at 200 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 40,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 34 A6M3 Zero x 17 D3A Val x 34 B5N Kate x 24 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 25 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 3 destroyed A6M3 Zero x 4 destroyed B5N Kate x 2 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 6 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat x 3 damaged ENS B.Short of VF-71 is credited with kill number 2 Allied Ships CV Enterprise, on fire, heavy damage CV Hornet, on fire, heavy damage -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 40,40 Japanese aircraft A6M3 Zero x 10 D3A Val x 25 B5N Kate x 15 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 9 Japanese aircraft losses A6M3 Zero x 1 destroyed D3A Val x 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 destroyed LT I.Kelly of VF-71 is credited with kill number 2 Allied Ships CV Hornet, on fire, heavy damage -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 40,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 36 D3A Val x 39 B5N Kate x 21 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 13 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 3 destroyed B5N Kate x 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 9 destroyed LTJG C.Kamisaka of BI-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 3 Allied Ships CV Hornet, on fire, heavy damage CV Enterprise, on fire, heavy damage CV Saratoga, on fire, heavy damage -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 40,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 9 B5N Kate x 5 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 12 Japanese aircraft losses B5N Kate x 1 destroyed B5N Kate x 3 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 damaged Allied Ships CV Wasp, Torpedo hits 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lrfss -> (5/3/2003 3:15:21 AM)
Hi All: It was pointed out to me on a diff board that if the US CV TF was on a coastal hex which it was 1 hex SW Lunga Port/coastal hex that this would reduce CAP by 50%? Also if the enemy CV Cap was 2:1 or more then the escorts with a plane durabilty of less than 56, no missions for the US would go Vs enemy CV TF? So could this combo create situation #3? Just a thought someone else (AA) had. Later, Lrfss

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.953125