Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

Brilliant post, PaxMondo.

Let's look at the Battle of the Philippine Sea - the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot on 19 June 1944.

The first Japanese raid consisted of only 69 Zeroes, Judies and Graces - some of them flown by very green pilots.

Over 200 F6F-3 Hellcats with experienced naval pilots met this raid more than 50 miles out from TF58. Only 27 Japanese planes got through that first screen; a second fighter screen destroyed a further 16 Japanese planes. The remaining eleven Japanese aircraft attacked two US picket destroyers and some Judies managed to get through to the battleship line and landed a bomb hit on the South Dakota.

The second raid was 119 Japanese aircraft. They were also engaged more than 50m out by over 200 Hellcats. Despite being outnumbered and the distance from the US ships, twenty planes still managed to break through all the way to the carriers but were then decimated by AAA. Four Judies tried to bomb USS Wasp but she managed to elude them.

So we see that in June 1944, with poor quality Japanese pilots, facing an extremely well-layered and directed CAP with superior airframes, you still had about 15% of the Japanese attackers getting through to attempt a target run (and then being ineffectual and decimated by AAA).

I really don't think it's implausible then if the game engine has 50 Frances and 50 Franks being countered by 200 P-47s and 12% of the Frances bombers manage to get through for a target run.

I have said often that I think the air model in this game works very well (except for massive non-historical size raids over 300 or so aircraft) but that a concern in the stock scenarios is how ineffectual Allied ship AA is. Da Big Babes goes a long way towards addressing this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

GJ,

Not sure what you're looking for here.  Nice tests, pretty much as expected IMO.  You are largely stopping the raid with 2:1 ... "largely" means a few hits though.  It doesn't suggest no damage.

Let's start at the beginning and let's stay focused.  If you are looking to get historical results from any model, you need to first input historical data.  Your game is NOT historical.  Not close.  Not by any stretch of the imagination.  So to start, you can't expect to anything close to historical results in your testing.

What is not historical?

Let's start with the IJ pilots.  The air groups are not the combination of low morale, desperate, burned out, experienced few pilots filled out with 18 yo kamikazes that pretty much defined end of war IJ air groups.  Instead you are facing well trained, high morale groups.  Ask any pilot how big a deal this is.  Huge.  And we know in the model this is also huge.  LoBaron, Damian, any of the air model experts will confirm this.

Second: air frames.  You are not facing the hordes of early war air frames that was historically the case.  The A6M2 is not in play, as it actually was.  Instead you are facing far better, although still not on par with allied, air frames.  Again, huge.  Instead of a +100 knot speed advantage, you have on average more like only 50 knots.  Still large, but far less than historical.  And the bombers instead of being Ronson's now have armor ... again, big change.

Quality: You are facing air craft from well supplied LAND BASES than there is any historical comparative.  The closest you have is the Phllipines, but the numbers were still smaller and the supply wasn't as good.  Meaning, some not insignificant numbers of the aircraft sortied those days with: not all armaments loaded or functioning, not fully functioning airframes ...  This aspect isn't modelled well in the game, but it is a large factor in your comparison to historical results.

Now go look at the actual combat records of the late war great air battles.  The allied fighter cover had 2:1 or better advantage in numbers in those fights.  If you expectation isn't at least that, it needs to be reset.  Now, take that 2:1 and modify it further for the above 3 factors.  How high do you need to be?  Pure speculation of course, but way above 2:1 is pretty safe.

Now, go back and read up on the planning for the invasion of Japan.  The projected losses were horrific.  The 1945 analysis was that they could NOT completely defend the fleet against an all out attack, there were going to be substantial losses, and only ONE chance to make a landing.  Far higher risk than Normandy.  This is what compelled Truman to use the nuke(s).  Agree or not with the analyses, but that is what they were. 

I'm not suggesting there isn't a problem with very large air combats.  Of course there is.  My testing last year proved it to me.  When I raised the issue, I got no response.  So then I did some searching and found out why.  There are several threads (search back a couple years ago when they were trying to fix the uber-CAP) with the devs well knowing this issue and working to mitigate it.  The thread's don't have all the conclusions as to what was actually done, but pretty clear that it was known and being worked on.  JWE has shared his HR's in rader's AAR to further mitigate this, which by now you also have.

So what's the bottom line here?  The good news is that as a PBEM player, you actually can install HR's to mitigate this somewhat.  It might very well take 4:1 fighter or higher CAP to provide "air tight" results, but you can get there.  At 2:1, you get some losses, but knowing this you can mitigate the effects nicely.  All of this cuts both ways: it is not one sided at all.  IJ faces exactly the same challenges, so this is not a game balance issue.


Me?  I'm an AI player, there aren't any HR's, and I haven't quite figured this one out yet.  I already know from my Downfall testing the AI is going to send in 100's of B-29's at 6000 ft at night as soon as it has the opportunity.  I know, and you do too, that there is no CAP / AA defense against this.  They will destroy all industry at the targetted base in 2 - 4 turns and then move onto the next base.  My only defense is to never allow that to happen ... ok, a good challenge. 

PS: If you want to do a "historical" test, change the IJ units to A6M2 with Betty's.  Set the pilot exp to about 40, morale to about 40, move in a good leader and 2 - 3 high exp pilots into each group and let it go.  See your results then.  Bet you get quite close to historical results with air combat of less than 200 total a/c (i.e. complete destruction of the IJ units and maybe 2 - 3 kami hits)

Just my thoughts ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

Brilliant post, PaxMondo.

Let's look at the Battle of the Philippine Sea - the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot on 19 June 1944.

The first Japanese raid consisted of only 69 Zeroes, Judies and Graces - some of them flown by very green pilots.

Over 200 F6F-3 Hellcats with experienced naval pilots met this raid more than 50 miles out from TF58. Only 27 Japanese planes got through that first screen; a second fighter screen destroyed a further 16 Japanese planes. The remaining eleven Japanese aircraft attacked two US picket destroyers and some Judies managed to get through to the battleship line and landed a bomb hit on the South Dakota.

The second raid was 119 Japanese aircraft. They were also engaged more than 50m out by over 200 Hellcats. Despite being outnumbered and the distance from the US ships, twenty planes still managed to break through all the way to the carriers but were then decimated by AAA. Four Judies tried to bomb USS Wasp but she managed to elude them.

So we see that in June 1944, with poor quality Japanese pilots, facing an extremely well-layered and directed CAP with superior airframes, you still had about 15% of the Japanese attackers getting through to attempt a target run (and then being ineffectual and decimated by AAA).

I really don't think it's implausible then if the game engine has 50 Frances and 50 Franks being countered by 200 P-47s and 12% of the Frances bombers manage to get through for a target run.

I have said often that I think the air model in this game works very well (except for massive non-historical size raids over 300 or so aircraft) but that a concern in the stock scenarios is how ineffectual Allied ship AA is. Da Big Babes goes a long way towards addressing this.

well then put those rookie pilots into 200 Japanese aircraft and see all bombers still getting through.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

Understood, which is why I've proposed that coordination penalties above a certain raid size should be seriously ramped up to avoid non-historical raid sizes.

Carrier-launched strikes already have their chances of uncoordination doubled if the TF has more aircraft than 200 + RND(200). You could do the same with land-based strikes!

Indeed.

Though its a bit more than that... if you have lots of separate carrier TFs you might see a 1000 plane strike. Different bases or TFs can coordinate with one another.

If the CAP has a hardcoded limit it seems only fair to me that the bombers also have a hardcoded limit. However thats me from my armchair, god knows what the code actually looks like. Maybe one day the source will be released...

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
4. "Escort vs. CAP": again we've seen that CAP can be easily overwhelmed. You basically need 4 times the number of engaging fighters to overcome the escort. So, given the 200 (300) firing passes limit, probably any strike with more than 50 escort will enable the bombers to get through without much of a problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Pax (and you guys all) don't get me wrong. My intent wasn't to recreate historical situations...i started these tests just because there was still something unclear to my eyes about how the CAP works.
So everything started to see the efficiency of large CAP umbrellas. Then i started to try smaller CAPs because people asked me to...and also because i was trying to figure out which would be the best HR to workaround the problem (and no, nobody told me about JWE's suggestions...).

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
201 - HR to mitigate?

201.1 - Only allow B-29 to base more than one 4EB group per base.
My recent games have used this house rule.
The number of multi-group 4EB raids historically in the Pacific is tiny. The Balikpapan B-24 raids in October 1944 and the B-29 attacks are the exceptions.

201.2 - Only allow 50 planes per airbase level.
This is a tough rule to enforce as each player is "on his own" to enforce. We use this in my current games, but I would say it is the most "abused" or "overlooked" rule, because it is tough to remember. But it is still a good goal and I think the intent of both the WITP and AE design. We just haven't been able to figure out how to make it work!

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Pax (and you guys all) don't get me wrong. My intent wasn't to recreate historical situations...i started these tests just because there was still something unclear to my eyes about how the CAP works.
So everything started to see the efficiency of large CAP umbrellas. Then i started to try smaller CAPs because people asked me to...and also because i was trying to figure out which would be the best HR to workaround the problem (and no, nobody told me about JWE's suggestions...).

Ahh, ok. Cool. Understood.

So, according to the posts on this long, long ago, (2005!) these are all known issues and there is a TON of test data. Folks who can trace their ancestory here back to those days are "in the know". Likely why those people aren't participating here ...

JWE's HR's that he shared. I'm re-posting here, hopefully he is ok with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
201 - HR to mitigate?

201.1 - Only allow B-29 to base more than one 4EB group per base.
My recent games have used this house rule.
The number of multi-group 4EB raids historically in the Pacific is tiny. The Balikpapan B-24 raids in October 1944 and the B-29 attacks are the exceptions.

201.2 - Only allow 50 planes per airbase level.
This is a tough rule to enforce as each player is "on his own" to enforce. We use this in my current games, but I would say it is the most "abused" or "overlooked" rule, because it is tough to remember. But it is still a good goal and I think the intent of both the WITP and AE design. We just haven't been able to figure out how to make it work!

Note, no one suggests that these are a complete fix. But, I can see pretty readily that they "fix" most of the issues for a PBEM game up until about mid-'44. As I stated earlier, isn't going to help me in an AI game as my opponent will "gleefully" ignore all of the HR's that I put in place.

Now, for you at the point of the game you are in ...

First, I suggest that you think through the impact that these two HR's would have. Both are fairly big and would greatly change a lot for both of you. You need to see what the implications these would be to you, your opponent, and then what stategies are available within the context of these. Given the source of these HR's, I feel they are the very best starting point.

I've done only a couple hours of testing in Downfall imposing these restraints on both sides. My initial results are positive, but I have not done any "Nemo-ing" (HR compliant work-around analysis) yet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I'm not sure I buy that one bomb group on base "stuff". Here's an example. In the Marianas there were 5 B-29 bases, each capable of handling a Bomb Wing, that is to say 4 bomb groups. Those are not the only bases present however. On Guam alone you had three more bases, "Harmon" a USAAF base , Oroyte , a USN/USMC base and What later became the Main USN airbase (and today is Won Pat International). I'll have to check the game, but I don't belive that ANY of those three islands reach level 10. I've been to each of those bases and any of them (even little Oroyte , the carrier type plane base) could handle a heck of a lot more than one group of bombers.

Once again, my gut tells me that house rules are running amuck over what was reality. Because no one really can get a handle on just how lopsided against Japan things were near the end of the war.

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

Steve,

B-29s were excepted to the 1 BG per base if I read it right. It really applies to 42-43 for the B-17/24s where the logistics, engineering and locations did not really allow major complexes for multiple bomb squadrons like in Europe or the bases they constructed in the Marianas in 44. Still, there was a whole lot of engineering done to Tinian before it could handle the number of BGs it did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I'm not sure I buy that one bomb group on base "stuff". Here's an example. In the Marianas there were 5 B-29 bases, each capable of handling a Bomb Wing, that is to say 4 bomb groups. Those are not the only bases present however. On Guam alone you had three more bases, "Harmon" a USAAF base , Oroyte , a USN/USMC base and What later became the Main USN airbase (and today is Won Pat International). I'll have to check the game, but I don't belive that ANY of those three islands reach level 10. I've been to each of those bases and any of them (even little Oroyte , the carrier type plane base) could handle a heck of a lot more than one group of bombers.

Once again, my gut tells me that house rules are running amuck over what was reality. Because no one really can get a handle on just how lopsided against Japan things were near the end of the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

Steve,

B-29s were excepted to the 1 BG per base if I read it right. It really applies to 42-43 for the B-17/24s where the logistics, engineering and locations did not really allow major complexes for multiple bomb squadrons like in Europe or the bases they constructed in the Marianas in 44. Still, there was a whole lot of engineering done to Tinian before it could handle the number of BGs it did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I'm not sure I buy that one bomb group on base "stuff". Here's an example. In the Marianas there were 5 B-29 bases, each capable of handling a Bomb Wing, that is to say 4 bomb groups. Those are not the only bases present however. On Guam alone you had three more bases, "Harmon" a USAAF base , Oroyte , a USN/USMC base and What later became the Main USN airbase (and today is Won Pat International). I'll have to check the game, but I don't belive that ANY of those three islands reach level 10. I've been to each of those bases and any of them (even little Oroyte , the carrier type plane base) could handle a heck of a lot more than one group of bombers.

Once again, my gut tells me that house rules are running amuck over what was reality. Because no one really can get a handle on just how lopsided against Japan things were near the end of the war.

If by "a whole lot of engineering" paving over the whole bloody island, then I'll agree. But I honestly think that we are not taking into account just how organized the USAAF engineers where when it came to "shoehorning" planes on to an island. Look at French Frigate shoals for example. It's a dot base. They concreted over the whole island, then extended it into the sea.Or Cubi point in the Phillipines (it's an artificial island).

If a base can handle B-29's , why would B-17's and B-24's be any different?

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman

Well now that we've learned that there are several variables that can contribute to completely ruining the ability to stop bombers, let's apply those lessons to a 1,000 CAP fighter force against 400 bombers and 200+ fighters and see if everything still looks broken.

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

quote:

However, that being said, i think the HR proposed doesn't solve anything.
50x every AF level means that Tokyo can have 500 planes, and 450 more can be based in every hex sorrounding Tokyo...which mean that strikes of 450 bombers escorted by 400+ fighters can be easily launched even maintaining a strong CAP over japanese cities...and this means, as we know, that the allies can't have a fleet (and, so to say, an operative port) anywhere in range of japanese escort fighters...
Every single BB TF, every single CVTF, every single amphib TF will get mauled and destroy for the loss of......300 escort fighters piloted by rookies...a trade i'll made every day.
The suggested HR applies to the 4Es problem...which, in out particular game, has never been a real problem imho.
Rader has always managed to bleed every to death every strategic offensive of mine launched with the 4Es...
I started my strat bombing campaign with nearly 750 4Es...after two months i had destroyed 600 japanese a/c factories and my 4E numbers were down to 170...i had to stop...lost so many crack bomber pilots and so many a/c that i could not replace the losses...most of my B29 groups were with only 1 a/c.... by the time i reached back the critical number of 500 4Es in my pools most of those destroyed a/c industries were already repaired and were producing every day 4E killers (Ki.83, Shindens etc...).

The morale of this brief story is that The allies (at least untill the war in europe is over) cannot really use the "overwhelm the CAP" strategy, simply because they cannot sustain the losses that this strategy brings with it...while Japan in late war scenarios can easily replace a couple of those massive strike every week without suffering...and, as we know, a single one of those raid can bring the allied fleet back to PH days...

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


Thanks you Pax.

So, the premise (sp!?) is that clearly (and i know that) I am not an objective observer. I do see "my side of the hill"... i know...probably it's normal...i see my problems as always bigger than my opponent's one...and that's for sure not true. Not at all.

However, that being said, i think the HR proposed doesn't solve anything.
50x every AF level means that Tokyo can have 500 planes, and 450 more can be based in every hex sorrounding Tokyo...which mean that strikes of 450 bombers escorted by 400+ fighters can be easily launched even maintaining a strong CAP over japanese cities...and this means, as we know, that the allies can't have a fleet (and, so to say, an operative port) anywhere in range of japanese escort fighters...
Every single BB TF, every single CVTF, every single amphib TF will get mauled and destroy for the loss of......300 escort fighters piloted by rookies...a trade i'll made every day.
The suggested HR applies to the 4Es problem...which, in out particular game, has never been a real problem imho.
Rader has always managed to bleed every to death every strategic offensive of mine launched with the 4Es...
I started my strat bombing campaign with nearly 750 4Es...after two months i had destroyed 600 japanese a/c factories and my 4E numbers were down to 170...i had to stop...lost so many crack bomber pilots and so many a/c that i could not replace the losses...most of my B29 groups were with only 1 a/c.... by the time i reached back the critical number of 500 4Es in my pools most of those destroyed a/c industries were already repaired and were producing every day 4E killers (Ki.83, Shindens etc...).

The morale of this brief story is that The allies (at least untill the war in europe is over) cannot really use the "overwhelm the CAP" strategy, simply because they cannot sustain the losses that this strategy brings with it...while Japan in late war scenarios can easily replace a couple of those massive strike every week without suffering...and, as we know, a single one of those raid can bring the allied fleet back to PH days...

I'm sorry for being so harsh...didn't have a good day...sorry guys

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


Thanks you Pax.

So, the premise (sp!?) is that clearly (and i know that) I am not an objective observer. I do see "my side of the hill"... i know...probably it's normal...i see my problems as always bigger than my opponent's one...and that's for sure not true. Not at all.

However, that being said, i think the HR proposed doesn't solve anything.
50x every AF level means that Tokyo can have 500 planes, and 450 more can be based in every hex sorrounding Tokyo...which mean that strikes of 450 bombers escorted by 400+ fighters can be easily launched even maintaining a strong CAP over japanese cities...and this means, as we know, that the allies can't have a fleet (and, so to say, an operative port) anywhere in range of japanese escort fighters...
Every single BB TF, every single CVTF, every single amphib TF will get mauled and destroy for the loss of......300 escort fighters piloted by rookies...a trade i'll made every day.
The suggested HR applies to the 4Es problem...which, in out particular game, has never been a real problem imho.
Rader has always managed to bleed every to death every strategic offensive of mine launched with the 4Es...
I started my strat bombing campaign with nearly 750 4Es...after two months i had destroyed 600 japanese a/c factories and my 4E numbers were down to 170...i had to stop...lost so many crack bomber pilots and so many a/c that i could not replace the losses...most of my B29 groups were with only 1 a/c.... by the time i reached back the critical number of 500 4Es in my pools most of those destroyed a/c industries were already repaired and were producing every day 4E killers (Ki.83, Shindens etc...).

The morale of this brief story is that The allies (at least untill the war in europe is over) cannot really use the "overwhelm the CAP" strategy, simply because they cannot sustain the losses that this strategy brings with it...while Japan in late war scenarios can easily replace a couple of those massive strike every week without suffering...and, as we know, a single one of those raid can bring the allied fleet back to PH days...

I'm sorry for being so harsh...didn't have a good day...sorry guys

Harsh, sorry, I don't read anything you've written as harsh, so no worries there at all. Am sorry to hear you had a bad day. Trust you can recover.

As to the game, I'm not really is a position to discuss what did and did not work in your game as I have not read your AAR and your opponents is a bit more "brief".

However, the 50xAF rule is a big one in that it prevents those overstacks in one field to allow really large attack formations. We know that having to use multiple fields can work, but we also know that this increases the odds of poor coordination (very much the reality of this era).

Regarding the "overwhelm the CAP" strategy ... first I've ever heard of it. Maybe the allies were able to do this in 1945, but then the situation then was a lot different than that in your game, correct? In '45 the IJ economy was teetering as they had not been able to extract as much resource from the DEI as they had hoped, and they had squandered a lot of that on a number of fruitless campaigns.

I'll have to finish my thoughts later ... I'm being booted off this machine by the WIFE. Sorry guys ....

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

There are a couple of things in this thread that cause me pause;

1) Why are these twin engine bombers surviving the flak to get into range to drop their torps, carrier TF's can put up a wall of fire that these planes would have to fly through?


2) Why aren't the enemy AF's pounded into the dirt before the invasions are showing up?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
AA was apparently very heavily nerfed. That is also apparently why the DaBabes mod focused on bring it back to a semblence of realism. I don't have any experience with DaBabes, but others here can surely fill in the blanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dobey

quote:

ORIGINAL: hkbhsi

The strange thing about your test is that you achieved the best result with less fighters. In the first test with 200 planes you destroyed a bunch of attackers, the more you added the less you killed.

To be honest I really DO hope that's the case. I would like to see the RL "law of diminishing returns" reflected in game results and hopefully somewhat discouraging the ever popular "Death Star" tactics where players strive to concerntrate their entrie force into a single hex \ base.

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADB123

quote:

However, that being said, i think the HR proposed doesn't solve anything.
50x every AF level means that Tokyo can have 500 planes, and 450 more can be based in every hex sorrounding Tokyo...which mean that strikes of 450 bombers escorted by 400+ fighters can be easily launched even maintaining a strong CAP over japanese cities...and this means, as we know, that the allies can't have a fleet (and, so to say, an operative port) anywhere in range of japanese escort fighters...
Every single BB TF, every single CVTF, every single amphib TF will get mauled and destroy for the loss of......300 escort fighters piloted by rookies...a trade i'll made every day.
The suggested HR applies to the 4Es problem...which, in out particular game, has never been a real problem imho.
Rader has always managed to bleed every to death every strategic offensive of mine launched with the 4Es...
I started my strat bombing campaign with nearly 750 4Es...after two months i had destroyed 600 japanese a/c factories and my 4E numbers were down to 170...i had to stop...lost so many crack bomber pilots and so many a/c that i could not replace the losses...most of my B29 groups were with only 1 a/c.... by the time i reached back the critical number of 500 4Es in my pools most of those destroyed a/c industries were already repaired and were producing every day 4E killers (Ki.83, Shindens etc...).

The morale of this brief story is that The allies (at least untill the war in europe is over) cannot really use the "overwhelm the CAP" strategy, simply because they cannot sustain the losses that this strategy brings with it...while Japan in late war scenarios can easily replace a couple of those massive strike every week without suffering...and, as we know, a single one of those raid can bring the allied fleet back to PH days...

GJ - You are calling it right. No amount of HRs will solve the fundamental problem with Air Combat. The "some bombers will get through no matter what" design change for AE was a bad decision from the beginning and no HR is going to fix it.

All this baloney about 4Es is just ignoring the real problem.

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dobey

quote:

ORIGINAL: hkbhsi

The strange thing about your test is that you achieved the best result with less fighters. In the first test with 200 planes you destroyed a bunch of attackers, the more you added the less you killed.

To be honest I really DO hope that's the case. I would like to see the RL "law of diminishing returns" reflected in game results and hopefully somewhat discouraging the ever popular "Death Star" tactics where players strive to concerntrate their entrie force into a single hex \ base.

funny you should say that as it is in the game. I had Michael code that in as part of AE version 1.0. When given a target bomber group and escorts amounting to, in this case 250 A/c, attacked by a ludicrously large CAP with only 37 minutes in which to degrade them before they get to the target, there IS a physical limit to the number of attacks that can occur.

The rational is physics, time, and a consideration that it doesn't require 800 Fighters on CAP to sufficiently degrade a Raid.

The crux of this is, if you are an operational commander with 800 Fighters to protect your entire AOR you aren't going to put them all in a single piece of sky to attack one raid.

It isn't sane. It isn't reasonable. It isn't historical. It is a poor allocation of forces.

Therefore, this test, in my opinion has little value.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dobey

quote:

ORIGINAL: hkbhsi

The strange thing about your test is that you achieved the best result with less fighters. In the first test with 200 planes you destroyed a bunch of attackers, the more you added the less you killed.

To be honest I really DO hope that's the case. I would like to see the RL "law of diminishing returns" reflected in game results and hopefully somewhat discouraging the ever popular "Death Star" tactics where players strive to concerntrate their entrie force into a single hex \ base.

funny you should say that as it is in the game. I had Michael code that in as part of AE version 1.0. When given a target bomber group and escorts amounting to, in this case 250 A/c, attacked by a ludicrously large CAP with only 37 minutes in which to degrade them before they get to the target, there IS a physical limit to the number of attacks that can occur.

The rational is physics, time, and a consideration that it doesn't require 800 Fighters on CAP to sufficiently degrade a Raid.

The crux of this is, if you are an operational commander with 800 Fighters to protect your entire AOR you aren't going to put them all in a single piece of sky to attack one raid.

It isn't sane. It isn't reasonable. It isn't historical. It is a poor allocation of forces.

Therefore, this test, in my opinion has little value.

where do you see the limit of aircraft (fighters for the defender, fighters and bombers for the attacker) to stay in the range of being sane and reasonable FOR THE GAME. The historical numbers are known anyway. I think this would be the first step to look for a house rule as it is obvious that no PBEM reaching 44, let alone 45 will ever be in the sane or reasonable range when it comes down to numbers of aircraft involved the game needs to create the sane and reasonable results ppl are looking for. Fights in 42 work well anyway, but there you usually don't exceed 100 aircraft.

200-300 max? More?

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

Glad to see you're back safe from deployment, TheElf.