Censored topic?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Censored topic?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Censored topic?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Censored topic? - 12/9/2002 8:22:18 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

Why my topic about a serious trouble in v2.11 was censored?
I�m not insulting anyone, just sending a report of what seems
to be a big trouble (I wouldn�t say a bug). Here it is again.

It seems Matrix games did a very good job in breaking the
air combat engine of UV in v2.11, making it unplayable.
While A6M�s CAP�s became pathetic, F4F�s now have deadly
efficiency. Here is how a super CV Japanese TF (4CV�s and
2CVL�s) suffered a devastating defeat in the hands of a
relatively weak USN CV TF (3CV�s). Unlike what happened
in Midway, the Japanese were able to attack with full
strenght. Here are the results:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/15/42

Weather: Clear

Air attack on TF at 50,51

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 82

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 22
SBD Dauntless x 69
TBD Devastator x 28

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 5 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 5 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 damaged
SBD Dauntless x 9 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 10 damaged
TBD Devastator x 8 destroyed
TBD Devastator x 12 damaged

ENS R.Ogawa of BII-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 3

LCDR E. Lindsey of VT-6 is KILLED

Japanese Ships
CVL Zuiho, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CV Soryu, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CVL Ryujo, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CV Hiryu, Bomb hits 1
CV Akagi, Bomb hits 3, on fire
CL Nagara

-So a very powerful Japanese CAP was unable to shot down more
-than a few bombers (the majority of losses came from AA fire)
-And 20 F4F�s, heavlily outnumbered, kept a loss ratio of 1:1
-against A6M�s
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 50,51

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 45

Allied aircraft
TBD Devastator x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
TBD Devastator x 3 destroyed
TBD Devastator x 12 damaged

ENS R.Ogawa of BII-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 4

Japanese Ships
CVL Zuiho, on fire
CV Hiryu
CV Akagi, on fire

-Quite impressive. A6M�s were unable to deal with unescorted
-TBD�s. It�s Waldron�s revenge...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 50,51

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 45

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 16
SBD Dauntless x 13

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 9 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 3 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 8 damaged

WO R.Imamura of AII-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 2

LCDR S. Itaya of AI-1 Daitai bails out and is CAPTURED

Japanese Ships
CV Soryu, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CV Akagi, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

-Again a few F4F�s kept 3:1 losses against a much higher number
-of A6M�s, which were unable to shot down a few bombers..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 54,52

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 26
D3A Val x 57
B5N Kate x 33

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 70

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 27 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged
D3A Val x 22 destroyed
D3A Val x 11 damaged
B5N Kate x 28 destroyed
B5N Kate x 13 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 11 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 14 damaged

ENS A.Alford of VF-8 is credited with kill number 4

LT M. Suganami of BI-1 Daitai bails out and is CAPTURED

Allied Ships
CV Saratoga, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CV Enterprise
CA Chicago
CV Hornet, Bomb hits 2, on fire

-Japanese counterattack. Look at the contrast. Japanese bombers
-suffered extremely heavy losses, despite a reasonable escort.
-The battle result is now pretty decided...at least A6M�s did
-relatively well against F4F�s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 54,52

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 4
D3A Val x 29
B5N Kate x 20

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 34

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 5 destroyed
D3A Val x 10 destroyed
D3A Val x 2 damaged
B5N Kate x 11 destroyed
B5N Kate x 14 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 4 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 7 damaged

LTJG M. Vineyard of VF-2 is credited with kill number 4

LT S. Ogawa of AII-2 Daitai is KILLED

Allied Ships
CV Saratoga, on fire
CV Hornet, on fire
CV Enterprise

-Here the Japanese bombers suffered relatively small losses,
-considering there were less F4F�s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Lae , at 9,33

Allied aircraft
Beaufort x 15
P-400 Airacobra x 24
P-39D Airacobra x 24
P-40E Kittyhawk x 23
B-25D Mitchell x 15
B-26B Marauder x 15
A-20B Havoc x 16

no losses

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 43

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 25
Port fuel hits 1

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-25D Mitchell at 6000 feet
3 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet
3 x A-20B Havoc at 15000 feet
3 x A-20B Havoc at 15000 feet
3 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet
3 x B-25D Mitchell at 6000 feet
9 x B-25D Mitchell at 6000 feet
6 x A-20B Havoc at 15000 feet
3 x Beaufort at 6000 feet
12 x Beaufort at 6000 feet
6 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet
4 x A-20B Havoc at 15000 feet
3 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 50,51

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 33

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 19
SBD Dauntless x 76
TBD Devastator x 17
B-17E Fortress x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 11 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 11 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 9 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 damaged
SBD Dauntless x 5 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 11 damaged
TBD Devastator x 2 destroyed
TBD Devastator x 1 damaged
B-17E Fortress x 9 damaged

WO R.Imamura of AII-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 4

Japanese Ships
CV Soryu, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CV Hiryu, Torpedo hits 2, on fire
CVL Zuiho, Bomb hits 3, on fire
CVL Ryujo, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
CA Chikuma
CV Kaga, Bomb hits 1, on fire

Attacking Level Bombers:
4 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet
2 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet

-With their CAP gone, the Japanese suffered a devastating attack.
-Again the A6M�s suffered heavy losses fighting outnumbered F4F�s.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 50,51

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 24

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 10
B-17E Fortress x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 5 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 3 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 2 damaged
B-17E Fortress x 1 damaged

1LT R. Kaiser of 67th FS is credited with kill number 3

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Luganville at 53,53

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 16
D3A Val x 27
B5N Kate x 17

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 3 destroyed
D3A Val x 2 damaged
B5N Kate x 1 destroyed
B5N Kate x 10 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 2 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 1 damaged

LTJG H.Hamano of BI-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 2

Allied Ships
DD Benham, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DMS Southard
CL Phoenix, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
CL Achillies, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CA San Francisco
CL Hobart

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 51,49

Japanese aircraft
D3A Val x 9

no losses

Allied Ships
DD Anderson, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Hughes
AP William Ward Burrows, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

Allied ground losses:
Men lost 66

-Well, the final result is that Japanese have 4 carriers heavily damaged.
-USN had only two carriers with very small damage.
-It was a defeat comparable to Midway, despite the fact the Japanese were
-able to launch more than 120 bombers and all of them reached their targets
-That�s quite an strange result. Then I concluded, maybe, that
-am a bad loser and run a Coral Sea against the AI (me IJN). Well, the
-result was again the sinking of Shokaku and Shoho and almost no damage
-to USN carriers. It happened because F4F�s shot down almost all bombers.
-An American pilot was able to shot down 9 Japanese planes in a CAP mission
-So I recomemnd strongly to review the v2.11 engine, since it makes UV
-unplayable. I advise strongly to you those running human vs. human
-matches to stop your games before it�s too late. I will try to run some
-other carriers vs. carriers battles to see the results. Maybe the former
-results were too much favorable to Japanese, but they were closer to
-reality, since the Japanese usually had an advantage if they were able
-too see and attack the enemy carriers, at least in 1942.

Post #: 1

- 12/9/2002 8:42:45 AM

Ross Moorhouse

Posts: 2354
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

None of the admin here have touched your post. I looked at your posting history and this one you did here was the latest. The one before this was Monday 1030 AM 14 Oct 02. Now if you had posted since then about UV there is a chance that the post didnt get posted as there may of been a connection error between your PC and the forums via your ISP.

_____________________________

Ross Moorhouse

Project Manager
www.csosimtek.com
Email: rossm@csogroup.org

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 2

- 12/9/2002 9:01:25 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ross Moorhouse
[B]None of the admin here have touched your post. I looked at your posting history and this one you did here was the latest. The one before this was Monday 1030 AM 14 Oct 02. Now if you had posted since then about UV there is a chance that the post didnt get posted as there may of been a connection error between your PC and the forums via your ISP. [/B][/QUOTE]

-Thank you for your response. I become worried because this
-trouble seems to be serious and because the post was
-deleted a few minutes after I put here and because I know
-it is not Matrix policy to censore topics. Anyway, I call your
-attention to this feature. Here is another simulation (now
-Eastern Salomons). This one didn�t end with IJN CV�s in
-the bottom of sea, but resulted in 6:1 losses in Air combat
-or the USN.

Here are the results

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/23/42

Weather: Partly Cloudy

Air attack on TF at 36,33

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 37

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 7
SBD Dauntless x 25
TBF Avenger x 13

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 3 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
SBD Dauntless x 5 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 12 damaged
TBF Avenger x 1 destroyed
TBF Avenger x 8 damaged

LTJG S. Komachi of EI-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 2

Japanese Ships
BB Mutsu, Bomb hits 1
DD Harusame, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Samidare

-Poor performance of Japanese CAP. No other comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 36,33

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 34

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 6
F4F-4 Wildcat x 21
TBF Avenger x 10

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 16 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat x 3 damaged
TBF Avenger x 2 destroyed
TBF Avenger x 10 damaged

LT J. Banks of VF-2 is credited with kill number 2

LT K. Okajima of EII-1 Daitai is KILLED

Japanese Ships
CA Tone
CV Shokaku, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CVL Ryujo

6 F4F�s shot down 16 A6M�s! Few bombers were shot down
(the majority by flak)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 40,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 30
D3A Val x 54
B5N Kate x 40

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 15
F4F-4 Wildcat x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 24 destroyed
D3A Val x 12 destroyed
D3A Val x 12 damaged
B5N Kate x 32 destroyed
B5N Kate x 10 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat x 1 destroyed
F4F-3 Wildcat x 7 damaged
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 3 damaged

ENS R.Fenwick of VF-71 is credited with kill number 6

LT M. Yamaguchi of EI-2 Daitai is KILLED

Allied Ships
CV Enterprise
CV Saratoga, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 1
CV Wasp
DD Farenholt
CA Salt Lake City, Bomb hits 2, on fire

-USN CAP shot down 24 Zeros while losing one F4F
-44 Japanese bombers shot down
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 36,33

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 18

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 17
SBD Dauntless x 9
P-400 Airacobra x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 4 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 2 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 3 damaged

Japanese Ships
CA Haguro

-Normal results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 36,33

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 14

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 4
F4F-4 Wildcat x 8
SBD Dauntless x 35
TBF Avenger x 5

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 5 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 5 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
SBD Dauntless x 1 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 10 damaged
TBF Avenger x 2 destroyed
TBF Avenger x 1 damaged

ENS R.Fenwick of VF-71 is credited with kill number 7

Japanese Ships
CA Takao
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CVL Ryujo
CV Shokaku, on fire

-12 F4F�s shot down 5 A6M�s withouth losses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 40,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 13
D3A Val x 23
B5N Kate x 4

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 6
F4F-4 Wildcat x 23

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 11 destroyed
D3A Val x 11 destroyed
D3A Val x 6 damaged
B5N Kate x 5 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat x 2 damaged
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 damaged

ENS R. Stambook of VF-6 is credited with kill number 5

ENS R. Stambook of VF-6 is KILLED

Allied Ships
CV Enterprise
CV Wasp
CV Saratoga, Bomb hits 1

-Again a better than expected performance of F4F�s
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-In the daily inteligence report we had 15 allied planes
-shot down in air combat against 92 japanese planes.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 3

- 12/9/2002 9:14:19 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

You may not be aware that Matrix has already acknowledged there's an issue with bomber-vs-fighter combat in the current patch, and they've invited us gamers to submit controlled tests relating to the problem. (See the thread "Can you say open beta"; also the thread "I give up!") I don't know if those threads deal with precisely the issue you're raising, but they certainly are relevant. I hope you find some reassurance in them.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 4

- 12/9/2002 9:46:17 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grotius
[B]You may not be aware that Matrix has already acknowledged there's an issue with bomber-vs-fighter combat in the current patch, and they've invited us gamers to submit controlled tests relating to the problem. (See the thread "Can you say open beta"; also the thread "I give up!") I don't know if those threads deal with precisely the issue you're raising, but they certainly are relevant. I hope you find some reassurance in them. [/B][/QUOTE]

-The trouble is diferent. What I have is decreased efficiency
-of Japanese CAP vs. increased efficiency of USN CAP. However
-it may be related to AI settings (very interesting that AI
-settings are influencing PBEM results). I realized that I started
-to get those strange results after I changed AI settings (one
-month ago). Wobbly called my attention to this fact and I
-made another simulation of Coral Sea, with Historical AI
-ratings. And the result was pretty....historical (maybe
-somewhat biased to Japanese). Here are the results:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/05/42

Weather: Partly Cloudy

Air attack on TF, near Gili Gili at 17,42

Japanese aircraft
D3A Val x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A Val x 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
CA Australia, Bomb hits 1, heavy damage

-No AA combat here
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 16,46

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21

Allied aircraft
SBD Dauntless x 43
TBD Devastator x 22

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 8 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
SBD Dauntless x 13 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 14 damaged
TBD Devastator x 9 destroyed
TBD Devastator x 20 damaged

PO2 R.Kanno of EI-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 2

LCDR J. Taylor of VT-5 is KILLED

Japanese Ships
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 3, on fire
CVL Shoho, Bomb hits 2, on fire
CA Aoba
CV Shokaku, Torpedo hits 1, on fire

-Unescorted bombers suffered heavy losses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 18,43

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 21
SBD Dauntless x 15

Allied aircraft losses
SBD Dauntless x 1 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
AP Chowa Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
DD Oite
AP Goyo Maru, Bomb hits 1

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 55

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 20,46

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 27
D3A Val x 42
B5N Kate x 46

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 17

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 3 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 2 damaged
D3A Val x 2 destroyed
D3A Val x 5 damaged
B5N Kate x 12 destroyed
B5N Kate x 18 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat x 8 destroyed
F4F-3 Wildcat x 3 damaged

ENS N. Gayler of VF-3 is credited with kill number 2

LCDR J. Thach of VF-3 is KILLED

Allied Ships
CV Yorktown, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CV Lexington, Bomb hits 7, Torpedo hits 2, on fire
CA Portland, Torpedo hits 2
CA Chester, Torpedo hits 1
CA New Orleans

-Pretty reasonable losses here
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-So it seems very hard AI changes not only the AI agressiveness
-but also the combat resolution. I t wasn�t supposed to happen.
-Neither it was supposed to have the AI settings changing the
-combat results in PBEM. So it would be possible that some bugs
-with bombers are the result of having the AI set to very hard
-by more experienced player. Now I will do another test the
-former naval battle using historical settings. Let�s see what
-happens. This is quite worrying, because the Japanese player
-(in whose computer the combat results are generated) has
-a chance to cheat.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 5

- 12/9/2002 9:54:58 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

I have to confess that I read this whole thread and still have not the slightest idea what this guy is complaining about.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 6

- 12/9/2002 10:32:12 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]I have to confess that I read this whole thread and still have not the slightest idea what this guy is complaining about. [/B][/QUOTE]

-Let�s examine again. A super CV Japanese TF with 330
-planes onboard attacked a smaller US CV TF (3CV�s vs.
-4CV�s plus 2CVL�s). The result was a devastating
-defeat for the Japanese TF despite the fact they were
-able to raise a formidable CAP (80 A6M�s) and to make
-a full strenght attack on the US CV (2 waves, in a total
-of 140 bombers, escorted by 30 fighters). Well, while
-the Japanese CAP was unable to scratch US bombers,
-the USN CAP decimated Vals and Kates, which weren�t
-able to cause more than minor damage to US CV�s this
-result is quite atypical, and since I v2.11 seems to be
-plagued with Air to air bugs, I thought I was facing one
-of them. So I made simulations of carrier vs. carrier
-combats against the AI and again the results were bad
-for the Japanese. So wobbly observed that it seems to
-be related to the AI being set to very hard. Then I played
-against the AI set to historical in Coral Sea and got the
-same results. So we suspect that the AI settings have
-an influence over air combat results. Ther is where we
-stopped.

-Now, I reloaded the PBEM again, and simulated the
-combat to test this hypothesis, so I got the same
-results. So we conclude that the AI settings don�t
-influence PBEM results, as wobbly was thinking (but
-it seems to have influence on AI games, which makes
-my tests invalid). I think you would agree with me that
-the results in my PBEM are very strange. I had many
-PBEM CV battles and never had this results before.
-Usually the Japanese have the upper hand in balanced
-carrier battles and achieve big victories if they have
-more powerful forces (you can mention Midway, of
-course, but the Japanese there were attacked before
-they could launch their anti ship attacks, and, despite
-this, were able to sink the Yorktown with only 30
-bombers). If you�re interested, I can send you my
-PBEM file so you can see the results. The losses for
-air combat were 62 for USN and 109 for IJN. Flak
-losses 8 for USN and 21 for IJN. Operational losses
-30 for IJN and 5 for USN. I think I must make more
-human to human tests to see if there is a bug of
-it was only bad luck.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 7

- 12/9/2002 10:44:20 AM

XPav

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline

I saw this post. It was on the forum before with the title "v2.11 is a disaster (very important advise)".

It isn't there now.

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 8

Air-Air combat - 12/9/2002 10:45:04 AM

bhdhtx

Posts: 16
Joined: 7/9/2002
From: DFW
Status: offline

It seems that overall the US always have an advantage of Air to Air. I must agree that zeroes were feared amongst the US Wildcats but yet the wilcats tear them up. Plus it seems that bombers have a very high ratio of kills now. Matrix came close about getting the Air to Air close about 2 patches ago and it still needed work, but this latest patch made the air cobat worst than it was with the original game of 1.0. Anyways just a thought. I still like the game but I know that if I am the US I dont have to worry about the Jap carriers because I will always inflict more damage and most likely get away with small damage compared to the Japs in which I know I will cripple.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 9

Re: Air-Air combat - 12/9/2002 11:16:23 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bhdhtx
[B]It seems that overall the US always have an advantage of Air to Air. I must agree that zeroes were feared amongst the US Wildcats but yet the wilcats tear them up. Plus it seems that bombers have a very high ratio of kills now. Matrix came close about getting the Air to Air close about 2 patches ago and it still needed work, but this latest patch made the air cobat worst than it was with the original game of 1.0. Anyways just a thought. I still like the game but I know that if I am the US I dont have to worry about the Jap carriers because I will always inflict more damage and most likely get away with small damage compared to the Japs in which I know I will cripple. [/B][/QUOTE]

You must be playing a far different game from the one I am. "It seems that overall the US always have an advantage of Air to Air?" "I don't have to worry about the Jap carriers ... ?" Not in my experience under ANY UV patch.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 10

- 12/9/2002 11:17:55 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by afenelon
[B]

-Let�s examine again. A super CV Japanese TF with 330
-planes onboard attacked a smaller US CV TF (3CV�s vs.
-4CV�s plus 2CVL�s). The result was a devastating
-defeat for the Japanese TF despite the fact they were
-able to raise a formidable CAP (80 A6M�s) and to make
-a full strenght attack on the US CV (2 waves, in a total
-of 140 bombers, escorted by 30 fighters). Well, while
-the Japanese CAP was unable to scratch US bombers,
-the USN CAP decimated Vals and Kates, which weren�t
-able to cause more than minor damage to US CV�s this
-result is quite atypical, and since I v2.11 seems to be
-plagued with Air to air bugs, I thought I was facing one
-of them. So I made simulations of carrier vs. carrier
-combats against the AI and again the results were bad
-for the Japanese. So wobbly observed that it seems to
-be related to the AI being set to very hard. Then I played
-against the AI set to historical in Coral Sea and got the
-same results. So we suspect that the AI settings have
-an influence over air combat results. Ther is where we
-stopped.

-Now, I reloaded the PBEM again, and simulated the
-combat to test this hypothesis, so I got the same
-results. So we conclude that the AI settings don�t
-influence PBEM results, as wobbly was thinking (but
-it seems to have influence on AI games, which makes
-my tests invalid). I think you would agree with me that
-the results in my PBEM are very strange. I had many
-PBEM CV battles and never had this results before.
-Usually the Japanese have the upper hand in balanced
-carrier battles and achieve big victories if they have
-more powerful forces (you can mention Midway, of
-course, but the Japanese there were attacked before
-they could launch their anti ship attacks, and, despite
-this, were able to sink the Yorktown with only 30
-bombers). If you�re interested, I can send you my
-PBEM file so you can see the results. The losses for
-air combat were 62 for USN and 109 for IJN. Flak
-losses 8 for USN and 21 for IJN. Operational losses
-30 for IJN and 5 for USN. I think I must make more
-human to human tests to see if there is a bug of
-it was only bad luck. [/B][/QUOTE]

I have to confess that I read this whole thread and still have not the slightest idea what this guy is complaining about.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 11

- 12/9/2002 11:33:34 AM

dpstafford

Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]I have to confess that I read this whole thread and still have not the slightest idea what this guy is complaining about. [/B][/QUOTE]
I have to agree. That us a mistake I used to make with the IJN. You have to ESCORT the bombers or they will be torn apart. No more than 50% CAP is a good rule of thumb for IJN carrier fighters. His 30 fighter escort was an invitation to disaster.

_____________________________

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 12

- 12/9/2002 3:04:29 PM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dpstafford
[B]
I have to agree. That us a mistake I used to make with the IJN. You have to ESCORT the bombers or they will be torn apart. No more than 50% CAP is a good rule of thumb for IJN carrier fighters. His 30 fighter escort was an invitation to disaster. [/B][/QUOTE]

-I disagree with you. I usually send 30% of fighters on
-escort missions and I�m able to systematically win as
-Japanese in carrier battles. It was possible even in
-1943 CV battle with the enemy flying F4U�s. I had
-6CV�s vs 6CV�s and the battle ended in a draw.
-The relatively small escort could have explained the
-losses in my strike, but doesn�t explain the horrible
-performance of 80 expert pilots against TBD�s and
-SBD�s. I still think it may has to be with AI settings.
-Where is combat resolution generated? Does AI
-settings influence on it?

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 13

Re: Re: Air-Air combat - 12/9/2002 3:41:39 PM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]

You must be playing a far different game from the one I am. "It seems that overall the US always have an advantage of Air to Air?" "I don't have to worry about the Jap carriers ... ?" Not in my experience under ANY UV patch. [/B][/QUOTE]

-I agree with you. In equal conditions, IJN carriers will beat
-the USN carriers almost always. Both sides suffer heavy
-losses in Air to air combat, but usually the better experience
-of IJN and their deadly torpedoes will decide the battle
-(Kates are the big ship sinkers). However, it seems to
-have changed with v2.11. I keep that the results presented
-here are quite a-historical. Top IJN pilots were always able
-to sink US carriers when they attacked with enough numbers.
-And the A6M�s in Midways were able to shot down scores
-of enemy planes before the decisive attack. This battle
-resembles Midway in many aspects, but what would have
-happened if the IJN was able to launch a full strike against
-the Enterprise and Hornet before the carriers were attacked
-by SBD�s? The result would be almost certainly a stalemate,
-with both US carriers sinking.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 14

- 12/9/2002 4:49:36 PM

Inigo Montoya

Posts: 58
Joined: 11/6/2002
Status: offline

I have some pertinent questions:

Are you playing PBEM or AI?
If AI, what is the difficulty setting?
Is Fog of War enabled?
Who is the CC for each TF?
What is the morale for each squadron?
What is the fatigue for each squadron?

_____________________________

I am looking for a six-fingered man.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 15

- 12/9/2002 8:45:10 PM

Pawlock

Posts: 1041
Joined: 9/18/2002
From: U.K.
Status: offline

While this is a bad result for the IJN, it is not out of whack with many results I have seen in most versions.

Key points from what I can see,

You seem under the impression that your CV tf was invincible, against a USN tf of 3 CV's. Hmm let me see , 270 vs 330 aircraft, not a huge differential by any means.

Also you seem under the impression that the ex of Jap pilots is huge, not so with CV's , the USN navy pilots start around 70's if memory servers me correct maybe 60s at the least.

Again flak power of USN is far ,far superior to IJN full stop. This alone even if only damage planes can put them off target.

Reading between the lines ,it seems your used to winning as the IJN in CV battles most of the time. Thats the beauty of UV as I always say, every now and again it throws us a curve ball.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 16

- 12/10/2002 4:03:31 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pawlock
[B]While this is a bad result for the IJN, it is not out of whack with many results I have seen in most versions.

Key points from what I can see,

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-I think you�re missing some very important points. I�m
-not complaining because I lose. The fun of his game is
-to alternate victories and defeats. I�m complaining
-about a result that seems to be too unrealistic as
-historical data is of concern. This confrontaion will
-end with 6 IJN Carriers sunk withouth any major damage
-to US Carriers. Pay attention to the fact that those
-results weren�t achieved even in the Turkey shot in
-the Philipines Sea. So I think this is a result whose
-chance to happen, in statistical terms, is near zero,
-if we have a balanced game engine. It is like to throw
-a coin ten times and get always the same side. It can
-happen, but it make you suspect that there is a bias
-here. So, while a IJN defeat here was possible, this
-massive defeat raises the suspicion that something is
-wrong with the game engine. I made some testing to
-prove that, unfortunately, the testing itself was
-biased (due to AI settings), and this weakens my point.
-Still, it seems to be some trouble with the engine, but
-to prove it I must make more tests with the game on
-PBEM and AI mode, and this is itself difficult, since
-I lack a proper control group. However, I think players
-might pay attention to this because carrier battles
-are relatively infrequent in UV and a distorted engine
-may have a devastating effect in game play. I�m working
-with he following hypothesis.

1-Game engine is balanced and I just had bad luck.
2-Game engine has a bias towards USA in 2.11
3-Game engine has a strange system where it is biased
towards Japan in small engagements and towards USA
in large carrier battles (ie, 2 US CV�s lose to 2 IJN
CV�s but 3 US CV�s defeat 4 IJN CV�s). I think this
would be a trouble.
4-AI settings of player1 can change results for PBEM
games (strange explanation, but it could be possible).
As the game report seems to be generated a turn before
I will try to go back in the time and replay the turn
before the battle with AI set to historical (it may
be needed to repeat this exercises more times)

Just to see how those results are strange, I took the
main CV�s battles in 1942 and made a calculation on
how many embarked planes you need to sink a CV (a CVL
counts for 0,5 to this purpose)

Japan:256 planes sink a CV and cripple another
USN:286 planes sink 2 CV�s and cripple another

So, we would expect from this confrontation:
2 IJN�s CV�s sunk and another crippled (we have 5
CV�s for this calculation). Two CV�s operational
One US Carrier sunk and another crippled
One remaining operational carrier
-This result would force the retreat of both sides
-A reasonable victory for the US forces
-Of course there is a deviation due to chance,
-but the current deviation is very high, and I
-think it should happen in no more than 1-5% of
-cases. A Midway like battle here was quite
-difficult to happen because
1-I didn�t send my planes to attack the airbase
2-I was able to attack with full strenght (I�m
insisting on this, but there is a very inportant
point)
3-I had good reconaissance (Mavis and a CS with
20 planes plus 24 planes on my cruisers)

-On the other hand, even those numbers seem bad
-to Japan, because they don�t count that only one
-carrier was able to attack in Midway. Take it on
-account and we have 195 IJN planes to sink one CV
-and cripple another. So, when we consider that
-my carriers were able to attack here, the most
-possible result would be a draw. I don�t think
-my carriers are invincible and I didn�t want this
-confrontation (it was the decision of Yamaguchi)
-because I�ve already made some calculations on
-this.

-I will keep on reporting results here, but you see
-the question is very complex and I need a lot of
-time to get a response

-As for your arguments on flak, I think flak made
-few difference in the battle (IJN lost 21 planes
-against 8 for USN)

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 17

- 12/10/2002 4:07:02 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Inigo Montoya
[B]I have some pertinent questions:

Are you playing PBEM or AI?
-PBEM
If AI, what is the difficulty setting?
-Very hard (I think it may change PBEM results
-will make tests)
Is Fog of War enabled?
-Yes
Who is the CC for each TF?
-IJN: Yamaguchi
What is the morale for each squadron?
-I will check
What is the fatigue for each squadron?
-I will check (maybe here is the point)

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 18

- 12/10/2002 5:23:13 AM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by afenelon
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Inigo Montoya
[B]I have some pertinent questions:

Are you playing PBEM or AI?
-PBEM
If AI, what is the difficulty setting?
-Very hard (I think it may change PBEM results
-will make tests)
Is Fog of War enabled?
-Yes
Who is the CC for each TF?
-IJN: Yamaguchi
What is the morale for each squadron?
-I will check
What is the fatigue for each squadron?
-I will check (maybe here is the point) [/B][/QUOTE]

Here is the USN player data for the above example, as I am the USN player

TF 228 Air Combat
Commander:RADM McCain
3 CVs
2 Cas
2 CLs
5 DDs

Air Groups

F4F-4s - Escort
SQN AC Ex Mo Fat CAP Alt Ldr Insp
VF-2 36 76 86 30 70 15000 65 72
VF-6 36 75 98 19 70 15000 59 71
VF-8 36 77 99 20 70 15000 61 72

SBDs - Naval Attack
SQN AC Ex Mo Fat Srch Alt Ldr Insp
VS-3 18 75 99 0 0 15000 68 77
VB-3 18 77 99 0 0 15000 63 77
VS-6 18 74 99 5 20 15000 58 74
VB-6 18 77 99 0 0 15000 61 73
VS-8 18 73 99 5 20 15000 56 74
VB-8 18 68 99 5 20 15000 70 70

TBDs - Naval Attack
SQN AC Ex Mo Fat Srch Alt Ldr Insp
VT-3 15 73 99 0 0 15000 63 77
VT-6 15 77 99 0 0 10000 56 79
VT-8 15 75 99 0 0 10000 70 74

Player Notes:
- IJN TF reacted to hex 50,51 to attack USN TF 4 squares away at Luganville.
- Nearest IJN naval search assets other than in IJN TF were at Lunga.
- USN had 2 SQNs x 12 PBYs set on Naval Search based at Luganville, 1 SQN Hudsons set to ASW Patrol, and 7 x 4 plane sections of SOC-3 on ships in TF 228 and a colocated surface TF.
- There were at least 7 USN TFs in the area, 4 at Luganville, 3 others at sea within 5 squares of the IJN TF.
- This was the first turn executed after the 2.11 upgrade

Would not agree about the IJN with good recon(fair maybe), unless there were a great deal of aircraft set to naval search in the TF.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 19

- 12/10/2002 7:08:15 AM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

if your carriers are being hit then your cap isn't high enough. I just held off a 4 carrier strike in my pbem game( I am Japanese with 4 carriers also ). Its true I had all my fighters on cap and was able to completely destroy the allied carrier's offensive ability but I had to make the choice not send my bombers against him becasuse of his 120+ cap. It's a gamble any way you play it. If I had sent my bombers out with no escort- all of them would have been shot down. But I figure at least 50% of my fighters would have to escor t the bombers to even have a chance - that would have doomed my carriers (at least some of them) because I wouldn't have been able to field enough cap. I chose to be cautious and keep all my fighters. Somehow you have to decide on the best mix to use and the rest is dumb luck.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 20

- 12/10/2002 7:14:44 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh
[B]

Japanese data on CV

Air Groups

A6M2 - Escort
SQN AC Ex Mo Fat CAP Alt Ldr Insp
AI-1 23 86 72 30 70 10000 65 75
AII-1 29 80 92 36 70 10000 60 72
BI-1 23 88 94 35 70 10000 55 75
BII-1 20 88 87 36 70 10000 60 72
DI-1 13 66 39 32 70 10000 74 58
CII-1 9 64 46 29 70 10000 70 71

Vals - Naval Attack
SQN AC Ex Mo Fat Srch Alt Ldr Insp
AI-2 22 85 91 31 0 10000 66 74
AII-2 27 80 66 39 0 10000 61 73
BI-2 21 80 86 27 20 10000 93 88
BII-2 18 91 85 39 0 10000 63 75

TBDs - Naval Attack
SQN AC Ex Mo Fat Srch Alt Ldr Insp
AI-3 18 73 81 0 0 5000 55 71
AII-3 20 87 98 0 0 5000 62 78
BI-3 15 92 98 0 0 5000 63 77
BII-3 16 87 78 0 0 5000 62 75
DI-3 14 74 92 28 0 5000 56 61
CII-3 10 70 76 21 0 5000 59 66

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 21

- 12/10/2002 7:19:29 AM

dpstafford

Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drex
[B]Somehow you have to decide on the best mix to use and the rest is dumb luck. [/B][/QUOTE]
It almost seems as if you guys are playing a different game than the one I have been playing for the last several months. Oh, that's right, you are. The new BLOODIED up air combat has so drastically effected the balance and the strategy of the game, it's like it's a whole new game. (In the olden days, at least some of even unescorted bombers would get through). I don't really know which way is more historical, and I won't venture a guess as to which way makes for better game play. I just wish the MATRIX would quit making such drastic changes to the game!

_____________________________

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 22

- 12/10/2002 7:25:31 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drex
[B]if your carriers are being hit then your cap isn't high enough. I just held off a 4 carrier strike in my pbem game( I am Japanese with 4 carriers also ). Its true I had all my fighters on cap and was able to completely destroy the allied carrier's offensive ability but I had to make the choice not send my bombers against him becasuse of his 120+ cap. It's a gamble any way you play it. If I had sent my bombers out with no escort- all of them would have been shot down. But I figure at least 50% of my fighters would have to escor t the bombers to even have a chance - that would have doomed my carriers (at least some of them) because I wouldn't have been able to field enough cap. I chose to be cautious and keep all my fighters. Somehow you have to decide on the best mix to use and the rest is dumb luck. [/B][/QUOTE]

-In relation to number of incoming bombers, your CAP was
-not very different from mine. You had 120 A6M�s against
-4 CV�s (200 bombers) while I had 82 against 3 CV�s
-(150 bombers). And you were facing TB�F�s while I was
-fighting TBD�s. But there is something interesting with
-your results (I saw them in another thread). Despite
-heavily outnumbered, your F4F�s kept a 1:1 killing rate
-against A6M�s. What do you thing about this?

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 23

- 12/10/2002 7:47:50 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dpstafford
[B]
It almost seems as if you guys are playing a different game than the one I have been playing for the last several months. Oh, that's right, you are. The new BLOODIED up air combat has so drastically effected the balance and the strategy of the game, it's like it's a whole new game. (In the olden days, at least some of even unescorted bombers would get through). I don't really know which way is more historical, and I won't venture a guess as to which way makes for better game play. I just wish the MATRIX would quit making such drastic changes to the game! [/B][/QUOTE]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-I think the best compromise would be:
1-Poorly escorted bombers must be decimated (this should
be applied to BOTH SIDES)
2-Surviving bombers must be able to get more hits.

-When you look at historical results we can get the following
-conclusions
1-CV combat is extremely costly. Losses are very high
2-Even a few surviving bombers can do crippling damage
(just look at what the 30 surviving bombers in the Hiryu
made with Yorktown, despite minimal escort)
3-After a Carrier combat, the winner isn�t usually able
to pursue the loser, because the winner is usually
seriously wounded. The system might reflect this
reality
-The current combat system seems to have some troubles
(for what I saw in my game)
1-US bombers are able to survive even if minimally escorted
2-Japanese bombers usually need massive escorts (this
will, in turn make IJN unable to defend their carriers due
to 1)
3-So it seems the IJN is in a Catch22 (Drex reports seems
to confirm my suspicions). I doubt if the Japanese
historically, put 50% of their A6M�s in Escort duties.
This reports of IJN player needing 100% CAP to survive
just point to the fact that the system is somewhat
biased.
4-On the other hand, the older system favored the
Japanese, beacuse their bombers have artificially
high survival and, as they have more precision (due
to poor US torpedoes and better IJN crew quality)
they did higher damage than registered in historical
result.
Btw: SBD�s in Midway had something like 30% hits
Surviving bombers of the Hiryu had 50% hits. Allow
these values plus heavy bomber losses and the
combats between large numbers of carriers will
have much more interesting results. We will see
real damage, but relatively ew carriers lost in
each confrontation. This was exactly what
happened in South Pacific. Three carriers battles
resulted in 2CV�s lost for USN and 2CVL�s lost
for IJN (not mentioning the poor Shokaku, which
was crippled two times)

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 24

- 12/10/2002 8:04:12 AM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

Offhand afenelon, I would think the 1:1 killing ration by the Wildcats in my battle (even though they were outnumbered) was due to their experience. Many of my best pilots were killed earlier in previous failed air attacks and it was only by having greater numbers that i was able to overcome the attack. So right now i don't see that carrier air needs to be tampered with but the bomber issue- as I said before- needs looking at again. Sstill it will take more battles by others to develop a consensus.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 25

- 12/10/2002 8:14:57 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drex
[B]Offhand afenelon, I would think the 1:1 killing ration by the Wildcats in my battle (even though they were outnumbered) was due to their experience. Many of my best pilots were killed earlier in previous failed air attacks and it was only by having greater numbers that i was able to overcome the attack. So right now i don't see that carrier air needs to be tampered with but the bomber issue- as I said before- needs looking at again. Sstill it will take more battles by others to develop a consensus. [/B][/QUOTE]

-I doubt if their pilots are much more experience than yours
-you probably have levels near 70-75 and I doubt the enemy
-has more than 80. It shouldn�t be enough to compensate
-for the higher numbers of A6M�s. The air to air trouble is
-part of the major picture. Because F4F�s seems to be too
-effective, the Japanese are losing more bombers and the
-USN is losing very few planes. This will impact the results.
-I think it�s an heresy to keep your decks full of unused
-bombers and make your carriers just a platform to fighters
-Then it would be better to disembark your bombers,
-operate them from airbases and load your CV�s with
-fighters. I have a suggestion to you. Try to re run your
-turn (reach an agreement with your opponent) as a
-conventional battle. Both you should agree in keeping
-50% CAP (or 40% or 30%). Let�s see the results. From
-my opinion, this confrontation should end with one carrier
-crippled and one sunk for each side (minus plus one
-carrier crippled/sunk as result of randomization)

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 26

- 12/10/2002 8:18:24 AM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

I'll ask him and see if we can replay the turn with 50% cap.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 27

- 12/10/2002 1:48:34 PM

SoulBlazer

Posts: 839
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Providence RI
Status: offline

And the things we do for the rest of you...... :)

I agreed to help out and we did a test battle with CAP at 50 percent for both of us.

Your guess is right on, at least for me, afenelon. Drex is the guy I am playing aganist in my PBEM game. Here's the stats on my planes before the test battle:

Ship Leader Ins # Exp Morale Fatique

Lex VF-3 71 48 35 62 45 32
Lex VS-2 80 63 3 67 40 6
Lex VB-2 85 70 16 72 71 19
York VF-42 79 87 26 76 92 25
York VS-5 56 73 17 79 63 16
York VB-5 83 72 3 85 55 8
Hornet VF-8 82 89 26 78 86 24
Hornet VS-8 91 80 7 88 70 11
Hornet VB-8 70 70 18 75 70 16
Wasp VF-71 67 78 22 74 76 31
Wasp VS-71 83 70 18 81 65 16
Wasp VS-72 77 45 7 57 18 12

The first line for each ship was Wildcats, the next two were Dauntless. There were no Avengers

No ship damage before battle.

After battle: Ship System Float Fires
Wasp 81 96 49
Yorktown 42 32 30

I suffered 52 Air to Air losses and 4 losses due to flak.

So the Wasp is sunk and the Yorktown is crippled.

Please remember this is also early October by now, two of these carriers have been in action for months, and all of my pilots are very experienced. So the results strike me as historical, and I see no problems.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 28

- 12/10/2002 2:24:24 PM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

I think fatigue probably played a large part in the outcome of the fighter combat.

72 of my 98 fighter aircraft had a 20 or 19 fatigue level

72 of afenelon's 107 fighter aircraft had a 35 or 36 fatigue level.

It has been mentioned that fatigue effects are not neccessarily linear, and performance gets degradaded very badly the higher you go.

A test on the effects of fatigue may explain, in part, the results.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 29

- 12/10/2002 3:43:52 PM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SoulBlazer
[B]And the things we do for the rest of you...... :)

I agreed to help out and we did a test battle with CAP at 50 percent for both of us.

Your guess is right on, at least for me, afenelon. Drex is the guy I am playing aganist in my PBEM game. Here's the stats on my planes before the test battle:

Ship Leader Ins # Exp Morale Fatique

Lex VF-3 71 48 35 62 45 32
Lex VS-2 80 63 3 67 40 6
Lex VB-2 85 70 16 72 71 19
York VF-42 79 87 26 76 92 25
York VS-5 56 73 17 79 63 16
York VB-5 83 72 3 85 55 8
Hornet VF-8 82 89 26 78 86 24
Hornet VS-8 91 80 7 88 70 11
Hornet VB-8 70 70 18 75 70 16
Wasp VF-71 67 78 22 74 76 31
Wasp VS-71 83 70 18 81 65 16
Wasp VS-72 77 45 7 57 18 12

The first line for each ship was Wildcats, the next two were Dauntless. There were no Avengers

No ship damage before battle.

After battle: Ship System Float Fires
Wasp 81 96 49
Yorktown 42 32 30

I suffered 52 Air to Air losses and 4 losses due to flak.

So the Wasp is sunk and the Yorktown is crippled.

Please remember this is also early October by now, two of these carriers have been in action for months, and all of my pilots are very experienced. So the results strike me as historical, and I see no problems. [/B][/QUOTE]

-What were the results for Japanese carriers?

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 30