Fast Question

Fast Question (Full Version)

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

Message

2ndACR -> Fast Question (4/16/2004 6:59:45 AM)
Have had the game since release. Have not played in a long while and trying to get back into it the last 3 weeks. I have noticed something that is pi*ing me off. My F4F-4 are at 99 morale basically no fatigue less than 10. The IJN has been attacking PM for 3 days with max effort. My carriers launch with just enough range for fighter escort (set at 60 cap) the IJN tears me up. My strike is a big one 16 F4F-4, 64 SBD. I score 2 hits only. Lose 8 F4F, 26 SBD. IJN loses 2 A6M2. They launch counter strike and it comes in waves. 1st wave: Cap 18 F4F 6 Kates unescorted 1 shot down no damaged. 2nd wave: Cap 16 F4F 1 A6M2, 16 Val, 6 Kate Losses: 1 F4F 1 Zero, 2 Val shot down 3rd wave: Cap 20 F4F 16 Zeros, 8 Val, 4 Kate Losses 2 F4F 3 zeros, 2 val I take 6 bomb hits on Lex I take 2 bomb hits and 2 torp on York Air to Air goes on for ever with hardly no combat. Many VF42 bounces bombers, but then A to A ends with hardly no damage done. Ie no engaement. At PM the P42 kittyhawks are at 50 morale and 45 fatigue but they shoot the Hll out of the IJN. Whats wrong with this picture? They engage like crazy and shot the IJN up for 3 days, yet my high morale low fatigue USN do not. Ok not a quick question. Using V2.30. Scen 19. 7 days into the scen. moved both carriers to Cairns and waited for my moment. Rested everybody on Carriers from the start. 7 days. PM has been in action since day 1 with only 1 days rest. I know it is near suicide to engage the IJN so soon, but I hate to give the IJN a free ride. Is there a problem with A to A that was lost in the hack attack? Anybody else seen something like this?

hithere -> RE: Fast Question (4/16/2004 7:19:36 AM)
acually i'm just like you...i have not played since about last aug. but decided to play a new gave to tide me over till WITP comes out. I had that happen at Lunga. The Saratoga, Lexington, and Wasp (might be the yorktown not the lex...i'm drawing a blank now) against the Ryuho and Shokaku. I did not lose any carriers but i did have to sent the Saratoga back to Pearl.....with all 3 of the carriers, 150 + aircraft, i got one hit with a dive bomber on the Ryuho and a couple on some destroyers....kinda frustrating...i have ver 2.3.....it does seem to me though that this goes about along with the first months of the other versions.

hithere -> RE: Fast Question (4/16/2004 7:32:21 AM)
It was not the Yorktown, That was sunk at midway..I am playing Yamamoto' s proficecy..profacy..profi...you know what I mean

lunario -> RE: Fast Question (4/16/2004 7:38:17 AM)
check your altitude of the CAP,maybe it is the problem that your fighter cann't engage the dive bombers as playing allied,I usually let the ijn carrier to use their strenth on my airfields,ports,or empty transports or SC TFs and then keep my carrier out of the normal range of their bomber.Of course my short range bomber can not reach them but at this distance the ijn attack comes up to be weak and most of the bombers are destroyed or damaged.though one or two of my carrier may be hit by about one or two bombs,these ones will not cause a lot of damage.Then the ijn lost most of its attack strenth and i switch the AC TFs to be react to enimy and chase them.After the strike to airfields,SC TF or transports and my AC TFs,the fighter's fatigue will be high and moral will be low.It is time to strike them back!! I use this method to kick four ijn CVs down to the bottom of the sea before july 42 and only get Yorktown with 35 system damage[:D]

2ndACR -> RE: Fast Question (4/16/2004 10:24:19 AM)
Sorry, I fly my cap at 15,000. The combat report says standard info Vals at 10,000 and kates at 100?. During the A to A phase I get ALOT of reports of diving on bombers, but no combat just the VF42 dives on bombers, VF2 dives on bombers over and over but they do not engage. Like I stated above, Morale at 90-99 and fatigue at less than 10. I can not figure out why my high morale and low fatigue units wont engage and yet my high fatigue and low morale units rip the IJN Vals and Kates to pieces. That is what drives me crazy.

fcooke -> RE: Fast Question (4/16/2004 1:10:15 PM)
I assume you're playing against the AI and it sounds to me like you might be playing on the 'hard' setting of difficulty. If this is the case you can expect all sorts of crazy results as the AI cheats in this mode.....

lunario -> RE: Fast Question (4/16/2004 2:17:06 PM)
maybe your fighter is just too high for them....it cost time to dive and your fighter may be intercepted by enemy fighter I think about 1000 or 2000 higher is enough

tsimmonds -> RE: Fast Question (4/16/2004 2:26:57 PM)
I have never noticed the AI to fly strike missions at any altitude other than 6000 ft. Whenever I play vs. the AI I set my cap at 9000 ft.

Rendova -> RE: Fast Question (4/16/2004 4:40:21 PM)
The Kates will make torpedo runs at 200FT but they fly to the target at 6000 feet so setting cap at 10,000 will work fine. And yes if you play at the harder realism settings the AI cheats and will kick your can in Air to Air combat (5 A6M2's take on 24 F4U's and shot down 16 etc) Another thing when attacking CV's and other large warships set you SBD's to 15,000 FT then they attack in waves of 9 instead of 4. This spreads out the flak and increases the chances of hit (more hits on less ships) which works real well on CV's

lunario -> RE: Fast Question (4/16/2004 6:18:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rendova The Kates will make torpedo runs at 200FT but they fly to the target at 6000 feet so setting cap at 10,000 will work fine. And yes if you play at the harder realism settings the AI cheats and will kick your can in Air to Air combat (5 A6M2's take on 24 F4U's and shot down 16 etc) Another thing when attacking CV's and other large warships set you SBD's to 15,000 FT then they attack in waves of 9 instead of 4. This spreads out the flak and increases the chances of hit (more hits on less ships) which works real well on CV's I just hate AI cheating....once i got about 80 F4Fs on CAP and intecept 110 A6M2 and some bombers...59 of my wildcats are shot down and 15 other are damaged...[X(][X(]

Rendova -> RE: Fast Question (4/16/2004 7:08:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lunario quote: ORIGINAL: Rendova The Kates will make torpedo runs at 200FT but they fly to the target at 6000 feet so setting cap at 10,000 will work fine. And yes if you play at the harder realism settings the AI cheats and will kick your can in Air to Air combat (5 A6M2's take on 24 F4U's and shot down 16 etc) Another thing when attacking CV's and other large warships set you SBD's to 15,000 FT then they attack in waves of 9 instead of 4. This spreads out the flak and increases the chances of hit (more hits on less ships) which works real well on CV's I just hate AI cheating....once i got about 80 F4Fs on CAP and intecept 110 A6M2 and some bombers...59 of my wildcats are shot down and 15 other are damaged...[X(][X(] The other problem with the Air to Air engine is that when you have large air battles, more then 200 total planes for example, the losses become unbeilievible, and you get wholesale slaughters.

2ndACR -> RE: Fast Question (4/16/2004 8:07:24 PM)
Actually, I am playing on Historical or Normal difficulty. Do not like the AI cheats. Would rather the IJN gets extra CV or units. Or more "devious" planning.

Oznoyng -> RE: Fast Question (4/16/2004 11:29:22 PM)
I'm pretty new to the game, but I've found that altitude settings make a difference in the air battles. The biggest benefit so far has been putting P-40's up a bit higher. I was taking lots of losses on P-40's, but they were continually climbing to engage. I bumped up their altitude and it seems that their speed plus dive lets them get the better end of the engagement more of the time. Because of their high altitude suckiness, that doesn't work on P-39D's and P-400's. I tried putting them at 3-4000 feet with the idea that they could dive and engage torpedo bombers, but they seem to climb to engage the escorts, lose horribly in the thin air above 10,000, and end up doing nothing against the bombers. I need to pay better attention to the combat reports on those, but I'm not sure there is a good way to deploy them as CAP that doesn't have them dying in droves. I am tempted to drop P-39's/P-400's as CAP altogether. Somehow, I'd like to team them up with TBD's offloaded from the carriers, low altitude LBA, or Beauforts and dictate the battle altitude by attacking somewhere rather than be dictated to by putting them up as CAP. They aren't horrible fighters from a manueverability, gun, and durability perspective, but all the Japs have to do is come in high to stack the deck in their favor. I figure if I can force the altitude of the engagement down lower, I can suck the Zeros into an engagement where the odds are less in their favor. I had some thoughts about putting the TBD's at PM, escorting them with P-39's, and trying to chew up some AP/AK. I must confess that I haven't got a lot of experience with my F4F's yet, since I have generally tried to keep them from getting involved in battles. :)

Larz6235 -> RE: Fast Question (4/17/2004 12:11:13 AM)
I too am fairly new to UV. Have had it for about a year and this is really my forth time playing it. I too have had the same thing happen with Experienced and low fatique pilots, who outnumber the IJN by 3 or 4 to 1. I have tried a new approach by setting my CAP at different operational height's. 8,000, 10,000, 12,000. Seem to help.

denisonh -> RE: Fast Question (4/17/2004 1:45:43 AM)
They are great as fighter bombers (Low level against airfields in particular). They also function well as CAP for ports out of Zero range but inside Betty/Nell range. THey are more than adequate to cover Townsville against raids as you move shipping in and out of harbor, leaving P-40s/F4Fs for cover of bases inside Zero range. The reach of Bettys and Nells will have them "popping up" at ports hitting CAPless TFs (to include Noumea if the Japanese have them at Lunga). A squadron or two of P-400/P-389s can discourage thet effectively enough. I also use them for night CAP at those vulnerable port to protect from intrusive Japanese night raids on ports as well. quote: ORIGINAL: Oznoyng I'm pretty new to the game, but I've found that altitude settings make a difference in the air battles. The biggest benefit so far has been putting P-40's up a bit higher. I was taking lots of losses on P-40's, but they were continually climbing to engage. I bumped up their altitude and it seems that their speed plus dive lets them get the better end of the engagement more of the time. Because of their high altitude suckiness, that doesn't work on P-39D's and P-400's. I tried putting them at 3-4000 feet with the idea that they could dive and engage torpedo bombers, but they seem to climb to engage the escorts, lose horribly in the thin air above 10,000, and end up doing nothing against the bombers. I need to pay better attention to the combat reports on those, but I'm not sure there is a good way to deploy them as CAP that doesn't have them dying in droves. I am tempted to drop P-39's/P-400's as CAP altogether. Somehow, I'd like to team them up with TBD's offloaded from the carriers, low altitude LBA, or Beauforts and dictate the battle altitude by attacking somewhere rather than be dictated to by putting them up as CAP. They aren't horrible fighters from a manueverability, gun, and durability perspective, but all the Japs have to do is come in high to stack the deck in their favor. I figure if I can force the altitude of the engagement down lower, I can suck the Zeros into an engagement where the odds are less in their favor. I had some thoughts about putting the TBD's at PM, escorting them with P-39's, and trying to chew up some AP/AK. I must confess that I haven't got a lot of experience with my F4F's yet, since I have generally tried to keep them from getting involved in battles. :)

mogami -> RE: Fast Question (4/17/2004 3:42:01 PM)
Hi, Who is in command of the CV TF? Also the early CV are understrength in fighters. My standard routine is to send all CV back to PH for AA upgrades at the start. (If I can't last 40 days without them I'm in real trouble) By the time they return they have built the airgroups and upgraded AA.

2ndACR -> RE: Fast Question (4/17/2004 6:53:40 PM)
Mitcher (sp?) is in command of allied CV. I know the groups are understrength, but I was wanting to get a quick lick in on a Trans TF if the IJN tried for GG. Secondary mission was to ambush IJN CVs after they strike PM and Buna for a couple of days. Figured if the IJN was tired after 3 days of strikes and taking damage from AA and CAP at PM, that I might just survive and maybe sink or hurt them.

mogami -> RE: Fast Question (4/17/2004 8:33:44 PM)
Hi, The AI sets CV airgroups to Naval Attack/Airfield. At start of turn it launches scouts and if no enemy TF in range it sends airfield attacks. If TF discovered it launches a strike. The two USN CV have something less then 40 fighters to both provide escort and fly CAP. Strikes that are intercepted by large numbers of fighters suffer disruption and have a harder time getting hits. You really need to have 1-1 escort versus CAP (more is better) If the IJN escorts outnumber USN CAP by a wide margin the IJN bombers do much better. Everyone has their own level of what is acceptable risk. For me 2 USN CV with undersized airgroups versus 3 or more IJN CV in IJN LBA range is way too risky. I send the CV back to PH. By the time they return I also have a few more. I prefer to operate 2 CV TF in the same hex with upgraded escorts. (So in the long scenarios as USA I send everything back to PH. The only exceptions are ships I use to evac NG. (scenario 19) (maybe scenario 17 against human not against AI) I don't like to take chances. (what stinks is even after waiting for 6 upgraded USN CV and escorts I sometimes still get slaughtered by IJN human)

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.562988