RE: Midway (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

mdiehl -> RE: Midway (3/31/2004 6:31:35 PM)

I'm not confusing anything, Mo. With respect, I suggest that if you plan on suppressing Midway solely using naval bomabrdment you will lose most of your naval bombardment TF to Midway-based strikes unless you task your CVs to cover the bombardment TF.

If you do that, since the operating CAP radius of a Japanese CV was about 14 statute miles, your CV will (a) be found, because it's within 14 miles of a TF that has to get within 20 miles or Midway, and (b) you WILL be mission overtasked, because you have to cover (i) your CVs, (ii) the bombardment group (iii) looking for USN CVs and (iv) attacking them if you find them. In these circumstances, I believe Midway gets a couple free shots at the bombardment TF, and the USN CVs still hit you with a big airstrike that sinks 1-3 CVs and damages 2-4.

Were I the Allied player I would not waste time basing B17s at Midway as strike a/c. I'd have two PBY VP groups patrolling and a couple squadrons each of F4Fs and SBS, and 1 squadron of torpedo bombers set to night attack. This assumes that the battle occurs after, say, February 1942. Before that it might be a challenge to get the assets in place.

It may be that the computer code allows bombardment TFs to routinely attempt run-ins on shore installations. I think the frequency with which this occurs in UV is optimistic and overvalues the potential of such tactics. I do hope that the most likely result in the event that people routinely try such gamey devices is that the airbase kicks the snot out of the bombardment group. At the time it was well understood that the airbase had the upper hand.

I also hope that the LR CAP mission will be eliminated from the options for CV based a/c. It has no historical precedent.



mdiehl -> RE: Midway (3/31/2004 6:34:10 PM)

quote:

Allied ships in range of Japanese LBA are in much more danger then Japanese ships in range of Allied LBA.


And that's nuts. If it is the case that such is how the game works, it needs repair.



mogami -> RE: Midway (3/31/2004 6:40:09 PM)

Hi, There are 3k Japanese aircraft and 3k Allied (approx) However over half the allied aircraft are not in the battle area. This leaves a decided Japanese advantage in numbers where it matters. The largest allied airfield is attacked on day one and should never regain full effectivness.
Attrition rapidly decreases Allied strength.
This simple fact should have been beyond dispute and almost no need to mention. I was trolling.
It is much more dangerous to be an Allied ship in the SRA then it is to be a Japanese ship in the SRA.



mdiehl -> RE: Midway (3/31/2004 6:44:26 PM)

I guess I missed your point. Of course if there are no Allied strike a/c within range of Japanese TFs then the Japanese TFs should have little to fear from air strikes. If, however, six operational Hudsons with bombs are sitting on an Indonesian airbase and are flown by EXP 30 pilots, an unescorted Japanese AP TF (no CAP) should have a very good chance of being badly hurt.

Cause that's the reality of the relationship of a/c to ships. At least until the magnetron is introduced. [:D]



Mr.Frag -> RE: Midway (3/31/2004 7:24:33 PM)

quote:

Cause that's the reality of the relationship of a/c to ships. At least until the magnetron is introduced.


[:D]

Back to my early Midway grab plan ... to do so requires stealing the very aircraft that close Clark Field for good so one really has to think carefully about the pros and cons of such an action.



mogami -> RE: Midway (3/31/2004 7:29:42 PM)

Hi There are 2 Daitai of Betty in the Home Island belonging to Southern Area Army. And then there are the Nells on Kwajalean. So there is no need to steal the Clark Field bomber groups from Formosa.
I should point out that the allies can base B-17 on Johnson Island that can hit Midway so you really need to capture there as well.
Johnson might even be a better base as it is closer to Kwajalean (a major support base) then Midway is to any comparable base.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Midway (3/31/2004 7:56:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi There are 2 Daitai of Betty in the Home Island belonging to Southern Area Army. And then there are the Nells on Kwajalean. So there is no need to steal the Clark Field bomber groups from Formosa.
I should point out that the allies can base B-17 on Johnson Island that can hit Midway so you really need to capture there as well.
Johnson might even be a better base as it is closer to Kwajalean (a major support base) then Midway is to any comparable base.


I thought about that, but you will notice that I can't get there fast enough and there is still the little matter of a couple of USA CV's wandering around ...

As far as the Betty/Nell groups in the Home Islands, I am using them, I am also swiping the Kwajalean ones ... due to the extreme range of the attack, those 5 groups are just not enough for what I want. (99 planes)

Tainan yields another 36, Takao another 54. I could also swipe them from Saigon which has 99. Really depends on how well Clark and Singapore go on turn one ...

I also have to swipe the Base unit in Tokyo and the Aviation unit in Ominato to support these aircraft.

The idea here to be be operational and hitting PH within the opening days of the game. Time is very critical. While Johnson is probably a better longer term target, you just can't pull it off in the timelines I am thinking of although it would be an interesting next step because the troops used to take Midway could head there next...

btw: as a side note, Johnson doesn't have the supplies available to fly B-17's against me and it is also only a size 4 airfield as built, and getting supplies there is a little bit troublesome seeing as KB is still hanging around Midway waiting for the Yanks to come out and play.



TIMJOT -> RE: Midway (3/31/2004 8:14:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

. If, however, six operational Hudsons with bombs are sitting on an Indonesian airbase and are flown by EXP 30 pilots, an unescorted Japanese AP TF (no CAP) should have a very good chance of being badly hurt.
Cause that's the reality of the relationship of a/c to ships.


Actually, there were several cases of when 6 Hudsons, or 6 Bleinhiems or 6 B-17s attacked no CAP AP TFs with little or no effect at all. I would expect the same from a small bomb carrying Nell or Betty formation as well. Because that was the reality of small formations level bombing shipps under steam in 41- 42. Cant think of any instances of "badly" hurting a TF by level bombing.



byron13 -> Game Fixes (3/31/2004 8:31:52 PM)

Mogami mentioned two game issues that are troubling.

First, he mentions that if you launch a CV v. CV strike the other side will launch at you (unless you are tasked for something else). If this means that an enemy set for anti-shipping will automatically launch a full-strength counterstrike at you - even when he has not otherwise spotted you - that is something that should change. Is that truly how the system works? No chance for a free first strike if the opponent is set for anti-shipping?

Second, and probably the flip-side of the same coin, if you are not tasked anti-shipping and you are surprised by the opponent's carrier force, you cannot react. How many strikes does the opponent get at you before you can change your priority to anti-shipping? If the enemy gets more than one strike, that is wrong. What happens if you have a secondary priority of anti-shipping?



Damien Thorn -> RE: Midway (3/31/2004 8:32:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Allied ships in range of Japanese LBA are in much more danger then Japanese ships in range of Allied LBA.


And that's nuts. If it is the case that such is how the game works, it needs repair.


Of course that's how the game works (just like in UV) because that is how reality worked. Japanese land-based planes carried torpedoes, which are much deadlier to ships than HE bombs. Also, the allied tactic at this time was high-altitude bombing...not accurate at all.

quote:

If, however, six operational Hudsons with bombs are sitting on an Indonesian airbase and are flown by EXP 30 pilots, an unescorted Japanese AP TF (no CAP) should have a very good chance of being badly hurt.


How can you delude yourself so? Have you even played UV at all? Exp 30 pilots are lucky to even find their way home. If your 6 exp 30 pilots attacked a task force the EXPECTED results 999 times out of 1000 should be no hits at all and at least one plane lost.



byron13 -> RE: Midway (3/31/2004 8:34:08 PM)

To beat mdiehl to the punch, if there is no chance of such a raid doing any damage in the game, then the game is broken. He is speaking in real-world terms, you are speaking in game terms.



Damien Thorn -> RE: Game Fixes (3/31/2004 8:35:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: byron13

Mogami mentioned two game issues that are troubling.

First, he mentions that if you launch a CV v. CV strike the other side will launch at you (unless you are tasked for something else). If this means that an enemy set for anti-shipping will automatically launch a full-strength counterstrike at you - even when he has not otherwise spotted you - that is something that should change. Is that truly how the system works? No chance for a free first strike if the opponent is set for anti-shipping?


Anti-shipping (actualy called 'naval attack') IS the mission you set for if you are trying to attack an enemy CV. Maybe you were thinking of if the CV was set for 'base attack'. Anyway, I'm sure that there is a chance of one side launching and the other side not if the other side didn't spot your ships.

quote:


Second, and probably the flip-side of the same coin, if you are not tasked anti-shipping and you are surprised by the opponent's carrier force, you cannot react. How many strikes does the opponent get at you before you can change your priority to anti-shipping? If the enemy gets more than one strike, that is wrong. What happens if you have a secondary priority of anti-shipping?


In UV you can't set a secondary mission of naval attack. The proper way to hit a base if you are concerned about enemy CVs in the area is to set naval attack as your primary mission and base attack as your secondary mission.



Damien Thorn -> RE: Midway (3/31/2004 8:37:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: byron13

To beat mdiehl to the punch, if there is no chance of such a raid doing any damage in the game, then the game is broken. He is speaking in real-world terms, you are speaking in game terms.


In real-world terms the US didn't fly exp 30 pilots. If you want to see how exp 30 pilots would probably perform you need to look at late-war Japanese pilots. I think the results I predicted model quite well how late war Japanese pilots performed.



mogami -> RE: Game Fixes (3/31/2004 8:38:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: byron13

Mogami mentioned two game issues that are troubling.

First, he mentions that if you launch a CV v. CV strike the other side will launch at you (unless you are tasked for something else). If this means that an enemy set for anti-shipping will automatically launch a full-strength counterstrike at you - even when he has not otherwise spotted you - that is something that should change. Is that truly how the system works? No chance for a free first strike if the opponent is set for anti-shipping?

Second, and probably the flip-side of the same coin, if you are not tasked anti-shipping and you are surprised by the opponent's carrier force, you cannot react. How many strikes does the opponent get at you before you can change your priority to anti-shipping? If the enemy gets more than one strike, that is wrong. What happens if you have a secondary priority of anti-shipping?



Hi, Thats the way UV works as well. The enemy CV are going to launch back unless they are set to other missions. If they are set to other missions you cannot change them until your next turn. (3 day turns anyone?) Naval Attack is not a secondary mission choice.
The way target selection works is scouts launch-search-report if any target in range the CV launches if no targets then secondary mission checked (airfield/port/ground etc) if a target is in range a strike is launched. However you cannot target a airfield directly when mission is secondary.
You can select airfield attack and select say Midway even when CV are out of range. The first air phase the CV are in range they launch a strike.
This allows you target a base the day before you attack it. If there are 3 USN CV nearby you might wind up in a cave on Saipan.

While everyone dreams of one sided carrier battles they never happened.
Both sides always launched.



byron13 -> RE: Game Fixes (3/31/2004 8:44:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn



Anti-shipping (actualy called 'naval attack') IS the mission you set for if you are trying to attack an enemy CV. Maybe you were thinking of if the CV was set for 'base attack'. Anyway, I'm sure that there is a chance of one side launching and the other side not if the other side didn't spot your ships.


Fair enough, but that is not what he said. He said, "For one thing in UV and WITP strikes are not mutally exclusive. If you launch a strike at enemy CV in range they are going to launch a strike back at you. (unless the airgroups are set to other missions)" This is what I'm trying to clarify. Is the counterstrike automatic if the opponent is set to naval attack, or does a counterstrike require you to be spotted? If automatic, it's wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn
In UV you can't set a secondary mission of naval attack. The proper way to hit a base if you are concerned about enemy CVs in the area is to set naval attack as your primary mission and base attack as your secondary mission.


I'm cool with that. So Midway - in game terms - is Japan set to Naval Attack first and base attack second. No enemy CV spotted so launches on the base. Oops, there are the U.S. carriers, but before Japan can launch a second strike the U.S. gets in a freebie. Can it play out that way in the game?

And one original question still remains. If you have base attack as the primary mission, how many strikes does the opponent get on your CVs before you can alter your priority?



mogami -> RE: Game Fixes (3/31/2004 8:57:04 PM)

Hi you have to change mission back to naval attack on your following turn. So the choice is make a airfield/port attack on a specfic target and make no naval strikes or risk attacking the wrong base, but be ready to launch strikes aganst TF.
If the enemy TF involved have radar your going to get a counter strike back down the path your strike.

There are several things players of UV take for granted that they should not.

First When an enemy TF enters one of your base hexes and you have a surface combat TF there or on reaction in range there is going to be a surface battle. Sometimes in UV the program muffs this and no combat occurs.
In UV sometimes one side makes a strike on enemy aircombat TF and no strike responds. The TF is set to naval strike and in range. (A TF not in range to launch will normally move 1 or 2 hexes to get into range even if set to "do not react" because the TF is being hit the TF commander reacts so he can respond. The point is in UV if you launch a strike and the enemy is in in range of their ac they are going to launch back. The same is true in WITP. The only exceptions are if the missions for the airgroups have been changed to other then Naval Attack primary.



herbieh -> RE: Midway (3/31/2004 10:56:51 PM)

This whole thread has a familiar feel, was waiting for a certain couple of people to start yelling, "the games broken!", we must be getting close to Beta now, any time soon expect " its really broken, I wont be buying it, your all wrong "argument thread to start[8|]



Mr.Frag -> RE: Midway (3/31/2004 11:04:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: herbieh

This whole thread has a familiar feel, was waiting for a certain couple of people to start yelling, "the games broken!", we must be getting close to Beta now, any time soon expect " its really broken, I wont be buying it, your all wrong "argument thread to start[8|]


Ain't that the truth! [:D]



mdiehl -> RE: Midway (3/31/2004 11:16:48 PM)

Indeed it does have a familiar sound. Testing indicates that someone accidently slipped an atomic bomb into Japan's oob in 1941. Someone points out the obvious flaw. Axis Fanboys leap from their seats shouting to cover the sounds of the objection. "Ship it now! Ship it now! This is exactly the best simulation that can be expected!"

Following that will come the inevitable 'Well, if Japan can't have an atomic bomb in 1941, then all you have done is scripted the game. If you don't want any deviation from history, why not just read a book?' fallacy.



Damien Thorn -> RE: Game Fixes (3/31/2004 11:19:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi you have to change mission back to naval attack on your following turn. So the choice is make a airfield/port attack on a specfic target and make no naval strikes or risk attacking the wrong base, but be ready to launch strikes aganst TF.
If the enemy TF involved have radar your going to get a counter strike back down the path your strike.


Are you saying that a CV set for base attack that itself gets attacked will launch a counter-strike if it has radar? That would be a HUGE advantage if it only applies to radar-equiped task forces. I would think any Cv that is attacked in the morning phase would try to launch a counter-strike at least in the afternoon phase no matter what it's primary mission was. Either that or try to get the hell out of there.



Damien Thorn -> RE: Midway (3/31/2004 11:23:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Indeed it does have a familiar sound. Testing indicates that someone accidently slipped an atomic bomb into Japan's oob in 1941. Someone points out the obvious flaw. Axis Fanboys leap from their seats shouting to cover the sounds of the objection. "Ship it now! Ship it now! This is exactly the best simulation that can be expected!"




Or those people who will scream and complain when the beta testers report that the Japanese actually shot down an allied plane because everybody knows even a Brester Buffalo is superior to anything the pathetic Japanese could ever make.

mdiehl, you'd probably better not even read any AARs Mogami writes involving Midway. I'm not sure how your health is but I'm already concerned for your blood pressure. [;)]



Mr.Frag -> RE: Game Fixes (3/31/2004 11:24:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi you have to change mission back to naval attack on your following turn. So the choice is make a airfield/port attack on a specfic target and make no naval strikes or risk attacking the wrong base, but be ready to launch strikes aganst TF.
If the enemy TF involved have radar your going to get a counter strike back down the path your strike.


Are you saying that a CV set for base attack that itself gets attacked will launch a counter-strike if it has radar? That would be a HUGE advantage if it only applies to radar-equiped task forces. I would think any Cv that is attacked in the morning phase would try to launch a counter-strike at least in the afternoon phase no matter what it's primary mission was. Either that or try to get the hell out of there.


If you set a specific target, you will NOT have any naval strike missions and die. The potential of course is that you actually kill a lot of the enemy's strike group because you had a huge cap over your head ... works both ways.



mdiehl -> RE: Game Fixes (3/31/2004 11:28:04 PM)

quote:

mdiehl, you'd probably better not even read any AARs Mogami writes involving Midway. I'm not sure how your health is but I'm already concerned for your blood pressure.


Relax, that's what the pills I take are for. I don't mind posting here in contradiction to the general pro-Axis propaganda. Given the design trends, such as the recent at-start USN naval aviator EXP upgrade, I (or somone like me) seem to be winning the arguments where it counts. [8D]



byron13 -> RE: Game Fixes (4/1/2004 3:40:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

If the enemy TF involved have radar your going to get a counter strike back down the path your strike.



I suppose the cracks about waiting for the inevitable "the game is broken" comment is directed at me. Fair enough.

I am disappointed to hear from Mogami that, if both sides are set to naval attack, both sides automatically launch even if only one side has spotted the other. Not necessarily true in real life. Even if the surprised force is equipped with radar and has the time to launch down the radar track, it will take two hours for that strike to reach the original launch point of the inbound force. By then the targeted carriers could have moved 40 or more miles, making an actual strike against those carriers highly unlikely. The blind counterstrike force has the problem of not only knowing where its target may have moved laterally in the past two hours but also how far away it is/was. You end up having to search a box of - what? - 80 miles by 150 miles? On limited fuel? Good luck.

I think the more accurate modeling is a simple one: you can't attack an opposing force unless they're spotted - regardless of whether you're being attacked or not. I can't comment on the spotting algorithm, but if you don't know where the opponent is, you shouldn't be allowed to attack him. Your spotter craft get shot down by CAP? Tough. It may be cruel in some cases, but it seems less unrealistic than automatically allowing a full strength counterstrike against an enemy you didn't know was there. It virtually eliminates the possibility of a Midway-type encounter.

As for the game being broken, I won't say it. It would take more than this for me to say the game is broken. I am amazed at how much consideration has been put into the game. There may be some balancing issues that may not yet be realized, but the game sounds amazing.



pasternakski -> RE: Game Fixes (4/1/2004 3:47:33 AM)

I remember 'way back in 1965, a debate emerged in the Avalon Hill General over "Rule 13" in the game called Midway. Rule 13 required you to disclose the location of your carriers whenever you executed an airstrike against the enemy, notwithstanding whether you had actually been detected. The commentary was something like, "Spruance to Nagumo ... Spruance to Nagumo ... How'd you like them apples? Well, rule 13 says I have to tell you that my carriers are at coordinates X,Y. Spruance out." The critic's point was summed up as, "Take rule 13, stick in in an old Brewster Buffalo, and let it fend for itself."

The more things change, the more they stay the same.



byron13 -> RE: Game Fixes (4/1/2004 3:56:06 AM)

Ah, yes. AH's Midway. Surround the Atago with as much flak as you can. First game I ever played.



bradfordkay -> RE: Yorktown (4/1/2004 8:44:24 AM)

quote:

5. Collisions. They happened alot. That's my point. And not just in the IJN. If the originally proposed massive bombardment TF comprised of Godzilla, 6 IJN BBs, Xerxes Army, a dozen CAs, and sixty plus DDs tried to get in range to pound Midway, they'd HAPPEN. It's almost a dead certainty.



Do we know how many collisions there were off Normandy on the night of June 5-6, 1944?

Yes, the chance of collision exists every time a naval force puts to sea. To conclude that any operation is invalid just because the chance of collsion exists in that operation rather stretches any point. Most military plans include the idea of acceptable loss. A massive bombardment force including all the available DDs is not likely to be chosen. You still need to keep many back with rest of the fleet for defensive purposes. I would probably try a force of a few cruisers with about a dozen destroyers. Yes, I believe that if a bombardment TF could reach Midway without serious loss (undecided here) that it would likely put an end to any effective resistance from the air units based there. A few a/c would probably still be able to fly the next day and cause some damage, but I don't believe that it would be enough to turn the tide against the invasion TF that was sent on this operation.

This would cause the US CVs to intervene, which is what the Japanese plan called for (though slightly ahead of schedule). Would the 4 CVs included have been enough against the 3 US ones? Tough call.

All I can say is that I patiently (so far!) await the chance to try all the operations discussed here.



Speedysteve -> RE: Yorktown (4/1/2004 12:57:55 PM)

My two cents.......

I too think it is a little unrealistic that a CV TF will automatically send a raid against the opposing CV TF if just attacked. Surely the opposing TF would have to be spotted first to allow a strike to find it?

I am not saying the game is majorly broken just a minor point on reality.

Regards,

Steven



mogami -> CV battles (4/1/2004 1:02:21 PM)

Hi, In all of WW2 there were no cases of CV launching a strike against enemy CV where that enemy did not launch a strike in return.



Speedysteve -> RE: CV battles (4/1/2004 2:06:06 PM)

Did the opposing CV's always know where each other was before striking or did they generally launch in the hope of finding?

Regards,

Steven



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8867188