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: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1

 
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: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/24/2016 2:45:20 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Obvert, are you getting any kind of feel for the length of the air to air combat at different bands per the Gorn's suggestions earlier?

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 61
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/24/2016 3:27:20 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: Yaab

I think Ki-84b Frank is at disadvantage against P-47 as it is equppied with two MGs and two cannons. Aren't cannons, with their slow rate of fire, only good against bombers? I would try a test with P-47 sweeping against the last Tojo which is armed with 4 MGs. Both aircraft arrive in 3/44.


I don't think it is. In my actual gameplay the Ki-84r was a godsend against Allied fighters in 44. Speed differential is much better with the Ki-84r than the Tojo, and the consistency of maneuver through bands. Although the arrival dates might be similar, the Tojo IIc comes much earlier for almost all Japanese players due to the R & D line.

As for the 20mm, they are necessary for Allied 4E bombers, but don't actually hurt against fighters, and especially one with such high durability as he P-47. I find the MG only fighters aren't so great against the P-38, P-47 and Corsair with their high durability ratings.

That said, the Tojo is up on the list for sure. I want to know how to bridge the gap between early war, mid-war and late war fighters against the Allied best sweepers myself.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 62
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/24/2016 3:45:25 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

This i not a test for Japanese players though, and soon I'll be trying to put low CAP settings into effect with early war Allied defenders to see if the tactic works there too. Similar situation, the Buffalo vs the A6M2.


Excellent!

However, here you will find the pilot skill & experience delta really puts the Buffalo behind.

However, get some decent pilots in them and you will be very surprised with the results.


I'll test pilots with the Ki-84r first too! I'll put 50/70 pilots in to see how they do against the 70/70 Thuds.

Then I'll also try 80/70 guys for the P-47s against the low CAP. Already listed on the spreadsheet, just gotta get through the next few tests.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Here I'm more interested in how to improve the P-38 sweeps in 43-44.


My best use for Lightning sweeps, albeit in 1945, was to perform LRCAP over the Thunderbolt/Mustang sweeps.



I also use them for LR CAP mostly in the late game, or LR escort. I'd like to see if there is a way to make them a part of successful offensive ops without bleeding pilots, VPs, etc.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Obvert, are you getting any kind of feel for the length of the air to air combat at different bands per the Gorn's suggestions earlier?



No. I'm not watching any replays right now. This is mainly seeing what is going on, then if there are more targeted tests on something I'll choose to watch some portion of replays.

At this point I can see which layer of CAP is getting hit harder, but there don't seem to be patterns there I've noticed yet. I'll look back through focusing on the low CAP to see if I can work it out and which planes (per Loka's suggestion, renaming "types" as band indicators) are in different segments of combat. That'll be on my second test of 9k, 7k, 5k to also test if this is enough of a set for consistent and useful info.



_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 63
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/24/2016 6:24:28 PM   
Lokasenna


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

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Or even a 42 tactic for countering Lightning sweeps.



There's only one real option here, so it's an easy answer:

Nicks in tandem with something else.


Here I'm more interested in how to improve the P-38 sweeps in 43-44.


My best use for Lightning sweeps, albeit in 1945, was to perform LRCAP over the Thunderbolt/Mustang sweeps.



I stick with the J, since it goes to 44K - higher than the Randy-a.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 64
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/24/2016 10:11:21 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline 		Another test. This one a low CAP with restricted max altitude for the Ki-84. The low CAP in this case again was effective, but it seems the loss of ability to climb past 10k did inhibit the Ki-84r grous somewhat, as they didn't score as high a kill to loss ratio here as with a stock version of the plane and all other factors the same.

Notice planes being scrambled to climb only to 10k.

So. I have two more tests tonight to do. Both using pilot EXP.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by obvert -- 3/24/2016 10:12:32 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 65
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/24/2016 10:18:08 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		You should change the CAP percentage from 50 .

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 66
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/24/2016 11:15:43 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

You should change the CAP percentage from 50 .


One thing at a time!!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 67
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/25/2016 12:46:06 AM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline 		Ok. Only able to finish one more tonight. This is with groups that have 80exp P-47 pilots. Actually as shown below, a good number are 90exp and a mix through into the 70s, averaging out around 80.

I wanted to see how much pilot exp mattered here, and it seems it does. Strangely though, the 82 exp group, the 51st/16th shown here, didn't fare as well as the 78exp group in losses.

I'd like to isolate this more later with exact same skills and just different experience. From the editor it seems hard to modify and copy an individual pilot skills, although you can change experience. Maybe I'm missing something?

Anyway, these groups did slightly better than the original 70exp groups in the earlier test of 9k, 7k, 5k.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 68
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/25/2016 12:47:38 AM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline 		First, let me just say thanks Obvert for the effort, and it'll be interesting to see where this goes, but...

Hmmm, layered CAP seems to work best. Hmmm, US Navy figured this out and at whatever point in the war and consistently ran Hi-CAP, Med-CAP, Low-CAP. Hmmm, game mimics this. Hmmm, what a shock!!!!

P.S. Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 69
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/25/2016 11:23:41 AM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: rustysi

First, let me just say thanks Obvert for the effort, and it'll be interesting to see where this goes, but...

Hmmm, layered CAP seems to work best. Hmmm, US Navy figured this out and at whatever point in the war and consistently ran Hi-CAP, Med-CAP, Low-CAP. Hmmm, game mimics this. Hmmm, what a shock!!!!

P.S. Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.


It's taken a while to isolate what is actually most effective, and it's not quite a Hi-CAP, Med-CAP, Low-CAP as (I think) the USN would have run it. I would guess, although I don't know what the actual altitudes would be, that they were running something like 20k, 15k 10k? Or something similar.

I'm happy to try this, but the CV game is slightly different than flying and defending strato-sweeps with LBA. CV CAP is meant to combat strikes against ships, which in general come in at a smaller selection of altitudes. The really tough tests will come in trying to defend airfields against high sweeps, LR CAP and escorted bombing strikes all across the range of possible altitudes.

Anyway, the interesting part here may be that the game as we play it doesn't mimic strategies that were used in the era, and that certain tactics may provide very unhistorical results. I really want to get through this set so the tests are not about how to beat the P-47, but actually about tendencies of CAP using any airframe.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 70
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/25/2016 10:04:06 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

that they were running something like 20k, 15k 10k?


Not 100% sure, but I think they were a bit lower.

quote:

I'm happy to try this, but the CV game is slightly different


I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you do. I was just joking around in my post.

What I have learned while playing is that sometimes I didn't get an intercept on an incoming raid. The only thing I could see as the possible answer was that there was an extreme altitude delta between the raid and my CAP. So where I can I layered my CAP. In my current game (v the AI) I just bombed some naval units at a port. When I saw P40's in the combat reply I figured my unescorted bombers were toast. There was no attack. Now I know there may be other factors at play here, but the only one I'm privy to was an extreme altitude delta. I was at 5k, CAP was at 20k. The other factors that may be involved are 'under the hood', so to speak.

Anyway as I said before, thank you for the effort, and it should be an interesting ride.

Ciao

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 71
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/25/2016 11:03:18 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		If the CAP has a range setting, then they could be covering some other attack, not just the altitude delta.

Which btw is a great trick for dispersing heavy CAP.


(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 72
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/26/2016 3:44:43 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline 		Here is a look at loss results for the tests so far. Maybe easier to see.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 73
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/26/2016 3:48:58 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Very nice, thanks for all your efforts on this, and I hope you keep on plugging away.


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 74
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/26/2016 10:21:20 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline 		It seems a low CAP is better against enemy high sweeps, but would such a low CAP intercept massive high-altitude bomber raids ?

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 75
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/27/2016 11:24:15 AM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

It seems a low CAP is better against enemy high sweeps, but would such a low CAP intercept massive high-altitude bomber raids ?


Not clear, but I'm not testing anything to do with bombing strikes, yet. I'd love to get to that point but have a lot of simple and complex tests with sweeps I'd like to try first.

Setting CAP is a tough choice (harder than I'd thought apparently), and much more complex with sweeps, LR CAP and bombing strikes to be considered.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 76
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/28/2016 7:54:27 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Obvert, did you tweak the Frank for this test? In my DDB-C game , its service rating is 3. While the test itself is great, it doesn't tell you how it would play out in a multi-day CAP vs SWEEP battle, with Franks falling steadily into disrepair.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 77
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/28/2016 7:56:00 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline 		BTW, a test between P-47N and Ki-100 (both arrive in 3/1945) would be nice. Both have service rating 1.

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 78
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/28/2016 10:33:53 AM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Obvert, did you tweak the Frank for this test? In my DDB-C game , its service rating is 3. While the test itself is great, it doesn't tell you how it would play out in a multi-day CAP vs SWEEP battle, with Franks falling steadily into disrepair.


I only test with a fresh unit, resetting the turn each run. In an actual game, yes, over time the results will be different as fresh groups sweep, bombers hit the base and the disabled planes sit on the ground.

At some point it would be great to do some more real scenario tests, but players choose many different methods of wearing down an opponent, and that is the strategy and creativity in the game. I just want to give more tools and knowledge to play with, really, for myself and others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

BTW, a test between P-47N and Ki-100 (both arrive in 3/1945) would be nice. Both have service rating 1.


In these tests I'm most interested in situations, so far. These are best tested with static factors, just changing one at a time to see what has an effect. I'd love to do more, but I have a bit of a plan in terms of things I'm hoping to learn more about, and specific airframes are a ways down the list.

Next up is early game situations.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 79
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/31/2016 6:51:00 AM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline 		Ok. So I had to take some time to train pilots in my test scenario. Apparently I can't create pilots with specific stats, only choose their experience. Training took a while and these guys are not the ideal 50/70/70 I'd usually go for and waned to test, but they are close. about 52/65/62.

The next test is these beginner pilots vs the 70exp P-47 pilots. After testing the 80exp guys I wanted to see what changing the defensive pilots would do to the best previously tested setup, the 9k, 7k, 5k low CAP.

The higher EXP vs lower EXP makes a huge difference, and the P-47s do much better.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 80
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/31/2016 3:40:11 PM   
Lokasenna


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

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 81
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/31/2016 11:02:04 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Imagine that .


It does surpise me that it was this large a factor in this setup. No other setting produced such a good result for the CAP but switch the pilots to beginners and it's one of the least effective.

Yet all of the High CAP settings produced poor results with the better 70exp pilots, so it's not just about good experience, or settings, or optimizing airframe maneuver bands. It's much more complex.

Imagine that

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 82
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/31/2016 11:11:31 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline 		Next I wanted to try something new (actually I've now set it up so that I can test two things at once) and I've been itching to try early war situations.

For this I used Buffalo I as low CAP at 9k, 7k, and 5k, with mostly beginning pilots, trying to use something similar to what might be scraped up in the first few months of the war. I used smaller defending groups as you're never going to have 135 Buffs at any one location. So three 27 plane groups, (still a high number) and sent 2 x 27 Ki-43 Ic with 70exp pilots at em at 20k.

So this setting is not a war winner in every situation, but I'll be interested to see what other variations on CAP here produce, especially assuming a few better pilots (after jumping some bombing runs builds them up). I will start mixing up airframes as well, getting some P-40B, some A6M2 and some Wildcats going.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 83
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/31/2016 11:39:02 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I have inflicted horrendous losses on the AI using low layered CAP at Singers early on. Conversely I found Singers requires maximum effort by Japan with overwhelming numbers. No two or three sentai sweeps, you need to send all the Oscars and Zeroes and you need to do it over several days if the Allies continue to fight in the air.




(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 84
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/1/2016 12:00:52 AM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I have inflicted horrendous losses on the AI using low layered CAP at Singers early on. Conversely I found Singers requires maximum effort by Japan with overwhelming numbers. No two or three sentai sweeps, you need to send all the Oscars and Zeroes and you need to do it over several days if the Allies continue to fight in the air.



This will need some work, but I'm sure with more even pilots there will be a chance for good results from this kind of setting. I'll also try the setting you recommended more too, 40% plus 20% rest. I still haven't gotten to that one.

I've started to work on sending more groups too to see if number improve the ratio for the sweepers.

At Singers I've seen so many different kinds of strategy. The potential is there for both sides to be successful, but I think played patiently, the Japanese should never suffer there. The key for me is not allowing masses of Sallys to get nailed, thereby increasing Allied pilot quality quickly.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 85
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/1/2016 1:38:03 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I like the 20 percent rest for the SR2 and SR3 planes. 10percent for SR1.

I think this gives your most tired pilots a day off, no reason to lose a good pilot to fatigue.

I agree that if Japan is somewhat tactical early on China/PI/Singers planes won't accomplish much.



< Message edited by Lowpe -- 4/1/2016 2:04:19 AM >

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 86
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/1/2016 2:22:28 AM   
Lokasenna


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

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I like the 20 percent rest for the SR2 and SR3 planes. 10percent for SR1.

I think this gives your most tired pilots a day off, no reason to lose a good pilot to fatigue.

I agree that if Japan is somewhat tactical early on China/PI/Singers planes won't accomplish much.




Keep in mind that any pilot not actually flying a mission on that day is resting. So if you set CAP to 50%, the other 50% of the pilots are resting. You don't need to use 50% Rest to accomplish this.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 87
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/1/2016 2:33:32 AM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline 		Its my impression/understanding that all A/C at the base with a CAP setting will attempt to get in the action if nothing else is set. The CAP setting just has to do with the A/C that are in the mix initially, or until something happens. Then again I've been wrong before. What say the experts?

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 88
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/1/2016 6:03:14 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I have inflicted horrendous losses on the AI using low layered CAP at Singers early on. Conversely I found Singers requires maximum effort by Japan with overwhelming numbers. No two or three sentai sweeps, you need to send all the Oscars and Zeroes and you need to do it over several days if the Allies continue to fight in the air.






I guess the AI was reacting to ships present in Singers hex. I always disband my TFs there so Japs bombers wouldn't react to them and impale themselves on my CAP.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 89
RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/1/2016 6:17:43 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Its my impression/understanding that all A/C at the base with a CAP setting will attempt to get in the action if nothing else is set. The CAP setting just has to do with the A/C that are in the mix initially, or until something happens. Then again I've been wrong before. What say the experts?


Correct. Exemplars follow.


1. Fighter unit of 12 ready aircraft is assigned an escort mission and has 50% CAP set and no other setting. Not called to do any defending next turn nor do any friendly bombers attack anything.

Result:

(a) 50% of ready aircraft (= 6 aircraft) will rotate during the day in the role of providing CAP. The 1/3 rule applies so 2 aircraft at a time will be airborne providing CAP.

(b) remaining 50% (6 aircraft) are assigned to escort duties. As no bombing raids are launched, there is no need for any escort activity. Those 6 aircraft and 6 pilots undertake a de facto rest.


2. Same as (1) above but an enemy raid is intercepted.

Result:

(a) The initial CAP setting is the initial response to the raid. IOW 2 aircraft will be immediately airborne and the other 2/3 assigned to CAP will become airborne ASAP.

(b) The other 6 aircraft technically assigned to escort, not engaged on an escort undertaking that turn will attempt to get airborne to provide additional CAP. Whether they get airborne in time depends on several factors, key being amount of warning time received and aircraft performance stats. No rest for pilots who get airborne.


3. Same as (1) above except that a co-ordinated friendly bomber attack mission is flown.

Result:

(a) CAP situation the same.

(b) The other 6 aircraft + pilots fly escort and do not enjoy a de facto rest.


4. Fighter unit of 12 ready aircraft is assigned an escort mission and has 50% CAP set and 50% rest setting. Not called to do any defending next turn nor do any friendly bombers attack anything.

Result:

(a) 50% of ready aircraft (= 6 aircraft) will rotate during the day in the role of providing CAP. The 1/3 rule applies so 2 aircraft at a time will be airborne providing CAP.

(b) remaining aircraft and pilots will rest.


5. Same as (4) above but an enemy raid is intercepted.

Result:

(a) The initial CAP setting is the response to the raid. IOW 2 aircraft will be immediately airborne and the other 2/3 assigned to CAP will become airborne ASAP.

(b) The other 6 aircraft will remain at rest and not attempt to get airborne.


6. Same as (4) above except that a friendly bomber attack mission is flown from the same airfield.

Result:

(a) CAP situation the same.

(b) The other 6 aircraft + pilots will not provide escort.

(c) The bombers may end up not flying if enemy CAP over target is too strong compared to any escorting fighters from other friendly fighter units.

Alfred

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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

1.203