RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back?

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: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back?

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: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back?

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/15/2012 11:13:39 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

FedEx says you should get my consulting bill by Monday.

_____________________________

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 181

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/16/2012 11:29:44 AM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

FedEx says you should get my consulting bill by Monday.

Good thing I live in Sweden so the Fedex guy will be eaten by polar bears before he can get here...

Here is a teaser for the next turn! This strike sparked a discussion about using LRCAP. No harsh words or anything just a discussion. I will try and recap what was said later tonight.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by JocMeister -- 10/16/2012 11:31:37 AM >

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 182

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/16/2012 11:33:58 AM

GreyJoy

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

LRCAP instead of escort you mean?

Oh, and don't care about Micheal's bills... do just like me: i simply accumulated them right beside the toilet

(just kidding Micheal!)

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 183

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/16/2012 11:41:51 AM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

No I did use 125 planes for escort (all the P40 losses)! But I had 50-75 planes on LRCAP that was supposed to come in with the sweep. But two of the sweeps came in last so most of the LRCAP showed up with the first sweep and the bombers...

I think this was a good thing for Erik..But more on that later!

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 184

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/16/2012 1:24:22 PM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

13th - 21st of July -43

There will be a short period of inactivity for me now as I fix everything Michael found...I had some 800

ships due to upgrade among other horrible things! I was just about to sort that out!

NOPAC
Quiet. No signs of mini KB. I will probably try something here soon just to draw some attention.

SOPAC
I let him reopen Ndeni. I started sweeping again with good results! KB has withdrawn so I have started bombing Vanikoro again. A parachute battalion will try for it shortly. I will then reinforce using barges.

Eastern OZ
Things are heating up a bit since I landed on Horn Island. Erik sent a convoy a little bit too close to my LBA. Minor hits only. Don�t know if this was a failed attempt land on Horn Island or if it was just a supply convoy for PM that strayed a bit too far. I have 200 Naval bombers in the area so I don�t think he will bring the KB over here to support. Not sure though. A bit worried about naval bombardment. Mines proved ineffective at Suva a year back. But I have some major CD guns, 50 PT boats and 300 mines in place at portland roads. Hopefully enough to deter...

Sweeps ordered wherever he is in range... But losses in P38s are starting to become unbearable. Had to downgrade a Squadron to P39s this turn

Western OZ.

Troops have reached 4 hexes North of Carnarvon. Still no sign of any BBs. They will come I�m sure but this time we will press on! I�m bombing his troops daily causing some 100-150 losses per day. But every now and then I have to switch for his AFs to keep them close giving his troops time to recover.

Sure wish I could bring in some naval bombardments.

Burma

After trying for over a week my first major effort for a long time finally took off. Results wasn�t very good. My fighters did excellent. At least the ones that took off...
This was my setup:
125 Planes on Sweep.
125 planes on Escort
60 planes to LRCAP.

What happened was the only 1 sweep went in before the bombers. Corsairs with some of the LRCAP. Then the bombers went in fragmented like crazy getting some LRCAP protection. Last my two most powerful sweeps went in... Two sweeping groups decided to not take off at all.

Erik wasn�t happy about the LRCAP. But he eventually realised it wasn�t that bad. He still downed some 50 bombers for me

Had my sweeps gone in first with the LRCAP as was my intention I very much doubt he would have had any CAP up at all when the bombers arrived. I will explain my view on LRCAP in a seperat post.

Madalay is listed with 93 Runway damage. I�m pretty sure thats FOV as only about 80 runway hits were recorded and he still have some 50 fighters on station indicating the AF is still operational.

I will hit another AF next turn trying to keep up pressure. As two of my sweeping groups didn�t take off they have low fatigue. I might be pushing it here though...Mostly 4Es that will go in. My 2Es are pretty banged up.

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 185

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/16/2012 2:08:19 PM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

My take on LRCAP

The airmodel is borked beyond belief. There are so many things broken I don�t even know where to start. But all the borked things leads to one thing only. LRCAP. LRCAP. LRCAP.

I�m using it very often. Heck I�m relying on it. Not for bomber protection but for the Allied player its the only way to get any kind of numbers in the air. I will use my latest strike against Mandalay for example.

Erik has 3-400 fighters stationed at 5 different fields. I want to strike that using surprise. Can I do that without using LRCAP that will give an unfair advantage to the bombers? Nope.

The way it SHOULD work:
I set the bombers to bomb the AF and a number of fighters to escort. I should of course suffer some losses both to bombers and fighters depending on my numbers, his numbers, aircraft, weather and so on. He should of course suffer some from my escorts.

How it DOES work:
If I use the above setting what will happen is that I will loose about 50-80% of the escorting fighters and no bombers at all. He will lose one or two planes. It doesn�t matter if I use P47s for escort with elite pilots or P39s with 30 exp pilots. As soon as you assign a fighter on escort its transformed to a flying barn with a cow for pilot.

"Ah," you say! "You should of course send in powerful sweeps in advance!"
"Without LRCAP" I say?
"Use many sweeps!" you say.
"They don�t coordinate" I say.
"What?" you say.

Its true incase someone missed it. Sweep don�t coordinate. Ever. I have tried it probably 500 times and it has never ever happened. Not once. This forces any player that want to mass fighters for offensive missions to use LRCAP. Period.

Now this is where the problems start because LRCAP is perhaps the most borked air mission in the arsenal of them all. Here are my reflections on it:

If I have had another raid somewhere within range even setting a specific target some LRCAP would/could have been "drawn" to that raid instead. DESPITE my setting a specific target for the LRCAP. Same thing if Erik had done a sweep or bombing somewhere within range of my LRCAP it would probably have strayed there. You have virtually no control over where it goes despite setting a target.

Its a pretty high chance the LRCAP fails to show up. Or it will show up in replays and reports but don�t take part in combat. I can�t give any exact numbers but I think around 20-30% failure is pretty close to the mark. It can show up in the replay but not in the report and vice versa.

Fatigue is INSANE using LRCAP. If you set a group to 100% LRCAP just a few hexes away fatigue will shoot up to 30-50 in just a turn. And here is an added bonus: The fatigue of LRCAP units will shoot up even if the base its flying from can�t launch any missions due to weather! If you set one group on sweep and one on LRCAP. Set the same target and the strike is cancelled the group set to sweep will not increase fatigue but the LRCAP group will have massive fatigue added.

So I was stuck using LRCAP. I tried to minimize the amount of LRCAP hoping my 5 sweeps would "suck in" my LRCAP and fatigue them (out of ammo, out of fuel, damage). But since only one sweep came in before the bombers this failed. This led to many of my bombers getting a "LRCAP escort" which is clearly not fair. This is what Erik didn�t like.

But after we talked it through we realised it probably evened out. If the LRCAP had shown up before the bombers he would have less fighters left in the air instead. So we agreed that I will continue to try and moderate myself using LRCAP when bombers are in the area. I think I have done so and I have asked Erik again to let me know if he thinks I�m abusing this.

We are at least both in agreement the airmodel is broken. Nothing less. But we are stuck with it and we will try to do our best having a plausible war. But its a shame so much time and energy will have to be spent constantly discussing broken stuff. We also had a pretty good discussion about how incredible overpowered dive, altitude and speed are in the game. I will certainly try to find other HRs next time around that will give both sides a more enjoyable airwar. The engine promotes extremes which leads to extreme results.

We will soldier on but my loathing for the airmodel increases by every turn.

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 186

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/17/2012 8:02:11 AM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Well, I asked Erik to put the game on hold for now.

Something in the new patch seems to have broken coordination. In my first airstrike over Mandalay my bombers got badly mauled due to fragmenting in 30 or so pieces. I figured this might have been an extremely poor roll of the dice but it repeated itself the day after.

I�ve lost about 100 bombers in two strikes. The RAF bombers will be out of the war for the coming year or 18 months. After two strikes...

I�ve posted a report on the tech forum. If this turns out to be an intentional change (that wasn�t mentioned in the changelog) I will probably ask Erik to put this game on hold for now. I see no way how I could possible make any dents in his now formidable defense without being able to use bombers. With only about 25% of the fragments getting escort losses are unsustainable. Not unless I was able to freely use LRCAP for escort something Erik would understandably never approve.

I�m so fed up right now with the constant issues we are encountering in this game and my game vs Joseph. It takes all enjoyment out of the game. I don�t have the time nor energy to try and deal with the issues time and time again. I�ve just spent over 10 hours trying to make any kind of sense out of the patch. It sucks.

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 187

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/17/2012 8:26:30 AM

GreyJoy

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

With all due respect mate, I think you're a bit exagerating on your comments about the air model.

As you may know, i've encountered so many issues with the air model (especially the 200 firing passes rule) and raised many concerns to the devs... but, i finally have learnt that the air model is an abstraction (and probably the best it could be given all the variables involved) and as an abstraction you have to take it.

Sweeps always had coordination problems. I remember how many times, when i was bombing Japan, i tried to make the P-47s arrive earlier than the B-29s... .. sometimes it worked, sometimes not.

As many many experienced players told me during my worst days... don't send your bombers against a well defended wall of fighters. RL commanders would have never done that. First sweep him to oblivion (for days, for weeks or months if needed), then when his air force becomes less effective, send the bombers (possibly escorted).
If you don't manage to break his backbone with sweeps...well, you have to try another approach.

I know that now these are the last words that you would want to hear... but the air combat model isn't borked. It has issues, for sure. It's not perfect, for sure. But it's possibly the best average solution out there.

My 0.2 �...

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 188

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/17/2012 9:18:25 AM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

With all due respect mate, I think you're a bit exagerating on your comments about the air model.

As you may know, i've encountered so many issues with the air model (especially the 200 firing passes rule) and raised many concerns to the devs... but, i finally have learnt that the air model is an abstraction (and probably the best it could be given all the variables involved) and as an abstraction you have to take it.

Sweeps always had coordination problems. I remember how many times, when i was bombing Japan, i tried to make the P-47s arrive earlier than the B-29s... .. sometimes it worked, sometimes not.

As many many experienced players told me during my worst days... don't send your bombers against a well defended wall of fighters. RL commanders would have never done that. First sweep him to oblivion (for days, for weeks or months if needed), then when his air force becomes less effective, send the bombers (possibly escorted).
If you don't manage to break his backbone with sweeps...well, you have to try another approach.

I know that now these are the last words that you would want to hear... but the air combat model isn't borked. It has issues, for sure. It's not perfect, for sure. But it's possibly the best average solution out there.

My 0.2 �...

Hey GJ!

Don�t worry I�m pretty thick skinned!

I know the airmodel is fickle and not always does what you want it to do. But the thing that concerns me is that if this was intentional a major change was implemented over a single patch, without any testing or letting the player know. I�ve just spent about 10 hours running a sandbox scenario and with something close to 50 tries I never gotten more the 2 squadrons to coordinate under the new patch. About 80% of all strikes went in squadron by squadron.

So basically coordination is removed right now. I would say that is a huuuuge thing. That would be comparable to, I don�t know. Removing the ability to form ship TFs?

This of course hurts the allied player enormously. There is virtually no way you can perform any kind of meaningful bombings without have absolute 100% air superiority. If he manages to get a CAP up against your strike and only 1/4th gets protected by escorts you will suffer.

This is a huge boon to any player regardless of side who are on the defensive. I have no idea how this will affect carrier combat but I don�t think it will be positive... One would try and strive to get as uncoordinated strikes as possible with as many fragments as possible. I can�t see anything positive with that.

Considering putting this game on hold might sound drastic. But I see far reaching consequences with this if it stays. Especially for the allied player. One of the biggest advantages the allied player has is the bomber force with the 4Es in the forefront. The patch pretty much takes that away.

As an allied player you know how important big, massed 4E raids are for the allies to take on a heavily fortified Japanese player with advanced aircraft, streamlined with only the best fighters and able to outproduce the allies in number of fighters. Now consider talking that on when your 200 4E strike comes in 10 different strikes.

This is from my PBEM. This raid was totally unopposed. Notice how the sweep comes in last and fragmented. Also think about what had happened if he had jumped in a CAP of say 100 fighters over night. Remember that after the new patch the allies don�t get that free intel anymore so it can�t be avoided.

quote:

Morning Air attack on 56th Division, at 49,133 (Carnarvon)

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 70 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 23 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 15
LB-30 Liberator x 15
B-24D Liberator x 15
B-24D1 Liberator x 6

Allied aircraft losses
B-24D Liberator: 2 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
122 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 15 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 3 (1 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Vehicles lost 3 (1 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x LB-30 Liberator bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

Also attacking 17th Army ...
Also attacking 9th Division ...
Also attacking 4th Tank Regiment ...
Also attacking 9th Division ...
Also attacking 44th Field AA Battalion ...
Also attacking 56th Division ...
Also attacking 9th Division ...
Also attacking 56th Division ...
Also attacking 9th Division ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 56th Division, at 49,133 (Carnarvon)

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 59 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 20 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 3
B-24D1 Liberator x 18

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
58 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

Also attacking 9th Division ...
Also attacking 124th Infantry Regiment ...
Also attacking 56th Division ...
Also attacking 9th Division ...
Also attacking 56th Division ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 9th Division, at 49,133 (Carnarvon)

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 35 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 3
B-24D1 Liberator x 8

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
35 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 4 (1 destroyed, 3 disabled)

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

Also attacking 2nd Tank Regiment ...
Also attacking 9th Division ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 124th Infantry Regiment, at 49,133 (Carnarvon)

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 56 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 17 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 11

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
49 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

Also attacking 97th JAAF AF Bn ...
Also attacking 124th Infantry Regiment ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 17th Army, at 49,133 (Carnarvon)

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 30 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 9

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
14 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 97th JAAF AF Bn , at 49,133 (Carnarvon)

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 79 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 27 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 9

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
52 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 9th Division, at 49,133 (Carnarvon)

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 8 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 2 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D1 Liberator x 8

Allied aircraft losses
B-24D1 Liberator: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
39 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 56th Division, at 49,133 (Carnarvon)

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 29 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 7

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
21 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 9th Division, at 49,133 (Carnarvon)

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 38 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 9

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
65 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 4th Tank Regiment, at 49,133 (Carnarvon)

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 21 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 8

No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 2nd Tank Regiment, at 49,133 (Carnarvon)

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 34 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 9

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
Vehicles lost 5 (1 destroyed, 4 disabled)

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 9th Division, at 49,133 (Carnarvon)

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 70 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 24 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 6

Allied aircraft losses
B-24D Liberator: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
23 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 9th Division, at 49,133 (Carnarvon)

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 10 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D1 Liberator x 6

No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 12000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Carnarvon , at 49,133

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 36 NM, estimated altitude 31,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 6

No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x P-38G Lightning sweeping at 31000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Carnarvon , at 49,133

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 19 NM, estimated altitude 31,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 3

No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x P-38G Lightning sweeping at 31000 feet

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 189

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/17/2012 4:18:04 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

I wonder if part of the problem is inexperience of the air HQs, if any were present. JocMeister, your experience in this game is up to January 1943 and your sandbox experiment would likely be early war as well. A lot of your sqns would be new arrivals and a lot of your HQs newly deployed. Strikes, sweeps and escorts likely did not have the same origin point or air HQ.

Greyjoy had a lot of his experience in 1944 as he tried to pound Japan from his bases on Hokkaido so his fighters and bomber were often closer together, perhaps using the same air HQ.

Carrier strikes in other AARs seem to coordinate better if they launch from the same TF than if they launch from various TFs in the same hex. This makes me think the air model is looking for a single guy in charge [TF commander] and if there are several TFs, their various air experience comes into play.

I have no empirical evidence, just an impression from reading many AARs and my own experience against the AI.

Edit - wrong Japanese Island corrected.

< Message edited by BBfanboy -- 10/17/2012 4:21:00 PM >

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 190

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/17/2012 5:04:11 PM

SqzMyLemon

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

With all due respect mate, I think you're a bit exagerating on your comments about the air model.

As you may know, i've encountered so many issues with the air model (especially the 200 firing passes rule) and raised many concerns to the devs... but, i finally have learnt that the air model is an abstraction (and probably the best it could be given all the variables involved) and as an abstraction you have to take it.

Without hijacking Jocke's AAR, I have many of the same concerns with air combat in this game. My experience with the air model constantly leaves a sour taste in my mouth and my issues with it are well documented in my previous AAR. Abstraction or not, I do not enjoy the air war in the game anymore. It's an exercise in rock/paper/scissors.

The sheer number of AAR's that have house rules regarding air operations speaks louder about the failings of the air model than anything I could add. Toning done the dive bonus and escort penalty would go a long way to improving the game. Most issues and exploits with the air model stem from players trying to get the advantage of the first, and avoid the penalty of the second. Fix these and you improve the air model substantially, otherwise it's exploit, exploit and more exploit.

< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 10/17/2012 8:48:39 PM >

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 191

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/17/2012 8:13:21 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

Agree with you on the need to tweak those features SML. My previous comment was aimed at the coordination issue. Many possible factors in that and it is hard to know what is going on.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 192

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/17/2012 8:32:24 PM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

BB,

Good though about the experience of the AirHQs. I checked and it HQ in question had an experience of 59 and leader airskill of 79. I also did some tests in a sandbox game and results are conclusive. Coordination is almost gone with the new beta patch. Test is posted here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3198512 Post #6 if you are interested!

I completely agree with Joseph on the air model in general as outlined in post #186.

Escort: Broken so badly people only use obsolete airframes with hardly trained pilots. Who thought this was a good idea? Its so far removed from reality I don�t even know where to start.
LRCAP

Sweep: Not possible to coordinate. Forces people to use the broken LRCAP.
CAP. Working good I think?
Speed. King of everything. Why even have MVR in the game? It doesn�t matter.
Altitude: Dive wins all. Hence highest wins. Always.

The airmodel that should be the backbone of this game is slowly, slowly falling apart...Its a shame really!

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 193

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/18/2012 6:18:18 AM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

Thanks JM - I had a look at the testing efforts and left a comment there. It does look pretty bleak as things stand.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 194

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/18/2012 3:41:40 PM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Rewind!

We have decided to go back to the 17th of July (date we updated). We will continue from there using the official update instead. It looks like our fragmentation issues are unintentional from michelm's part. I don�t have much hope for a quick fix so will we revert back to before the update.

I pushed pretty strongly for this as I felt that continuing with the fragmentations issues were just a too big unknown factor. I�m happy that Erik agreed with me despite being more positive to the changes. Hopefully it will get sorted in the future as we both think the changes in the Beta are good ones.

But I�ve learned lesson now. I will be a lot more careful before upgrading to a beta again. Thats for sure. We lost probably about 2-3 weeks in game time on this.

The Mandalay strike will go in as before. Both Erik and I are keen to see the differences! Luckily thanks to this AAR I have all the settings written down. My gut feeling tells me I will do a lot better with a more coordinated strike. I don�t know if the patch affected sweeps too but if it did there is a good chance my sweeps will go in before the strike this time around! With some luck the two sweeps that didn�t take off for some reason might this time too!
Fingers crossed. Hopefully I can get the turn done tonight. Don�t remember when I ordered the attack but I know it rained in a few days so I might have set the orders this turn!

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 195

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/19/2012 11:41:36 AM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

18th of July

The Mandalay strike went in on the first go this time. Losses were about the same. I forgot to save the Screenshot after i took it so you will have to live without it!

Even though the actual number of losses were about the same (around 120) they were much more realistically spread on the AC. My escorting P40s took a major beating. Of 125 planes set to escort only 42 are operational after the strike!

Moral is still good and most pilots made it home! Bomber losses were much lighter this time around with about 20 for 50 last time.

The major difference this time was that my LRCAPing Hellcats for some reason took a severe beating. Some 25 were lost with 18!

elite navy pilots gone for good. That REALLY sucks.

I also lost about 15 invaluable P38s with 10 great pilots.

The coordinated strike also meant his AF is officially CLOSED! But thats no good for me as I lack the means to escort any kind of strike right now. As it should be this strike proved to me that assaulting a major AF protected by another 4 AFs is way too costly. I will not return right now. P40 pools are almost dry again. I will need to save my strength.

I was very disappointed with the P47s in this first strike. I lost 6 of them to Zeroes... They will get a chance to redeem themselves shortly. I will try to gather 75 of them for a clean sweep/LRCAP somewhere in Burma and see how they perform! Stay tuned!

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 196

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/20/2012 9:22:39 PM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

21st-22nd of July -43

Things are standing pretty much still because of the ship upgrades. I�m putting on some pressure in northern Burma with the first real P47 sweeps.

On the 22nd I launch a small scale air offensive all over the map. I just put up sweeps against all places I can reach. Results are excellent. Once again its the Corsair and not the P47 that just rack up kills. Over the course of the two days 100 Japanese fighters are downed for the cost of only 11 Allied fighters. 8 of the allied fighters are the expendable Hurricane IIc.

I have ordered another sweep with Hurricanes over Katha tomorrow to ease some pressure on the P47 squadrons there. I have 180 Hurricanes in the pool so I�m prepared to take some losses.

Besides the obvious mainshow that is Burma I�m planning two major operations in August/september. These two will see the whole Allied fleet engaged. Its time to start moving in CENTPAC! With Erik showing off the KB in SoPac I will only have to contend with LBA unless he moves the KB. This will be a medium risk operation.

I will force Erik to make a choice. He can�t be everywhere with the KB. So either he remains in SOPAC or he relocates to CENTPAC. If he stays in SOPAC I have forces prepped for Wake/Tarawa/Canton/Baker and will take them one by one. Plan is to use APAs/AKAs. Dump the troops and get the hell out. They will then be on their own. If Erik hangs around I�ll invade another place. With some luck I can lead him to a merry go round where he will be one day late every time guzzling fuel and getting SYS damage from full speed runs!

Here are the losses for the two days! 100-3 in allied favour if you don�t count the hurricanes!

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by JocMeister -- 10/20/2012 9:23:44 PM >

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 197

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/20/2012 10:39:45 PM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Japanese air force?

How long will I enjoy this lovely air superiority? When can I expect the next "uberplane" ala the Tojo? I have been looking in Tracker and by just going by the numbers I�m guessing he will replace the Tojo with the Frank? Its due in 1/44 which probably means it can be online any day now if its not already.

Looks to be a pretty good "sweep" interceptor? Crappy SR and range though and really crappy guns but good speed. This plane also gives him access to the highest MVR band according to our HRs.

I�m also guessing he will go for the George as it seems to be every Jap players golden boy? I can�t really understand what the fuzz is all about by looking at the numbers? The engine premiers nothing but speed and altitude. I have P40s that are faster than the George. Crappy SR, not access to the highest MVR band and a good gun value. Thats it? But I guess there arn�t any good alternatives to it?

I�m sure it will do alright if going up against unescorted bombers. But I�m predicting its going to do poorly against the best allied fighters like the P47, P38 and Corsairs.

A very interesting question would be what kind of numbers I can expect? How many fighters per month is it reasonable for me to expect that he will produce? I have no clue whether its 100 or 500? Any input would be welcome!

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 198

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/21/2012 2:16:00 AM

Grfin Zeppelin

Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

If he goes bonkers I would expect 200 Georges and 300 Franks per month.

_____________________________

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 199

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/21/2012 3:20:05 AM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

I went 240 each for George and Frank. The P-47s still wins the A2A battles, by I can produce more airframes.

_____________________________

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)

Post #: 200

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/21/2012 7:09:14 AM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Ouchi,

So that pretty much means we are even in terms of fighter production. But the problem is half my production are crap (P40/P39/FM1/Kittyhawks)while he can produce about 500 of the best fighters. I guess with the on map training there is no hope he will be running out of trained pilots any time soon?

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 201

Fighters - 10/21/2012 10:17:29 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

Thought I would drop a note here. The allies at this stage are really dominant, irrespective of IJ's production. All the production should mean to you is exp for your pilots.

As you state, IJ mid and late war fighters are short legged: they are defensive only. The best ones are still quite slow compared to the allied best. Also, they are woefully undergunned except for the George which is why it is produced. And of course the KB fighters at this point stink and there is nothing coming for while yet.

On the allied side, actually you are in good shape. Yes, 50% of your fighters are P40 types, but they are more than good enough for defense against unescorted bomber raids, or escorted with either Zero or Oscar. Don't use your offensive fighters in defensive roles. Conserve them for your offensive strikes.

That's pretty much it.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 202

RE: Fighters - 10/21/2012 1:15:46 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

As of Dec 43 (my farthest game to date), I can say that the game still comes down to a numbers game for A2A. Playing Japan, the P-38 and P-47 are superior when used on sweeps, especially the P-47s. The P-40 is useful, IMO, as a CAP fighter and escort only. Much like the Oscar, they have limited usefulness. The Hurricane IIc is still relatively good, despite its short range, but she often can use drop tanks for added range. I see the need to get numbers over a hex when it comes to A2A battles. Recently, the Allies lost 160 planes in one day to my 80. It was over my base, so I came out ahead.

_____________________________

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 203

RE: Fighters - 10/21/2012 2:22:01 PM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Pax, you are probably right. I tend to look at things a bit bleakly after being crushed by the Tojos for a year!

Michael, I think the P38 is starting to lose its teeth. Really talking losses lately. Pool is empty! The price I pay for using them at long ranges in SOPAC I guess...

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 204

RE: Fighters - 10/22/2012 7:13:32 PM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Wow, dropping off to second page takes no time!

Not much happening that is fun to report. Looks like Erik don�t want to play the Sweep game anymore as he has withdrawn from my previous hunting grounds.

I�m scrambling to get everything in place for my SOPAC and CENTPAC operations. I have yet to decide on my CENTPAC target. Baker, Canton, Wake or Tarawa... I�m was leaning towards Wake actually. I don�t think Erik expects that. I also have a full division prepped for it... But the problem is that a whole division forces me to stay an additional 2-3 days to get the division out and garrison forces in after the landing. It might also be a good chance for me to take on parts the KB on somewhat equal terms. He has about 3 CVs in NOPAC. With the CVEs help providing CAP I think I can get to him if he comes crashing down. Decisions and decisions...I still have some time as I have to move about 200.000 men to PH. That will take one trip! The amount of shipping I have is just staggering. I have almost 800 ships doing upgrades but I can still move anything I want in one trip. I just loaded up 28 units for PH

About 20 subs will stay in PH to assist in this operation. Main reason is to try and get some warning when/if KB starts moving towards the invasion.

Any thought about target are welcome. My gut tells me Wake is a little bit too much to start with and Tarawa will have to wait for Canton and Baker...So probably Canton and/or Baker?

Still undecided on my SOPAC operation as well. It will be risky whatever I do... My main goal with whatever I do is simply to get closer to him. Ndeni is also looming. I need to get going there as well...

In Burma my forces started moving towards their start off positions. There is no way in hell Erik will miss 500.000 men moving around. So question is what he does about it. Knowing Erik he will stay and fight. I think he would be better off not fighting in Burma but I have been wrong before. Chinese forces will start moving towards their start off positions incase I will attempt a breakout. Supply or not I don�t think whatever stop blocks he has in place can stop 32.0000(!) AV

In Western OZ my troops are slowly moving north...I pound his troops everyday but I don�t know if it has any effect. I get about 100 disabled per strike. Should burn some supplies though. No sign of the BBs so far. Mines and subs are in place.

Thats about it actually. Mainly moving stuff around and waiting for upgrades to finish. Also waiting for the monsoon to end. Might start a bit earlier though as this is a stock game and supply never seems to be an issue for anyone besides the chinese!

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 205

RE: Fighters - 10/23/2012 6:13:54 PM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

30th of July -43

Still nothing new to report. I ordered a semi large sweep/LRCAP of Ndeni today as Erik has stopped LRCAPing the surrounding islands. 50 Hellcats and 36 Corsairs will go in. A bit worried about this but they are all USMC squadrons so pilots are plentiful. I have some 700 fighter pilots in the pool. Most are only 50 EXP though.

Also stood down the P47s in Burma. They will rest for a day and then I will start sweeping his perimeter again. There is a cost to using ranged CAP... I will try and use that against him.

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 206

RE: Fighters - 10/23/2012 6:45:25 PM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

How to clear the mines?

Attachment (1)

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 207

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/23/2012 8:22:38 PM

Erkki

Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Japanese air force?

How long will I enjoy this lovely air superiority? When can I expect the next "uberplane" ala the Tojo? I have been looking in Tracker and by just going by the numbers I�m guessing he will replace the Tojo with the Frank? Its due in 1/44 which probably means it can be online any day now if its not already.

Looks to be a pretty good "sweep" interceptor? Crappy SR and range though and really crappy guns but good speed. This plane also gives him access to the highest MVR band according to our HRs.

I wouldnt look at the gun value, at all. For gun value, MGs are 2, HMGs 3 and 20mm cannons 4 when in game the HMGs and cannons work much better against armor, and looking at device stats the cannon is better than 133% HMG(assuming that the values improve performance linearly as most things in witpae). Also Jap planes tend to have their guns in the centerline, with double the accuracy value, unlike most Allied fighters. If you value CL weapons 2x and cannons = 2x HMG (or wartime USAAF estimation of 2� to 3� as good), then Ki-84a sits at 2*2 + 2*2 = 8 HMGs, so effective firepower is about the same as P-47's, and Ki-84b in early 1945 is 2*2*2 + 2*2 = 12 HMG's worth...

(in devices, .50 browning HMG has range 4, effect 3, pen 2, acc 29, Ho-103 is identical to it and 20mm Ho-5 is
range 5, effect 4, pen 3, acc 28 - 25%, 33%, 50% improvements over .50 cal)

quote:

I�m also guessing he will go for the George as it seems to be every Jap players golden boy? I can�t really understand what the fuzz is all about by looking at the numbers? The engine premiers nothing but speed and altitude. I have P40s that are faster than the George. Crappy SR, not access to the highest MVR band and a good gun value. Thats it? But I guess there arn�t any good alternatives to it?

I�m sure it will do alright if going up against unescorted bombers. But I�m predicting its going to do poorly against the best allied fighters like the P47, P38 and Corsairs.

---

Yeah, no good alternatives to it. J2M is faster and uses a much more common engine but with altitude rules like yours it cant fly CAP or sweep or escort as high, so theres not much reason to build it as N1K is better in everything else. Many Japanese players that have used N1K, including PzB, thought N1K is good even in fighter vs. fighter because the armament of 4 cannons is just that good - in bigger fights, sooner or later they get to fire, and then a hit is very, very often a kill even against P-47, P-38 and medium bombers. I think PzB had multiple N1K pilots with 25+ kills and those fellows were used in anti-bomber role... IJN only has (now) crappy Zero before J2M and N1K, N1K improves everything, J2M not, until the second variant in early 1944 that has better service rating and also 4 cannons.

_____________________________

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 208

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/24/2012 9:30:08 AM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Hi Erkki!

Thank you for your post. Very informative. I did not know that! It just goes to show that you will never completely learn this game.

Sounds like I shouldn�t discard the George right away... But it looks like a good remedy to deal with it should be numerical superiority with better planes (P47/Corsairs/P38s). With our HRs I can place them higher on Sweep and the SR 3 should keep it on the ground for a while.

Problem as usual in this game is that he can outproduce me by a good margin. I get 126 P38/47 and Corsairs per month while I apparently expect Erik to produce some 200-300 Georges and then about the same number of Franks. So this air superiority I�m enjoying right now will be short lived I think. One bright spot is the fact that I can place my P47s higher. So a small payback for the time Erik has been placing his Tojos 11k higher than my US army fighters.

I will try and go through the Allied replacement cues and see when I get the next bump in production. Will I ever be able to outproduce Japan in this game? As it looks now I need about 3:1 to keep up. Not sure I can do that. Might get easier when the ground war in Burma starts and I can utilise CAP. Right now I�m doing sweeping over his bases and its costing me pilots.

Again, thank you Erkki. Very good post!

(in reply to Erkki)

Post #: 209

RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back? - 10/24/2012 10:06:14 AM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

31st of July -43

Sweep over Ndeni did better then expected. Erik was happy about the losses to my Corsairs saying he was happy with a 1:2 loss ratio? I�m guessing FOW is playing its part as I only lost 6 Corsairs. I have about 40 in the pool and can change the group in Burma (36 planes) to Hellcats if needed. I did loose a bunch of Hellcats but I have some 200 in the pool so I don�t worry about that. Despite the losses was over an enemy base I only lost 2 KIA from the Corsair groups and none(!) from the Hellcats (7 WIA). Good news.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 210

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Carrier Clash. Sheep bites back?