RE: RA, 2c ART Files

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: RA, 2c ART Files

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 >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: RA, 2c ART Files

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: RA, 2c ART Files - 9/2/2010 8:59:16 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

Thanks, Red Lancer, that's great!

(in reply to RedLancer)

Post #: 361

RE: RA, 2c ART Files - 9/2/2010 11:13:05 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

Woot! Just in time to destroy my 3 dayweekend.

My wife does not approve

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 362

RE: RA, 2c ART Files - 9/2/2010 11:41:15 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Well DONE! I am going to copy the links and place them at the front of the Thread.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 363

Scenario Update - 9/2/2010 11:48:03 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Just changed the original Post for this Thread so people can immediately find the site where Stanislav has everything at.

Comments are now needed for those playing into 1943 to see just what impact all the air and naval changes accomplishes. PLEASE Post any thoughts you have regarding questions, issues, and/or ideas for a later edition of the scenario.

ENJOY!

BANZAI!

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 364

RE: Scenario Update - 9/8/2010 9:11:40 AM

yubari

Posts: 365
Joined: 3/24/2006
Status: offline

Hello John3.

I havent got into 1943 yet, but I have got to mid April 1942 as the allies and I would say that the main concern for me is the Zeroes, in my opinion they are simply too powerful. In my game, I have had to surrender the airspace over Pearl Harbour; despite having 300 fighters there, and with pilots trained up well into the 60s, Zeroes on sweep can massacre them, typically getting kill ratios of 3 to 1 or greater despite being significantly outnumbered. All of this is happening after at least 400 of them have been destroyed so far, so a lot of the original elite pilots must have been killed. I am up for a challenge but I think that it is simply too much.

May I suggest that the speed advantage compared to the stock Zeroes is considerably turned down. I think that the current build gives them a 15 knot speed increase. If this was to be reduced to maybe 5 knots, it would still give the Japanese player some advantage, but not such a hugely overpowering one. As it stands now, there is simply no point trying to engage them even in the most advantageous environments.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 365

RE: Scenario Update - 9/8/2010 3:08:50 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

I can't comment on Zero speed advantage, because, even though a comparison to stock demonstrates that it indeed exists, I did not change speed stats for A6M2 (or other models that are supposed to exist as in stock). In fact, until today I wasn't aware that they are any different from stock.

EDIT: Only Zeros and Ki-43s seem to have extra speed, so this cannot be the result of using JuanG's plane stats as a template, those give slightly greater speed buff and to all Japanese aircraft across the board.

I can comment on my pilots: average experience level of 3rd Ku S-1 which did the toughest part of the job at Pearl is the same as on the December 6th (70). I can post the pilot list, if you want. Approximately 140-160 Zero pilots were lost throughout the war so far (including many of the mediocre pilots pulled into land-based units on turn 1 and later, to keep fatigue to manageable levels during non-stop operations). That I lost almost as much pilots as I did planes in a2a (157 Zeros so far) is disturbing (this wasn't so when playing Allies), but such losses are sustainable in the medium-term, with appropriate attention to pilot training. I also pay special attention to air group commanders (in PBEMs combat replays do not tell you when air leaders die, so it must be checked through Tracker), and to keeping fatigue down. I played against Japanese in one of JuanG's Enhanced mods, which give the above-mentioned speed buff, and while I didn't get the lead in a2a kills before my opponent stopped playing AE, Allies certainly were able to hold their own in air war as a whole (protect their own bases and put Japanese ones in peril).

< Message edited by FatR -- 9/8/2010 3:47:24 PM >

(in reply to yubari)

Post #: 366

RE: Scenario Update - 9/8/2010 3:39:45 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

To add on to what FatR just said, I do not believe anything was changed with the M2 Zero Model from Stock. I stayed away from the air side since my knowledge base there is fairly skimpy. We moved up some model deployment dates (like Judy and Jill) but I don't think there were substantial changes made to the historical aircraft.

Other RA Developers: Am I wrong here?

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 367

RE: Scenario Update - 9/8/2010 4:06:09 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

A6M2s' max speed is indeed changed from 331 to 345, unless something deceives me. But I swear I didn't touch it, even though a change like this was discussed during the development process. I was against it then. Unless more people find the issue critical (but I doubt this, because the similar advantage is not critical in JuanG's mods, even on tactical level), I propose to leave this change for now, and, when we'll have more data from ongoing games, then return to discussing it when the next revision of the mod will be discussed.

And Yubari, it is impossible to change the plane database for an ongoing game without restart. If Zero power will consistently prove overwhelming - and I'm not convinced that it is now, because I believe that I owe recent successes over Hawaii to better pilots, minimizing escort missions (on which even KB elite took 1:1 losses at best), massing aviation (the one time I tried to sweep with just one Oscar unit, they got their asses kicked, if you remember), and keeping the pressure on Allies, so that your pilots are forced to fly even P-36s at Pearl - we can agree on a houserule, like limiting planes that actually benefit from this bonus to flyng not higher than 20k on all types of missions.

< Message edited by FatR -- 9/8/2010 4:10:17 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 368

RE: Scenario Update - 9/8/2010 4:17:05 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

I know we talked about it. Wonder if it was done when we were going through the initial design and no one had played in far enough to notice. 'Tis a strange thing. Good to know.

Is it a serious issue? Doesn't seem like much to me but this is not my area of knowledge. FatR you mention in Juan's Mods it doesn't really matter much. How does the overall speed number impact A-t-A?

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 369

RE: Scenario Update - 9/8/2010 4:31:32 PM

yubari

Posts: 365
Joined: 3/24/2006
Status: offline

It probably doesn't seem overwhelming to you because you are the one benefiting from it! I can assure you that it is very overwhelming indeed.

All of the Zeroes get an improved speed, of at least 7 knots, the A6M8 gets 18 knots extra compared to stock and comes in very nearly two years earlier. Also, all of the Oscars get 10 knots extra as do the Franks.

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 370

RE: Scenario Update - 9/8/2010 5:05:45 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I know we talked about it. Wonder if it was done when we were going through the initial design and no one had played in far enough to notice. 'Tis a strange thing. Good to know.

Is it a serious issue? Doesn't seem like much to me but this is not my area of knowledge. FatR you mention in Juan's Mods it doesn't really matter much. How does the overall speed number impact A-t-A?

After playing BB Enhanced against ny59giants, I don't believe the 15-20 knots speed bonus is decisive. In terms of overall plane losses we broke even by the end of the game in October of 1942. In terms of being able to protect their bases and threaten Japanese ones, Allies achieved rough parity in late summer and superiority by the end of September. And I know now, it was possible to do better in that game.
In our current 2x2 game of CV Enhanced Allied aviation is getting stomped, of course. But actions like sending 3-6 fighters on CAP over the city that gets swept by 60+ Japanese fighters every day for more than a week might just have more to do with it, than plane stats.
And, as I mentioned before, I didn't even notice the bonus in this game, before being pointed to it. Certainly, initial air campaigns were heavier than anything I've experienced in AE before (congtatulations to Yubari). Mostly on bombers, but fighter units didn't get away unharmed as well. Both Tainan Ku and Yamada Ku were hit pretty hard, and the former only recovered after getting an infusion of pilots from reserve and getting some experience by shooting Dutch around Loemadjang.
John, you have played several games of Scen 70, at least in initial months, so you should have more data about this than me.

It should be noted, that if Zero, Oscar and Frank get a speed buff, this indeed looks like a correction created by the discussion of their stock stats selling them short.

EDIT: And for the illustration here's the decisive first combat of April 10 from my game against Yubari, the only one where sweepers were significantly outnumbered (in the second sweep of the day Japanese met nearly equal numbers already, and over the day there was 153 sweeping planes vs. 130-something CAP flights).

Morning Air attack on Pearl Harbor , at 180,107
Weather in hex: Moderate rain
Raid spotted at 28 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 44

Allied aircraft
P-36A Mohawk x 7
P-39D Airacobra x 24
P-400 Airacobra x 7
P-40B Warhawk x 10
P-40E Warhawk x 37

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-36A Mohawk: 1 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra: 4 destroyed
P-400 Airacobra: 1 destroyed
P-40B Warhawk: 1 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 4 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet

CAP engaged:
18th PG/6th PS with P-400 Airacobra (0 airborne, 5 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes
49th PG/7th PS with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 5 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 3 minutes
49th PG/8th PS with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 5 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes
49th PG/9th PS with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000 , scrambling fighters to 18000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes
18th PG/19th PS with P-40B Warhawk (0 airborne, 2 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000 , scrambling fighters to 18000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 3 minutes
35th PG/39th PS with P-39D Airacobra (0 airborne, 7 on standby, 0 scrambling)
7 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 42 minutes
18th PG/44th PS with P-40B Warhawk (0 airborne, 2 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 37 minutes
15th PG/45th PS with P-36A Mohawk (0 airborne, 5 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 3 minutes
15th PG/46th PS with P-39D Airacobra (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 15000.
Raid is overhead
35th PG/70th PS with P-39D Airacobra (2 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 15000.
Raid is overhead
15th PG/72nd PS with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
18th PG/73rd PS with P-40E Warhawk (2 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 20000.
Raid is overhead
18th PG/78th PS with P-40B Warhawk (1 airborne, 3 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 20000.
Raid is overhead
35th PG/Hq Sqn with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
49th PG/Hq Sqn with P-40E Warhawk (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead

So, 85 Allied planes (64 airborne at the beginning of battle), including 17 obsolete ones, vs 44 Zeros, with the latter benefitting from the sweep bonus.

Here's the Japanese unit involved, after losing 7 pilots in the combat above:

Fatigue on April 10 was minimal and I even sent some of the fatigued/least experienced pilots to the group reserve by hand for that day. So, I do believe, that given the conditions (and luck that caused the biggest and the most experienced Kokutai to go in first) the results were quite reasonable and the speed changes do not have a major effect on the gameplay.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by FatR -- 9/8/2010 5:41:26 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 371

RE: Scenario Update - 9/8/2010 5:53:40 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: yubari

It probably doesn't seem overwhelming to you because you are the one benefiting from it! I can assure you that it is very overwhelming indeed.

All of the Zeroes get an improved speed, of at least 7 knots, the A6M8 gets 18 knots extra compared to stock and comes in very nearly two years earlier. Also, all of the Oscars get 10 knots extra as do the Franks.

Yubari--I am all about making sure things are not TOO out-of-balance. RA is a Kaigun-Enhanced Mod and there SHOULD be no changes to Army aircraft. It worries me that there might be. Will take a look and see what my current RA database says compared to the earlier variants.

FatR and BK--I am correct that no changes were made to the IJA--Right? Oscars and Franks should have no changes...

PS: FatR--your combat result Posted above looks pretty good to me. Considering that is an excellent Daitai of Zero Pilots a 2-1 exchange in the Japanese favor doesn't seem very extreme.

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 9/8/2010 5:54:21 PM >

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to yubari)

Post #: 372

RE: Scenario Update - 9/8/2010 8:14:44 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

Eh? We in fact discussed changes to IJAAF aircraft extensively. Look no further than post #2 of this thread. It mentions most of the IJAAF changes I did, although a few were added later. If you want, I can write a more up-to-date air commentary and you can edit that post.

Oscar and Frank weren't supposed to have overall speed boost, though. In fact, changes to IJAAF ended up - as I thought - a very mixed bag, not a straight buff. While a few planes, like Ki-61 and Ki-100 lines were improved, production became much less straightforward.

< Message edited by FatR -- 9/8/2010 8:21:24 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 373

RE: Scenario Update - 9/8/2010 8:32:44 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

I misspoke with my writing. This is probably the result of 4+hours of yard work pulling weeds, pruning trees and bushes, nuking wasp nests, watering, and picking the garden. Am FRIED for the day!

Didn't mean to say there were no changes. I meant to say that the only changes were due to our work over on the Naval side of air development. The changes to engines, crossover technology, and similar aircraft.

FatR--The thought of a more up-to-date set of changes might be beneficial for players. It is a good idea.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 374

RE: Scenario Update - 9/9/2010 8:58:16 AM

yubari

Posts: 365
Joined: 3/24/2006
Status: offline

The Franks and Oscars are improved, have a check in scenarios 1 and 70 if you want to. I have no problem with the
enhanced Oscar, it performed very well against the Buffaloes and Dutch planes as of course it should and typically
gets about 1 to 1 odds over Calcutta against Hurricanes.

The results shown in FatR`s last post fail to mention that total fighter losses for that turn over
Pearl Harbour were 38 allied against, I think 11 for the Japanese. The pilots were not quite as good as the
Japanese but all were in the 60`s in the air skill. As you say, at a rough estimate, 2 to 1 would seem a fair ratio
but it was nearly 4 to 1.

What was more disturbing were the results from the 1st April that gave losses of 37 planes for the allies against
1 Zero. Of course, Zeroes in this example had the better pilots, altitude advantage and numerical advantage, against
the allies with just the sweep advantage and so should be expected to gain a convincing victory, but 37 to 1, against
the best planes the allies have got?

Morning Air attack on Kona , at 182,111

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 25 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 87

Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 23

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 7 destroyed

CAP engaged:
Tainan Ku S-1 Det A with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(4 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes
Akagi-1 with A6M2 Zero (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(6 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes
Kaga-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(2 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes
Soryu-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(1 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes
Hiryu-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(2 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
Shokaku-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(2 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
Zuikaku-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(3 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 41 minutes
3rd Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (3 airborne, 9 on standby, 11 scrambling)
(1 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
12 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 41 minutes
Tainan Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (3 airborne, 8 on standby, 9 scrambling)
11 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 12 minutes
Nagasaki-3 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (3 airborne, 10 on standby, 10 scrambling)
13 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 13 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kona , at 182,111

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 22 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 84

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 8 destroyed

CAP engaged:
Tainan Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 1 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 7 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 53 minutes
3rd Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 4 scrambling)
11 plane(s) not yet engaged, 9 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes
Tainan Ku S-1 Det A with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 41 minutes
Nagasaki-3 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 6 scrambling)
9 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 3000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 40 minutes
Akagi-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes
Kaga-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes
Soryu-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 12000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 15 minutes
Hiryu-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes
Shokaku-1 with A6M2 Zero (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 15000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 43 minutes
Zuikaku-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes

Anyway, I dont want to start an argument, just telling you what I think.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 375

Scenario Commentary - 9/10/2010 4:15:02 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

I sent a Group Email out to players who have asked for and are playing the Mod to see what their opinions/ comments, and suggestions are for improving the Mod. If you are not on the Mailing List and would like to be please send me your best email address.

Yubari provoked some serious thinking with me so I wanted to see what others might think.

When we came out with the Mod several commented that it places the Japanese somewhere between Stock Scenario One and Two. I'd like to see what the players think on that...

Thanks to whomever jumps in!

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to yubari)

Post #: 376

RE: Scenario Commentary - 9/12/2010 9:47:23 PM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

So far in my sen 70 game zero's have had limited action against p40.

In my stock game I was thrashed by the zero as an allied player.

As allied player I am in a dec42 senario 2 game.
As IJ player I am in mar42 senario 70 game.

It is too soon to be making any further changes to the senario 70.

I would comment that if yubari quits his game dont give out the password as I would be interested in taking his place.

< Message edited by bigred -- 9/12/2010 9:52:57 PM >

_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 377

RE: Scenario Commentary - 9/12/2010 10:13:38 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Thank You Sir.

Have you, as the Japanese in 1942, seen a major difference in A-T-A? You said that there hasn't been too much action. Any impressions would be great!

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 378

RE: Scenario Commentary - 9/13/2010 3:16:46 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

This looks normal for march. Harry did not say a thing. Tough guy. This jpeg reminds me I need to cut down my IJ ops losses. I have a good kill ratio but my ops are eating up my air units.

The Ki27 was used early on Mayla peninsula. The ops losses have occured from strafing attacks.

I am surprised at the light oscar casualties.

My opponent has withdrawn the bulk of his British air units to Burma.

P40 action at manila, Nouma, Xmas-pac, and now Buna/PM. So assume Harry had a sqn at each then you can assume I have destroyed a sqn at each.

I have been very careful not to use KB air against land targets.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by bigred -- 9/13/2010 3:35:03 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 379

RE: Scenario Commentary - 9/13/2010 3:45:51 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

Senario 2
Bigred vs P.Hausser

In this game, same date-10mar42, I am the allies playing against Paul Hausser. Hausser was very aggressive and I played a fighting forward strategy as the allies.

For comparative thought. Look at the ops losses and the kill ratios.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by bigred -- 9/13/2010 3:49:20 AM >

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 380

RE: Scenario Commentary - 9/13/2010 4:05:50 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

Results are in.
As of mar 10, 1042.
In senario 70 VS DirtyHarry, for every 7 lost jap planes, there are 10 downed allied planes.
In senario 2 VS P.Hausser, for every 9.15 lost jap planes, there are 10 downed allied planes.

So what is your ratios???

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by bigred -- 9/13/2010 4:07:22 AM >

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 381

RE: Scenario Commentary - 9/13/2010 3:55:28 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

I am not yet a month into my game with Adm Nelson so I don't really have much to say yet.

Thank you for the Stats Sir. They are much appreciated.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 382

RE: Scenario Commentary - 9/13/2010 5:44:11 PM

dirtyharry500

Posts: 94
Joined: 10/29/2004
From: France
Status: offline

As Bigred said,i'm operating my P40s and Banshees squadrons from PM to bombing and straffing on gasmata and Buna !
so, never mind the aircraft downed, just training my pilotes on real conditions !
American industry will bring me brand new fighters and bombers soon!!
this the way i'm

and japs will have pay back!
all the different Allies players have different ways to fight the Japs.
unfortunately, i had big losses during the christmas island and palmyra battle, the effect of Reluctant Admiral ! IJN is every where.

this is the real official losses for the pacific and southeast asia theatre for 1941-1942 OPNAV-P-23V NO. A129
17 JUNE 1946
OFFICE OF NAVAL INTELLIGENCE
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
NAVY DEPARTMENT

carrier based

action sorties :2364

Japs aircrafts destroyed
in combat: 359
on ground:262

land based

action sorties : 3267

japs aircrafts destroyed
in combat :479
on ground:9

US losses on action sorties to ennemy

carrier based

by AA : 36
by aircraft :90
operational : 68

land based

by AA: 37
by aircraft : 157
operational : 37

just compare the activity in the game and in realty !

_____________________________

i'm the real slim shady

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 383

RE: Scenario Commentary - 9/13/2010 11:36:22 PM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

This report is from my current turn.
Senario 2-Pdavis vs ggiles(who volunteered to take over for p.Hausser)
dec42.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to dirtyharry500)

Post #: 384

RE: Scenario Commentary - 9/13/2010 11:39:18 PM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

It is interesting to note the above post is way above the actual casualties in the war.

In sen 2, dec42 the loss ratio is:
1.13 japs to every 1 allied plane.

I bet this just gets better for the allied player.

Also note the sorties flown. For every sortie the japs fly they will lose 1.5 planes.

< Message edited by bigred -- 9/14/2010 2:18:03 AM >

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 385

RE: Scenario Commentary - 9/14/2010 12:10:03 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

That is a rather sad number!

Thanks for the input guys. When I reach 30 days with my campaign I will throw it out for some comparing.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 386

RE: Scenario Commentary - 9/14/2010 3:06:41 PM

yubari

Posts: 365
Joined: 3/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

I would comment that if yubari quits his game dont give out the password as I would be interested in taking his place.

Who said anything about quitting?

Useful statistics bigred. Have you noticed what happened in any large scale fights between Zeroes and the early 1942 top-line fighters, i.e. P-39s and P-40s? As these planes have performed for me far better than the Wildcats, I think that I shall not even try to advance over sea until I get the Hellcats, the Wildcats would not stand a chance

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 387

RE: Scenario Commentary - 9/14/2010 8:36:37 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

It is interesting to note the above post is way above the actual casualties in the war.

In sen 2, dec42 the loss ratio is:
1.13 japs to every 1 allied plane.

I bet this just gets better for the allied player.

Also note the sorties flown. For every sortie the japs fly they will lose 1.5 planes.

I believe you mixed up daily and campaign sorties.

I wonder where so much Betties were lost in that campaign... Losses to flak are particularly massive.

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 388

RE: Scenario Commentary - 9/14/2010 8:43:02 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: yubari
Who said anything about quitting?

Useful statistics bigred. Have you noticed what happened in any large scale fights between Zeroes and the early 1942 top-line fighters, i.e. P-39s and P-40s? As these planes have performed for me far better than the Wildcats, I think that I shall not even try to advance over sea until I get the Hellcats, the Wildcats would not stand a chance

I won't say whether this coincides with my estimation of Allied chances in a carrier battle or not, as our game is difficult enough already)).

(in reply to yubari)

Post #: 389

RE: Scenario Commentary - 9/14/2010 10:56:45 PM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

I must admit I also am amazed at the ij losses in my sen2 game.

I have thought the f4f-4 was doing a good job against the IJN carrier zero's...I suspect the early losses may have caused long term problems for the experience level of the entire jap air fleet.
I am concerned about my ops losses as the jap player and starting to think to use the zero only on sweep missions. Leave the Oscar for escort duty.

< Message edited by bigred -- 10/1/2010 3:04:02 AM >

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 390