RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 5:57:00 PM

PeteG662

Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline

Elf,

It appears the P-39s and P-400s did fairly well considering their performance restriction at altitude. How different is this from WitP stock where I believe it was stated that 10'K was the break point? Does AE take this into account more or less than stock WitP?

Thanks,
Pete

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 181

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 7:24:07 PM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

Why are there withdraw dates for Japanese Airgroups?

(in reply to PeteG662)

Post #: 182

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 7:25:32 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

Elf,

It appears the P-39s and P-400s did fairly well considering their performance restriction at altitude. How different is this from WitP stock where I believe it was stated that 10'K was the break point? Does AE take this into account more or less than stock WitP?

Thanks,
Pete

Much more. There are four altitude range bands with different mvr modifiers, and a P-39 at its maximum altitude can just about fly straight ahead.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to PeteG662)

Post #: 183

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 7:26:22 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Why are there withdraw dates for Japanese Airgroups?

Because they have to be withdrawn. Plenty of Jap air units were withdrawn historically and reformed under different names.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 184

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 7:31:09 PM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Why are there withdraw dates for Japanese Airgroups?

Because they have to be withdrawn. Plenty of Jap air units were withdrawn historically and reformed under different names.

So the player has no control over this?

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 185

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 7:34:35 PM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

Destroyed Air Groups, are they reformed and come back?

Is this true for all sides (US, Brit, AZ, Japan, etc.)?

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 186

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 7:39:52 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Why are there withdraw dates for Japanese Airgroups?

Because they have to be withdrawn. Plenty of Jap air units were withdrawn historically and reformed under different names.

So the player has no control over this?

If he wants to pay the PP's for it...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 187

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 8:08:48 PM

PeteG662

Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline

Terminus,

I understand the altitude bands. In WitP stock in the manual (I think) it talks about 10'K being the "ceiling" for performance based on no supercharger for the engine in the P-39 and P-400. Elf had them flying at 15'K and they seemed to do relatively well at that altitude. In AE was the 10'K changed to a higher level? What else would explain the relatively decent results in combat against the Zeroes? Just curious here.....

Thanks,
Pete

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 188

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 8:09:57 PM

vonSchnitter

Posts: 310
Joined: 7/2/2004
From: Germany - still
Status: offline

Hi Gents,

Despite the heavy AAA, I am still undeterred.

And since the lead chap has a prob understanding my comments, " Von ... I am not clear as to the meaning of most of your words - though I'll admit there are lots of them. Regardless, one good way to start out on this forum is to listen more and talk less - then maybe you will get the hang of things."

- I will put my concerns into simple questions:

Are Jap CVEs - and some CVLs - restricted in terms of launching aerial torpedo strikes ?
How is the Single CV TV axiom of Witp adressed ?
To explain: If the KB with 6 fleet CVs faces two USN CV TFs in the same hex with one CV each - what is going to happen ?
Right - the KB will most likely concentrate on one TF and take it out - leaving the other to retalliate - most likely hitting a number of IJN CVs.

Under these conditions, the "coordination" bonus of the IJN - according to the manual - is turned against the KB - unless the KB is split up. Which is hardly sustainable for the IJN considering the number of bottoms available.

There is no question the USN used single CV TFs. The problem is using more than one TF in one hex - enjoing mutual support - which did not work early on.

The last thing: Does AE adress the change of doctrine in strike composition as in practise by the USN ?
The USN doctrine negated the need of fighters to go with a strike well to the end of 42 - in stark contrast of the IJN.

Just to make sure you get my drift:

My question is: Has the IJN to face a somewhat arbitrary mixture of early war practices and late war (44+) abilities of the USN or not.
If that is the case, fine by me. Even if a question like this may take down the "merits" of AE and the people behind it by a couple of "Pegs" - since having no adequate answer to the basic issues of Carrier warfare does not help much.

A lot of technicallities is nice, sure.

Now hack away.
Cheers

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 189

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 8:10:45 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

Elf,

It appears the P-39s and P-400s did fairly well considering their performance restriction at altitude. How different is this from WitP stock where I believe it was stated that 10'K was the break point? Does AE take this into account more or less than stock WitP?

Thanks,
Pete

Yes, Pete they did perform fairly well, but we can draw some conclusions based on the facts of the engagements.

In there first actions the P-39s and P-400s benefit from effective radar support and the fact that the Zeroes they face are on Escort. Not that being on Escort is the reason the Zeroes suffered though it certainly contributed.

Here's why. The Rikko units are raiding at 16k', and by virtue of this the Zeroes are actually not far from the Airacobra's optimum performance band. Additionally this forces the Escort to fly at altitudes that give the CAP an advantage. When Radar detection checks are made and passed the CAP climbs to an altitude that would be considered optimal for interception. They get to do this for the entire time the raid plods along from 1st detection. More often than not, plenty of time to be in a good position.

If you go back and look at some of the "Aftershocks" post, you'll note one engagement where 3 P-400s are downed for no loss to the Shoho Zekes. Here the P-400 is at the disadvantage, with no Radar support and little warning of the Zeroes in a superior position.

Historically the Iron Dog suffered from a bad rap. Don't get me wrong, it was a dog but it DID have some advantages. Some pilots though it a hair better than the P-40, and it was faster and more capable against the Zero at lower Altitudes (<15k') than it was higher. That doesn't mean that if it had and altitude advantage that it couldn't make use of it. It could, as long as they didn't stick around to see what happened after they made their attacks.

They also made their "bad" name when the USAAC was still learning the hard lessons about the Zero that so benefited the P-38, P-47, and P-51 later in the war.

They were bad, but they still held the line and did their share of damage...

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to PeteG662)

Post #: 190

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 8:22:08 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Why are there withdraw dates for Japanese Airgroups?

Because they have to be withdrawn. Plenty of Jap air units were withdrawn historically and reformed under different names.

So the player has no control over this?

If he wants to pay the PP's for it...

Sneaky.

If the unit withdraws, what becomes of the planes and pilots?

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 191

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 8:33:30 PM

vonSchnitter

Posts: 310
Joined: 7/2/2004
From: Germany - still
Status: offline

Oh,
in case you chaps choose to ignore my questions - which is fine by me in fact. And speaks volumes ..

I manged to sink three R-Class RN BBs plus Hermes - heavy damage - off the Andamans with my 2 IJN CVEs for the most part in early 42 in a RIP CHS PBM.

Pretty please. Can I manage the same in AE ?

Cheers

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 192

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 8:38:38 PM

PeteG662

Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline

Elf,

Thanks. So the altitude that the P-39 and P-400 were optimal at moved from the original 10K in WitP to about 15K now in AE? I understand that there is now a band in AE versus an altitude in WitP.

Thanks,
Pete

(in reply to vonSchnitter)

Post #: 193

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 8:39:42 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

- I will put my concerns into simple questions:

quote:

Are Jap CVEs - and some CVLs - restricted in terms of launching aerial torpedo strikes ?

Not at the time the build being featured in the AAR was used. We are aware of the issue and have to sort out the specifics. It may be a patch issue, as this was the way things were in stock and was not a priority for AE 1.0. Several hard decisions had to be made, and continue to be made. If you get my drift.

quote:

How is the Single CV TV axiom of Witp adressed ?
To explain: If the KB with 6 fleet CVs faces two USN CV TFs in the same hex with one CV each - what is going to happen ?
Right - the KB will most likely concentrate on one TF and take it out - leaving the other to retalliate - most likely hitting a number of IJN CVs.

For us to completely remove this "axiom", we'd have to have evidence that the axiom was incorrect. As in, it never happened. Which it did, at Santa Cruz. Anyway, I get the impression you think this is a hard-coded feature. It isn't.

quote:

The last thing: Does AE adress the change of doctrine in strike composition as in practise by the USN ?
The USN doctrine negated the need of fighters to go with a strike well to the end of 42 - in stark contrast of the IJN.

Doctrine and reality are two different things. Most WWII pre-war doctrine was just that. Pre-war. You are correct to say that USN doctrine did not guarantee nor require F4Fs to Escort strikes. In reality they did. In some cases not very well. In AE they can fail coordination checks as easily as any other raid.

quote:

Just to make sure you get my drift:

I get your drift, and I am also getting the language barrier. I'll do my best to answer your questions.

quote:

My question is: Has the IJN to face a somewhat arbitrary mixture of early war practices and late war (44+) abilities of the USN or not.

Yes and No. This is another facet of the game that needs more attention, but is more due to broader changes that took priority. We focused mainly on things that would have positive effects across the widest area of the game.

What we do have now are upgradable CV Airwing configurations based on date. In other words, when a date passes that marks a change in VF size from 18 to 27 or 36 planes the player can select that configuration and fill out his squadron appropriately. There were several great ideas that had to be omitted due to scope limitations.

quote:

If that is the case, fine by me. Even if a question like this may take down the "merits" of AE and the people behind it by a couple of "Pegs" - since having no adequate answer to the basic issues of Carrier warfare does not help much.

Again, I'm fully aware of a possible language barrier, but it's comments like this that do not win friends and influence people...just a word to the wise.

I happen to think the AE team has done some amazing work. There are a lot of smart former players who have put a lot of time and energy into this project for exactly zero reward to this point. Over 2 yrs in some cases.

You said something in one of your previous posts that bears a response..."get it right the 1st time". Well, for those of us on the AE team this IS the 1st time. None of us were involved in the original WitP. We were sitting where you are now, twiddling our thumbs in high anticipation as imminent customers.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to vonSchnitter)

Post #: 194

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 8:44:38 PM

cantona2

Posts: 3749
Joined: 5/21/2007
From: Gibraltar
Status: offline

touche Elf, touche

_____________________________

1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 195

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 8:49:03 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

Elf,

Thanks. So the altitude that the P-39 and P-400�were optimal at moved from the original 10K in WitP to about 15K now in AE? I understand that there is now a band in AE versus�an altitude in WitP.

Thanks,
Pete

Correct, but it wasn't just moved. Altitude-based Air Combat is a feature of the game where as before there were just a few hard coded bonuses and penalties for a few A/C.

The Zero bonus and the P-39 penalty...

Those are gone and now we have the 5 altitude bands with which to attempt to replicate the dynamics of Air Combat across all altitudes and performance envelopes. Obviously there could be a MUCH more complex simulation of this, but for this type of game there is a point of diminishing returns.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to PeteG662)

Post #: 196

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 8:54:26 PM

PeteG662

Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline

Thanks. Understood. It will be interesting.

Pete

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 197

Dispositions 6 May 42 - 9/25/2008 9:00:59 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

The USN is scattered between 4 AFs in the South Pacific. Some units are likely to be whole enough to rebuild on map. Here is the disposition.

The violence of the destruction of CARDIV 5 left little opportunity for the two Elite Airgroups to escape. As is typical the main unit always goes down with the ship, thus the higher number of AirGroups lost. We'll see if this plays out when Yorktown slips under...

The Zuikaku Zeroes will likely be disbanded into the Tainan Ku S-2 at Rabaul.

The state of the three remaining CVs:

As you can see the Lexington is in pretty good condition for a ship reported to have taken 6 Torpedoes. Coincidentally the same number Yorktown took. I intend to see if Yorktown can be saved. Already 3 Float Damage point have been added...

Rock Stars or Goat? The Shoho Air Group reported 4 of the 6 Torpedo hits on Lexington...

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to PeteG662)

Post #: 198

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 9:04:37 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2

Write off's

Is there a difference in game terms?

As write offs accumulate they actually may add Aircraft BACK to the unit or increase repair rates. This simulates Mechanics cobbling several Aircraft together or stripping parts from hulks as required to keep the runners on line.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to String)

Post #: 199

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 9:16:30 PM

vonSchnitter

Posts: 310
Joined: 7/2/2004
From: Germany - still
Status: offline

Thanks TheElf,

language barriers or not. I sincerely appriciate your response. Excuse my spelling.
Believe it or not - I have been a part of volunteer development groups before. And the pet peeves everyone has ..
And because of that, some "applauding noise" from the fences - touche or not - is well...
So much for making friends or influencing things.

Apart from the CVE/CVL issue - some rumors exist about RHS managing notwithstanding - I cannot confirm.

There is the big question of mutual support of multiple TFs in a single hex. Plus some sort of target "fixation". (like BBs as bomb magnets). The "death star" from UV.
If AE is not adressing the issues - fine by me. State it. It is not a statement of failure but of accomplishment in other areas.

I hope you do not mind, if I utter my expectation, that AE would address the singlehex/multiple TF issue with a very high priority. Because we are talking a naval asset based war ?

And yes, I am a bystander.
Cheers

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 200

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 9:17:41 PM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

Belt armor on Lady lex is 175, Yorktowns only 100. This could have some effect on Torpedo damage deflection.

_____________________________

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 201

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 9:21:28 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

Thanks TheElf,

language barriers or not. I sincerely appriciate your response. Excuse my spelling.
Believe it or not - I have been a part of volunteer development groups before. And the pet peeves everyone has ..
And because of that, some "applauding noise" from the fences - touche or not - is well...
So much for making friends or influencing things.

Apart from the CVE/CVL issue - some rumors exist about RHS managing notwithstanding - I cannot confirm.

There is the big question of mutual support of multiple TFs in a single hex. Plus some sort of target "fixation". (like BBs as bomb magnets). The "death star" from UV.
If AE is not adressing the issues - fine by me. State it. It is not a statement of failure but of accomplishment in other areas.

I hope you do not mind, if I utter my expectation, that AE would address the singlehex/multiple TF issue with a very high priority. Because we are talking a naval asset based war ?

And yes, I am a bystander.
Cheers

Copy all Von...sometimes, no matter how much we want to change something, it just can't be done within the bounds of a deadline. And as I said we started BIG, and worked to SMALL. We haven't gotten to some of the BIG items yet, but we did get most if not all of the BROAD ones.

And we are not done. We will continue to improve through regular patches and honest critical thinking and dialogue with the community. After all we are players too...

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to vonSchnitter)

Post #: 202

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 9:22:17 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Belt armor on Lady lex is 175, Yorktowns only 100. This could have some effect on Torpedo damage deflection.

indeed...

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Barb)

Post #: 203

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 9:54:41 PM

vonSchnitter

Posts: 310
Joined: 7/2/2004
From: Germany - still
Status: offline

Once again,

you are very patient and understanding - and I appologize for my earlier - quite personal in retrospect - attacks.
But I mistook some of the thread as a cover-up. Which it aint. On the contrary - you exposed some of the issues quite candidly in the latest posts. (in my rather dim lights)

Sorry, I just jumped the gun.

Considering the developments, your posts just accentuate my concerns.

I am not quite the diplomate

but I am good a stirring a pot or two.

A Gun on hire, so to speak ---

by the way: the "v" in "von" is not supposed to be a capital - so much for - a big pond. If you care for a proper abbrevation it would be "vS" or "v.S."

< Message edited by vonSchnitter -- 9/25/2008 10:00:01 PM >

_____________________________

Remember that the first law of motion is to look where you're going. A man with a stiff neck has no place in an airplane.
Technical Manual No. 1-210, Elementary Flying, War Department, Washington,

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 204

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 10:12:28 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

Gday Elf,

You pic of Enterprise's damage shows a pitiful AA fitout, is this just an example and not the real armament??

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to vonSchnitter)

Post #: 205

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 10:20:21 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

By "Enterprise", do you mean Lexington or Yorktown? Their AA fits are correct and final, but if you're talking about the Lexington, notice the scroll-bar.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 206

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/25/2008 11:12:15 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Plus some sort of target "fixation". (like BBs as bomb magnets).

As they should, it worked that way in Santa Cruz if i am not mistaken(or was another Battle where american planes spent considersble resources attacking surface combat ships instead of carriers) . There are a lot of circunstances, like for example not finding the target, that makes attacking lesser targets a reality.

_____________________________

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 207

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/26/2008 4:12:42 AM

erstad

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline

Elf, just to confirm - we can now disband carrier airgroups/fragments into other groups? You've mentioned twice that you would do that with the IJN fragments which, of course, was not possible in WiTP.

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 208

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/26/2008 4:53:41 AM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad

Elf, just to confirm - we can now disband carrier airgroups/fragments into other groups? You've mentioned twice that you would do that with the IJN fragments which, of course, was not possible in WiTP.

It is always possible in WITP, just only on dry land, which is where those fragments are. You are right in that fragments can't disband while on board a CV, and I would 'reckon that's probably still the case. But they will disband on land.

_____________________________

(in reply to erstad)

Post #: 209

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea - 9/26/2008 5:22:39 AM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

Ship Damage - flooding, I see the Yorktown shows flooding of 92 (59) major. Will it sink of minor flood goes from 92 to 100, or does it only sink if major flooding goes to 100?

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 210