RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured!

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: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured!

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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured!

Page: << < prev 63 64 [65] 66 67 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/1/2011 10:48:30 PM

inqistor

Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB
- I'm more concerned about another squeel of yours; the problem with carrier fighters escorting (or failing to) escort LBA strikes.
May take this up in the dev forum... An option to order fighters not to escort LBA would be great. I still have problems with Zero's routinely escorting
strike's they're not meant to escort.

I tell ya, it is all, because they have too high experience.

quote:

As far as I can see no ac have more than 1 point of armor; it's either armor or no armor...
If you have evidence of anything else, please post a screen Inq

Well, whaddya know! It is only in IRONMAN

quote:

- I got some Nicks trained in low ground but it's simply not worth the hassle of trying to get them all killed for very few returns.
Allied fighters are now becoming way to numerous and dangerous.

Naah, against LRCAP it is wastage, but when armorfist will travel too far

quote:

Not so sure if AA upgrades mean that much anymore; proper radar is more important IMO!

They rearm from 1.1 inch into Bofors.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1921

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/2/2011 7:58:26 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

No idea Castor, let me know what Andy says
- I'm more concerned about another squeel of yours; the problem with carrier fighters escorting (or failing to) escort LBA strikes.
May take this up in the dev forum... An option to order fighters not to escort LBA would be great. I still have problems with Zero's routinely escorting
strike's they're not meant to escort. This builds OPS losses and fatigue at an alarming rate. When the fighters are truly needed they then perform absolutely horrible in a close escort role.

not only is it creating op losses, it really gets severe if halve of your carrier based fighters decide to escort an LBA strike when your carriers are under attack. While not escorting an LBA strike, Rainer just really suffered from 200 (50% of his fighters) Zekes escorting 9 Jills in the morning and 18 in the afternoon while his carriers got bombed. There should be a limit on the ratio of escorts/bombers as I seriously doubt that any real life strike would have seen 200 carrier based fighters escorting 9 bombers (no matter which side or aircraft type) to attack a couple of landing craft. I would love to see no carrier fighters to escort any LBA strike and an option to escort naval strikes.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 2/2/2011 8:04:57 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1922

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/2/2011 8:11:25 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB
An option to order fighters not to escort LBA would be great. I still have problems with Zero's routinely escorting
strike's they're not meant to escort. This builds OPS losses and fatigue at an alarming rate. When the fighters are truly needed they then perform absolutely horrible in a close escort role.

PzB I only see this happen when LBA is inadvertedly set to the same alt as the CV fighters.
Different alt, no coordination.

From what I noticed this is a common problem of players using only a very limited range of alt settings because
this often generates a high ammount of overlaps.

_____________________________

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1923

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/2/2011 8:45:47 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB
An option to order fighters not to escort LBA would be great. I still have problems with Zero's routinely escorting
strike's they're not meant to escort. This builds OPS losses and fatigue at an alarming rate. When the fighters are truly needed they then perform absolutely horrible in a close escort role.

PzB I only see this happen when LBA is inadvertedly set to the same alt as the CV fighters.
Different alt, no coordination.

From what I noticed this is a common problem of players using only a very limited range of alt settings because
this often generates a high ammount of overlaps.

heck, this is not true, THIS JUST ISN�T TRUE!

Go into my AAR and take a look at the last couple of turns and then tell me I have faked the combat report... all of them... or you can go ahead and play (which you seem to do) and then notice yourselve that it isn�t true. Sorry, it just isn�t true. We are not that dumb to constantly ignore ppl saying "just put your fighters/bombers on the same altitude and they coordinate" or "just don�t put your fighters/bombers on the same altitude and they WON�T coordinate". Though we are also not that dumb to try it dozens of times and then not throw it overboard because it doesn�t work. LBA at 10000ft, carrier based fighters at 15000ft, 200 Hellcats try to escort the LBA strike (again and again and again). If I�m not a valid example (how could I as neither my screenshots nor combat reports are real), take PzB as an example please. Or AndyMac, he�s a dev afterall but seems unaware(?) of these things too. Unfortunately.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 2/2/2011 8:52:07 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 1924

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/2/2011 8:58:44 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

sorry PzB, I really don�t want to see your great AAR become a slugfest of ppl throwing around with their oppinions, but as it is probably the most popular AAR on the forum, there are so many players (new and old ones) around that they may take this comments as gospel when it clearly isnt. If you wish, I delete both posts.

Morning Air attack on Talaud-eilanden , at 79,97

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 24 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Allied aircraft
F6F-3 Hellcat x 206

No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
8 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
16 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
16 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
16 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
16 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
12 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
9 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
9 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
9 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
9 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
7 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
7 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
7 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
7 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
7 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
7 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
7 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
7 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
11 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
11 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet

21 carrier based Hellcat squadrons in range stupidly tried to escort a LBA strike against an undefended airfield...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Talaud-eilanden , at 79,97

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 18 NM, estimated altitude 21,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Allied aircraft
F6F-3 Hellcat x 46

No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
8 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
7 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
11 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet
11 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet

the 21 squadrons weren�t enough, here are 5 more coming in...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Talaud-eilanden , at 79,97

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 33 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Allied aircraft
F6F-3 Hellcat x 9

No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet

and another one...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Talaud-eilanden , at 79,97

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 11 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Allied aircraft
F6F-3 Hellcat x 9

No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x F6F-3 Hellcat sweeping at 15000 feet

this is the latest example of my PBEM. You sure tell me now "these squadrons weren�t escorting bombers, you have set them to SWEEP"? No, I have not set them to sweep, I had my carriers in range and flew an LBA strike against Talaud Eilanden with my medium bombers at 10000ft. Note the 10000ft for the bombers and the 15000ft for the carrier based fighters? And as they "fail to escort" they then "sweep". Both of it is stupid as they shouldn�t even attempt to escort the LBA strike. They shouldn�t because it is plain stupid to do so and they SHOULDN�T according to the "tip" about same altitude for fighters/bombers. 270 Hellcats in this case tried to escort an LBA strike and then I�m told that this is working well. I�m getting tired of my own rants.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 2/2/2011 9:01:03 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 1925

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/2/2011 9:05:00 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

PzB,

regarding the "flak issue", Andy was so kind to take a look and posted in his AAR. Well, not going to give you detailed numbers, but when I thought my 150 3.7 inch flak guns would be highly unrealistic already, Andy clearly has a different view of realism (or he doesn�t care in this case)

. Not criticizing here, to each his own but it also explains your losses but also clearly supports me in my oppinion that flak in realistic numbers is completely useless.

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 1926

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/2/2011 9:09:47 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

CT if you experience this, have savegames from before and after the turn, and the complete
combat reports, there is absolutely nothing to prevent you from posting this in the tech support
forum, and let the devs investigate whether they can confirm theres an issue.

Only in case you are unsure about this:

I could rip apart just about ANY of your half baked combat reports in your AAR, where you claim to find issues or simply
reset to standard rant mode without understanding anything, without even needing to look twice.
Really. Its that simple.

You overclaim, insert random numbers where you think this supports you ranting, (deliberately?) misunderstand what
you see, post half of the stuff where you think the left out part does not include meaningful information
(or maybe just because you think it could shed some light into your issues

), repeat the same
mistakes over and over again and then seem to be surprised when nothing looks like you want it to.

You don�t look for help and you don�t accept absolutely plausable explanations.

It even stopped to be funny, its just pitiful.

I am aware that your expertise may lie in other areas than air combat, but here you lack.
Just about any other player would try to listen to someone else who seems to have the potential
to explain what you see so you can integrate that knowledge into your understanding and your play, you don�t.

Youre like somebody continuousely complaining about the Japanese language without being able
to read a single ideograph.

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 1927

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/2/2011 9:18:46 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

CT if you experience this, have savegames from before and after the turn, and the complete
combat reports, there is absolutely nothing to prevent you from posting this in the tech support
forum, and let the devs investigate whether they can confirm theres an issue.

Only in case you are unsure about this:

I could rip apart just about ANY of your half baked combat reports in your AAR, where you claim to find issues or simply
reset to standard rant mode without understanding anything, without even needing to look twice.
Really. Its that simple.

You overclaim, insert random numbers where you think this supports you ranting, (deliberately?) misunderstand what
you see, post half of the stuff where you think the left out part does not include meaningful information
(or maybe just because you think it could shed some light into your issues ), repeat the same
mistakes over and over again and then seem to be surprised when nothing looks like you want it to.

You don�t look for help and you don�t accept absolutely plausable explanations.

It even stopped to be funny, its just pitiful.

I am aware that your expertise may lie in other areas than air combat, but here you lack.
Just about any other player would try to listen to someone else who seems to have the potential
to explain what you see so you can integrate that knowledge into your understanding and your play, you don�t.

Youre like somebody continuousely complaining about the Japanese language without being able
to read a single ideograph.

yeah, I ripped apart the combat report to fake you, that�s the only reason I�m on this planet, mind you.

As it�s so hard to find my AAR, you might be directed by this link http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2712018 to exactly THIS combat report that I ripped apart and deliberately lied. Like I�ve done in the past and I was just so vocal that suddenly things became bugs (I don�t know how often I was told land based radar would just work fine). The only thing pityful is you and your tips that are either not true (which can be easily seen when playing, not even testing) or the fact that the tip (might) be true if it would be working as designed (which it then doesn�t). I have told you so often to just copy paste a full combat report AAR to back up your claims, you have failed to do so. Why? Yeah, I know the answer already, because it would be too time consuming to copy paste a txt file. And plausible explanations for silly things is something that hardly corresponds. I missed to see you being as vocal back in WITP times, back then the things that were borked/still are borked have been pointed out by so mand ppl that the majority just accepted it being flawed. Now in AE, things that haven�t changed at all, suddenly are perfectly working well (in your case) and yeah, the reason was "ppl weren�t paid for their work".

And that�s pityful.

Do you reall think I don�t have saves and the combat reports are faked. I pity you too.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 2/2/2011 9:22:59 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 1928

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/2/2011 9:19:43 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Whoa, hold your horses gunslingers!

LoBaron; As of latest in my other game against Al.

Army medium bombers set to hit Nadi at 12000 feet often drag along Zero fighters 14 hexes away that have been set to Escort at 15000 feet (30-40% CAP).
This is highly problematic and when it happens with carrier wings it not only reveals the carriers, it also reduce available CAP and increase fatigue and OPS losses.

I will definetly look closer into this and post some screens and ask some questions - but not in this thread.
- Just don't want it to become a major issue in this AAR game.

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 1929

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/2/2011 9:27:23 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

I�d be interested in the results PzB, what I noticed from the CR is that the fighters made
sweeps over the target hex? So this looks like either not an escort, or like you must have
seen some "escort gets separated from strike" messages?

_____________________________

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1930

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/2/2011 9:27:48 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

Whoa, hold your horses gunslingers!

LoBaron; As of latest in my other game against Al.

Army medium bombers set to hit Nadi at 12000 feet often drag along Zero fighters 14 hexes away that have been set to Escort at 15000 feet (30-40% CAP).
This is highly problematic and when it happens with carrier wings it not only reveals the carriers, it also reduce available CAP and increase fatigue and OPS losses.

I will definetly look closer into this and post some screens and ask some questions - but not in this thread.
- Just don't want it to become a major issue in this AAR game.

other ppl are seeing this too, it�s not just you and me (I�m a lier anyway). So I doubt it wouldn�t happen in the case of LoBaron nor any of the devs. Again, if you wish me to delete the post above, just tell me.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 2/2/2011 9:28:35 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1931

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/2/2011 9:39:13 AM

beppi

Posts: 382
Joined: 3/11/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I�d be interested in the results PzB, what I noticed from the CR is that the fighters made
sweeps over the target hex? So this looks like either not an escort, or like you must have
seen some "escort gets separated from strike" messages?

I tried a various set, fighters lower, fighters higher, fighters same alt. Bombers same alt, bombers different alt and so on and never ever saw a difference. I have no problems to strike with medium bombers on 6k, attack bombers on 100 feet, 4E on 15k feet and fighters on max alt synced. If you have HQ + supply the first strike syncs usually very nice.

Neither in a 1 year full game against the AI nor in my current PBEM i saw any effect of alt on sync of strikes or escort. By myself i would call it a urban myth that the alt has any effect on syncing the strikes or escorts.

And sorry for spamming the thread.

And yes i remember the original discussion about it and as i remember there was just some speculation and it never has been proven that there was a real effect of alt.

< Message edited by beppi -- 2/2/2011 9:41:46 AM >

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 1932

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/2/2011 10:17:54 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Ok first PzB I apologize for posting to CT in your AAR. I should have known better.

CT: linkage:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2693781&mpage=1&key=�

Lets not clutter others AARs anymore ok?

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 2/2/2011 10:20:47 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 1933

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/2/2011 10:23:13 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I�d be interested in the results PzB, what I noticed from the CR is that the fighters made
sweeps over the target hex? So this looks like either not an escort, or like you must have
seen some "escort gets separated from strike" messages?

fyi, if escorts FAIL to escort, they either don�t show up at all because they turn back, or they show up as SWEEP. Reading your statement I guess this isn�t news to you though. And that�s why I�ve explicitly said, "these squadrons were all on escort and not set to sweep". You could of course think I would be so stupid to send 250+ Hellcats on sweep of an empty, damaged airfield as this probably would suit me well.

And no, you don�t get these messages for all of the squadrons, many times you don�t get a single message at all for it (always true when the sweep shows up with the bombers at the same time).

< Message edited by castor troy -- 2/2/2011 10:24:38 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 1934

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/2/2011 10:36:08 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

No worries, we have a high ceiling in here and on the forums in general.
Castor is taking som flak for his high pitched approach to...game anomalies; some can be deserved, others not but definetly not a liar.
Usually I find that there is something in your grievances Castor, but sometimes you confront a bit to hard and to long for your own good and credibility

Ref my quote about the organ grinder!-)

I'll try to document a few examples but in general I can confirm what is said by Beppi and CT.
- I don't always get a message "failed to escort"
- Often fighters at diverging altitudes show up to escort bombers
- If fighters fail to link up with bombers on "unscheduled" escort runs they turn into "sweeps" but perform real poorly, just like they're still on escort (need to confirm this, just my 2c)

< Message edited by PzB -- 2/2/2011 10:41:03 AM >

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 1935

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/2/2011 10:57:45 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Thanks PzB.

What I noticed is that often when taking time to target (detection range) into account, such mixed result
could well be some CV leaky CAP fighters tangling with the CAP of the base under attack, or at least other hexes
are involved besides the base hex, and thsi shows in the combat report.txt.

For example if a strike gets detected 120 miles from target this means 3(!) hexes away.
If airborne CAP is vectored on the attack the battle can well start in the neighbouring hex, in some instances even further out.

The combat report often mixes information a bit, but usually it all evens out if you watch the combat replay and put
it in the right context.

I am not saying that this is no issue, just that on my games I see a good abstraction of an actual combat situation
when I concentrate to take all bits of information into account.

_____________________________

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1936

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/2/2011 11:32:29 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

No worries, we have a high ceiling in here and on the forums in general.
Castor is taking som flak for his high pitched approach to...game anomalies; some can be deserved, others not but definetly not a liar.
Usually I find that there is something in your grievances Castor, but sometimes you confront a bit to hard and to long for your own good and credibility

Ref my quote about the organ grinder!-)

I'll try to document a few examples but in general I can confirm what is said by Beppi and CT.
- I don't always get a message "failed to escort"
- Often fighters at diverging altitudes show up to escort bombers
- If fighters fail to link up with bombers on "unscheduled" escort runs they turn into "sweeps" but perform real poorly, just like they're still on escort (need to confirm this, just my 2c)

I know, by far too hard but it wasn�t always that way. But there came the time when I just kept banging my head onto the wall because ppl were/are so ignorant you can show them whatever you want, you can have experience how much you want and you can spend hours with the game how many you want, the reply you get is always the same. Being in repeat mode, pre Cap flak, search archs, weather over LCU outside of bases, land based radar, strato sweeps, fast transport, etc, etc, etc comes to mind. Many of the old WITP fighters have become silent or left nearly completely

and issues that always have been there or new ones that showed up now mostly seem to have become accepted or ppl simply accept it when someone says "it�s working perfectly", no matter if a year later it turns out it wasn�t. Usually it�s not like jumping out of the box, bitching about a problem that just popped up and telling everyone he would be an idiot. If you jump out of the box 38 times, well... telling my cat ten times in a very sensible and quiet way it shouldn�t destroy the curtains doesn�t help, shouting on the 11th time usually does, at least with the cat as it seems to miss the ignorance of human beings.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 2/2/2011 11:33:46 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1937

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/2/2011 3:04:49 PM

witpqs

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

LoBaron - My experience agrees with PzB's and CT's. I don't even bother trying to coordinate (or uncoordinate) altitude settings for escort. Although some developers have posted that altitude does improve odds of coordination, I don't recall them ever saying it was designed to do so in the code. In other words, no bug to report!

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 1938

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/2/2011 10:30:31 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Thats ok witpqs. As long as you view coordination as something that is identical to what we know from UV or WitP I might even agree.

But this is not the case in AE, as you can even read in the manual. If you want to understand how coordination works now, you have to change your
understanding of coordination, or at least change your interpretation of the root cause for watching several combat replays in one strike and
how these - put together - give you a picture of the air combat.

Unless you do that, naturally, you have to interprete what you see as uncoordinated.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 1939

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/2/2011 10:46:48 PM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

This is what often happens: (Example from my other game)

A wing of Helen's launch against Nadi; this time fighters from 3 nearby bases joined in.
- I did set the Nicks to 12k feet, also thought the Tojo's were at 15k feet.
To top it all 13 Zero's on CAP duty at 30k feet tries to escort, gets separated and performs a "false" sweep instead!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Nadi , at 131,160
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 16 NM, estimated altitude 30,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 13

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
13 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 30000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Nadi , at 131,160
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 24
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 19
Ki-49-Ia Helen x 25

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Airbase hits 7
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 13

Aircraft Attacking:
25 x Ki-49-Ia Helen bombing from 12000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 1940

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/2/2011 10:51:22 PM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Really, they got 2 points of armor in Iron Man

Wonder what effect that has...

I think Allied armor will only play a major role in a very few theaters because of the rugged terrain.
Yes, flak upgrade helps a little but it's not a decisive factor in 42. In 44 it will be something else...
But I now have a most cunning plan, secret for now until I can test it

Not much to report in the last game; tried to drop some paras into Corunna Downs but an Oz regiment suddenly appeared.
Another 7-10 days and there may not be anymore Jap bases in Northern Oz.

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Well, whaddya know! It is only in IRONMAN

quote:

- I got some Nicks trained in low ground but it's simply not worth the hassle of trying to get them all killed for very few returns.
Allied fighters are now becoming way to numerous and dangerous.

Naah, against LRCAP it is wastage, but when armorfist will travel too far

quote:

Not so sure if AA upgrades mean that much anymore; proper radar is more important IMO!

They rearm from 1.1 inch into Bofors.

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to inqistor)

Post #: 1941

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/3/2011 7:19:29 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

This is what often happens: (Example from my other game)

A wing of Helen's launch against Nadi; this time fighters from 3 nearby bases joined in.
- I did set the Nicks to 12k feet, also thought the Tojo's were at 15k feet.
To top it all 13 Zero's on CAP duty at 30k feet tries to escort, gets separated and performs a "false" sweep instead!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Nadi , at 131,160
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 16 NM, estimated altitude 30,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 13

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
13 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 30000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Nadi , at 131,160
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 24
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 19
Ki-49-Ia Helen x 25

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Airbase hits 7
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 13

Aircraft Attacking:
25 x Ki-49-Ia Helen bombing from 12000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok just a few questions to get a better picture:

What were the percentage settings for this Zero squad and the other mentioned fighter squads? (CAP/Train/Rest)
Was the Zero squad land based or naval based?
Were other means of improving coordination given? Like fighter bases closer to the target than the bomber bases, same HQ?
For the mentioned 'fighters from 3 bases': Where there other bombers set to the altitude of these fighters (attacking the same or a different target)?

The last question is probably the most important. Up to now, if the air settings are "clean" (e.g. no alt overlapping) I cannot remember a fighter squad ever escorting
"the wrong" bomber formation when you set altitude as coordination signal.
So if you got two bomber squads attacking different targets, one, say, at 15k and the other at 12k, and assign fighter squads to escort, also one at 15k and the other at 12k,
I never noticed anything like the 15k squad escorting the 12k bombers and vice versa.

For this reason I am asking the other questions, because for example Mission: escort CAP30/Train0/Rest0 means: Please reserve 70% of the available fighters to escort duty
and escort anything in the area that looks like it needs escorts.
If there are no other duties for that squad the fighters probably choose the mission that best resembles their mission profile and this is about any strike in the remote area.

Is the above understandable? Altitude coordination enables you to discern between different strikes to escort. Noone said it prevents escorts if theres nothing else to do.
To accomplish that you have other means.

_____________________________

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1942

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/3/2011 9:54:53 PM

inqistor

Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

Really, they got 2 points of armor in Iron Man
Wonder what effect that has...

Probably just typo

quote:

Yes, flak upgrade helps a little but it's not a decisive factor in 42.

Who knows. Maybe 1.1 inch is as crappy, as Japan 25mm

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1943

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/3/2011 11:47:42 PM

SqzMyLemon

Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Ok just a few questions to get a better picture:

What were the percentage settings for this Zero squad and the other mentioned fighter squads? (CAP/Train/Rest)
Was the Zero squad land based or naval based?
Were other means of improving coordination given? Like fighter bases closer to the target than the bomber bases, same HQ?
For the mentioned 'fighters from 3 bases': Where there other bombers set to the altitude of these fighters (attacking the same or a different target)?

The last question is probably the most important. Up to now, if the air settings are "clean" (e.g. no alt overlapping) I cannot remember a fighter squad ever escorting
"the wrong" bomber formation when you set altitude as coordination signal.
So if you got two bomber squads attacking different targets, one, say, at 15k and the other at 12k, and assign fighter squads to escort, also one at 15k and the other at 12k,
I never noticed anything like the 15k squad escorting the 12k bombers and vice versa.

For this reason I am asking the other questions, because for example Mission: escort CAP30/Train0/Rest0 means: Please reserve 70% of the available fighters to escort duty
and escort anything in the area that looks like it needs escorts.
If there are no other duties for that squad the fighters probably choose the mission that best resembles their mission profile and this is about any strike in the remote area.

Is the above understandable? Altitude coordination enables you to discern between different strikes to escort. Noone said it prevents escorts if theres nothing else to do. To accomplish that you have other means.

LoBaron, am I understanding this correctly? Let's say you have 4 bases in close proximity, one contains the bombers, the other various fighters. If the bombers are set to 12k and the fighters are all set to escort with a 30 CAP/0/0 makeup at 10k, 12k and 15k that all three have a chance to escort the bombers to the target? Do you have to manually set the target hex for the escorts or should you leave it to commanders discretion? In my experience the bombers and fighters set to 12k will coordinate, the other fighters will "sweep" or "lose contact" with the bombers. I'm really trying to wrap my head around this!

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 1944

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/4/2011 1:13:27 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 16, 43

Sub-ASW Attacks

ASW attack near Lahaina at 196,98

Japanese Ships
SS I-166, hits 5

Allied Ships
xAK Whangpu
xAK Margaret Fuller
xAK James M. Goodhue
xAK Christopher Greenup
SC-641
SC-638

SS I-166 is sighted by escort
I-166 diving deep ....
SC-641 attacking submerged sub ....
SC-638 fails to find sub, continues to search...
SC-641 fails to find sub, continues to search...
SC-638 fails to find sub, continues to search...
SC-641 fails to find sub and abandons search
SC-638 fails to find sub, continues to search...
SC-638 attacking submerged sub ....
SC-638 fails to find sub, continues to search...
SC-638 fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Afternoon Air attack on 146th Infantry Regimental Combat Team, at 75,124

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 37 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIb Oscar x 3

Allied aircraft
B-25D1 Mitchell x 3

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-25D1 Mitchell: 3 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-25D1 Mitchell bombing from 10000 feet *
Ground Attack: 3 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
85th Sentai/A with Ki-43-IIb Oscar (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

Andy is still very low in supplies in Northern Oz, that's why we're not pulling out everything asap.

Ground combat at Nookanbah (66,130)
Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 498 troops, 0 guns, 89 vehicles, Assault Value = 35
Defending force 337 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 16

Allied adjusted assault: 3
Japanese adjusted defense: 16

Allied assault odds: 1 to 5 (fort level 0)

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(+), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+), disruption(-), supply(-)

Japanese ground losses:
20 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
10th Light Horse Battalion

Defending units:
4th Indpt SNLF Coy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Strike Coordination

Ok here you see what happens: I have Betties and Zero's at Tanna flying secondary airfield attack missions against Nadi to suppress the isolated
airfields there. The bombers are set to 12k feet and have numerous escorts at Tanna and an island just south of there; all set to escort and 12k feet.

The big problem: At Tongatapu I also have Betty bombers set to naval attack 15k feet as well as Zero's ordered to 40% CAP and escort at 15k feet.
These Zero's constantly escorts my Nadi strikes from Tanna despite the altitude difference.

Last turn numerous Betties got slaughtered attacking shipping at Wallis Island because that many Zero's were absent and those remaining had very high fatigue levels
after numerous escort trips to Nadi

This is an impossible thing to solve; either I have to stand down my Nadi missions or I have to cut back on naval bomber range to less than fighter escort range to Nadi.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by PzB -- 2/4/2011 1:15:14 AM >

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 1945

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/4/2011 1:21:34 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

This is Nicks set at 40% CAP at 15k feet escorting Helen's bombarding Nadi at 12k feet.
Happens time and again; the fighter actually do coordinate with the bomber strikes despite the altitude difference.
IMO this confirms but my and CT's experiences and the consequences can be serious if carrier fleets are involved; then you can get abnormal results were 150 Zero's escort s 9 bomber
strike against a barge convoy....and in the process weakening KB CAP in addition to revealing KBs presence.

Setting KB CAP to more than 40-50% would raise fatigue sky high and seriously reduce the escorts available for a potential full size strike against an enemy fleet.
Major poodoo can and will happen I'm afaid!

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1946

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/4/2011 7:36:36 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

unfortunately that�s how it is and you can�t do anything in the game about it. Well, you can stand down everything, shorten range or set Cap to 100%. All not really an option for a carrier TF that is awaiting an engagement I think. Makes it really hard to operate carriers in the SRA for example with all the bases nearby, works better deep down in the Pacific where no base is around perhaps. As it is now, it�s creating pretty silly (sorry but that�s what it is) results. How strikes looked like in WITP wasn�t realistic, but what it is now, it is not realistic AND creates gameplay problematics as the player just completely is in the hands of a flawed system (my opponent just recently paid for it - not his fault but he paid for it - while his Zekes didn�t escort an LBA strike but 9 Jills... 200 Zekes for 9 Jills). Really weird when carriers come into play with LBA, also weird when I see "coordination" from complete different directions all the time with different ranges to the target but escorts fail when coming from the same base. Sorry, but it IS off.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 2/4/2011 7:43:36 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1947

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/4/2011 7:55:00 AM

witpqs

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

When you set a fighter group on Escort you can give it a target.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 1948

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/4/2011 8:05:19 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

When you set a fighter group on Escort you can give it a target.

I know, but it doesn�t help you when you got anything in the area that is supposed to fly a nav strike because you a) can not assign ANY fighters to escort a nav strike and b) you also can�t tell your carrier based fighters to escort carrier based strikes only. These two things are the main problem, having these strange escort missions from ten different directions with ten different ranges is weird, but not as much of a problem as point a and b IMO.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 1949

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured! - 2/4/2011 9:34:06 AM

beppi

Posts: 382
Joined: 3/11/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

In the thread LoBaron linked the devs never stated that alt forces anything to escort anyone. It just increases the chance and this chance is not known. So i stick with the urban myth that alt saves the day in this case.

Has anyone tried the approach with same Hqs for the squads, might work or might not work as like the alt in just fiddles with the chances. As i remember it does not really help but might be worth an other try.

I doubt that the escort model in the current code is that fine implemented that you really can influence strikes on the level you sometimes need it. There is no way to coordinate the strikes in an acceptable way as everything just changes chances.

An sticking to Murphy�s law, the dice will always roll wrong when you need it the most so chances always suck.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 1950