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: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE!

 
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: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! Page: <<   < prev  200 201 [202] 203 204   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 8:09:31 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Alfred covered the CAP topic brilliantly, as always.

I only like to add that different settings, such as LRCAP or CAP, do not reserve
a specific plane for a specific mission for the whole day. It only displays the probability
of mission type assigned for a specific plane which is about to be launched.

If you set a squad to 60% CAP, 40% LRCAP for example, expect a lot more than 40% of total a/c
affected by the percentage flying LRCAP mission.
Since LRCAP naturally results in a much higher attrition rate because of distance, air time,
plane fatigue, and so on, a high percentage of planes return from LRCAP to refuel/rearm/maintenance
during the resolution phase, with negative impact on any planes available to be launched on CAP missions,
or react to incoming strikes immediately.

It might be this added to the low readiness numbers to counter the first strike.



Not in this case.

I had dedicated squadrons for LRCAP (90% of the Hellcats 3) while the rest of the squadrons were simply set to 60% CAP with 0 range.

With 2 days turn the 100% CAP can be really a problem because the second day, after a day of battles, will result in your crews having more than 50 fatigue accumulated...

But in this case, i strongly suggest to ready how many fighters were on "stand by" mode when the raids arrived.... it seems to me that a bad dice and roll caused the 60% fighters that were ordered to CAP over the CVs to refuel/rearm all at the same time...right when the raid arrived... Don't you think so?

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 6031
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 8:13:26 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Apologies, it looked in the post like you used hybrid settings, which you say was not the
case.

You could be right that the numbers of standby are a sideeffect of you CAP% settings.
What was the rest set to? Rest, or not assigned?

_____________________________


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6032
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 8:14:28 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
These Hellcats were all on LRCAP from the CVs (2 hexes away), so as you may see they are not added in the combat report of the raid against my CVs...they are not counted...that's why i say that those fighters you see in the combat report on the raid over my CVs were those dedicated ONLY to CAP duties having a range of 0.
LRCAP performed much much better this time...

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Sadogashima at 114,56 (INVASION FLEET)

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 118 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 35 minutes

Japanese aircraft
    A6M3a Zero x 38
    A6M5 Zero x 38
    A6M5c Zero x 48
    B6N2 Jill x 33
    G4M1 Betty x 40
    G4M3a Betty x 18
    N1K1-J George x 47
    P1Y1 Frances x 18



Allied aircraft
    Thunderbolt I x 15
    P-38L Lightning x 101
    F6F-3 Hellcat x 280


Japanese aircraft losses
    A6M3a Zero: 9 destroyed
    A6M5 Zero: 7 destroyed
    A6M5c Zero: 13 destroyed
    B6N2 Jill: 7 destroyed, 12 damaged
    B6N2 Jill: 2 destroyed by flak
    G4M1 Betty: 15 destroyed, 6 damaged
    G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed by flak
    G4M3a Betty: 9 destroyed, 1 damaged
    N1K1-J George: 14 destroyed
    P1Y1 Frances: 4 destroyed, 5 damaged
    P1Y1 Frances: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
    F6F-3 Hellcat: 3 destroyed

Allied Ships
    CL Newfoundland
    DD Walker
    BB Mississippi
    CL Birmingham
    DD Halligan
    CL Santa Fe
    DD Witte de With
    APD Bulmer
    DD Relentless
    APD Barr
    CL Biloxi



Aircraft Attacking:
    12 x P1Y1 Frances launching torpedoes at 200 feet
             Naval Attack:  1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
     7 x A6M5c Zero sweeping at 14000 feet *
     2 x G4M3a Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
             Naval Attack:  1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
    18 x A6M5 Zero sweeping at 14000 feet
    16 x B6N2 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
             Naval Attack:  1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
     8 x A6M3a Zero sweeping at 14000 feet
     9 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
             Naval Attack:  1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
     7 x A6M5c Zero sweeping at 14000 feet *
     8 x N1K1-J George sweeping at 14000 feet
     6 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
             Naval Attack:  1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo

CAP engaged:
VF-32 with F6F-3 Hellcat (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
    1 plane(s) intercepting now.
    Group patrol altitude is 19000
    Raid is overhead
VF-51 with F6F-3 Hellcat (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 18000
    Raid is overhead
VF-22 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
    0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 16 out of immediate contact.
    Group patrol altitude is 18000
    Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes
VF-31 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
    0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 16 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
    Group patrol altitude is 38000
    Time for all group planes to reach interception is 8 minutes
VF-32 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
    0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 17 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
    Group patrol altitude is 9000
    Time for all group planes to reach interception is 12 minutes
VF-51 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
    0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 16 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
    Group patrol altitude is 23000
    Time for all group planes to reach interception is 16 minutes
No.800 Sqn FAA with Thunderbolt I (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 19000
    Raid is overhead
VC(F)-27 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
    0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 13 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
    Group patrol altitude is 13000
    Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes
VC(F)-75 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
    0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 13 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
    Group patrol altitude is 20000
    Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes
VC(F)-82 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
    0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 13 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
    Group patrol altitude is 28000
    Time for all group planes to reach interception is 12 minutes
VC(F)-87 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
    0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 13 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
    Group patrol altitude is 18000
    Time for all group planes to reach interception is 14 minutes
VC(F)-88 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
    0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 13 out of immediate contact.
    Group patrol altitude is 8000
    Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes
VOC(F)-1 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
    0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 17 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
    Group patrol altitude is 17000
    Time for all group planes to reach interception is 12 minutes
VC(F)-7 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
    0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 13 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
    Group patrol altitude is 18000
    Raid is overhead
VRF-1F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
    0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 20 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
    Group patrol altitude is 32000
    Time for all group planes to reach interception is 11 minutes
VRF-4F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
    0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 21 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
    Group patrol altitude is 11000
    Time for all group planes to reach interception is 5 minutes
VRF-6F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
    0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 19 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
    Group patrol altitude is 6000
    Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes
VRF-7F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
    0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 20 out of immediate contact.
    Group patrol altitude is 18000
    Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes
VRF-8F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
    0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 19 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
    Group patrol altitude is 15000
    Raid is overhead
VMF-124  with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
    0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 19 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
    Group patrol altitude is 19000
    Raid is overhead


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6033
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 8:15:28 AM   
castor troy


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I am a little surprised at how bent out of shape the JFBs seem to be getting over a little free intel going the Allies way in a game that completely fails to model the HUGE intel advantage the Allies actually had.

How about we just suppose the allies intercepted the orders and decoded them....wait....no that can't happen in RL!!!


This whole JFB/AFB is starting to get to me. Hans, have you ever played the Japanese? Perhaps experience things on that end of the spectrum and then make your comments. Many of the things you gripe about are included for play balance...right or wrong. It's a GAME. Japan needs some help, otherwise you don't have a game, you have a simulation. Frankly, who wants that?



the magic words

_____________________________


(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 6034
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 8:16:21 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Apologies, it looked in the post like you used hybrid settings, which you say was not the
case.

You could be right that the numbers of standby are a sideeffect of you CAP% settings.
What was the rest set to? Rest, or not assigned?


Not assigned. Cause i wanted them to be ready to scramble...

Settings were very simple:

CAP 60
LRCAP 0
Rest 0

Range Hex 0

I thought this would guarantee me a solid 40% of my fighter forse (say 450 fighters) ready to scamble, while 600 of my fighters should have been already in the air ready to reach the raid.... Was i wrong?

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 6035
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 8:32:48 AM   
castor troy


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

a coordinated strike of 600 planes sounds too sci-fi to me.

Even at the beginning of the war Japs sent two wave of 108 planes each as coordinated strike. And each of the pilot in the attack is an ACE!

So later in the war with worse quality of pilots it's just so unrealistic for a 600 planes in a single wave and they attack the fleet at the same time?

Come on. System definitely failed here.

The air combat simulation of large number planes involved is broken. Totally.



I've made some comments a year ago when I finally dropped out of the game for some time that AE has reversed WITP's late war slaughters of IJ air strikes to the slaughter of Allied CV fleets and there is just nothing you can do about it when the enemy is actually able to attack. I have fielded CV/CVL/CVE fleets GreyJoy doesn't come even close to with 1500+ Corsair/Hellcats on CAP and on day one of the fight you can see a dozen carriers blow up being sunk. Which IJ player wouldn't sacrifice 600 aircraft shot down for the sinking of a dozen CVE/CVL or even CV? The ships can not replaced, the IJ aircraft and pilot? Lol, don't have to answer this I guess.

As with many other things in the game (if not all), "leaking Cap" works very well early war until late 43, from then on, it is a Japanese player's wet dream! And fanboyism yes or no, I do not care, it is ONLY really benefitting one side. Why? Because I do not care about a couple of leaking Allied LBA bombers in 42 to drop one or two bombs on an IJN CV when KB is covered by 150 Zeroes for the exchange of being whiped out for sure in 44/45 when 1500+ Corsairs/Hellcats guard the Allied fleet. And early on the IJ bombers just leak the same as the Allied's. Again, it works well for two and a halve years, then it is getting ridicoulos, as ridicoulos as in WITP when 300 Corsairs created a bullet prove Cap to whipe out 1500 attacking aircraft.

We can either accept it or drop the games in mid 44 but I think anyone arguing these are realistic results needs a doctor, a serious one.

_____________________________


(in reply to hades1001)
Post #: 6036
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 8:52:54 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Planes in the hex where the CVs are located (includes standby fighters, fighters
rearming/refueling, fighters with different mission setting)
Allied aircraft
Corsair II x 97
F4U-1A Corsair x 330
F4U-1D Corsair x 129
F6F-3 Hellcat x 72
F6F-5 Hellcat x 555


On first strike your CAP faced roughly 460 escorts and 250 fighters, about 700+ total.
This doesn´t look much comparing to your fighters available, but do not confuse total
numbers on strike (which is a true value) with planes theoretically available for CAP.

Of the 1180 fighters available only 30% were scrambling and another 10% airborne.
(taken from your combat report)
This makes about 400+ fighters available to engage, so roughly 1:1 compared to fighters
in the strike, 2:3 considering total number of a/c involved.

This is not an issue with setting, this is just the character of a CAP mission.

If I calculate available CAP, I always assume potential planes available to intercept a specific
incoming strike to be roughly 30-40% of total fighters assigned to the mission at best.

A strike always has the advantage in plane percentage involved as the time of attack, and
so the time where all available strenght can be focused, can be chosen at will. CAP cannot.


To really stop an incoming raid I would always assume at least an advantage of 3:1 in fighters
capable to engage and at least a 2:1 advantage in total planes. This results in requireing at least
6-7:1 in total CAP fighters available in the hex.

In your case this means 4500+ fighters, considering that the naval attack planes get the most love
from raders training program.

You were far from those numbers.


< Message edited by LoBaron -- 1/26/2012 9:06:22 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6037
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 9:00:06 AM   
LoBaron


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Apologies, it looked in the post like you used hybrid settings, which you say was not the
case.

You could be right that the numbers of standby are a sideeffect of you CAP% settings.
What was the rest set to? Rest, or not assigned?


Not assigned. Cause i wanted them to be ready to scramble...

Settings were very simple:

CAP 60
LRCAP 0
Rest 0

Range Hex 0

I thought this would guarantee me a solid 40% of my fighter forse (say 450 fighters) ready to scamble, while 600 of my fighters should have been already in the air ready to reach the raid.... Was i wrong?


Yes, a bit.
This setting means:
60% of fighters are reserved for CAP.
Of those about 20-30% might be airborne at any time, 30% are ready to scramble on short notice, and the
rest in various states of readyness or turnaround/rearm/refuel.

The remaining 40% with no mission assignement are in secondary readyness, available to replace planes broken
down and available for scramble with high delay. These planes most probably all missed the interception of
the first wave, but probably helped engaging the follow up strikes.

Taking your numbers again this means:
about 160-200 fighters airborne
about 200 fighters on ready5 and probably within intercept time
about 200-250 fighters under service/turnaround with no chance to intercept
400 fighters with low readiness, probably much more than the 40mins required for successful intercept.

See the difference?



_____________________________


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6038
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 9:01:33 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

(3) IIRC, approximately 40% of the potential Allied fighter CAP was already tasked to provide LRCAP over the transports at the beachhead some hexes away. That was a player decision and not the victim of the game code

(4) Much of the remaining available Allied CAP had a time to interception longer than the time to target of the incoming bombers, thus it was out of position. Being out of position is a major factor in determining whether it gets a chance to participate in combat at all or when it does, such as pre or post the raid

(5) With multiple CV TFs located in the same hex there is an opportunity for the CAP of all the TFs to participate but only the CAP of the computer targetted TF is in the optimal position to intercept. The CAP of the adjacent TFs has to move into position

(6) Allied CAP was set to only 60%. In view of (a) the short journey, (b) the short term exposure of the carriers and (c) the anticipated heavy enemy response (evidenced by the carriers having bomber units replaced by additional fighter units), a good argument could be made that 100% CAP should have been set

(7) CAP altitude was too staggered. The main reason why one wants to stagger CAP is to counter sweeps. Generally speaking a maximum of 3 altitudes suffices to counter sweeps. Again 3 altitudes, albeit at different heights, generally suffices to meet kamikazes. To counter normal enemy bomber strikes 2 maybe 3 CAP altitudes will normally suffice for the enemy bombers have set attack profile runs. Bottom line, by having so many different CAP altitudes, more CAP fighters were already being placed out of position to quickly respond and get into optimal position

(8) GreyJoy had no prior experience of handling the massed Allied carrier fleet. LBA and CV based air have one thing in common; they both fly through the air. Otherwise there are some significant differences between the two regarding how the player should approach their utilisation.

So once again before jumping on the bandwagon of criticising the game engine people would do well to consider what player made decisions contributed to the outcome. As to the overall strategy employed here and previously, I will maintain my continued silence.

Alfred


(3) Alfred, the numbers present in the combat report were fighters all set to CAP and not LRCAP. I placed on LRCAP only the Hellcats-3, while Hellcats-5 (plus a small % of Hellcats 3) and the corsairs were all on CAP (60% or 70%) with range 0. So i had more than 1000 fighters on CAP over my CVs.

Understood, my point being that you were already limiting your maximum theoretical CAP - see LoBaron's post #6029. Still having 1000 fighters for CAP is only of value if properly set.

(4) but this wasn't my fault, right? just bad dice and rolls?

Not your fault in terms of silly error, but your fault in terms of the natural consequence of your decisions. It is most definitely not the result of bad dice rolls and you need to understand that you were not the victim of circumstances beyond your control. In the circumstances which developed you were always going to have some CAP out of position, the question is whether your decisions exacerbated problem.

(5) Got it...

Like everything there is always a pro and a con to every decision. Allied players tend to have only 1 CV TFs in 1942 to avoid the coordination penalties. By 1944 they can move to a 2 CV structure and not suffer the coordination penalties. However doing so does increase the likelihood of having CAP slightly out of position. More importantly, as the intent of your carriers was to not launch a strike but only to provide protection to the transports at the beach and over the carriers themselves, concern about strike penalties was moot. IOW you could have operated a single giant CV TF.

(6) I see...i set the CAP at 60/70 because i wanted to avoid what seems to have happened...that our fighters weren't ready to scramble when needed because all of them were out of position. The problem i see is the "stand-by" position when the raid arrived...to me that means that my fighters were refueling ...wouldn't have been better, in retrospective, to have say 30% on CAP and the rest ready to scramble?

No. Whatever CAP level you set, 1/3 of the quantum will be in the air, 1/3 of the quantum is refueling and the other 1/3 of the quantum is on the ground. So by upping the CAP per centage rate you automatically increase the quantum. Having a CAP ratio merely increased the quantum on the ground thus had you gone with a 30% CAP rate the quantum already in the air would have been even smaller.

(7) well...i feared the Kamikaze Nemo's approach...meaning lots of different altitudes (from 42k to 100 feet) in order to catch the CAP anaware...

Yes but you only have to fear 3 kamikaze altitude attack profiles; low (means 100'), medium and high (above most of your midwar fighter latitude ceilings). This means that the real issue is that low kamikazes will arrive over the target before fighters higher up can get down to intercept. With regard to the other two attack profiles you don't need to have multi staggered CAP levels in each profile as most fighters will be able to get to the bandits in time. Thus in addition to setting a low level altitude CAP, having one mid level and one high level CAP altitude generally suffices. Plus accept that just as in real life, some kamikazes will get through and cause some damage but not necessarily enough to sink a capital ship.

(8) true...but sooner or later i had to try, right?

Not necessarily. Depends on whether the tactical risk/reward was consistent with the overall strategic plan. Assuming it is a good strategic plan. In this instance if Sadogashima was to be invaded, then the Allied carriers had to be used.

As always thanks for your insight mate!


Alfred

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6039
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 9:15:10 AM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline
It's quite simple, in the absence of historical evidence of such large raids occurring, I'd simply provide a House Rule that naval air strikes are limited to a set number of bombers.

I'd say 250, this seems to be just about the largest number of bomber aircraft participating in naval strikes that I'm aware of historically.

Also, I would not have had more than four CVs in a TF - I'd have broken up my carriers into a number of task forces, all in the same hex.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 6040
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 9:16:33 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
LoBaron, thanks! I got it. However the numbers of planes on "standby mode" seems to me too high considering your interpretation...but, above all, if 4500 fighters were needed to actually fight on equal terms (which doesn't mean to stop every enemy raid, mind you)...well the CVs would be damned to always stay away from any lvl 9 enemy airfield! I could have kept them hidden till 1946...but to what pourpose? Deterrent weapon?...not my cup of tea :-)

Alfred, as always, thanks. Everything is clear now. The only thing i notice is that the enemy planes downed on the first wave was really really low...very...too few fighters were airborne when the raid was detected and too many of them were in stand-by...here is where i call some bad luck over this battle...usually i keep my fighters on 30 CAP (LBA fighters i mean) and the scrambling fighters tend to do pretty well...while here everything went wrong...but i got the fact that my decisions created more problems than they solved...live and learn they say...i will learn hopefully :-P

Thanks guys

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 6041
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 9:22:50 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
GJ, you set CAP to 60%/no mission 40%.

The standby numbers include those planes belonging to the 60% CAP, but
also the 40% without mission.

Remember, the combat report shows every plane, not only those assigned to CAP.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 1/26/2012 9:26:54 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6042
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 10:11:18 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

GJ, you set CAP to 60%/no mission 40%.

The standby numbers include those planes belonging to the 60% CAP, but
also the 40% without mission.

Remember, the combat report shows every plane, not only those assigned to CAP.



I know LoBaron, every plane (meaning CAP assigned + not assigned) but not those on LRCAP over other hexes (the 280 Hellcats-3 that were over the invasion fleet).

However, as i stated before, in these 3 years of gameplay CAP leaving 30% on CAP and 70% of non assigned has given great results. Over Karachi, over Tulagi, over Hakkodate...those planes not assigned were always scrambling in time to reach the target...they were ready on the strip with warmt engines... Don't know why this time it happened exactly the opposite...that's why i say also a bad dice and roll kicked in... but maybe, as alfred said, LBA battles are very different from Carrier battles...

Anyway...next time (if i will even get another chance) i'll place a solid 100% CAP with 3 bands of altitudes

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 6043
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 10:22:51 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
But...moving over...now i need to re-think and re-organize my overall strategy.

The primary goal now is to find a way to defend my supply lines which are very exposed.

I'm organizing a series of interlocking air bases with enough DBs and TBs to keep the KB honest. Aleutinas and Kuriles will obviously need some extra attention now.

What's left of the allied DS will be patrolling the seas between Kuriles and Aleutinas so to be in a position to cut the retreat route to the KB if it dares to move towards Seattle or Alaska...but we know that now we'll be struggling a lot!


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6044
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 10:32:45 AM   
Knucles2

 

Posts: 37
Joined: 1/8/2012
Status: offline
Just out of curiosity, what kind of cap setup could GJ have used to avoid this?

I just bought the game, so, I'm no where near a situation where I might make the same mistake ( I'm still having a hard time wrapping my brain around the BIG PICTURE aspect of the game) but it would be be handy to know there IS a solution...



(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 6045
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 10:35:54 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

GJ, you set CAP to 60%/no mission 40%.

The standby numbers include those planes belonging to the 60% CAP, but
also the 40% without mission.

Remember, the combat report shows every plane, not only those assigned to CAP.



I know LoBaron, every plane (meaning CAP assigned + not assigned) but not those on LRCAP over other hexes (the 280 Hellcats-3 that were over the invasion fleet).

However, as i stated before, in these 3 years of gameplay CAP leaving 30% on CAP and 70% of non assigned has given great results. Over Karachi, over Tulagi, over Hakkodate...those planes not assigned were always scrambling in time to reach the target...they were ready on the strip with warmt engines... Don't know why this time it happened exactly the opposite...that's why i say also a bad dice and roll kicked in... but maybe, as alfred said, LBA battles are very different from Carrier battles...

Anyway...next time (if i will even get another chance) i'll place a solid 100% CAP with 3 bands of altitudes


One of the differences is that over land targets you are not going to see TB on a final attack profile of 200'. Over land targets, as players attempt to improve their strike package co-ordination, the delta range of attack altitude tends to be much narrower. The enemy may come in at a certain altitude today and perhaps a different altitude the following turn in order to get the defending CAP out of position, but today most of the bombers will attempt to come in at the same altitude to maximise co-ordination.

A task force (particularly a CV TF with the high value CVs) which is attacked instead is likely to be the subject of planes with torpedoes approaching at one altitude and then entering the attack profile at 200'; divebomers probably at a medium height (10-14k) in order to dive bomb although they will then deliver their ordnance at 2-5k, but they could approach at another altitude also for a level bombing or glide bombing run; then you can find some aircraft (perhaps fighter bombers) coming in at 100' to skip bomb etc etc.

This makes setting CAP for a CV TF a much more difficult proposition and the odds are always against a CV TF going up against well stocked enemy land airfields. Particularly if no friendly LBA is available and the objective grounds to justify the operation are absent.

GreyJoy's prior experience in the Solomons was of very limited value because (a) the targets in the TF were much more numerous and widespread because the high value targets, ie CVs were not used, (I refer to a previous post regarding the target weighting of ship types) and (b) there were far fewer well stocked land enemy airfields.

Alfred

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6046
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 10:53:57 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
I've had this sort of thing happen to me repeatedly, though on a much smaller scale. Taking Milne Bay while the foe had the rest of Papua, Gasmata and Rabaul was a very bad idea even with CVs, too many airfields. And later on cruising CVs around Manus while Hansa Bay, Hollandia, Aitape and Dagua are all stacked up, was a similarly bad idea. Coordination, when it happens, can be incredibly ugly. My Manus Incident involved a small Japanese CVTF's strike linking up perfectly with 3 strikes from land based airfields - there were a lot of intersecting lines that day.

It's just too much to risk. Basically, if there are multiple airfields in range then keep the hell away with CVs. I think the way to go as the Allies is to capture an exposed base, build up heavy bombers, trash everything within 16 hexes, rinse/repeat, with minimum exposure to naval assets. It's clearly not really possible to suppress all the Japanese airfields in range of Sadogashima, so it's a death trap in waiting... if you absolutely /had/ to do it I guess the best approach would be with massed paratroopers I guess, if you can get transport a/c in range, and rely on surprise, parashock and a limited garrison.

That said. I would never have imagined such devastation wrought on your CVs while your many Hellcats basically sat on their ass. All I can say is, never underestimate the ability of the Allied navy in this game to screw up. I have zero confidence in any Allied naval assets whatsoever - submarines, CVs, surface ships, whatever, they are all mincemeat in the Japanese war machines tracks unless you have a massive quantitative advantage. Here, given all the airfields and incoming firepower, you clearly didn't have that quantitative advantage.

_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 6047
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 10:53:59 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


... With 2 days turn the 100% CAP can be really a problem because the second day, after a day of battles, will result in your crews having more than 50 fatigue accumulated...



I would recheck this. I don't find quite such a large increase (increase in fatigue of 50 points) on my units undertaking 100% LRCAP after one day, and the fatigue increase on a unit on 100% CAP after 1 day is much less, usually more in the 15-20% range.

Plus I've even had units with most pilots in the 80-90% fatigue rate still conduct satisfactory operations.

As always it comes down to paying proper attention to logistical considerations:


  • fly only at normal range
  • if possible avoid using drop tanks but if used, then fly only at the new "normal" range
  • choose only wothwhile missions


Never fear going beyond the comfort envelope if the potential reward is worth it. There will be plenty of time afterwards for proper rest and recovery. Engaging in bloody fighting may be fun to some but not to me. However there are times when the situation requires bloody fighting. The skill lies in identifying when it is and when it isn't appropriate. For a game which is so heavily focussed on the real capabilities and deficiencies of the WWII combatants, that is a lesson far too easily forgotten by players who are otherwise far too eager to discuss esotoric details of military hardware.

Alfred

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6048
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 11:20:48 AM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
What I'm curious about, and this may have been mentioned earlier and I missed it, but was there no LBA fighter cover on LR CAP? Seems that would have helped quite a bit. The CVs when attacked were only 5 hexes from Hakodate. This should be within normal range for quite a few fighters based there. It could have at least helped when the CV fighters are subject to so many other factors and trying to support the transports several hexes away.

Tough loss. This will certainly change the game quite a bit! Looks like more digging in and strat bombing for several months ahead.

< Message edited by obvert -- 1/26/2012 11:21:20 AM >

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 6049
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 11:22:08 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

What I'm curious about, and this may have been mentioned earlier and I missed it, but was there no LBA fighter cover on LR CAP? Seems that would have helped quite a bit.


You get massive coordination penalties from LBA LRCAPPing carriers. That said, "every little helps".

_____________________________


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 6050
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 11:25:06 AM   
yubari

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Oct 18, 19 1944

The news reached Washington and London almost immediately...the operation Dust N Bones was a complete fiasco...no, not a fiasco...a disaster!

3/4 of the allied Carrier Fleet was sunk...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Sadogashima at 115,54

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 40 minutes

Japanese aircraft
     A6M2 Zero x 22
     A6M3a Zero x 64
     A6M5 Zero x 48
     A6M5b Zero x 15
     A6M5c Zero x 142
     A7M2 Sam x 33
     B7A2 Grace x 235
     D4Y4 Judy x 34
     J2M3 Jack x 48
     N1K1-J George x 81
     Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 21



Allied aircraft
     Corsair II x 97
     F4U-1A Corsair x 330
     F4U-1D Corsair x 129
     F6F-3 Hellcat x 72
     F6F-5 Hellcat x 555


Japanese aircraft losses
     A6M5 Zero: 3 destroyed
     A6M5c Zero: 2 destroyed
     B7A2 Grace: 15 destroyed, 32 damaged
     B7A2 Grace: 17 destroyed by flak
     D4Y4 Judy: 3 destroyed, 7 damaged
     D4Y4 Judy: 4 destroyed by flak
     J2M3 Jack: 1 destroyed
     N1K1-J George: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
     F4U-1A Corsair: 2 destroyed
     F6F-5 Hellcat: 1 destroyed


Dear lord. And people are still defending the air model.

Sorry to say but this is why I gave up on this game, there are simply too many crazy results where one side gets utterly trounced for no reason and it is just not fun.

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6051
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 11:50:41 AM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Star Wars.



and I get lambasted every time I try to point out how far overboard they went in giving "advantages" to Japan in the name of "play balance"

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 6052
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 12:05:32 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

What I'm curious about, and this may have been mentioned earlier and I missed it, but was there no LBA fighter cover on LR CAP? Seems that would have helped quite a bit.


You get massive coordination penalties from LBA LRCAPPing carriers. That said, "every little helps".


All my LBA fighters at Hakodate were placed (a part from those specifically on LRCAP over the invasion fleet) on 60% CAP max Range...i was in faxct hoping in some leakers to give help to my CVs...didn't happen...

My overall thought, after reading and understanding everything Alfred and LoBaron said, there was no real way to keep my CVs safe under these circumnstances. The flaw was in my decision to risk...i shouldn't have had.
If with 60% CAP with 1100 fighters the results against the 1st raid were less than 40 enemy planes shot down out of 500 involved, a 100% CAP setting wouldn't have changed things much.

I'm trying to convince myself it was a bad-dice-n-roll...i wanna think that a re-play would see different and more favourable results (not saying untouched CVs...i was well prepared to lose some of them)...meaning more enemies shot down and a less perfect bombers attacking rally...

But anyway...let's move on guys...it's a game...and Rader got screwed up by this very game engine other times (for ex the loss of his CAs during his last raid)...so it's a give and take...this time we're on the wrong side of the hill...and it hurts...but one of us has to lose at the end...so we have the accept the outcome and keep our head up and keep on fighting till the very end!


(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 6053
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 12:17:09 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


Tough loss. This will certainly change the game quite a bit!


Yes, but if the final pourpose of a game is entretainament, this is exactly what the best match should do. A constant changing of fortunes...

The allies were clearly winning...were sieging Japan...and now, when the hope seemed lost for the rising sun...BOOM...le coup de teatre that changes everything back again!

This will keep the game very entretaining till 1946...may prove to be a good happening for everbody (GJ, Rader, JFBs and even AFBs...)

And i won't sit on my thumbs for the rest of the war. This is a promise

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 6054
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 1:00:03 PM   
Miller


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

You get massive coordination penalties from LBA LRCAPPing carriers. That said, "every little helps".


I think there is a work around for that, have the LBA LRCAP set to cover a surface TF in the same hex as the CVs.

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 6055
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 1:03:48 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Move over guys...please...every minute i spend watching at the turn (i'm giving orders now) it's a pain in the heart...
Let's look at the future...there's still a war to carry on...and the best way to honour those sailors drowned today is to keep on fighting!

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 6056
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 1:05:24 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


Tough loss. This will certainly change the game quite a bit!


Yes, but if the final pourpose of a game is entretainament, this is exactly what the best match should do. A constant changing of fortunes...

The allies were clearly winning...were sieging Japan...and now, when the hope seemed lost for the rising sun...BOOM...le coup de teatre that changes everything back again!

This will keep the game very entretaining till 1946...may prove to be a good happening for everbody (GJ, Rader, JFBs and even AFBs...)

And i won't sit on my thumbs for the rest of the war. This is a promise


Love the spirit!!!

Yes, you're right, and really, this will provide you with some fun challenges. You'll get to find out what you can do with all of that nice stuff over in Russia soon as well! That'll be fun for sure.

We want JETS!!! (For both of you I mean!)

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6057
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 1:10:41 PM   
Miller


Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline
Sorry to drag this out further GJ, but I've just had another look at the big strike on your CVs. Your CAP managed to shoot down 25 a/c. Twenty-Five.

Lets all remember that only a handfull of F4Fs managed to shoot down 15 attacking Jap bombers at Midway. No matter how much of your CAP was out of position/scrambling/refuelling/taking a **** that is a ridiculous result. Hell you cannot even blame it on this "200 firing passes limit" that is being talked about. Something is just plain screwed.

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6058
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 1:16:42 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

Sorry to drag this out further GJ, but I've just had another look at the big strike on your CVs. Your CAP managed to shoot down 25 a/c. Twenty-Five.

Lets all remember that only a handfull of F4Fs managed to shoot down 15 attacking Jap bombers at Midway. No matter how much of your CAP was out of position/scrambling/refuelling/taking a **** that is a ridiculous result. Hell you cannot even blame it on this "200 firing passes limit" that is being talked about. Something is just plain screwed.


I know miller. I have concerns too. Dont think i have not. The explanations given are logical but don't explain such a poor result. That's why i prefer to think about it as bad luck...one of those uncontrollable variables that sometimes kick in in RL events... I cannot do anything right now to change the outcome of this battle...so i eat the ****, swallow and move over...

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 6059
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! - 1/26/2012 1:26:25 PM   
hades1001

 

Posts: 977
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline
Are you still using the modified EXE?

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6060
Page:   <<   < prev  200 201 [202] 203 204   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE! Page: <<   < prev  200 201 [202] 203 204   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.328