RE: This is rediculous!!!

RE: This is rediculous!!! (Full Version)

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

Message

Radzy -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 9:33:22 AM)
How does the AAR data correspond to real loses on Your ships' screen? Remember, that if You have FOW active, action report are rarely fully true...

Caltone -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 12:26:36 PM)
If you run historical 1st turn, I think many of the Zeros are set to airfield attack when you make your moves on Dec 8th. I always change it, perhaps in running the combat resolution they're not set that way and it just shows up on the Dec 8th turn. I've always played historical 1st turn and haven't had anywhere near that many losses.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 1:03:32 PM)
Were Captains Ben Afleck and Josh Hartnett in the mix? That might expain this...quadruple aces when surprised and they still manage to pork a nurse![:D]

kev_uk -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 2:12:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: von Murrin quote: ORIGINAL: MadDawg That doesnt explain why so many zeros are being lost though... A fighter on airfield attack is carrying bombs. They get slaughtered unless they have an escort. Did the Zero carry any bombs? I didnt think it did, but maybe wrong.

Pascal_slith -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 2:41:41 PM)
A simulation analysis by 2by3 of the Pearl Harbor attack should be able to generate a statistical distribution of results. They should perhaps run this to see what it looks like.

Speedysteve -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 3:21:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Were Captains Ben Afleck and Josh Hartnett in the mix? That might expain this...quadruple aces when surprised and they still manage to pork a nurse![:D] LOL[:D]

byron13 -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 3:35:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: von Murrin How much of that was air-to-air? You have rediculous numbers of damaged aircraft, and that reads as flak to me.[&:] My thoughts too. His kills go down when he increases the escort because there are fewer planes strafing, i.e., the kills he has are generally not air-to-air but air-to-ground. Despite increased escort, his losses do not drop because the bulk of the losses are from ground-to-air and not air-to-air weapons. Do you have variability turned on?

worr -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 5:54:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadDawg That doesnt explain why so many zeros are being lost though... Lost to what? If they are air to air losses, sure. But my guess is that at 100 feet doing your bomb run most of your losses are to AA. I don't do 100 foot attacks until a field is surpressed, even if you do have the surprise. Worr, out

Nikademus -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 6:14:21 PM)
in case noone's noticed yet.......2 or 3 of the CV's start the scenerio with their Zero groups set to "Fighter sweep" and will as a result, strafe the airfields at low altitude. Due to PH's AA level, this is often costly and will greatly inflate your losses and damages First thing i always do when starting my Turn 1 is i reset all Zero's on KB to "escort" Those crack pilots are too valuable to be wasted strafing an already devastated airfield. As such, i've rarely lost more than a half dozen Zeros in most cases

Damien Thorn -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 6:41:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tanaka good point. but you would still think i would have less losses on my side from air combat if im escorting at 15000 ft rather than sweeping at 100 ft. I believe setting for sweep at 100 feet means that the fighters will fly to target, engage any enemy planes in air to air combat and THEN drop down to 100 feet to strafe. They don't fly there at 100 feet.

mdiehl -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 6:41:42 PM)
quote: A result like this is surely a case for a re-start..., but what about when it goes the other way? Does the Japanese Player graciously allow a re-start? Or resist because "the Allies are going to win anyway?' Right you are. That is indeed the question. And when does the "restart" stop? If Kido Butai gets bushwacked by 2 US CVs on 8 December does the Japanese player throw in the towel?

kaleun -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 7:31:06 PM)
I have to agree with Mdiehl. If that is the way the dice rolled, then that is the way it is. Sure a poor showing at Pearl will hinder Japan, but, Are the allies going to restart, if the results are worse than they think it should be?

Charles2222 -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 8:30:10 PM)
My goodness, they even got the Dave's, Jake's, and Pete's for Pete's sake! IO don't think I've ever seen recon/floats attacked from TF1 on that turn. The flak can be almost as bad as that on occasion. Good thing they weren't ready for that attack[8\|].

Charles2222 -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 8:55:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Caltone If you run historical 1st turn, I think many of the Zeros are set to airfield attack when you make your moves on Dec 8th. I always change it, perhaps in running the combat resolution they're not set that way and it just shows up on the Dec 8th turn. I've always played historical 1st turn and haven't had anywhere near that many losses. The editor reveals them for what they are, namely that they're as you see them on the 18th. Two Kate squadrons are attacking airbases if you can believe that. What's really bad about those 'surprise' attacks that somehow have all of PH manning flak guns is that sometimes some the Kates don't attack at all.

Capt Cliff -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 9:24:17 PM)
Each fighter should have a inherent fighter bomber value! A fighter with a zero FB value would strafe, if it can carry bombs it attacks. A Zero I don't believe carried bomb's, ergo if set to attack an airfield it would strafe and not bomb and therefore would not be vernable to CAP especially during a surprise attack. If the surprise rule was in effect they would catch the CAP scrambling and nail them on take-off. Also wouldn't a fighter squadron on airfield attack leave a flight or two on top cover? That would be basic squadron tactics. The top cover would then jetison their bombs if the squadron is jumped by CAP, if no CAP they hit the airfield or target. This attack sequence does not seem to be modelled correctly.

ravinhood -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 9:31:43 PM)
quote: "the Allies are going to win anyway?' And just what makes you so sure the allies are going to win anyway? This is a recreation, not a movie, ahistorical outcomes could prevent the allies from winning and Japan becoming superior throughout the Pacific, just sink those carriers and the allies are at the mercy of the Japanese supreme powah! ;)

Tanaka -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 10:50:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus in case noone's noticed yet.......2 or 3 of the CV's start the scenerio with their Zero groups set to "Fighter sweep" and will as a result, strafe the airfields at low altitude. Due to PH's AA level, this is often costly and will greatly inflate your losses and damages First thing i always do when starting my Turn 1 is i reset all Zero's on KB to "escort" Those crack pilots are too valuable to be wasted strafing an already devastated airfield. As such, i've rarely lost more than a half dozen Zeros in most cases aahhh yes but if you look at the two posts i did one with zeros all set to sweep at 100 ft and one with zeros all set to escort at 15000 feet. i lost more zeros escorting than sweeping.

Tanaka -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 10:52:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: byron13 quote: ORIGINAL: von Murrin How much of that was air-to-air? You have rediculous numbers of damaged aircraft, and that reads as flak to me.[&:] My thoughts too. His kills go down when he increases the escort because there are fewer planes strafing, i.e., the kills he has are generally not air-to-air but air-to-ground. Despite increased escort, his losses do not drop because the bulk of the losses are from ground-to-air and not air-to-air weapons. Do you have variability turned on? good points. no variability.

Tanaka -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 10:57:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins Definitely pretty bizarre - I've never seen that but from what you say you also had no escort. How many kills were air to air and how many due to flak? Moral of the story: Assign at least a little escort. Regards, - Erik during the turn i had 74 air to air losses and 94 losses to flak

jleinawe -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 11:00:44 PM)
You have to love those torpedo hits on the USS Pennsylvania.

Mr.Frag -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 11:02:47 PM)
You sent 400 aircraft against PH with no escort and are complaining about only loosing 150ish? [X(] Somehow, I think we should be complaining that they didn't build a "qualified for command" test into the game before letting you issue orders! [:D]

Nikademus -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 11:09:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tanaka aahhh yes but if you look at the two posts i did one with zeros all set to sweep at 100 ft and one with zeros all set to escort at 15000 feet. i lost more zeros escorting than sweeping. Hmmm.......any chance you had the AI diff set to very hard?

mavraam -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 11:11:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kaleun I have to agree with Mdiehl. If that is the way the dice rolled, then that is the way it is. Sure a poor showing at Pearl will hinder Japan, but, Are the allies going to restart, if the results are worse than they think it should be? I'd have to say that in a PBEM game, restart conditions should be pre-negotiated. Some sort of boundaries set for the PH results to make sure no one gets completely ripped off. I mean who wants to play a game that may take months to complete if the outcome is effectively decided by unrealistically one-sided results on the first turn. And keep in mind, these results may not be completely unrealistic, just un-historic. One could make a case that the results at Midway were very unlikely considering the relative strength of the two forces. OTOH, if you're playing against the AI, all bets are off! [:D] Bad first turn? Too bad, its just a fricken AI, just makes it more of a challenge.

koolio -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 11:17:37 PM)
The results don't look to bad. Its obviousily anti aircraft defences / ground fire were shooting the most planes down from when you went from ground attack to air attack with the fighters and the losses dropping drasticially. A fair portion of your fighter losses could still be blamed on AA fire from bouncing lower allied fighters scrambling who go hide by the AA almost just like happens in ww2online currently when they have a higher energy based plane jumping them from high up and in the case of the zero's here who can also out turn the allied planes by a lot. So slower lower allied planes being bounced here would be like shooting ducks in a barrel.

Tanaka -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 11:32:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: Tanaka aahhh yes but if you look at the two posts i did one with zeros all set to sweep at 100 ft and one with zeros all set to escort at 15000 feet. i lost more zeros escorting than sweeping. Hmmm.......any chance you had the AI diff set to very hard? nope historical

Nikademus -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 11:34:38 PM)
what star were you born under? (and i hope it isn't the same one as me!) [;)]

Tanaka -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 11:35:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag You sent 400 aircraft against PH with no escort and are complaining about only loosing 150ish? [X(] Somehow, I think we should be complaining that they didn't build a "qualified for command" test into the game before letting you issue orders! [:D] oh i agree you always need escort!!! but i figured the one time in the game where escort its not as important is the suprise attack turn 1. hardly no cap.

Mr.Frag -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/8/2004 11:51:25 PM)
quote: oh i agree you always need escort!!! but i figured the one time in the game where escort its not as important is the suprise attack turn 1. hardly no cap. True for most other bases, but PH has a large number of fighters.

Tanaka -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/9/2004 12:24:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus what star were you born under? (and i hope it isn't the same one as me!) [;)] ummm i was born in july. i have know idea what star that is? you mean that i am a leo?

Nikademus -> RE: This is rediculous!!! (7/9/2004 12:40:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tanaka quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus what star were you born under? (and i hope it isn't the same one as me!) [;)] ummm i was born in july. i have know idea what star that is? you mean that i am a leo? *WHEW!* [;)]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.544922