RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A)

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: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A)

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: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A)

Page: << < prev 42 43 [44] 45 46 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/12/2017 6:47:33 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I, too, found George to be an excellent high CAP plane.

Kind of funny, but in my game with alt restrictions (20K in 1942), I found layered low level CAP to be less than stellar. Perhaps it was the poor radar; perhaps it was the Allied planes sweeping at a good maneuver band, but 20K CAP to counter 20K sweeps worked much better. Perhaps the earlier Allied fighters aren't penalized as much at lower alt than the Jugs are.

I don't know why this would be the case.

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 1291

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/12/2017 7:13:53 PM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I, too, found George to be an excellent high CAP plane.

Kind of funny, but in my game with alt restrictions (20K in 1942), I found layered low level CAP to be less than stellar. Perhaps it was the poor radar; perhaps it was the Allied planes sweeping at a good maneuver band, but 20K CAP to counter 20K sweeps worked much better. Perhaps the earlier Allied fighters aren't penalized as much at lower alt than the Jugs are.

I guess it's different based on opponent and situation. In your case Tiamanj was aggressive, and threw a lot at you. Torsten did that in waves, then went quiet.

Sqz so far has dabbled with testing the CAP, then backed off. I don't know really how it will work in a sustained campaign, but we're about to find out I think.

He hasn't used the low 20k sweeps, but if he decides to try it Ill shift up. If he combines them with high sweeps I'll go lower again. It's all cat and mouse, and once he starts to get used to the adjustments, I'll try to throw him off again. Eventually th eAllies will find a way through, but the longer I can create confusion and delay, the better!

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 1292

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/12/2017 8:03:33 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I, too, found George to be an excellent high CAP plane.

Kind of funny, but in my game with alt restrictions (20K in 1942), I found layered low level CAP to be less than stellar. Perhaps it was the poor radar; perhaps it was the Allied planes sweeping at a good maneuver band, but 20K CAP to counter 20K sweeps worked much better. Perhaps the earlier Allied fighters aren't penalized as much at lower alt than the Jugs are.

I don't know why this would be the case.

there was a thread about the low top speed of the Jugs down low and in general the effectiveness of low layered cap, and a developer actually responded and said it was somewhat factored in but was exceedingly vague but did post graphs of air speed and altitudes. Don't remember where that thread was, but I remember Lobaron was also involved in the thread.

Generally speaking the Jugs have a lower maneuver at low altitudes than other Allied fighters. Here I am thinking especially of the Spitfires which did exceedingly well, better than jugs, sweeping into low layered cap.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 1293

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/12/2017 9:42:21 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I, too, found George to be an excellent high CAP plane.

Kind of funny, but in my game with alt restrictions (20K in 1942), I found layered low level CAP to be less than stellar. Perhaps it was the poor radar; perhaps it was the Allied planes sweeping at a good maneuver band, but 20K CAP to counter 20K sweeps worked much better. Perhaps the earlier Allied fighters aren't penalized as much at lower alt than the Jugs are.

I don't know why this would be the case.

there was a thread about the low top speed of the Jugs down low and in general the effectiveness of low layered cap, and a developer actually responded and said it was somewhat factored in but was exceedingly vague but did post graphs of air speed and altitudes. Don't remember where that thread was, but I remember Lobaron was also involved in the thread.

Generally speaking the Jugs have a lower maneuver at low altitudes than other Allied fighters. Here I am thinking especially of the Spitfires which did exceedingly well, better than jugs, sweeping into low layered cap.

But is the top speed of aircraft at different altitudes actually modeled? It doesn't seem to be? There's just cruise and maximum in the database, and the maneuver ratings are meant to reflect the lower speeds down low, are they not?

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 1294

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/12/2017 9:56:13 PM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I, too, found George to be an excellent high CAP plane.

Kind of funny, but in my game with alt restrictions (20K in 1942), I found layered low level CAP to be less than stellar. Perhaps it was the poor radar; perhaps it was the Allied planes sweeping at a good maneuver band, but 20K CAP to counter 20K sweeps worked much better. Perhaps the earlier Allied fighters aren't penalized as much at lower alt than the Jugs are.

I don't know why this would be the case.

there was a thread about the low top speed of the Jugs down low and in general the effectiveness of low layered cap, and a developer actually responded and said it was somewhat factored in but was exceedingly vague but did post graphs of air speed and altitudes. Don't remember where that thread was, but I remember Lobaron was also involved in the thread.

Generally speaking the Jugs have a lower maneuver at low altitudes than other Allied fighters. Here I am thinking especially of the Spitfires which did exceedingly well, better than jugs, sweeping into low layered cap.

But is the top speed of aircraft at different altitudes actually modeled? It doesn't seem to be? There's just cruise and maximum in the database, and the maneuver ratings are meant to reflect the lower speeds down low, are they not?

This is what I assume was meant by something being "factored in." I wonder if at low altitude higher manoeuvre scores make more of a difference than high speed? We don't know anything about how manoeuvre and speed are calculated for combat purposes.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 1295

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/12/2017 9:57:04 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I, too, found George to be an excellent high CAP plane.

Kind of funny, but in my game with alt restrictions (20K in 1942), I found layered low level CAP to be less than stellar. Perhaps it was the poor radar; perhaps it was the Allied planes sweeping at a good maneuver band, but 20K CAP to counter 20K sweeps worked much better. Perhaps the earlier Allied fighters aren't penalized as much at lower alt than the Jugs are.

I don't know why this would be the case.

there was a thread about the low top speed of the Jugs down low and in general the effectiveness of low layered cap, and a developer actually responded and said it was somewhat factored in but was exceedingly vague but did post graphs of air speed and altitudes. Don't remember where that thread was, but I remember Lobaron was also involved in the thread.

Generally speaking the Jugs have a lower maneuver at low altitudes than other Allied fighters. Here I am thinking especially of the Spitfires which did exceedingly well, better than jugs, sweeping into low layered cap.

But is the top speed of aircraft at different altitudes actually modeled? It doesn't seem to be? There's just cruise and maximum in the database, and the maneuver ratings are meant to reflect the lower speeds down low, are they not?

Basically, nobody knows. Those that do, ain't sharing.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 1296

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/12/2017 10:58:10 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I, too, found George to be an excellent high CAP plane.

Kind of funny, but in my game with alt restrictions (20K in 1942), I found layered low level CAP to be less than stellar. Perhaps it was the poor radar; perhaps it was the Allied planes sweeping at a good maneuver band, but 20K CAP to counter 20K sweeps worked much better. Perhaps the earlier Allied fighters aren't penalized as much at lower alt than the Jugs are.

I don't know why this would be the case.

there was a thread about the low top speed of the Jugs down low and in general the effectiveness of low layered cap, and a developer actually responded and said it was somewhat factored in but was exceedingly vague but did post graphs of air speed and altitudes. Don't remember where that thread was, but I remember Lobaron was also involved in the thread.

Generally speaking the Jugs have a lower maneuver at low altitudes than other Allied fighters. Here I am thinking especially of the Spitfires which did exceedingly well, better than jugs, sweeping into low layered cap.

But is the top speed of aircraft at different altitudes actually modeled? It doesn't seem to be? There's just cruise and maximum in the database, and the maneuver ratings are meant to reflect the lower speeds down low, are they not?

This is what I assume was meant by something being "factored in." I wonder if at low altitude higher manoeuvre scores make more of a difference than high speed? We don't know anything about how manoeuvre and speed are calculated for combat purposes.

Perhaps it's accounted for differently depending on circumstances, but it wouldn't have anything to do with the Jug itself - I doubt that the code is so amateurish as to explicitly single out individual plane models. It should deal with numbers instead. Maybe there's something about the Jug's numbers that mean it performs worse at lower levels than other planes that are comparable in at least some respects, but I doubt that to an extent, too... At a certain point, speculating about this is just injecting so much hocus pocus into the picture. It's far better to treat maneuver as maneuver as maneuver, and speed as speed as speed.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1297

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/12/2017 11:26:41 PM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I, too, found George to be an excellent high CAP plane.

Kind of funny, but in my game with alt restrictions (20K in 1942), I found layered low level CAP to be less than stellar. Perhaps it was the poor radar; perhaps it was the Allied planes sweeping at a good maneuver band, but 20K CAP to counter 20K sweeps worked much better. Perhaps the earlier Allied fighters aren't penalized as much at lower alt than the Jugs are.

I don't know why this would be the case.

there was a thread about the low top speed of the Jugs down low and in general the effectiveness of low layered cap, and a developer actually responded and said it was somewhat factored in but was exceedingly vague but did post graphs of air speed and altitudes. Don't remember where that thread was, but I remember Lobaron was also involved in the thread.

Generally speaking the Jugs have a lower maneuver at low altitudes than other Allied fighters. Here I am thinking especially of the Spitfires which did exceedingly well, better than jugs, sweeping into low layered cap.

But is the top speed of aircraft at different altitudes actually modeled? It doesn't seem to be? There's just cruise and maximum in the database, and the maneuver ratings are meant to reflect the lower speeds down low, are they not?

This is what I assume was meant by something being "factored in." I wonder if at low altitude higher manoeuvre scores make more of a difference than high speed? We don't know anything about how manoeuvre and speed are calculated for combat purposes.

Perhaps it's accounted for differently depending on circumstances, but it wouldn't have anything to do with the Jug itself - I doubt that the code is so amateurish as to explicitly single out individual plane models. It should deal with numbers instead. Maybe there's something about the Jug's numbers that mean it performs worse at lower levels than other planes that are comparable in at least some respects, but I doubt that to an extent, too... At a certain point, speculating about this is just injecting so much hocus pocus into the picture. It's far better to treat maneuver as maneuver as maneuver, and speed as speed as speed.

All I'm saying is that the P-47D has a very low manoeuvre at below 10k. It is rated at 16. We know that a great difference in speed negates better manoeuvre (like P-47D2 at 429mph vs A6M5 at 350mph), so maybe a great advantage in manoeuvre can negate speed at low altitude? Something happens, because the P-47 ate me alive when I used to fly everything at 31k, even when the HR with Jocke limited his sweeps to 31k too, and they didn't have a dive advantage. That was layering CAP too, just higher up.

Something about the lower CAP layering works better.

The manoeuvre could be tested just putting airframes head to head at different manoeuvre bands with all else equal.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 1298

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/12/2017 11:44:22 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
We don't know anything about how manoeuvre and speed are calculated for combat purposes.

we don't even really know the altitude the engagement happens at or across. Something the Elf went on about at length in a post.

I don't think it is broken, or poorly modded...it just has so many variables not the least is adequate radar coverage and air support plus all the others: weather, training, fatigue, leadership, HQs etc., etc.

I think it is far more complex than we think...and modding a planes top speed to their manuever bands doesn't seem a stretch to me since that information was readily available and could account for the Jugs effectiveness down low.

I seem to recall from the graph posted the Jugs was a 330mph fighter down low.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 2/12/2017 11:45:29 PM >

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1299

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/13/2017 12:36:37 AM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

All I'm saying is that the P-47D has a very low manoeuvre at below 10k. It is rated at 16. We know that a great difference in speed negates better manoeuvre (like P-47D2 at 429mph vs A6M5 at 350mph), so maybe a great advantage in manoeuvre can negate speed at low altitude? Something happens, because the P-47 ate me alive when I used to fly everything at 31k, even when the HR with Jocke limited his sweeps to 31k too, and they didn't have a dive advantage. That was layering CAP too, just higher up.

Something about the lower CAP layering works better.

The manoeuvre could be tested just putting airframes head to head at different manoeuvre bands with all else equal.

Right, that's basically what I mean. If speed difference between airframe A and airframe B means airframe B gets penalized by 50% maneuver, but airframe B's maneuver is still more than 2* that of airframe A at the given altitude... then it is going to appear as if airframe A is worse at that altitude.

I also think that, by and large, pilots make a much bigger difference here. Granted, P-47 vs. A6M is going to turn out badly for the A6M no matter the pilot quality (unless the P-47 is on escort duty; I'm talking about sweep vs. CAP here), but if it's P-47 vs. George or Frank or Jack... or P-40 vs. A6M... then pilots seem to matter just so much more than the planes.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1300

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/13/2017 1:10:33 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

All I'm saying is that the P-47D has a very low manoeuvre at below 10k. It is rated at 16. We know that a great difference in speed negates better manoeuvre (like P-47D2 at 429mph vs A6M5 at 350mph), so maybe a great advantage in manoeuvre can negate speed at low altitude? Something happens, because the P-47 ate me alive when I used to fly everything at 31k, even when the HR with Jocke limited his sweeps to 31k too, and they didn't have a dive advantage. That was layering CAP too, just higher up.

Something about the lower CAP layering works better.

The manoeuvre could be tested just putting airframes head to head at different manoeuvre bands with all else equal.

Right, that's basically what I mean. If speed difference between airframe A and airframe B means airframe B gets penalized by 50% maneuver, but airframe B's maneuver is still more than 2* that of airframe A at the given altitude... then it is going to appear as if airframe A is worse at that altitude.

I also think that, by and large, pilots make a much bigger difference here. Granted, P-47 vs. A6M is going to turn out badly for the A6M no matter the pilot quality (unless the P-47 is on escort duty; I'm talking about sweep vs. CAP here), but if it's P-47 vs. George or Frank or Jack... or P-40 vs. A6M... then pilots seem to matter just so much more than the planes.

From my experience, the critical factors to win lopsided successes in the air war are:
- Superior pilots
- Superior airframes
- Superior numbers (either on CAP or escort)

Beyond that, CAP layering and radar are two factors of lesser importance. Then you've all the other stuff listed above.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 1301

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/13/2017 2:48:10 PM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

All I'm saying is that the P-47D has a very low manoeuvre at below 10k. It is rated at 16. We know that a great difference in speed negates better manoeuvre (like P-47D2 at 429mph vs A6M5 at 350mph), so maybe a great advantage in manoeuvre can negate speed at low altitude? Something happens, because the P-47 ate me alive when I used to fly everything at 31k, even when the HR with Jocke limited his sweeps to 31k too, and they didn't have a dive advantage. That was layering CAP too, just higher up.

Something about the lower CAP layering works better.

The manoeuvre could be tested just putting airframes head to head at different manoeuvre bands with all else equal.

Right, that's basically what I mean. If speed difference between airframe A and airframe B means airframe B gets penalized by 50% maneuver, but airframe B's maneuver is still more than 2* that of airframe A at the given altitude... then it is going to appear as if airframe A is worse at that altitude.

I also think that, by and large, pilots make a much bigger difference here. Granted, P-47 vs. A6M is going to turn out badly for the A6M no matter the pilot quality (unless the P-47 is on escort duty; I'm talking about sweep vs. CAP here), but if it's P-47 vs. George or Frank or Jack... or P-40 vs. A6M... then pilots seem to matter just so much more than the planes.

From my experience, the critical factors to win lopsided successes in the air war are:
- Superior pilots
- Superior airframes
- Superior numbers (either on CAP or escort)

Beyond that, CAP layering and radar are two factors of lesser importance. Then you've all the other stuff listed above.

I don't know if you saw the Low CAP Lowpe was using and the tests I did on it later. While the factors you have here are important, my best would still get crushed by the Allies in small to medium sweep battles in the game against Jocke. I tried almost all settings in that game, but mainly used a layered CAP with the Franks/Georges high at 31k, others stacked below. I've played through so many turns where Jugs, Spit VIII or Corsairs wreck the best units flying the best 3rd get airframes while hardly losing a plane of their own..

There are counters to Low CAP, and I'm just beginning to see how they work in game, though I did find some in testing, but it's actually prompted him to ask to remove all HRs on the altitude of sweeps and CAP.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 1302

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/13/2017 2:59:04 PM

obvert

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

This is the kind of thing I mean. The Frank "r" is a great Japanese plane, but still not as good as the P-47D2 in anything but manoeuvre. The pilots in this test were standard decent 70exp fighter jocks for the Japanese, but more experienced 78-82exp for the Allies. Still the defenders win. I've faced just this kind of scenario in game numerous times and lost big using a high layered CAP or some other setting.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by obvert -- 2/13/2017 5:41:46 PM >

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1303

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/13/2017 5:15:30 PM

obvert

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

Then this is against a high CAP layered with pilots that are equal. The Japanese fare much worse here.

Pilot quality and airframe quality are important, but not the most important factors in defending sweeps. The settings of layering and altitude are huge!

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1304

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/13/2017 5:21:53 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

I remember those tests.

Of course I was living it at the time...

Lok is I am sure right in that pilot quality is important, I wonder what the fatigue is on the plane and pilot from flying to 40K and then fighting down in 10 to 20K range while the Japanese Pilots are putting a lot less stress on their pilots and frames.

Ultimately it comes down to a numbers game, you need two to three times more defenders.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1305

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/13/2017 5:40:45 PM

obvert

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

It would be fun to see what the biggest factors really are. Numbers of course are important, but sometimes you have low CAP numbers and after two sets of sweeps they've got 1:1 defending but are then all damaged. Then the rest of the sweeps come through and have no effects. Other times all of your sweeps cooperate and don't do anything. Sometimes the massive 400 fighter CAP you put is absolutely riddled by two sweeps, losing 10:1 against the Allied best. Sometimes your numbers just mean a lot more planes that get kicked down by the Allied best.

No time for tests now but one day maybe I'll look at this again.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 1306

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/13/2017 5:47:25 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

This is the kind of thing I mean. The Frank "r" is a great Japanese plane, but still not as good as the P-47D2 in anything but manoeuvre. The pilots in this test were standard decent 70exp fighter jocks for the Japanese, but more experienced 78-82exp for the Allies. Still the defenders win. I've faced just this kind of scenario in game numerous times and lost big using a high layered CAP or some other setting.

That looks like a numbers game to me. Many more planes on CAP than sweeping, of course the losses were heavy.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1307

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/13/2017 6:10:23 PM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

This is the kind of thing I mean. The Frank "r" is a great Japanese plane, but still not as good as the P-47D2 in anything but manoeuvre. The pilots in this test were standard decent 70exp fighter jocks for the Japanese, but more experienced 78-82exp for the Allies. Still the defenders win. I've faced just this kind of scenario in game numerous times and lost big using a high layered CAP or some other setting.

That looks like a numbers game to me. Many more planes on CAP than sweeping, of course the losses were heavy.

In relation to the other test, where the pilot quality is different, the altitude and layering settings are the important factor.

I used these kinds of number originally because I was so used to getting obliterated by P-47 sweeps and I wanted the defence to have a chance to be competitive. It is, but much more so using a low layered CAP than a high layered CAP.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 1308

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/13/2017 11:38:42 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

This is the kind of thing I mean. The Frank "r" is a great Japanese plane, but still not as good as the P-47D2 in anything but manoeuvre. The pilots in this test were standard decent 70exp fighter jocks for the Japanese, but more experienced 78-82exp for the Allies. Still the defenders win. I've faced just this kind of scenario in game numerous times and lost big using a high layered CAP or some other setting.

That looks like a numbers game to me. Many more planes on CAP than sweeping, of course the losses were heavy.

In relation to the other test, where the pilot quality is different, the altitude and layering settings are the important factor.

I used these kinds of number originally because I was so used to getting obliterated by P-47 sweeps and I wanted the defence to have a chance to be competitive. It is, but much more so using a low layered CAP than a high layered CAP.

I didn't comment on your other test because I think the CAP setup is for experimental purposes only and would never really occur in a game, so isn't a great field test. And by experimental purposes I mean only for something narrow, like how planes at that altitude fare vs. others, rather than a sweep vs. CAP experiment.

I mean seriously - I'd never have a CAP where mid-20K was my lowest altitude setting.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1309

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/13/2017 11:44:54 PM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I mean seriously - I'd never have a CAP where mid-20K was my lowest altitude setting.

This is a test against sweeps, and designed for a turn where you know sweeps are coming and not bombing runs. That happens, and if you do use layered CAP having the layers closer means upper layers can dive in more quickly.

But if you want to suggest a different setting I'm happy to test it. I found the save I thought I'd lost with this set-up. Name your three bands and the planes you want flying them.

Also, I remember why I don't use more sweepers. One more group is fine, but after that the CAP can be worn down, so your last group might not see combat. Doesn't make sense to add more panes if they don't fight anyway.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 1310

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/14/2017 5:41:28 AM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I mean seriously - I'd never have a CAP where mid-20K was my lowest altitude setting.

This is a test against sweeps, and designed for a turn where you know sweeps are coming and not bombing runs. That happens, and if you do use layered CAP having the layers closer means upper layers can dive in more quickly.

But if you want to suggest a different setting I'm happy to test it. I found the save I thought I'd lost with this set-up. Name your three bands and the planes you want flying them.

Also, I remember why I don't use more sweepers. One more group is fine, but after that the CAP can be worn down, so your last group might not see combat. Doesn't make sense to add more panes if they don't fight anyway.

Idunno, "knowing" a sweep is coming is not guaranteed. Oftentimes, it'll be quiet. Or night bombing. Or bombardment. Or sweeps to catch leaky CAP, but not hit your base itself.

Frank-r at 38K, Jack-5 at 10K, Ki-100-I at 20K. Then rotate those around - put the Jacks up high, the Franks in the middle, and the Tony low. Then put the Jack in the middle, Tony low, Frank up high (I suspect this one would result in just a lot of dead Tonys). You could drop the low/middle altitudes by 5K and 10K as well. I'd never go below 5K.

It really depends on what I'm seeing, but I almost never know without a doubt that sweeps are coming in and only sweeps, so I'd never set CAP at only mid-20K and up. Too risky that 80 bombers come in at 7K or something and trash the airfield and escape.

For more sweepers, more is almost always better until you get to the point of overkill. 4 groups is almost always sufficient, but sometimes not. I've swept with as many as 12 groups...

< Message edited by Lokasenna -- 2/14/2017 5:42:12 AM >

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1311

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/14/2017 8:38:22 AM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I mean seriously - I'd never have a CAP where mid-20K was my lowest altitude setting.

This is a test against sweeps, and designed for a turn where you know sweeps are coming and not bombing runs. That happens, and if you do use layered CAP having the layers closer means upper layers can dive in more quickly.

But if you want to suggest a different setting I'm happy to test it. I found the save I thought I'd lost with this set-up. Name your three bands and the planes you want flying them.

Also, I remember why I don't use more sweepers. One more group is fine, but after that the CAP can be worn down, so your last group might not see combat. Doesn't make sense to add more panes if they don't fight anyway.

Idunno, "knowing" a sweep is coming is not guaranteed. Oftentimes, it'll be quiet. Or night bombing. Or bombardment. Or sweeps to catch leaky CAP, but not hit your base itself.

Frank-r at 38K, Jack-5 at 10K, Ki-100-I at 20K. Then rotate those around - put the Jacks up high, the Franks in the middle, and the Tony low. Then put the Jack in the middle, Tony low, Frank up high (I suspect this one would result in just a lot of dead Tonys). You could drop the low/middle altitudes by 5K and 10K as well. I'd never go below 5K.

It really depends on what I'm seeing, but I almost never know without a doubt that sweeps are coming in and only sweeps, so I'd never set CAP at only mid-20K and up. Too risky that 80 bombers come in at 7K or something and trash the airfield and escape.

For more sweepers, more is almost always better until you get to the point of overkill. 4 groups is almost always sufficient, but sometimes not. I've swept with as many as 12 groups...

I'll give some of these a try later.

Recently I used flat CAP at 33k with LR CAP added at 35k. I do this after a day when the bombers got nailed, mainly because I have good AA in that hex and I know if he's lost 60 of 200 4Es, he's not likely to go again the next day. I agree you never really know, but some days I do try to predict and change things up for what I think he'll use.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 1312

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/14/2017 4:53:05 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

You never know if he had 200 more standing down, waiting for day 2

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1313

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/14/2017 5:21:16 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I mean seriously - I'd never have a CAP where mid-20K was my lowest altitude setting.

This is a test against sweeps, and designed for a turn where you know sweeps are coming and not bombing runs. That happens, and if you do use layered CAP having the layers closer means upper layers can dive in more quickly.

But if you want to suggest a different setting I'm happy to test it. I found the save I thought I'd lost with this set-up. Name your three bands and the planes you want flying them.

Also, I remember why I don't use more sweepers. One more group is fine, but after that the CAP can be worn down, so your last group might not see combat. Doesn't make sense to add more panes if they don't fight anyway.

Idunno, "knowing" a sweep is coming is not guaranteed. Oftentimes, it'll be quiet. Or night bombing. Or bombardment. Or sweeps to catch leaky CAP, but not hit your base itself.

Frank-r at 38K, Jack-5 at 10K, Ki-100-I at 20K. Then rotate those around - put the Jacks up high, the Franks in the middle, and the Tony low. Then put the Jack in the middle, Tony low, Frank up high (I suspect this one would result in just a lot of dead Tonys). You could drop the low/middle altitudes by 5K and 10K as well. I'd never go below 5K.

It really depends on what I'm seeing, but I almost never know without a doubt that sweeps are coming in and only sweeps, so I'd never set CAP at only mid-20K and up. Too risky that 80 bombers come in at 7K or something and trash the airfield and escape.

For more sweepers, more is almost always better until you get to the point of overkill. 4 groups is almost always sufficient, but sometimes not. I've swept with as many as 12 groups...

I'll give some of these a try later.

Recently I used flat CAP at 33k with LR CAP added at 35k. I do this after a day when the bombers got nailed, mainly because I have good AA in that hex and I know if he's lost 60 of 200 4Es, he's not likely to go again the next day. I agree you never really know, but some days I do try to predict and change things up for what I think he'll use.

We all do that.

Plus as you mentioned before you need to change up settings because there are direct counters.

Another thing I found is that Oscar, Zero, Frank A, Jack are my low CAP. Medium cap is Tony. And high CAP is George. Although I usually tried to save Georges and use them for sweeps or CAP traps.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1314

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/15/2017 10:52:46 AM

obvert

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

Here is the result of test 1. I'll post more later. I've done all of Loka's suggestions plus a few with Low CAP as I've been using it and some with bombing added! Fun to see how it works out.

This is the following layering:

Frank Ki-84r - 34, 450 (max)
Tony Ki-100-I - 20k
Jack J2M5 - 10k

Adding it all up shows the Japanese not faring so well. One turn was great. One horrific. Overall still not bad for going against P-47s.

Japanese: 180
Allies: 84

2.14:1

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 17, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 32 NM, estimated altitude 44,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J2M5 Jack x 45
Ki-84r Frank x 23
Ki-100-I Tony x 45

Allied aircraft
P-47D2 Thunderbolt x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
J2M5 Jack: 3 destroyed
Ki-84r Frank: 2 destroyed
Ki-100-I Tony: 4 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-47D2 Thunderbolt: 3 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x P-47D2 Thunderbolt sweeping at 42000 feet

CAP engaged:
Chitose Ku K-1 with J2M5 Jack (0 airborne, 16 on standby, 22 scrambling)
7 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 36910.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes
13th Sentai with Ki-100-I Tony (0 airborne, 16 on standby, 22 scrambling)
7 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 20000 and 36090.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 41 minutes
1000th Sentai with Ki-84r Frank (0 airborne, 16 on standby, 0 scrambling)
7 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 34450 , scrambling fighters between 34000 and 34450.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 41 NM, estimated altitude 45,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J2M5 Jack x 36
Ki-84r Frank x 14
Ki-100-I Tony x 35

Allied aircraft
P-47D2 Thunderbolt x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
J2M5 Jack: 1 destroyed
Ki-84r Frank: 1 destroyed
Ki-100-I Tony: 5 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-47D2 Thunderbolt: 2 destroyed

CAP engaged:
Chitose Ku K-1 with J2M5 Jack (3 airborne, 4 on standby, 10 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
15 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 41090.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 37 minutes
13th Sentai with Ki-100-I Tony (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 4 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
27 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 40090.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
1000th Sentai with Ki-84r Frank (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
10 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 34450 , scrambling fighters between 34450 and 42090.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 46 NM, estimated altitude 43,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J2M5 Jack x 28
Ki-84r Frank x 12
Ki-100-I Tony x 21

Allied aircraft
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
J2M5 Jack: 6 destroyed
Ki-84r Frank: 3 destroyed
Ki-100-I Tony: 5 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 1 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x P-47D25 Thunderbolt sweeping at 42000 feet

CAP engaged:
Chitose Ku K-1 with J2M5 Jack (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 6 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
19 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 35090 and 40090.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes
13th Sentai with Ki-100-I Tony (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 4 scrambling)
6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 11 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 38450.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes
1000th Sentai with Ki-84r Frank (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 3 scrambling)
9 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 34450 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 36450.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 36 NM, estimated altitude 46,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J2M5 Jack x 11
Ki-84r Frank x 2
Ki-100-I Tony x 4

Allied aircraft
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
J2M5 Jack: 3 destroyed
Ki-84r Frank: 1 destroyed
Ki-100-I Tony: 2 destroyed

No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
22 x P-47D25 Thunderbolt sweeping at 42000 feet

CAP engaged:
1000th Sentai with Ki-84r Frank (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 34450 , scrambling fighters to 36450.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes
Chitose Ku K-1 with J2M5 Jack (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 18000 and 43000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes
13th Sentai with Ki-100-I Tony (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 30716 and 37090.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 73 NM, estimated altitude 44,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 21 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J2M5 Jack x 1
Ki-84r Frank x 1

Allied aircraft
P-47D2 Thunderbolt x 6
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-84r Frank: 1 destroyed

No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x P-47D2 Thunderbolt sweeping at 42000 feet
1 x P-47D2 Thunderbolt sweeping at 42000 feet
3 x P-47D25 Thunderbolt sweeping at 42000 feet

CAP engaged:
1000th Sentai with Ki-84r Frank (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 34450 , scrambling fighters to 33948.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 13 minutes
Chitose Ku K-1 with J2M5 Jack (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 10000 , scrambling fighters to 33948.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 17 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 48 NM, estimated altitude 44,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Allied aircraft
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 3

No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x P-47D25 Thunderbolt sweeping at 42000 feet

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by obvert -- 2/15/2017 5:27:22 PM >

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 1315

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/15/2017 3:27:38 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

Those poor, poor Tonys.

Is fog of war off in your tests or no?

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1316

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/15/2017 5:28:07 PM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Those poor, poor Tonys.

Is fog of war off in your tests or no?

No FOG for these no. I'll post more tonight after dinner and doing dad duties!!

As many have probably heard from Sqz's AAR we have a stoppage due to movement of troops going bad. I never use follow. I don't trust it, and I wish my opponents wouldn't use it, but they always feel the need.

< Message edited by obvert -- 2/15/2017 5:30:08 PM >

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 1317

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/15/2017 5:57:53 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Those poor, poor Tonys.

Is fog of war off in your tests or no?

No FOG for these no. I'll post more tonight after dinner and doing dad duties!!

As many have probably heard from Sqz's AAR we have a stoppage due to movement of troops going bad. I never use follow. I don't trust it, and I wish my opponents wouldn't use it, but they always feel the need.

I read what happened. Due to the circumstances, I hope Michael is around and can fix. Assuming he didn't actually make an error... there's no reason why the game should ever redirect units that are moving.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1318

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/15/2017 11:10:50 PM

obvert

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

This is the following layering:

Jack J2M5 - 36,910 (max)
Frank Ki-84r - 20k
Tony Ki-100-I - 10k

The Japanese do slightly better with the Jack up high. Is it because it has a higher ceiling?

Japanese: 167
Allies: 96

1.74:1

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 17, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 13 NM, estimated altitude 47,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J2M5 Jack x 45
Ki-84r Frank x 23
Ki-100-I Tony x 23

Allied aircraft
P-47D2 Thunderbolt x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
J2M5 Jack: 2 destroyed
Ki-84r Frank: 1 destroyed
Ki-100-I Tony: 3 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-47D2 Thunderbolt: 6 destroyed

CAP engaged:
Chitose Ku K-1 with J2M5 Jack (0 airborne, 16 on standby, 22 scrambling)
7 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 36910 , scrambling fighters between 36000 and 36910.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 42 minutes
13th Sentai with Ki-100-I Tony (0 airborne, 16 on standby, 0 scrambling)
7 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 36090.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes
1000th Sentai with Ki-84r Frank (0 airborne, 16 on standby, 0 scrambling)
7 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 20000 and 34450.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 18 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 38 NM, estimated altitude 47,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J2M5 Jack x 35
Ki-84r Frank x 22
Ki-100-I Tony x 14

Allied aircraft
P-47D2 Thunderbolt x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
J2M5 Jack: 2 destroyed
Ki-84r Frank: 1 destroyed
Ki-100-I Tony: 4 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-47D2 Thunderbolt: 3 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x P-47D2 Thunderbolt sweeping at 42000 feet (24th PG/17th PS / USAFFE)

CAP engaged:
Chitose Ku K-1 with J2M5 Jack (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
26 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 36910 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 36000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 52 minutes
1000th Sentai with Ki-84r Frank (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
18 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 34450.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes
13th Sentai with Ki-100-I Tony (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
11 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 24000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 12 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 17 NM, estimated altitude 46,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J2M5 Jack x 26
Ki-84r Frank x 17
Ki-100-I Tony x 3

Allied aircraft
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
J2M5 Jack: 4 destroyed
Ki-84r Frank: 3 destroyed
Ki-100-I Tony: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 3 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x P-47D25 Thunderbolt sweeping at 42000 feet (58th FG/69th FS / Southwest Pacific)

CAP engaged:
Chitose Ku K-1 with J2M5 Jack (5 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
19 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 36910 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 25000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 29 minutes
1000th Sentai with Ki-84r Frank (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
10 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 19000 and 34450.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 37 minutes
13th Sentai with Ki-100-I Tony (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 24000 and 38450.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 20 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 75 NM, estimated altitude 46,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 22 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J2M5 Jack x 7
Ki-84r Frank x 6
Ki-100-I Tony x 2

Allied aircraft
P-47D2 Thunderbolt x 3
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
J2M5 Jack: 1 destroyed
Ki-84r Frank: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-47D2 Thunderbolt: 1 destroyed

CAP engaged:
Chitose Ku K-1 with J2M5 Jack (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
7 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 36910 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 27000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes
1000th Sentai with Ki-84r Frank (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 23000 and 27000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 23 minutes
13th Sentai with Ki-100-I Tony (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 26000 and 27000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 28 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 36 NM, estimated altitude 47,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J2M5 Jack x 5
Ki-84r Frank x 3
Ki-100-I Tony x 2

Allied aircraft
P-47D2 Thunderbolt x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
J2M5 Jack: 1 destroyed
Ki-84r Frank: 1 destroyed

No Allied losses

CAP engaged:
Chitose Ku K-1 with J2M5 Jack (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 36910 , scrambling fighters to 26000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 4 minutes
1000th Sentai with Ki-84r Frank (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 22000 and 26000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes
13th Sentai with Ki-100-I Tony (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 21000 and 24266.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 28 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 44 NM, estimated altitude 45,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J2M5 Jack x 2
Ki-84r Frank x 1
Ki-100-I Tony x 2

Allied aircraft
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 27

Japanese aircraft losses
J2M5 Jack: 1 destroyed
Ki-84r Frank: 1 destroyed
Ki-100-I Tony: 1 destroyed

No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
27 x P-47D25 Thunderbolt sweeping at 42000 feet (35th FG/39th FS / Southwest Pacific)

CAP engaged:
1000th Sentai with Ki-84r Frank (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 20000 , scrambling fighters to 22000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes
Chitose Ku K-1 with J2M5 Jack (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 36910 , scrambling fighters between 22892 and 24000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 29 minutes
13th Sentai with Ki-100-I Tony (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 10000 , scrambling fighters to 24266.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 5 minutes

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 1319

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 2/15/2017 11:14:39 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

Follow was the problem?

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1320

Page: << < prev 42 43 [44] 45 46 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A)