Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Fighter Frustration - need advice

 
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 >> Fighter Frustration - need advice Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Fighter Frustration - need advice - 3/13/2003 6:33:06 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
Okay, I have to confess that I'm an inept player. Historically Allied 1st-generation fighters fought the Japanese to a stalemate, but I'm not able to repeat that feat in UV. My fighter squadrons suffer high losses with little to show for in return. Obviously I'm doing something wrong, so I would like to hear some advice.
I have browsed similar threats, but most hints are not really helpfull (rest, train, Wirraways is a dog etc. - that's all self-evident). What can you do while waiting for 2nd-generation fighters to show up?


Here's the situation in my current game that triggered my frustration. I'm playing Scen 16 as Allies against the AI. It is October 42 and I have played rather defensively because I know my air force is weak, and until four days ago I only had a two-carrier force available.

In PNG I'm holding PM, Gili Gili and the Aussies are on the Kokoda trail on their way to recapture Buna. I know my fighters are no good, so from the start I had kept the Aussie Kittyhawks at Cairns and Cooktown on 60% CAP at 10.000 ft to guard against long-range Bettys and Nells (which nevertheless managed to hit a couple of ships) and to built up experience - which they did very slowly. I also did sent all fighter-bombers to PM and set them on Naval Attack/Ground Attack at 100 ft to inderdict shipping and harass Japanese ground forces at Buna. The Airacobras and Wiraways have built up experience nicely. On the other side, the Japanese are bombing PM almost daily. Since there is nothing I can do about this, I have sent lots of engineers there and damage is quickly repaired.

Of course, sooner or later I would like to oppose the incoming raids with CAP. What is bothering me is that Japanese Zero escort started with 25+ planes but now often reaches 80+ Zeros. So I have waited for the additional squadrons of Warhawks and Kittyhawks to arrive. In the end I had three squadrons of Kittyhawks (exp 60, 64, 67), three squadrons of Warhawks (exp 64, 69, 70), four squadrons of P-39D (exp 80, 82, 84, 90) and two squadrons of P-400 (exp 80, 83) assemled at PM. I had them rest for a couple of days and although their morale and fatigue still wasn't at optimum condition, I figured that this would be even worse with the opforce, since they attacked almost daily from far-away Rabaul.
So when I finally put all my planes at PM on 80% CAP at 10.000 ft (Airacobras) and 12.000 ft (P-40s), I expected that my squadrons at least would be able to hold themselves (needless to say that I have four working radar sets at PM).
Well, didn't work out that way. First of all, only part of my planes on CAP engaged the enemy - okay, this is to be expected. But the 100+ planes that actually threw themselves against the 60+ oncoming Zeros escorting 18 Bettys only served as cannon fodder - 23 Airacobras and 37 P-40s destroyed (and many more damaged) against two Zeros destroyed and one damaged!! Triple Japanese losses for FOW and it is still loopsided. I could have lived with a 2:1 ratio, but not with 10:1. Of course morale and replacement pool now are both scraping the bottom and experience has dropped, too. I have put the Airacobras back on Naval Attack and the Warhwks on escort/0% CAP to give them a little rest and regain experience.


In the Solomons, the AI has built up Lunga pretty quick, and with only Sara and Big E versus 3 CV and 2 CVL on the Japanese side I decided to play save and go for Irau first. I have maxed out that base and put four squadrons of F4F4 (exp 60, 62, 64, 70) on 100% escort duty (10.000 ft) for the B-17s bombing Lunga (8000 ft) out of Luganville. I rotate the Wildcats daily, three squadrons are flying, one is put on rest.
Now, my 60+ Wildcats escorting 18 B-17s have run into four Rufe and nine A6M3 fighters. Well, 60 Wildcats outnumbering their opponents 6:1 - three Rufe and two Zeros killed against 16 F4F4 destroyed. Oh come on! This has been going on for a couple of days - my squadrons are exhausted, low on morale, experience drops and the Wildcat pool is depleted. The opforce seems to know no fatigue.


So, I'm suffering heavy losses that I cannot sustain, while the AI fighter losses are negligible. Air-to-Air losses are now (Allies:Japan) 280:110, with the balance of Japanese losses being Bettys, Vals and Kates, Allied losses being Wildcats and P-40s. Losses of fighter types from all causes stand at 342:170, many Japanese losses derive from airfield attacks by bombers and P-39 strafing as well as Air-to-Air engagements with B-17.

Of course I have to reckon with losses on my side. But the idea is that the Allies can replace losses easier than the Japanese can replace theirs - but unfortunately my losses outstrip the replacements, and the Japanese losses don't.

The tactical dilemma: If I use massive force hoping to inflict some damage, I only suffer massive losses myself and have to rebuilt all units before the next try. If I use only part of my forces and rotate my exhausted units between the front and the rear, I end up with only a few squadrons fit enough for duty at any given time. Outnumbered, they also suffer massive losses and have to be rotated back. Either way, my forces dwindle and the opforce grows stronger in time. Except for keeping my forces in the rear and let the Japanese fly and bomb at will until I have enough P-38s and Corsairs - what can I do? What is the best altitude, CAP-%, minimum moral/exp/fatigue to make things work?

_____________________________

Post #: 1
IJN CV's in Rabaul... - 3/13/2003 7:44:05 PM   
von Murrin


Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline
are the likely culprits of the huge escorts. They have the most experienced fighter groups in the game, aside from Tainan.

The best counter is to initiate a series of nuisance raids and make them chase you. Once they're out of port, the daily PM run will have MUCH less escort. You'll see it in the strikes, and that's the signal to put up CAP and have your CV's run away. This works against humans, too.

The best way to engage is after two or three days of continuous raids, as the fatigue will get to your attackers. Then just stand down, rinse and repeat as necessary.

Give your P-40 AG's some altitude. 15,000 ft is usually good as the AI will never fly above 10,000 ft. A human opponent will make this a worthless tactic (they'll just start coming in at 20,000 or higher until they break you).

Don't fly your P-39's/P-400's on CAP unless your truly desperate. Tainan Daitai will tear them up, and they can never get to altitude in time. Keep them on ground/naval attack until they switch to P-38's, but keep them down until you have at least two P-38 AG's to put up on CAP, or they'll take enough losses to make the conversion of the other AG's painfully slow. The great thing about this is your P-39 AG's will be as good or likely better than the Tainan boys when they switch over. That's also the primary reason to seize PM as the IJN in a PBEM game, IMO (say [I]that[/I] five times fast).

Also, if you can engineer the situation or are lucky enough to get it set up right, engage during bad weather turns and watch the Japanese operational losses soar.

Keep your fatigue below 20, your morale above 75, and don't engage under anything but optimal conditions unless your average experience is over 70.

Loss ratios in my games are usually about even or 2 to 3 in either direction for air-to-air, and operational losses are usually 2-3 to 1 in my favor when I play like this. I could care less about the planes. The above two casualty types kill pilots for sure.

Hope this helps... :)

EDIT: Putting a B-17 AG in PM for night raids on Rabaul can be an evil little way to wear down morale and drive up fatigue.

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 2
Re: Fighter Frustration - need advice - 3/13/2003 8:00:54 PM   
dherche

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 12/17/2002
From: Woodsboro, MD
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LargeSlowTarget
[B]In the Solomons, the AI has built up Lunga pretty quick, and with only Sara and Big E versus 3 CV and 2 CVL on the Japanese side I decided to play save and go for Irau first. I have maxed out that base and put four squadrons of F4F4 (exp 60, 62, 64, 70) on 100% escort duty (10.000 ft) for the B-17s bombing Lunga (8000 ft) out of Luganville. I rotate the Wildcats daily, three squadrons are flying, one is put on rest.
Now, my 60+ Wildcats escorting 18 B-17s have run into four Rufe and nine A6M3 fighters. Well, 60 Wildcats outnumbering their opponents 6:1 - three Rufe and two Zeros killed against 16 F4F4 destroyed. Oh come on! This has been going on for a couple of days - my squadrons are exhausted, low on morale, experience drops and the Wildcat pool is depleted. The opforce seems to know no fatigue. [/B][/QUOTE]

Regardless of CAP vs. Escort odds, don't waste fighters escorting heavies. 17's and Libs do not need escorts. They will stand up to any CAP the Japanese throw up. Occassionally CAP will shoot down a heavy but it's very rare. 17's and Libs are great at chasing off CAP and even score a few kills themselves. You are more likely to lose a heavy to flak or operational loss.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 3
- 3/13/2003 8:35:05 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
The F4F-4 is little better then the F4F-3 when it comes to Zero killing. Skill & Fatigue decides fighter wars until one of the serious planes shows up like the F6F & F1U's

I agree, the B-17 is designed to NOT be escorted (don't try this with other planes though), and will shoot down more Zeros then your F4F-4's.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 4
- 3/13/2003 9:35:16 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
Check your difficulty level. Sounds to me like you may be playing at hard or very hard.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 5
- 3/13/2003 10:23:53 PM   
Mike_B20

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 2/13/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Seems to me that fatigue is a bit too critical at the moment, these guys are real big girl's blouses. Why do they refuse to fight if they are even a little tired?
I just fought a carrier battle versus Jap ai.

My cap had been 50% for about 4 days so the guys were a bit tired (about 20-30), but their morale was till good 80's.
Anyway, when the carriers clashed I had 75 fighters cap against the coordinated Jap onslaught (about 30 Zeroes, 90 Vals and 90 Kates).
My cap fought for a few rounds against the zeroes and virtually all of them ran back to the carriers (just wondering where they thought they would be landing when the Japs finished with the carriers), 3 stayed to fight.

_____________________________

Never give up, never surrender

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 6
- 3/13/2003 10:27:50 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
Interesting point that you made in your original post yet didn't catch on to.

You say that your fighters have been gaining skill flying cap missions. You say that PM has been harrassed by dail raids.

Do you not think that they are gaining skill too? Except they are gaining skill faster by flying a combat mission instead of a rear area mission. CAP skill gains are slow UNLESS they fight from what I have seen. You are probably going up against fighter pilots in the 80+ skill range.

Just to check, load a saved game as the other side, and take a peek at the forces involved. The numbers you are reporting are a minimum of 4 complete squadrons of A6M's coming at you (27 planes per group maximum).

Cap's point is very valid too, having played on hard and very hard, the AI side gets massive bonuses where you'll see 6 A6M2 cap hold off 2+ CV's worth of aircraft at times, taking no losses.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 7
- 3/13/2003 11:30:13 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
Hi Guys
not to get into either side of this, as I reinstalled my game to make sure what I was seeing was not a bad download

but that was also said to me when I said something was screwy, that I must be playing on the wrong level, nope, normal

that is another thing I was seeing, the Cap just giving up and leaving the area, not the best thing to happen to you during a CV fight, but your Morale looked better then what I was seeing, as soon as I put up Cap, the morale dropped big time, then it is 1 kill or damaged and the whole Cat Squadron runs away


something I been wondering about, most of the people here like to play Scen 17 and 19, I was talking about Scen 14 and LST is talking about Scen 16, maybe the patch/rules changes mod a few of the other scen's more then others ????

I started up a Scen 13 (hehehehe F4U rules) but in that one, the F4u is unreal, the P-39 gets it head handed to it more then not, but can come back with a roundhouse every once in a while (in fact my top Ace is a 39 driver with 8 kills) but the 38 will not fight, put it on defence, nothing, but it on off and nothing, it burns Morale like grass (short range excourt attacks, nothing long) I can't get there morale up, once I get it going in the right way, I put them on a mission and lose it all

not that it means anything, losses and kills depend on more then type
F4u 172 kills for 14 losses
P-38 20 kills for 20 losses
P-40 8 kills for 11 losses
P-39 54 kills for 41 losses
Heavy battles around Lunga, 4 squadrons of F4u and 39's defend Lunga

the P-38/40's are having to go hunt for blood

Mr Frag
you bring up the point that while his units are gaining some Skill the JP fighters should be getting more, but also, they should be losing planes and pilots to OP, and if they are attacking every day, shouldn't there Morale and Fat be lower/higher then the Allied fighters ?

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 8
- 3/13/2003 11:57:24 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
Like your second generation planes eh Sarge? See just how radically different they are? They didn't call them Zero's for nothing, thats the expected kill rate against second generation allied airpower :)

The P-38 is good, but not one of the second generation fighters really, thats why you are seeing a 1 to 1 ratio. Given fatigue and skill, that will matter most with these guys.

The previous generation of allied planes are targets, very little else. :( You really need BETTER SKILL and LOWER FATIGUE to even stand a good chance. This is not going to happen unless you completely trash the Japan airgroups and they get so depleted that they have been bleed dry on skills.

Since his post indicated that he was not defending PM by air, losses should be fairly low due to the only threat to PM attacks being AA based. As I have found out through testing, 2.30 AA units get absolutely creamed in a few days which brings them into the "no threat" catagory. At that point in time, the ONLY losses Japan's AI is going to see will be operational, so their skill gains should be quite nice from non-stop daily bombing.

Thats why I asked him to load it as Japan and take a peek at the Japan skill levels and compare them to the Allied skill levels.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 9
- 3/13/2003 11:58:57 PM   
HawaiiFive-O

 

Posts: 295
Joined: 12/21/2002
From: USA
Status: offline
The latest patch changes have resulted in a nerfing of early Allied air power.

I've been seeing what LST and Hard Sarge describe, both in PBEM and H2H games I've been doing to test the patch changes.

I'm still adjusting to the change, and attempting, like LST, to come up with a counter to the now extremely dangerous A6M.

It appears that EXP is the most important thing in air combat now. So the fact that the A6Ms are flying each day with lower morale and high fatigue matters little. EXP trumps morale/fatigue. So well rested low experience Allied pilots lose to tired high experience IJN pilots. However, there is a counterbalance in that the IJN will suffer higher operational losses.

It would be nice if there was a good way to reliably train up your squadrons without sending them to be slaughtered. But the Training mission appears to be of little use after the pilots hit 60 EXP or so.

Not saying it's a bad thing, it will certainly make the IJN more competitive later in Scenario 17. My only beef with the change is, from what I know of history, these results are way out of whack.

I do not believe the F4F-4 was the A6M2's punching bag.

If I'm wrong, I'll retract my only complaint about this new patch.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 10
- 3/14/2003 12:10:04 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
Hi Mr Frag
well not sure what or why do you call the F4u a 2nd Gen plane and the 38 is not ? both were designed before the war, the F4u was hitting 400 in 1940, and it was still turned down (it needed more work) the Hell cat is a 2nd Gen plane, the Bear and Tiger Cat (could be termed 3rd or 2nd) the 47 and to an extent the 51 are also 1st Gen planes like the F4u and 38 (the 51 getting the engine upgrade, may move it on to the 2nd Gen level)

Op losses should still be OP losses ? flying the trip should cause losses, flak or combat, should cause, flak or combat losses ?

what killed the AI in my last game, was the Op, it was still loseing 7-10 Zeros a day, if I fought it or not (when it flew)

the Cat should still be able to hold it's own, anything the 39 gets is extra, and all in all would say a 40 will lose more then it wins, but will get to the bombers, and if nothing else, should get damaged a lot more then gets killed

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 11
- 3/14/2003 12:19:35 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
LST/H5-O

when the last set of patches were coming out, did you have trouble with the pilot bug ?

from what I was seeing and what you guys seem to see, it does not look right or that others would claim it is just a "learn" to the play the game right problum

that last bug was only hitting a few people with I guess a certion type of computer/OS combo and nobody was seeing it, but a few people were having somthing wrong with there game

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 12
- 3/14/2003 12:28:52 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
[QUOTE]I do not believe the F4F-4 was the A6M2's punching bag.[/QUOTE]

Hmm, I'd question that, there was slight levels of improvement between the 3 & the 4. The 4 was not one of the newer wartime planes.

F4F
quote:

When Japan started the war, their primary opponents were the F4F carrier based fighters. It is easy to see how the zero was superior to the F4F as the F4F is slower, climbs poorer, and has inferior roll and turn at low speed. It's only advantage is high speed maneuvering (which it can't exploit most of the time due to poor acceleration/climb), and diving capability.


F6F
quote:

The Grumman F6F Hellcat was developed out of the need to produce a plane that could beat the A6M Zero. The main carrier-based fighter of the period was the F4F Wildcat, which turned worse than the Zero, was slower, and was beaten in virtually every respect except in diving performance. Not so for the F6F. The F6F combined good turning ability that was superior to the Zero above 225mph, good durability, especially against the Japanese Army's primary fighter, the Ki43 (which had only 2 machine guns as firepower), and it's high-speed handling was vastly superior to the Zero (but not as good as the Chance- Vought F4U that came out later). Plus it was significantly faster overall. The Hellcat racked up a 19-1 kill ratio against the Japanese Army and Navy Air forces, and this was in part due to the fact that in air combat, speed, not maneuverability is the biggest asset you can have, especially with regards to survival (just ask a FW190D9 pilot). F6F and F4Us could literally Boom and Zoom Zeros all day long with relatively minimal risk to themselves, and all the Zeros could do is hope for a head-on, or for a inept pilot to slow down to even get a chance to shoot one down (and with the zero's almost nonexistent durability, headons weren't a good idea).


A6M
quote:

This is the bird that swept Brewser Buffalos and F4F's aside. The F4F turns inferior, accelerates slower, climbs slower, and is slower than the A6M2, so in a historical setup, avoid that initial head-on shot, and a Wildcat becomes a virtual flying kill decal to a Zero, unless he has friends or has a couple thousand feet of altitude to work with.


Why is it so hard to believe that the pre-war USA planes were such crap? They were crap :D I personally love the comment that unless a F4F managed to engage a A6M head on, they were an automatic decal to be added to the kill rows.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 13
- 3/14/2003 12:46:45 AM   
HawaiiFive-O

 

Posts: 295
Joined: 12/21/2002
From: USA
Status: offline
Respectfully, you pulled those quotes from a website dedicated to the Warbirds computer game.

I would not consider that definitive.

I know the F4F-4 had problems facing the Zero, but it also had advantages. What I'm concerned with is that historically, the A6M vs F4F-4 matchup was pretty even. Now in UV it's a blow out.

That's the issue.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 14
- 3/14/2003 12:51:00 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
I personally love the comment that unless a F4F managed to engage a A6M head on, they were an automatic decal to be added to the kill rows.

maybe you need to read history and not tech, the stats on planes do not make them great, the Cat ranks right up there with the little train that could, it couldn't do this and it couldn't do that, but it fought the uber Zero to a draw

read about Smith and Carl, Foss, Twatch and O'Hare, the plane couldn't, but it did, read about what the Catus Air Force did, what the Navy Cats did

HARD_Sarge

and when you talk about speed, don't bring up the HellCat, it was a slow Allied plane, it was faster then all but the last few models of JP planes, but it was not fast, it combined a speed advantage over it's foe, was a good turn plane that took lots of damage, and was very easy to fly, and once it was learned that the mighty Zero couldn't turn flying much over 240 mph, it was history, common rule back then, if you were not pushing 300 knots, don't engage, if you were, hit em, if you missed, do a diving turn

_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 15
- 3/14/2003 1:18:58 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
Would you prefer the facts directly from the USN site?

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f4f-4.pdf
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f6f-5.pdf
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f4u-4.pdf

Same facts.

The F4F-4 was less maneuverable then the F4F-3.

It's saving grace was that due to folding wings the USN could cram more planes on the same deck of a CV.

It does not matter where the facts come from, this magic concept of the F4F-4 making a huge difference over the F4F-3's is utterly false.

Superior numbers made the difference, Pilot skill made the difference. The plane itself was NOT even remotely a match for an A6M.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 16
- 3/14/2003 1:34:29 AM   
HawaiiFive-O

 

Posts: 295
Joined: 12/21/2002
From: USA
Status: offline
From your first link:

"Though inferior in performance in certain respects to many of the fighters met in combat, Wildcats, because of their rugged construction and the well trained men who flew them, maintained a victory-to-loss ratio of ratio of nearly seven-to-one, even though they were the only carrier-based fighters operated by the Navy during the first half of the war in the Pacific."

I'm not seeing seven-to-one is all I'm saying.

I don't want to get into an argument here. I play UV because it does a good job of recreating the historical campaign. I acknowledge that some things could be done better, and some fudging exists to give the IJN more of a chance than historically, but in balance it meets my level of historical accuracy.

And I'm not even saying that from a game balance perspective this is a bad thing.

But it is a change from previous versions. And it is a departure from history.

A solution might be, taking from the quote above- "well-trained men", have the arriving F4F-4 squadrons EXP be jacked up to compensate for this change.

Or perhaps this change should be filed under the other advantages gifted to the IJN to make the game more balanced: scads of merchantmen and unlimited fuel at Truk.

Regardless, I'm not going to keep bleating about it. It's not my intention to log onto these boards to whine about my poor Allied pilot's fates.

It's a change, I'll adapt and overcome.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 17
- 3/14/2003 1:41:57 AM   
HawaiiFive-O

 

Posts: 295
Joined: 12/21/2002
From: USA
Status: offline
One final thought, to round out the point I was trying to make above.

Yes, the F4F-4 was technically inferior to the A6M.

However, historical results prove the opposite.

A good historical simulation would find a way to recreate those results.

Why was the F4F-4 able to overcome it's shortcomings to achieve a seven-to-one loss ratio?

Why is this hidden capability not modeled in UV?

If it's because the Allied pilots got better, faster and the IJN pilots saw their experience levels fall through the floor, then EXP for surviving a dogfight on the Allied side needs to be tweaked HIGHER.

Surviving pilots are not gaining experience fast enough to compensate for losses and the initial crushing IJN advantage in EXP.

Fix that, and I'll have nothing to complain about.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 18
- 3/14/2003 2:21:21 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
Hi Mr Frag
you know, sometimes, stats and numbers don't tell the whole story, ended the war for today, and was reading up on Foss some more and seen this

Foss grew to appreciate the Navy's fighter doctrine and found that the "Thach Weave" effectively countered the Zero's superior performance, because "it allowed us to point eyes and guns in every direction."

tactics and teamwork, made the Cat a better plane then it was by itself

during this time frame of the war, the JP pilots flew a vic, and only the leader was a hunter, was a shooter, the other two were there to protect him, in the US, the element of 2 planes was the smallest, and each could take the lead if need be

"As 'exec' of -121, he would normally lead a flight of two four-plane divisions, whenever there were enough Wildcats to go around. He was the oldest pilot in the flight, four years older than the average age of 23. The flight would become known as 'Foss's Flying Circus' and rack up over 60 victories. Five of them would become aces; two would die in the in the fight for Guadalcanal."

not bad for a lousy plane

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 19
- 3/14/2003 2:44:07 AM   
Mike_B20

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 2/13/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
I just rechecked the morale of my cap in the debacle previously posted.
I guesstimated wrong, the morale was way down in the 50's and 60's....after 4 or 5 turns of having decent cap levels.

There seems to be a very small window of opportunity for getting decent performance from carrier fighters...one or two days max in any area of potential conflict, then they are toast.
I feel that although this might make for an interesting game it doesn't seem right to me..they must have been tougher than that.
With morale and fatigue taking such huge hits when cap is active it would seem just as dangerous to put up cap approaching a potential fight as not having any cap at all in the approach.

_____________________________

Never give up, never surrender

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 20
Game setting - 3/14/2003 2:50:32 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, Are all these poor results with settings at Historical?

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 21
- 3/14/2003 2:55:10 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by HawaiiFive-O

Why was the F4F-4 able to overcome it's shortcomings to achieve a seven-to-one loss ratio?

Why is this hidden capability not modeled in UV?

][/QUOTE]

I'd say it was probably because the Wildcat did not achieve such a figure. at least not within the period covered by UV. It sounds like the website is using "official" USN confirmed victories which were not very accurate.

Sarge,

You raise a good point on scenerio selection , though i dont see how this could affect the data base. Have you seen any consistantly poor Allied air preformances in Sc-13 (i believe....the one that starts mid 43)

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 22
- 3/14/2003 2:55:50 AM   
HawaiiFive-O

 

Posts: 295
Joined: 12/21/2002
From: USA
Status: offline
Mine have been.

The worst I've seen was when I committed the well rested VF-8 squadron (F4F-4s, Morale 92, Fatigue 16, EXP 82) to the defense of Gavigamana. I'd held them back to deliver the coup-de-grace.

A coup-de-grace was delivered alright, but not the way I expected.

I lost 26 F4F-4s and 21 P-39s. IJN losses (including op) 8 A6M2s and 4 A6M3s. VF-8 EXP now 68. Glad to see that the war of attrition now works against the Allies.

Pretty much broke my resistance at Gavigamana.

My P-38s shot up his next raid on Wunpuko, thank goodness for them, but I've only got the two squadrons and am now sitting on my hands waiting for more.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 23
- 3/14/2003 2:57:24 AM   
HawaiiFive-O

 

Posts: 295
Joined: 12/21/2002
From: USA
Status: offline
[QUOTE]I'd say it was probably because the Wildcat did not achieve such a figure. at least not within the period covered by UV. It sounds like the website is using "official" USN confirmed victories which were not very accurate.[/QUOTE]

I'd settle for 1 to 1.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 24
- 3/14/2003 3:08:50 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by HawaiiFive-O
[B]I'd settle for 1 to 1. [/B][/QUOTE]

If enough players are finding results that seem too out of wack with 'historical' perception, then it will certainly be looked at. I have not exerienced the consistantly lopsided results being complained about. Either in AI combat, or in my PBEM's

However if enough players are experiencing it, it will be looked at. Hence my question for the Sarge regarding specific scenerios and these odd results. And Mogami's question regarding the diff settings.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 25
- 3/14/2003 3:12:49 AM   
Von_Frag

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 5/7/2002
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hard Sarge
[B]Hi Mr Frag


during this time frame of the war, the JP pilots flew a vic, and only the leader was a hunter, was a shooter, the other two were there to protect him,

HARD_Sarge [/B][/QUOTE]

Not entirely true. Yes the lead did point the vic in the direction of combat, but once combat commenced the vic would separate into individual melee.

Von Frag

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 26
- 3/14/2003 3:14:44 AM   
HawaiiFive-O

 

Posts: 295
Joined: 12/21/2002
From: USA
Status: offline
[QUOTE]If enough players are finding results that seem too out of wack with 'historical' perception, then it will certainly be looked at. I have not exerienced the consistantly lopsided results being complained about. Either in AI combat, or in my PBEM's[/QUOTE]

That's good enough for me.

There exists the possibility that I just suck at this game, of course. I'll keep trying different things to see if I can regain parity with the F4F-4.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 27
What have I triggered here? - 3/14/2003 4:33:34 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
Well, first of all: D'oh!!! Cap is right, I wasn't aware that I'm playing at 'very hard', must have messed up in the scenario/preference selection when I fired up that game.

That said, I still maintain my plea for advice, since it wasn't triggered alone by the game I have described in my original post. I have also suffered heavy losses with little to show for in earlier games with 'historical' settings, although they were not that lopsided (7:1 rather than 10:1).

Mr. Frag, I've spied on the other side and there are four Zero daitai with exp 68, 68, 86 and 88 at Rabaul. But I had six squadrons in the 80-90 range, too. Now that being P-39 squadrons, their exp apparently only served to keep their losses relatively low, compared to the slaughter of the P-40 in the exp 60-70 range. But they didn't kill Zeros despite their exp.
On the exp gain, ince I normally do not defend PM, the Zeros have no opposition to fight against and thus shouldn't be able to increase exp by much. I have tried to increase exp of my P-40 by sending them on escort missions against undefended (means no CAP) targets, their exp rose very slowly if at all.

HawaiiFive-0, I tend to agree - well rested low experience Allied pilots lose to tired high experience IJN pilots and training has no effect past 60 exp.

Hard Sarge, I don't think the pilot bug is an issue here. And prior to installing patch 2.3, I made a fresh install of UV and the other 2.x patches, so there shouldn't be any problems with a 'messy' UV.


Now, on the Wildcat vs. Zero debate. From what I have read about warplanes, no plane is just better than others. All of them have their good and their bad sides and a good pilot knows them and uses the plane accordingly. A good pilot in a mediocre plane can win against a mediocre pilot in a good plane.

Yes, the Zero was very maneuverable but only at slow speeds, could climb very well but consequently had bad diving characteristics. Due to its light construction, lack of armor and self-sealing fuel tanks the Zero was very vulnerable. The armament was unbalanced (two small caliber machine guns and two slow-firing cannons) and either lacked punch or accuracy and amount of 'lead in the air'.

The Wildcat on the other hand was a rugged construction (built by Grumman 'ironworks') that still was able to fly and fight after taking hits which would have killed Zeros. It wasn't good at climbing, but had good diving characteristics and thus could decline engagements if high enough to dive away. It was inferior at maneuvering at slow speeds, but superior if it could use high-speed. It's armament of several heavy machine guns combined good rate of fire with heavy punch and could shred the light Japanese aircraft to pieces.

In a 1-to-1 setup, it is said that the Zero usually had a better chance to win because it was more maneuverable. Still the Wildcat would be a tough nut to crack. But as Mr. Frag has quoted: "...a Wildcat becomes a virtual flying kill decal to a Zero, [B]unless he has friends[/B]..." and Hard Sarge has observed, too: tactics and teamwork made the difference. A section of two Wildcats using the scissors or the Thach weave maneuvers could protect and mutually support each other. This was further enhanced on the level of divisions formed of two sections - the famous 'finger four' formation. The effect of this teamwork was higher than just the sum of two pieces. The Japanese used three plane 'V-of-Vs' formations which broke apart into a mass of lone wolfs upon contact. They never quite mastered the art of tactical teamwork even when they switched to the 'finger four' in 1944.

The book I can recommend on this issue is "Fire in the Sky. The Air War in the South Pacific." by Eric Bergerud.

_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 28
- 3/14/2003 5:06:02 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by HawaiiFive-O
[B]That's good enough for me.

There exists the possibility that I just suck at this game, of course. I'll keep trying different things to see if I can regain parity with the F4F-4. [/B][/QUOTE]


Well i suck too, but dont tell Cappy Gown that. He's been almost unbearable lately...sending me coded msg's asking when i'm going to start attacking and that his troops are bored. ;)

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 29
- 3/14/2003 5:11:28 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von_Frag
[B]Not entirely true. Yes the lead did point the vic in the direction of combat, but once combat commenced the vic would separate into individual melee.

Von Frag [/B][/QUOTE]

true. to expand on that just a little further, a properly lead and executed Shotai should never be described as a "Vic" because while the numbers and 'shape' were similar, in reality the Japanese formation was a more open and far more flexible formation vs the rigid and tightly packed "Vic" utilized by the British. Calling or describing a Shotai a "Vic" usually will lead to images of the British model and the problems experienced with it

The weakness of the Shotai was that it required all three pilots to be very good, or else it could easily loose it's cohesiveness. The Japanese first felt that the unit could still be successfully employed if at least the leader was experienced (the two wingmen being rookies) but this proved false and eventually the easier 2 man Finger four type formation was adopted.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Fighter Frustration - need advice Page: [1] 2 3   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

1.375