RE: Float plane Success

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: Float plane Success

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 >> RE: Float plane Success

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Float plane Success - 10/30/2013 1:16:40 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I'm sufficiently disgusted now so you needn't worry about anymore posts from me here today.

Whee.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 61

RE: Float plane Success - 10/30/2013 3:14:58 PM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Guys we all know the 'bonus" is the difference in training.

Did you all really feel it necessary to pile on with the extremist expressions of disdain and jubilation in proving yet another newbie wrong in his impressions?

This is the kind of behavior that makes it hard to accept your arguments that the Japanese side truly needs all of the beefing up it was given to make the side viable to play and appealing to players.

Gloating isn't a becoming character trait for anyone.

I'm sufficiently disgusted now so you needn't worry about anymore posts from me here today.

I will repsond, even though it's seeming like a bad idea based on your tone.

This 'bonus' idea was brought up by mike scholl 1 in reference to the Kate in the early war. At least that is what I was referring to. He is obviously not a newbie. About his post I was simply hoping for clarification or evidence for his statement, which is counter to my own experience. If you 'know' the difference is pilot training why not just say without waiting to jump on someone?

No post I've seen warrants an accusation of disdain as far as I can see. Pax is simply registering and thanking a dev for coming in and dispelling a myth, referring again to this post by mike scholl 1. Shouldn't we all be pleased when this happens, and we understand the game better?

As for the OP he was just looking for understanding and clarification as well. He brought up a situation, got advice, and the thread went a little bit off the original idea. This should still help him as well to understand that neither side and no aircraft have an extra bonus for naval bombing.

I'm not sure where the term gloating comes in at all?

< Message edited by obvert -- 10/30/2013 8:33:02 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 62

RE: Float plane Success - 10/30/2013 3:22:46 PM

CyrusSpitama

Posts: 213
Joined: 2/21/2011
From: Naw'lins, Luzianna
Status: offline

Based on suggestions from several AARs and forum posts, I have dropped all the 2nd squadrons off my cruisers to stock more Jakes around my frontlines/key bases(as Japan). I have rarely done anything other than trained them for naval search except for the rare CV escort FPs that will get some ASW training. It has never really occurred to me that the Jakes were worthy enough to be used as bombers of any kind except for the previously mentioned ASW, which mostly seems to deter and not sink.

Based on my comment above, is naval search indeed ample for detecting and deterring sub contacts as well as best usage for all these *new* Jake squadrons? Should I be diversifying my Jake training ?

Edit: as an additional question. The Kates can carry the 800kg bomb once they get 80 experience, correct?

< Message edited by CyrusSpitama -- 10/30/2013 3:32:35 PM >

_____________________________

"I'm sure the universe is full of intelligent life. It's just been too intelligent to come here." - Arthur C. Clarke

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 63

RE: Float plane Success - 10/30/2013 4:52:38 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: CyrusSpitama

Based on suggestions from several AARs and forum posts, I have dropped all the 2nd squadrons off my cruisers to stock more Jakes around my frontlines/key bases(as Japan). I have rarely done anything other than trained them for naval search except for the rare CV escort FPs that will get some ASW training. It has never really occurred to me that the Jakes were worthy enough to be used as bombers of any kind except for the previously mentioned ASW, which mostly seems to deter and not sink.

Based on my comment above, is naval search indeed ample for detecting and deterring sub contacts as well as best usage for all these *new* Jake squadrons? Should I be diversifying my Jake training ?

Edit: as an additional question. The Kates can carry the 800kg bomb once they get 80 experience, correct?

You need all the Nav Search you can get.

Kates have a chance (there's a die roll) to carry 800kg bombs on Port Strike (unsure if it's also on Airfield; probably not) if the unit experience is >70. I believe this also applies to LBA TBs such as Nells and Bettys, as I have seen them carry 800kg bombs on Port Strike as well.

As for the "disdain", it's more that there's so much expression of frustration with Allied aircraft pools and the like that there are some of us who feel bullied, after a fashion, because we have the audacity to attempt to maintain parity with the Allied OOB. It takes more than just beefing up production for the IJ player to win aerial victories later in the war. It takes long term planning, maintaining a stock of elite pilots as well as adequately trained pilots, and the knowledge of how/where/when to use them to greatest effect. Why can't it just be that the Japanese player is good enough at the game to win decent tactical victory every now and again?

(in reply to CyrusSpitama)

Post #: 64