Larger squadrons or more squadrons? (Full Version)

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



Message

McNaughton -> Larger squadrons or more squadrons? (7/4/2004 4:53:54 AM)

I am faced with a dilemma. I have the Dutch airforce scattered about in many different small air squadrons. The question I have is, is it better to have a lot of small squadrons, or to group them together, disband them, and have a fewer number of larger squadrons?

For example, if I have 2 squadrons of 6 planes each at a base, will they be more/less/nochange effective than if I disbanded one squadron to leave just 1 squadron of 12 planes?



Raverdave -> RE: Larger squadrons or more squadrons? (7/4/2004 5:01:03 AM)

Your most pressing problem in the DEI is twofold.........1/ you have to cover a very large area and 2/ base support is rather thin. Therefore keep the squadrons as they are and mainly use them to keep tabs on where the IJN player is, ie use them in the search role rather than as bombers which they are somewhat poor at doing anyway. The reason that I am saying to use them as search aircraft is because unlike UV it is a bloody sight harder to actually find and track enemy TFs and information is one of your best weapons. If you can see what is coming for you early enough (say two turns out) then you are better able to have your surface units respond.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Larger squadrons or more squadrons? (7/4/2004 5:26:26 AM)

I operate under the NAT prinicipal ... many little annoying attacks end up collectively doing more then that one big knockout blow.

My reasoning is that it is more unlikely for someone to send a BB to close the airfield when only a few aircraft are flying from it. It also lures you into a sense of self confidence and you don't send as much to kill the place. End result theose few places keep flying and hitting for quite some time. [;)]



Onime No Kyo -> RE: Larger squadrons or more squadrons? (7/5/2004 11:25:27 AM)

Raver,

Whats the point of trying to defend the DEI if you have nothing to defend it with? The units that you have are p**s-weak and even if you find something for them to do, the mobility is zero (unless you want to have a few merchies do water taxi service). Is there something I dont know?



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Larger squadrons or more squadrons? (7/5/2004 6:50:53 PM)

DEI is going down regardless, but vs a human opponent, it is very vulnerable. Only 4 poorly trained regiments on Java, LCUs spread out in isolated bases etc. Timor is plausible but only is SRAs defence has succeeded into May/June 42...better to save as many units to cover the vulnerable northern OZ bases.

I have found the Martin 139s "very effective" AK/AP killers at 7000 ft in their original squadron size. 3-4 bombers tend to avoid CAP and get their licks in. Vildebeest and Swordfish squadrons inevitably end up in the DEI as they have limited range to escape to Burma if used for any length defending Singapore and there are more naval targets in DEI. Even those TVAs (ugly, ungainly beasts) have done sterling service. Key is to have enough recon planes in the air to spot IJ TFs so the bombers can be shuttled to engage what appears to be the least well escorted IJ TFs. Challenging and fun stuff![:D]



PeteG662 -> RE: Larger squadrons or more squadrons? (7/9/2004 7:01:11 PM)

I combine the Hawks and Demons into squadron size to defend the two most important points for me in DEI.....the others can stay spread out.....those little biplanes I put at the choke points with their 2 hex range



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.078125