Ineffective PH attack?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Ineffective PH attack?

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 >> The War Room >> Ineffective PH attack?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 12:52:22 PM

Historiker

Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

I've seen a lot of "PH strike broken?" threads where everyone claims that the strikes are too effective.
Well, in 15 test runs of my scenario 2 PBEM, I never sank a single BB in PH. I didn't change anything with the KB and use the latest public patch.

Whats the reason?

Morning Air attack on Pearl Harbor , at 180,107

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 40 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 68
B5N2 Kate x 144
D3A1 Val x 126

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 3 destroyed, 22 damaged
D3A1 Val: 3 destroyed, 18 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Warhawk: 8 destroyed on ground
B-18A Bolo: 5 destroyed on ground
A-20A Havoc: 3 destroyed on ground
PBY-5 Catalina: 11 destroyed on ground
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed on ground
B-17D Fortress: 2 destroyed on ground
C-33: 1 destroyed on ground
SBD-1 Dauntless: 2 destroyed on ground
O-47A: 2 destroyed on ground
P-36A Mohawk: 2 destroyed on ground

Allied Ships
BB Pennsylvania, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
BB California, Bomb hits 5, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
BB Maryland, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 2, on fire
BB West Virginia, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
BB Oklahoma, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AR Vestal, Torpedo hits 1
BB Tennessee, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1
CL Phoenix, Bomb hits 1
BB Nevada, Torpedo hits 4, heavy damage
CL Honolulu, Torpedo hits 1
BB Arizona, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
xAKL Manini, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
CL Helena, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CL Raleigh, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AV Curtiss, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Reid, Bomb hits 1, on fire

Allied ground losses:
19 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Repair Shipyard hits 4
Airbase hits 56
Airbase supply hits 6
Runway hits 205
Port hits 21
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
11 x A6M2 Zero attacking from 100 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb
17 x D3A1 Val diving from 10000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
27 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
15 x A6M2 Zero attacking from 100 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb
24 x D3A1 Val diving from 10000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
24 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
4 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet
17 x D3A1 Val diving from 10000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
18 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
4 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet
12 x D3A1 Val diving from 10000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
9 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
City Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
25 x D3A1 Val diving from 10000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
27 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
8 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet
25 x D3A1 Val diving from 10000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
27 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
9 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
3 x A6M2 Zero attacking from 100 feet
Airfield Attack: 1 plane(s) with no ordnance
Airfield Attack: 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb
4 x D3A1 Val diving from 10000'
City Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
4 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet

CAP engaged:
18th PG/6th PS with P-40B Warhawk (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Raid is overhead
15th PG/47th PS with P-40B Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 34 minutes

Training flight from 18th PG/6th PS has been caught up in attack
Training flight from 15th PG/47th PS has been caught up in attack

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

Post #: 1

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 1:09:40 PM

Hanzberger

Posts: 921
Joined: 4/26/2006
From: SE Pennsylvania
Status: offline

Maybe it didn't show up yet due to FOW?

(in reply to Historiker)

Post #: 2

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 2:22:33 PM

vlcz

Posts: 387
Joined: 8/24/2009
From: Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hanzberger

Maybe it didn't show up yet due to FOW?

As it is a test game you can allways inspect from the other side, I would be quite stunned if those 4 times torpedoed BBs are still afloat

It seems your pilots are quite modest for being airmen

(in reply to Hanzberger)

Post #: 3

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 2:26:44 PM

Xargun

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline

I would agree... its FOW. Login as the Allies and check your sunk ships and start counting the BBs. But to be honest, you are better off crippling them to massive levels then actually sinking most of them. It effectively takes them out of the game and tricks the allied player into spending years of repair time to fix them. Some BBs may not be repaired until late '43 or '44 even - by then its slowness is nothing but another torpedo magnet.

Xargun

(in reply to vlcz)

Post #: 4

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 2:37:12 PM

rockmedic109

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline

I've just run through about twenty first turns to get the one I want for my AI game. I wanted 2 battleships sunk and the rest fairly heavily damaged. I should've gone with the DEC 8 scenario but wanted to actually see the war from the start. Most of the runs had more than two BBs sunk. A couple had zero or one. A couple had 2 sunk and two {or more} with >96% FLOT damage and fires that I felt would make them sink before they could get into drydock.

I also had one that the power died in my laptop before I could save it {volume was down to not disturb my sleeping partner so I didn't hear the low battery beep}. Of course it had exactly what I wanted in the attack.

Ten runs without one being sunk is either an extreme case of bad dice rolls {something I was famous for in Star Fleet Battles} or more likely FOW is making it so you are not seeing them sink.

(in reply to vlcz)

Post #: 5

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 3:09:53 PM

Dr. Duh

Posts: 35
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

As allies I restarted after my first try yielded 6 BBs sunk on the first strike. I decided to go with my 2nd try when only two were sunk and the rest only moderately damaged - I thought, hmmm, this is going to work out just right. Yeah...

The next day came and KB was still hanging around and launched a second attack. Fortunately nothing major sank, but all the BBs racked up a lot of additional damage. Since he was only 3 hexes out, I decided to try a sortie with all my undamaged cruisers and DDs to see if I could catch him in a surface action. It worked, and although all 3 cruisers were seriously damaged and two DDs sunk, I managed to put a lot of shell hits on Soryu and one of his battleships. I figured that should chase him away... but nooOOOooo!

The next day a sub managed to torpedo Soryu, but he still hung around for another PH strike. Finally after 6 days he started a leisurely withdrawal up towards Midway, bombing airfields all the way. I managed another torpedo hit (I had about 10 subs dogging him), but Soryu just wouldn't sink - I kept getting a report and every day was seeing her in that day's tally of sunk ships, but it was always turning out to be just FOW.

I was gonna get mad if she managed to limp all the way home, but finally I saw a big jump in aircraft losses for the day (25+ zeroes, 15+ each Kates and Vals) attributed to "ground", so I guess that meant she sank and wasn't able to fly off any of her squadrons beforehand (would the AI even do that?) - or maybe her flight deck was too damaged or something.

So I ended up with like 30+ ships with major damage and not a single undamaged combatant in PH, but very few sank. The cost to KB was the Soryu and about 150 planes and pilots (I lost a lot more planes than that but who cares).

(in reply to rockmedic109)

Post #: 6

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 3:17:35 PM

Remenents

Posts: 176
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline

Ya, I have noticed that KB likes to hang around more than 1 day unless you put together some sort of attack with subs and/or ships to chase it away. Out of 10 total restarts wih the game, probably about 8 times KB has hung around for more than 1 day unless I do something to chase it away. Not sure why this is, since "historically" she only struck out with 2 waves and in a 1 day time frame.

Most of the time when KB hits me, I lose at least 2 BBs. A few times I have lost 4 or 5 and another time not a single BB was sunk, but all took moderate to severe damage (which is actually worse if that happens).

I have yet to be able to sink any of the KB ships, even turning off historic first turns ect and making a bunch of TFs to go after where I know she will be, the best I have managed is a few shell hits and a torp or two from my subs. KB is pretty much invincible those first few turns. :)

_____________________________

Avenge the U.S.S. Houston (CA 30)

(in reply to Dr. Duh)

Post #: 7

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 4:30:45 PM

rockmedic109

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr. Duh

As allies I restarted after my first try yielded 6 BBs sunk on the first strike. I decided to go with my 2nd try when only two were sunk and the rest only moderately damaged - I thought, hmmm, this is going to work out just right. Yeah...

The next day came and KB was still hanging around and launched a second attack. Fortunately nothing major sank, but all the BBs racked up a lot of additional damage. Since he was only 3 hexes out, I decided to try a sortie with all my undamaged cruisers and DDs to see if I could catch him in a surface action. It worked, and although all 3 cruisers were seriously damaged and two DDs sunk, I managed to put a lot of shell hits on Soryu and one of his battleships. I figured that should chase him away... but nooOOOooo!

The next day a sub managed to torpedo Soryu, but he still hung around for another PH strike. Finally after 6 days he started a leisurely withdrawal up towards Midway, bombing airfields all the way. I managed another torpedo hit (I had about 10 subs dogging him), but Soryu just wouldn't sink - I kept getting a report and every day was seeing her in that day's tally of sunk ships, but it was always turning out to be just FOW.

I was gonna get mad if she managed to limp all the way home, but finally I saw a big jump in aircraft losses for the day (25+ zeroes, 15+ each Kates and Vals) attributed to "ground", so I guess that meant she sank and wasn't able to fly off any of her squadrons beforehand (would the AI even do that?) - or maybe her flight deck was too damaged or something.

So I ended up with like 30+ ships with major damage and not a single undamaged combatant in PH, but very few sank. The cost to KB was the Soryu and about 150 planes and pilots (I lost a lot more planes than that but who cares).

I think you won that battle. 150 lost pilots for the IJN is devastating. A big start on the attrition war.

(in reply to Dr. Duh)

Post #: 8

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 5:57:56 PM

Q-Ball

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

In AE, pilot losses on the carriers are going to hurt ALOT more. JFBs have to be extremely careful not to attrite out pilots.

_____________________________

(in reply to rockmedic109)

Post #: 9

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 6:03:08 PM

Miller

Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

In AE, pilot losses on the carriers are going to hurt ALOT more. JFBs have to be extremely careful not to attrite out pilots.

Tell me about it!

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 10

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 6:09:31 PM

Q-Ball

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

It is so critical, that you will have to be VERY careful on your aircraft settings. Some rules of thumb I plan to use:

1. No Airbase Attacks whatsoever, unless critical to success of an invasion. But you should NEVER use your CV to attack land targets if you can help it

2. No Nav Attacks on ships with LBA Cap over them, unless it's an important target. As the Allies, I would welcome a KB strike against 4 unloading xAKLs at Port Moresby, for example, if I had 50 P-40s on CAP.

Pretty much I want to save it for hitting ships that don't have CAP, or for USN CVs.

Same holds for IJN LBA; you have to be very careful not to have your Nells/Bettys fly after low-priority targets and get chewed up by CAP.

_____________________________

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 11

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 6:18:44 PM

Dr. Duh

Posts: 35
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

"Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war"

Not a good idea in this war as JPN because it's so hard to get them back on a leash when there's still plenty of good pillaging to be had...

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 12

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 6:39:27 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

I am really curious why folks who have PH issues don't try the Dec. 8 scenario 006. Is there something in the scenario that just don't float your boat? What can be done (realistically) to make this scenario work for you?

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Historiker)

Post #: 13

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 6:58:31 PM

Historiker

Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

Hmm...
I perhaps should go to the Tech support section. I have a question and wasn't interested in starting a discussion...

And guys: I'm not stupid... In a testrun, I can see both sides...

< Message edited by Historiker -- 9/16/2009 6:59:41 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 14

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 7:05:36 PM

Historiker

Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

I am really curious why folks who have PH issues don't try the Dec. 8 scenario 006. Is there something in the scenario that just don't float your boat? What can be done (realistically) to make this scenario work for you?

I have a PBEM scenario 2 - and I want freedom of choice. I have no problem with an iffective strike against PH as I accept a variety in the results - that's fine to me.
But isn't it allowed to wonder why the PH-Strike seems to be totally uselss in my PBEM-testruns? When my opponent sends the Force Z south I won't get a single BB.

Is asking for the reason a problem?

_____________________________

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 15

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 7:06:43 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker
Hmm...
I perhaps should go to the Tech support section. I have a question and wasn't interested in starting a discussion...

I wrote the Dec. 8 scenario. If your question is about that, a pm will be a lot better then the tech forum.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Historiker)

Post #: 16

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 7:11:22 PM

Historiker

Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

Is it really that difficult to understand that I'm wondering why the KB strike against PH doesn't sink a single ship in more than a dozend tests?

_____________________________

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 17

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 7:29:29 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker
Is asking for the reason a problem?

Absolutely not.

quote:

I have a PBEM scenario 2 - and I want freedom of choice. I have no problem with an iffective strike against PH as I accept a variety in the results - that's fine to me.
But isn't it allowed to wonder why the PH-Strike seems to be totally uselss in my PBEM-testruns? When my opponent sends the Force Z south I won't get a single BB.

Well, many people have seen just the opposite results and are screaming about over-effective PH strikes. And just about everybody is complaining about Force Z always getting whacked. So, I guess everybody wonders why ...

You can fix this and get all the freedom of choice you want, by using the Dec. 8 scenario 006, and setting the "Non-Historical" switch. That way, you get a reasonable facsimile of PH and PI damage (in planes and ships), and the game starts up with the Allied side, so you can give whatever orders you want to Force Z. I'm having a real hard time understanding the difficulty on this one. We have been smiling and dialing, testing and playing, and have not encountered any of these difficulties. Is there something we're missing?

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Historiker)

Post #: 18

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 7:35:24 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

I am really curious why folks who have PH issues don't try the Dec. 8 scenario 006. Is there something in the scenario that just don't float your boat? What can be done (realistically) to make this scenario work for you?

I think it has a lot to do with people just preferring to start at the beginning. It's one of the reasons I kept argueing to "tighten up" the potential range of results in the PH strike. People expect an "historical start" to come out resembling history (give or take a bit)..., and this one has results that jump all over the place.

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 19

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 7:35:55 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

I am really curious why folks who have PH issues don't try the Dec. 8 scenario 006. Is there something in the scenario that just don't float your boat? What can be done (realistically) to make this scenario work for you?

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 20

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 7:59:54 PM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

I think what JWE is trying to say nicely is that 'tightening up' isn't going to happen and scenario 6 is the best they can do for you.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 21

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 8:02:49 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok
I think what JWE is trying to say nicely is that 'tightening up' isn't going to happen and scenario 6 is the best they can do for you.

No, no. I have no agenda on any of this. I'm just naturally curious, that's all.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 22

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 8:22:01 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Well I do not think that the PH results should be 'tightened up'. I like the variability. IRL we only know what happened in the one instance, we do not (cannot) know what the odds were. Maybe the results as obtained were 80% likely, or maybe they were 1 in 10. We just can't really know. So, I think tightening up around the one IRL result might just result in a worse 'simulation' aspect of the game because we would be skewing the game odds toward one particular roll of the dice result obtained IRL.

In my AI starts I have only seen either 0 or 1 PH BB sunk I think 1 time out of about 5 or 6 starts. The rest of the time the BB's get blasted big time, usually over several days. One time a BB was sunk by a single midget sub torpedo.

Historiker, I think you are just having bad luck, so to speak.

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 23

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 8:46:03 PM

Historiker

Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

quote:

Well, many people have seen just the opposite results and are screaming about over-effective PH strikes. And just about everybody is complaining about Force Z always getting whacked. So, I guess everybody wonders why ...

And that's what I do! I don't ask for a historic start scneario but whether anybody knows the reason for the uselss PH-strikes.

apparently nobody knows.

_____________________________

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 24

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 9:02:56 PM

loricas

Posts: 217
Joined: 3/29/2008
From: Scandiano(RE), Italy
Status: offline

i' m made same test changing nothing also (scenario 1) i don't know if there are same change in 2:

20 run: force Z 3 both sink (1 time 1 DD also), 6 1 sink 1 damaged around 50%, 4 both damaged, 3 1 damaged 1 save, 3 both save or very light damage: depending a lot on Buffalo CAP presence/performance
,
PH: 2 time 6 BB, 1 time 5 BB, 3 time 3 BB, 5 time 2 BB, 6 time 1 BB, 3 time none: depending on presence of CAP, even if none came in contact with bomber end more with the number of nate carring torpedo (BB sunk first day or immediately after due to high fire on board, real result no FOW)

so i think there is a big range of results, where the most usual is 1 or 2 BB, around the same that in WITP , where i think there is a mistake is in the low nomber of aircraft loss for KB from 10 to 15 never more...

these changing nothing (and scen 1)..if your question is what to change to have better result (on average)..is another questions

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 25

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 9:07:02 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Well I do not think that the PH results should be 'tightened up'. I like the variability. IRL we only know what happened in the one instance, we do not (cannot) know what the odds were. Maybe the results as obtained were 80% likely, or maybe they were 1 in 10. We just can't really know. So, I think tightening up around the one IRL result might just result in a worse 'simulation' aspect of the game because we would be skewing the game odds toward one particular roll of the dice result obtained IRL.

Actually, yes we can. Please name all the things that went wrong tactically during the attack. Strategically, the carriers weren't there, which was a dissappointment..., but during the actually attack every problem the Japanese had anticipated failed to arise. Total suprise, no CAP, AAA unmanned..., you name the advantage and the Japanese had it. So in reality, the historical results were pretty much the top end of what could be expected from this attack. You can name all kinds of things what would have created worse results, but none that would create better ones.

You can say that more bombs could have hit..., but that's bull. These were the best pilots in the IJN, operating under optimum conditions, and this is what they achieved. Too say that they could have done 3-4 times better is just not statistically viable.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 26

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 9:08:43 PM

morganbj

Posts: 3634
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline

Well, I'm one of those that complained about being hit for SIX straight days at PH. For five of those days, the KB was three hexes away and there was little I could do but send out a few destroyers and a CL to try to do some damage. A lucky hit maybe. Eventually, though, I spoted a tanker TF and tore it up with my DD's. As the KB moved away on day six, I actually sank two of the CV's and hit a CVE pretty badly with my CAG's. I had moved my CV's to a couple of amush positions to the east and south of Midway. Although the KB was pretty crafty at avoiding discovery, I finished off the two CV's that my DD's had done some damage to. I hit the CVE with a lucky raid just south of Midway on about day eight to finish the action. Its CAP was probably scattered all over Oahu or below deck getting repaired.

But, as my game as progressed, it really didn't make much difference as it turns out. It's early 43 and I've already got about 133% score advantage that is increasing every day, si I will easily "win." I've lost no CV's of any flavor (pretty close a few times) and have taken out 6 Japanese CV's and two CVE's. The KB only has one surviving carrier, I think. But, I play the game to try to simulate the war as much as I can, not to "win." I like trying different strategies and such. So "winning is not all that important.

I have to say that it was actually kind of fun, but I would still argue that something like that was not very likely to happen in 1941. I don't think the IJN would risk its carriers by hanging around getting less and less results due to increasingly damaged planes and lost pilots. The last three days of the onslaught, the attacks were MUCH less effective as the raids were much smaller. The extra losses to them just weren't worth it. In future engagements, I could tell that the KB had lost most of its punch.

I guess I'm one of those that would like to see something closer to the real events, too. A little less variability is the key. I may start my next game with the December 8th scenario, but there's something very sentimental about seeing the Arizona sail out to sea after being fixed up in dry dock. I plan on using her to bombard Tokyo one day, if I can.

So, I don't have a big problem with the PH situation. I can live with it as it is.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 27

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 9:35:08 PM

loricas

Posts: 217
Joined: 3/29/2008
From: Scandiano(RE), Italy
Status: offline

the first thing you can change: the Kate group of two CV (54 in total) that are setting to strike PH airfield.

the second: split the torpedo bomber groups in three part: is more difficult to keep extreme result but the average is a little more high

in WITP pay high put additional pilot in from start: not here: came with low experience (compared with the yet presents) so they are a damege in the first strike...can be useful obiouvsly if you think to made more than 1 strike.

and also: assure the pilots that hitting PT with port full of capital ship grant harakiri next day

(in reply to Historiker)

Post #: 28

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 9:48:49 PM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

You can say that more bombs could have hit..., but that's bull. These were the best pilots in the IJN, operating under optimum conditions, and this is what they achieved. Too say that they could have done 3-4 times better is just not statistically viable.

You can't even measure '3-4 times better'. What does that mean? More ships sunk? Oil storage destroyed? It's meaningless statistically and any other quantifiable way.

Could they have sunk more ships? Of course. Likely? No.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 29

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/16/2009 11:20:21 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Well I do not think that the PH results should be 'tightened up'. I like the variability. IRL we only know what happened in the one instance, we do not (cannot) know what the odds were. Maybe the results as obtained were 80% likely, or maybe they were 1 in 10. We just can't really know. So, I think tightening up around the one IRL result might just result in a worse 'simulation' aspect of the game because we would be skewing the game odds toward one particular roll of the dice result obtained IRL.

Actually, yes we can. Please name all the things that went wrong tactically during the attack. Strategically, the carriers weren't there, which was a dissappointment..., but during the actually attack every problem the Japanese had anticipated failed to arise. Total suprise, no CAP, AAA unmanned..., you name the advantage and the Japanese had it. So in reality, the historical results were pretty much the top end of what could be expected from this attack. You can name all kinds of things what would have created worse results, but none that would create better ones.

You can say that more bombs could have hit..., but that's bull. These were the best pilots in the IJN, operating under optimum conditions, and this is what they achieved. Too say that they could have done 3-4 times better is just not statistically viable.

Mike - I agree with what you write here. It's just that you are addressing a different question. Yes, I too think the results were on the high end. Given that the carriers were absent just how much could have gone better? Not a whole lot. But the point I am making is this: we cannot know what was the likelihood of the attack turning out that way? Sure, we can rule out 100%. We can rule out the really low percentages too. But what was it - 20% likely, 80% likely, 50% likely? The world wonders! So when we look at the game results from 1,000 Pearl Harbor attack runs, it is hard for us to know how true to the real life odds are those game results. Should the "average" be two BB's sunk (game equivalent to real life results), none sunk, 5 sunk, etc.? Dunno.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 30