Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I've became quite an expert at this.

Moving the squadron to a CS will cause it to change to the "Independent" command. Resize to 20, offload and upgrade to Irving.

If you really want to break the game, you can do it with pretty much any squadron using carrier aircraft or floatplanes. I've had a bunch of excess 24 sized floatplane squadrons training IJN pilots since the start of the war, as well as monster 81 and 72 sized units training fighter, dive bomber and torpedo bomber pilots.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I've became quite an expert at this.

Moving the squadron to a CS will cause it to change to the "Independent" command. Resize to 20, offload and upgrade to Irving.

If you really want to break the game, you can do it with pretty much any squadron using carrier aircraft or floatplanes. I've had a bunch of excess 24 sized floatplane squadrons training IJN pilots since the start of the war, as well as monster 81 and 72 sized units training fighter, dive bomber and torpedo bomber pilots.

I inherited three or four monster groups. One size 91. Don't ask me how? I kind of think it is a borderline exploit and disbanded one of the squadrons (then I saw how much it cost to rebuild the unit!). So I still have a few of them...I think they could really throw off combat results early on...not so much at the end of the war and the large squadron size groups then.

The trade off is the cost in supplies and HI too, plus the drain on pilots.

I never played with this particular strategy against the AI...even with the Hermes starting air groups. How prevalent is it on the Allied side?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Not very. Most squadrons resize multiple times, with the final resize being in 1944 or 1945. So the opportunity for large groups is almost nonexistent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Not very. Most squadrons resize multiple times, with the final resize being in 1944 or 1945. So the opportunity for large groups is almost nonexistent.

Can't you bounce them on a carrier and manually increase the size? I seem to recall that being an option with a least the British and the Hermes early on.

I wonder if m-m attack on you, that nailed the Wasp was one supersized torpedo group and that was allowed it to get thru your CAP. Just don't know what to think of the strategy, as is seems very powerful for Japan, but is it an exploit? Seems that way to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Not very. Most squadrons resize multiple times, with the final resize being in 1944 or 1945. So the opportunity for large groups is almost nonexistent.

Can't you bounce them on a carrier and manually increase the size? I seem to recall that being an option with a least the British and the Hermes early on.

I wonder if m-m attack on you, that nailed the Wasp was one supersized torpedo group and that was allowed it to get thru your CAP. Just don't know what to think of the strategy, as is seems very powerful for Japan, but is it an exploit? Seems that way to me.

quote:

As always it is probably something left for dialog between players.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I do want to know, however, how one manages to create a 91 sized airgroup. They'd be pretty handy for training units...

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Not very. Most squadrons resize multiple times, with the final resize being in 1944 or 1945. So the opportunity for large groups is almost nonexistent.

Can't you bounce them on a carrier and manually increase the size? I seem to recall that being an option with a least the British and the Hermes early on.

I wonder if m-m attack on you, that nailed the Wasp was one supersized torpedo group and that was allowed it to get thru your CAP. Just don't know what to think of the strategy, as is seems very powerful for Japan, but is it an exploit? Seems that way to me.

The Kates that nailed Wasp were from a size 81 super-group.

To be quite honest, it probably is an "exploit" (if, indeed, you can really call it that), but there's no other solution to beating the Allied CAP wall with LBA. With the attackers co-ordination penalties, CAP can destroy strikes peicemeal. Then there's the wonky escort/bomber allocation - don't you just hate seeing 100 fighters escorting 10 bombers, while 50 bombers get 10 fighters as escort?

As for of resizing is an "exploit" or not, the devs added it to the game. I'm probably just the first person to tale it to the extreme and write an AAR about it.

I will grant that it's not "fair", but it's not "fair" that the Allies get vastly superior troops, ships and planes as the war progresses. What are some over-sized Japanese squadrons compared to the hoards of Fletchers and B-29's?

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Obviously in a game with no HRs this is just fine. But ...

Think about this. In the endgame, with kamis, with planes like the Grace and Judy D4Y4 and escorting Sams, you will mash the Allied fleet into a pulp. There has to be a line, and with the ability to use RnD to get planes that never had an impact on the war into play in 44 or earlier, to use the overly generous PP system to but out ALL of the armor and heavy arty from Manchuria, to be able to accelerate Japanese CVs and combat ships into stages of the war that really matter, Japan is a LOT stronger than it ever could have been in the war. Fun, yes, but up to what point?

So where is the line in what will break the game? Well, make 10 of these groups with 81 planes, get Graces/Judys into them and Sams in 81 plane escort groups (although you may not even need escorts as some will get through any CAP with their speed) and see how far the Allies can advance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

It is almost July, of 1943 and I have now over 3.2 million supply in the HI, and just a hair under 5 million total. My goal was 6 million, but I think it may be worthwhile to try and get more if the Allies let me.

I have added over 300K in the last month. My next turn I will adopt some more stringent supply savings and see if I can't grow that number by 10% or more.

Right now Burma is being supplied from Palembang; while China is on their own. The HI does ship to the Islands.

I continue to believe this is the most important economic hurdle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Obviously in a game with no HRs this is just fine. But ...

Think about this. In the endgame, with kamis, with planes like the Grace and Judy D4Y4 and escorting Sams, you will mash the Allied fleet into a pulp. There has to be a line, and with the ability to use RnD to get planes that never had an impact on the war into play in 44 or earlier, to use the overly generous PP system to but out ALL of the armor and heavy arty from Manchuria, to be able to accelerate Japanese CVs and combat ships into stages of the war that really matter, Japan is a LOT stronger than it ever could have been in the war. Fun, yes, but up to what point?

So where is the line in what will break the game? Well, make 10 of these groups with 81 planes, get Graces/Judys into them and Sams in 81 plane escort groups (although you may not even need escorts as some will get through any CAP with their speed) and see how far the Allies can advance.

I think we may need to agree to disagree on this issue.

I'd counter and ask where's the fun when the Allies form a late-war CV deathstar with CAP aircraft numbering in the thousands and eat up fragmented Japanese strikes bit by bit? Or any number of 4E related moves that Japan struggles to counter.

Japan has a lot more flexibility than the Allies in terms of production, that's a given, but the quantity and quality factors are both firmly in the Allied sphere. In light of this, I find complaints about balance somewhat...weak. The odds are stacked so heavily against Japan in the late-war that 81 sized squadrons won't do much to change it.

It's hardly as if 81 sized groups are something that the Allies don't have a counter to, or that Japan can do for more cost: they're planes, they need airbases to fly from, airframes to fly, pilots to fly them and supply to operate.

Sure, they may be three times as effective, but they're three times as exposed and three times as costly.

At the end of the day, we won't know where the line is till we cross it. We've came this far, may as well keep going. At the very least we'll provide a good reference point for people who're considering a game with no HR's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest
Missing by 1 million on your goal seems a large number to me. Late war could begin at any moment, should the allies go for Luzon or Taiwan. Seems less likely given the style of play, but it could happen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanSez

Have you tried Pets as your slow to rise, night time cap disruptor?
Alf has a slower rise than the Dinah = do you have any of those set to night cap?

Pete has the same climb rate as the Irving-S IIRC.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I never thought of using size 81 Kamikaze groups -- at what point would you actually run out of Naval pilots?

This game really rewards concentration of force, but it is a for me at least a game that I want to have fun with first and foremost, and win (or in the case of Japan not lose) secondly.

So no size 81 kamikazes for me...for no HR games go for it! Just have fun and chronicle the results.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanSez

In the Downfall scenario, aren't there some pretty large air units that can be sent on kami missions?