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: July 1944

 
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: July 1944 Page: <<   < prev  128 129 [130] 131 132   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: July 1944 - 4/18/2017 3:06:12 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Here is the speed of research with my Frank (+8 = Minimum 3 Days to Deployment) and Tony (+2 Will see if that is a consistent number):





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 4/18/2017 3:11:52 PM >

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3871
RE: July 1944 - 4/18/2017 3:34:02 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

QUERY: That Low CAP Level Setting shouldn't be applied to fighting just his bombers right? I assume a higher altitude setting would work here since there are, as of yet, no Fighters that can escort the B-29s.


IIRC, John, the stacked low CAP that Obvert tested was vs. Thunderbolt sweeps of varying altitudes. So, yes-I would assume business as usual in terms of unescorted bomber intercept CAP altitude settings.

ETA: Looks like a 42k sweep for the P47s in the attachments here. There were many other altitude tests in the aforementioned thread. I recommend you review it, John.

< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 4/18/2017 3:40:45 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3872
RE: July 1944 - 4/18/2017 3:39:47 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Credit for low CAP layered defense really goes to Lobarron, Alfred, theElf and others. Don't forget you need radar too!


Obviously, credit for game coding and original game design goes to the...coders and original game designers.

Beyond that though, the credit for my awareness of this issue (which is what I posted about) goes to Obvert. I wasn't aware of the other discussions or coding that may have taken place years ago, so I am not crediting them-they did not influence my awareness and understanding. So to clarify: credit for bringing this testing and low layered CAP discussion to my attention goes to Obvert. YMMV.

Good point about the radar.

_____________________________


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3873
RE: July 1944 - 4/18/2017 4:31:11 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		LOTS of radar needed. Will be going thru Kyushu and Honshu tonight to check on that. Know there is a good amount already in Formosa.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 3874
RE: July 1944 - 4/18/2017 11:16:54 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

QUERY: That Low CAP Level Setting shouldn't be applied to fighting just his bombers right? I assume a higher altitude setting would work here since there are, as of yet, no Fighters that can escort the B-29s.


IIRC, John, the stacked low CAP that Obvert tested was vs. Thunderbolt sweeps of varying altitudes. So, yes-I would assume business as usual in terms of unescorted bomber intercept CAP altitude settings.

ETA: Looks like a 42k sweep for the P47s in the attachments here. There were many other altitude tests in the aforementioned thread. I recommend you review it, John.


I've done some tests with bombing runs but most of the bombing "testing" has come in game. It works very well against even bombers set to higher altitudes.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Credit for low CAP layered defense really goes to Lobarron, Alfred, theElf and others. Don't forget you need radar too!


Obviously, credit for game coding and original game design goes to the...coders and original game designers.

Beyond that though, the credit for my awareness of this issue (which is what I posted about) goes to Obvert. I wasn't aware of the other discussions or coding that may have taken place years ago, so I am not crediting them-they did not influence my awareness and understanding. So to clarify: credit for bringing this testing and low layered CAP discussion to my attention goes to Obvert. YMMV.

Good point about the radar.


This tactic came to me through Lowpe from the sages above. I was at first doubtful, although I did remember a few low CAP results from my game with Jocke that were more than usually successful, so I tried it out. Immediately on testing it worked better than anything I'd tried, so I kept testing.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 3875
RE: July 1944 - 4/19/2017 5:25:03 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		We'll, possibly, find out in the next few turns coming...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3876
RE: July 1944 - 4/19/2017 4:33:11 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		July 2, 1944

Dan wastes little time going after my screwed up ships upgrading at Singers: 70 Fighters vs 70 B-29. The combat has five B-29s shot down and 36 damaged.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3877
RE: July 1944 - 4/19/2017 4:34:19 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

July 2, 1944

Dan wastes little time going after my screwed up ships upgrading at Singers: 70 Fighters vs 70 B-29. The combat has five B-29s shot down and 36 damaged.


What was the extent of the damage to the ships?

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3878
RE: July 1944 - 4/19/2017 4:34:43 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		The combat report shows a bit better performance in a decent day for the Japanese pilots:





Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3879
RE: July 1944 - 4/19/2017 4:57:05 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Did he score any hits on the BB?

Does he know the BB is there?

10 Downed Beasts!!!! Plus I bet plenty more damaged and vulnerable if he continues using them. a perfect place for those 61D...

Good job.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3880
RE: July 1944 - 4/19/2017 9:52:30 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		61D?


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3881
RE: July 1944 - 4/19/2017 9:56:51 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		He knew that they were there.

Stats:
Musashi 21 500lb bombs--SYS 50 (0 Serious), FLOT 3, ENG 5
Nagato 22 500lb bombs--SYS 42 (0 Serious), FLOT 10, ENG 2
CA Kumano 3 500lb bombs--SYS 16 (0), Flot 52 (52), ENG 3
CL Nagara 1 500lb bomb--SYS 28 (12), FLOT 1, ENG 0

All that SYS is attributable to the bombing attack by those never-miss-on-a-Port Strike 4EB!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3882
RE: July 1944 - 4/19/2017 10:09:24 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

61D?


Well the Tony 61-Id matches up very well against the B29.

Normally you start to have to worry about the long legged escorts or sweepers the Allies get but these can hold up well against all but the P47d25 13 hex guy in a layered low CAP defense.

So to guard against the Jugs on extended sweeps you need a Frank squadron too.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3883
RE: July 1944 - 4/19/2017 10:11:46 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I would gladly trade some system damage for a shot at un-escorted daytime flying B29s! It is a great trap.

How many total fighters did you have on duty over Singers?


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3884
RE: July 1944 - 4/19/2017 10:16:05 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

He knew that they were there.

Stats:
Musashi 21 500lb bombs--SYS 50 (0 Serious), FLOT 3, ENG 5
Nagato 22 500lb bombs--SYS 42 (0 Serious), FLOT 10, ENG 2
CA Kumano 3 500lb bombs--SYS 16 (0), Flot 52 (52), ENG 3
CL Nagara 1 500lb bomb--SYS 28 (12), FLOT 1, ENG 0

All that SYS is attributable to the bombing attack by those never-miss-on-a-Port Strike 4EB!



Never miss? 60 B-29s ( 70 - the 10 shoot down/op loses ) is 600 bombs and there were 47 hits. That is
less than 8% hits. Not a real high percentage.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3885
RE: July 1944 - 4/19/2017 11:08:18 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		Like Professor Lowpe stated, you need faster fighters with 20mm or 30mm cannons. The Tony is slightly faster, but unless its diving, it will not catch the B-29s too often.

You got behind in quality air production and you are paying the price, John.


_____________________________


(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 3886
RE: July 1944 - 4/19/2017 11:48:06 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I would gladly trade some system damage for a shot at un-escorted daytime flying B29s! It is a great trap.

How many total fighters did you have on duty over Singers?




Believe that there were just at 70. If he comes back tomorrow--doubtful--then it will be about 100. Lowpe: TOTALLY concur! Am moving the CVs in this direction and will add a whole passel of Sams to the mix the day after tomorrow. Would love for a bunch of B-29s to come over and meet 150+ top line fighters. VERY NICE!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3887
RE: July 1944 - 4/19/2017 11:50:39 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Like Professor Lowpe stated, you need faster fighters with 20mm or 30mm cannons. The Tony is slightly faster, but unless its diving, it will not catch the B-29s too often.

You got behind in quality air production and you are paying the price, John.



Behind in quality fighters? Frank in months early. Sam in months early. Now Frank-B and Tony-100 SIX or so months early.

Biggest mistake was scale of production. This is being corrected and once these two bad boys enter the production line we should be able to fill everyone out and cause some serious bellyache for the Allied bombing campaign. It is this area scale and scope of what is needed, as said earlier, that my biggest learning curve has been. In so many ways I feel like a 1st time player exploring this end game side of AE.


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 4/20/2017 1:14:00 AM >

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 3888
RE: July 1944 - 4/20/2017 11:15:32 AM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Biggest mistake was scale of production. This is being corrected and once these two bad boys enter the production line we should be able to fill everyone out and cause some serious bellyache for the Allied bombing campaign. It is this area scale and scope of what is needed, as said earlier, that my biggest learning curve has been. In so many ways I feel like a 1st time player exploring this end game side of AE.



Even with the additional production of the Frank B and Ki100-I I doubt you will ever be able to fill out your fighter squadrons with top of the line squadrons. Sorry to rain on your expectations again, but you did give me permission.


But what you can do is access some of those pools you have built up. I think the Jugs have an extended range of 13 or so...so any base 14 hexes from the Allies can have a healthy CAP of lesser fighters with cannons.

A fighter like the A6M5c and A6M8 are wonderful bomber killers even though you might think them slow. I have even used A6M2 as deep base defense as they can still bring down un-escorted bombers and sometimes their mere presence (and the Allies recon) is enough to prevent attacks. Oscar and Tojo aren't very good 4E bomber killers but ok for ambushing the Deathstar/ 2E bomber killers and of course they are the staple of the low layered cap defense.

What I am trying to say is that all your fighters are valuable and you need to spend them wisely and don't worry about filling them out, or wait for filling them out -- rather keep bleeding the Allies and trading those fighters for Allied losses.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3889
RE: July 1944 - 4/20/2017 1:17:27 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		You have touched on what I started doing about 10 days back in game time. Have changed the Fighters in the northern half of Japan over to older, less capable fighters while the southern half has priority on the newer ones.

Plan to shift Naha over to this turn so I can move restricted fighters and bombers there. Will do that with Ngo and the base next to Okinawa. Have an Air Fleet on the way there so then its coverage extends to all three and Amani.

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3890
RE: July 1944 - 4/20/2017 3:55:36 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		July 3, 1944

The 1.0x6^10 has moved up to the hex SE of Batan Isle. He was just a hex from my trigger point. Interesting.

I am gladly taking a page from HIS playbook and am spreading little 2 AKL TFs out all over the area to draw off and soak up his sorties. He never saw what was wrong with this in 1942 so I'll attempt to teach him why I think it is BS. Should be interesting and we'll see just what happens. Instead of his single ship TFs we are running with pairs to be slightly more appropriate.

Lay mines at both Takao and Taihoku this turn. There is a CD unit at each base as well.

Singapore
The Americans, probably stung a bit from that B-29 raid, send a squadron of P-38s at extreme range to Singapore from Miri. They are met by 80 or so fighters flying low and get handled fairly easily.

Borneo
Hadn't mentioned that the Decoy KB moved north up to Tarakan where all its smaller warships refueled. Ordered it back towards Singapore and allowed it come around the NE tip of Borneo. Figured it would surprise him. It did. My CAP blasted a bunch of air search aircraft and next turn heads along the coast towards Singers. Split off a CL and 4 DD to sweep the Miri hex of any shipping.

Luganville
I ran 3 PC/PG carrying supplies into Luganville yesterday. Am hoping it provokes him into bringing shipping back to the area where my Elite Boy Scouts might get a nice victory to write home about...

Luzon
Am pulling out division fragments from Bataan, Aparri, and Laoag. With Southern Army at Takao and bunches of supplies figure we can rebuild once these units parents are destroyed.

Economy
MISTER Frank-B went into production TODAY! This raises Frank production to 500+ a month. Looks like Tony-100 will arrive in about 10 days.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 4/20/2017 3:56:35 PM >

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3891
RE: July 1944 - 4/20/2017 4:52:52 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Do you have any Oscar squadrons floating around?


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3892
RE: July 1944 - 4/21/2017 1:51:09 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline 		Im(h)o neither Frank a,b and never-ever Tony 100 = SLOW are as good as eg. P51 or P47 or late Spits. I judge that from the stats (stock values tho) and reading AARs were these IJA planes get killed in droves just like Oscars earlier by the AVG or good RAF pilots I always wonder why Frank a/b and Tony seem to be treated as some kind of super later war planes, they are good yes (well stock ki100 not so much).

I found a single plane good compared to late Allied fighters: Frank r (the last one) but is has "only" 2 CL MGs so not so good against bombers - Frank B should be best vs. bombers (still P47/51/Corsair in fighter vs. fighter better). Assuming similar pilots, fatigue, commanders etc.

I believe eg. in reality Ki100 was faster than in stock values (=360) however these are from Franquillions (sp?) standard book on IJ planes (however it was later found that the US tested eg. Franks and Tonies and they were faster than the values from this book) but perhaps atrributed to better maintenance in the US and conditions there etc.

Tony has SR1 but is slow.... Frank etc. all 3 and still slower than the Allies. Ki94 the fastest (exc. Jets) but has other drawbacks and can not got to much earlier anyway - no research path.

MASS use of cheaper SR1 fighters might help a bit (eg. Tojo2c or Oscar IV)

EDIT; I do not know what this mod did to planes, if it "updates" Frank/Tony to a bit more speed it may help in the endgame (like I know "babes" mod does)

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 4/21/2017 3:06:06 AM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3893
RE: July 1944 - 4/21/2017 2:14:37 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
This is being corrected and once these two bad boys enter the production line we should be able to fill everyone out and cause some serious bellyache for the Allied bombing campaign. .



"bad boys" -

explain how Frank and Ki100 are better than P47,Spit,Corsair or P51D (only mnvr is better and b- Frank has 20mm the Allies "only" 50cal, but they do not need more: 50cal can kill everything the Japanese have (only the late Emily might cause probs), while 12,7 of IJ cant kill most Allied bombers easily and even has trouble vs. some fighters).

But lets hear - perhaps you mod boosts these planes too much compared to stock so cna be named bad boys Every 2nd player plays with different (mod)values, so this causes confusion too I noted already.


< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 4/21/2017 2:38:46 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3894
RE: July 1944 - 4/21/2017 2:25:38 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

He knew that they were there.

Stats:
Musashi 21 500lb bombs--SYS 50 (0 Serious), FLOT 3, ENG 5
Nagato 22 500lb bombs--SYS 42 (0 Serious), FLOT 10, ENG 2
CA Kumano 3 500lb bombs--SYS 16 (0), Flot 52 (52), ENG 3
CL Nagara 1 500lb bomb--SYS 28 (12), FLOT 1, ENG 0

All that SYS is attributable to the bombing attack by those never-miss-on-a-Port Strike 4EB!



Ships are done for a while or forever He now knows that these big boys are there and will come back for them if he has any value as commander Either will be more damaged in port and never repaired completly or if you try to move them out, he will send some stuff to take em out at sea. But lets wait what happens.

Also:
"I am gladly taking a page from HIS playbook and am spreading little 2 AKL TFs out all over the area to draw off and soak up his sorties. He never saw what was wrong with this in 1942 so I'll attempt to teach him why I think it is BS. Should be interesting and we'll see just what happens. Instead of his single ship TFs we are running with pairs to be slightly more appropriate.
"

So you respond to BS gamey tactics with the same ? Would it not be better to have made a HR to prevent "AKL or SC baits" ? Just asking. Cause I had an issue in my game too, my op disregarded a sweep rule twice. I did NOT respond with disregarding it too but told him we should both keep the rule. He said it would be no difference which was BS cause the higher sweeps by him killed much more of my pilots along with the planes. He then stopped and respected the rule.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 4/21/2017 2:49:59 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3895
RE: July 1944 - 4/21/2017 12:16:37 PM   
HansBolter


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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I would gladly trade some system damage for a shot at un-escorted daytime flying B29s! It is a great trap.

How many total fighters did you have on duty over Singers?




Believe that there were just at 70. If he comes back tomorrow--doubtful--then it will be about 100. Lowpe: TOTALLY concur! Am moving the CVs in this direction and will add a whole passel of Sams to the mix the day after tomorrow. Would love for a bunch of B-29s to come over and meet 150+ top line fighters. VERY NICE!




You guys are living in a dream world.

Ships sink from max system damage just as quickly as the sink from max flotation or fire damage.
You incurre4d 50 sys damage from ONE raid.

You need to let that sink in before you claim this is a great exchange.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3896
RE: July 1944 - 4/21/2017 1:01:35 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I would gladly trade some system damage for a shot at un-escorted daytime flying B29s! It is a great trap.

How many total fighters did you have on duty over Singers?




Believe that there were just at 70. If he comes back tomorrow--doubtful--then it will be about 100. Lowpe: TOTALLY concur! Am moving the CVs in this direction and will add a whole passel of Sams to the mix the day after tomorrow. Would love for a bunch of B-29s to come over and meet 150+ top line fighters. VERY NICE!




You guys are living in a dream world.

Ships sink from max system damage just as quickly as the sink from max flotation or fire damage.
You incurre4d 50 sys damage from ONE raid.

You need to let that sink in before you claim this is a great exchange.


I wouldn't use the abrasive term 'dream world', but I think HansBolter is on to something here. From a strictly VP:VP 'exchange' rate, trading 20-40 B29s (x2 VP apiece=80VP) for a 350 VP Superbattleship is a no-brainer.

Keeping a number of heavy surface combatants bottled up away from the home islands-where they can't be used to defend against nearby invasions-is a bonus. Even in a good shipyard-even assuming they don't get whacked again-they'll take months to get back in fighting shape. What will control of the South China Sea look like in 3 months?

Reminds me of the line from Top Gun, where Maverick is launched on the 'ready 5' catapult to bail out besieged Iceman. Both catapults-in true Hollywood fashion-break after he is launched. An unfortunate junior officer (UJO) has to explain this fact to the Captain:

UJO: "They'll be back up in ten minutes, sir."
Captain: "Bull****. This thing'll be over with in two minutes!"



ETA: Edited because I misquoted the UJO.

< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 4/21/2017 1:58:05 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 3897
RE: July 1944 - 4/21/2017 1:05:45 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Im(h)o neither Frank a,b and never-ever Tony 100 = SLOW are as good as eg. P51 or P47 or late Spits. I judge that from the stats (stock values tho) and reading AARs were these IJA planes get killed in droves just like Oscars earlier by the AVG or good RAF pilots I always wonder why Frank a/b and Tony seem to be treated as some kind of super later war planes, they are good yes (well stock ki100 not so much).

I found a single plane good compared to late Allied fighters: Frank r (the last one) but is has "only" 2 CL MGs so not so good against bombers - Frank B should be best vs. bombers (still P47/51/Corsair in fighter vs. fighter better). Assuming similar pilots, fatigue, commanders etc.

I believe eg. in reality Ki100 was faster than in stock values (=360) however these are from Franquillions (sp?) standard book on IJ planes (however it was later found that the US tested eg. Franks and Tonies and they were faster than the values from this book) but perhaps atrributed to better maintenance in the US and conditions there etc.

Tony has SR1 but is slow.... Frank etc. all 3 and still slower than the Allies. Ki94 the fastest (exc. Jets) but has other drawbacks and can not got to much earlier anyway - no research path.

MASS use of cheaper SR1 fighters might help a bit (eg. Tojo2c or Oscar IV)

EDIT; I do not know what this mod did to planes, if it "updates" Frank/Tony to a bit more speed it may help in the endgame (like I know "babes" mod does)


Thanks for the thoughts Sir. Army aircraft are not tinkered with at all in this Mod. With that said, Babes is its template so whatever is in there is here.



_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 3898
RE: July 1944 - 4/21/2017 1:07:35 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
This is being corrected and once these two bad boys enter the production line we should be able to fill everyone out and cause some serious bellyache for the Allied bombing campaign. .



"bad boys" -

explain how Frank and Ki100 are better than P47,Spit,Corsair or P51D (only mnvr is better and b- Frank has 20mm the Allies "only" 50cal, but they do not need more: 50cal can kill everything the Japanese have (only the late Emily might cause probs), while 12,7 of IJ cant kill most Allied bombers easily and even has trouble vs. some fighters).

But lets hear - perhaps you mod boosts these planes too much compared to stock so cna be named bad boys Every 2nd player plays with different (mod)values, so this causes confusion too I noted already.



As the Japanese GO...these are 'bad boys!'


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 3899
RE: July 1944 - 4/21/2017 1:10:45 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

He knew that they were there.

Stats:
Musashi 21 500lb bombs--SYS 50 (0 Serious), FLOT 3, ENG 5
Nagato 22 500lb bombs--SYS 42 (0 Serious), FLOT 10, ENG 2
CA Kumano 3 500lb bombs--SYS 16 (0), Flot 52 (52), ENG 3
CL Nagara 1 500lb bomb--SYS 28 (12), FLOT 1, ENG 0

All that SYS is attributable to the bombing attack by those never-miss-on-a-Port Strike 4EB!



Ships are done for a while or forever He now knows that these big boys are there and will come back for them if he has any value as commander Either will be more damaged in port and never repaired completly or if you try to move them out, he will send some stuff to take em out at sea. But lets wait what happens.

Also:
"I am gladly taking a page from HIS playbook and am spreading little 2 AKL TFs out all over the area to draw off and soak up his sorties. He never saw what was wrong with this in 1942 so I'll attempt to teach him why I think it is BS. Should be interesting and we'll see just what happens. Instead of his single ship TFs we are running with pairs to be slightly more appropriate.
"

So you respond to BS gamey tactics with the same ? Would it not be better to have made a HR to prevent "AKL or SC baits" ? Just asking. Cause I had an issue in my game too, my op disregarded a sweep rule twice. I did NOT respond with disregarding it too but told him we should both keep the rule. He said it would be no difference which was BS cause the higher sweeps by him killed much more of my pilots along with the planes. He then stopped and respected the rule.


Yep. Turn about is fair play. It was talked about over and over. He doesn't see anything wrong with the tactic so fine. Simple as that. Will address the topic in my next match. Note that I am at using my ships in pairs and not just little single ships probing around looking to be sunk.

Heck. He still does this all the time presently. Currently have single ship TFs around the Aleutians, the Marshalls, and Marcus.


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 4/21/2017 1:11:08 PM >

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 3900
Page:   <<   < prev  128 129 [130] 131 132   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: July 1944 Page: <<   < prev  128 129 [130] 131 132   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.328