Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

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 >>

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 5/3/2003 4:36:39 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

Lrfss,

The rules regarding CV air missions differ from Land based air missions.

The durability issue was specifically added to bring the non B-17/B-24 into a slightly more reasonable use.

Low durability NON-CV aircraft will not generally attack targets at range without escort along for the ride. This was a very needed fix.

The halved air mission fix was another dramatic change to patch 2.30 to deal with the realities of CV operations. You can't very well steam into the wind at full speed to launch all your aircraft on an attack then race at full speed at the destination of that same attack to reduce the range your planes have to fly on the return leg then again turn and steam into the wind at full speed to let you planes land in restricted waters. This change was to resolve the situation where people were parking their CV's in base hexes and having the Base's CAP augmented by CV CAP to the point of total immunity.

Now, back to the fatigue issue (not your post but why start another eh?)

Reducing your LR CAP (100%) to 60% CAP (while helping a little) is not going to make any major difference overall. 60% of your fighters flying at all times makes for tired pilots. Ground you pilots, let them nap, get the fatigue down, THEN set you cap to a reasonable level. The 2.30 patch CV suicide code was greatly adjusted to make folks who used the old tactic of putting up a stone wall of 500000 fighters while they grounded all their bombers and waited for the poor other guy to get suckered into loosing 100% of their aircraft no longer a valid tactic. You are seeing the results of this fix. You are still playing with pre-2.30 tactics. THEY DO NOT WORK in 2.30. Quit driving yourself insane and adopt real CV strategies that were used at the time and you will see very nice, consistant, normal results.

The days of the US player being able to park their CV's at PM in the harbor and destroy every plane Japan owns are over.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 31

- 5/3/2003 8:40:29 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lrfss
[B]Hi All:

It was pointed out to me on a diff board that if the US CV TF was on a coastal hex which it was 1 hex SW Lunga Port/coastal hex that this would reduce CAP by 50%?

Also if the enemy CV Cap was 2:1 or more then the escorts with a plane durabilty of less than 56, no missions for the US would go Vs enemy CV TF?

So could this combo create situation #3?

Just a thought someone else (AA) had.

Later,

Lrfss [/B][/QUOTE]

-Maybe that�s a good explanation. But this is poor design. Just my opinion....(well, may agree with that rule on coastal hex but the others is ridiculous)

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 32

- 5/3/2003 8:58:46 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]Lrfss,

The rules regarding CV air missions differ from Land based air missions.

The durability issue was specifically added to bring the non B-17/B-24 into a slightly more reasonable use.

Low durability NON-CV aircraft will not generally attack targets at range without escort along for the ride. This was a very needed fix.

The halved air mission fix was another dramatic change to patch 2.30 to deal with the realities of CV operations. You can't very well steam into the wind at full speed to launch all your aircraft on an attack then race at full speed at the destination of that same attack to reduce the range your planes have to fly on the return leg then again turn and steam into the wind at full speed to let you planes land in restricted waters. This change was to resolve the situation where people were parking their CV's in base hexes and having the Base's CAP augmented by CV CAP to the point of total immunity.

Now, back to the fatigue issue (not your post but why start another eh?)

Reducing your LR CAP (100%) to 60% CAP (while helping a little) is not going to make any major difference overall. 60% of your fighters flying at all times makes for tired pilots. Ground you pilots, let them nap, get the fatigue down, THEN set you cap to a reasonable level. The 2.30 patch CV suicide code was greatly adjusted to make folks who used the old tactic of putting up a stone wall of 500000 fighters while they grounded all their bombers and waited for the poor other guy to get suckered into loosing 100% of their aircraft no longer a valid tactic. You are seeing the results of this fix. You are still playing with pre-2.30 tactics. THEY DO NOT WORK in 2.30. Quit driving yourself insane and adopt real CV strategies that were used at the time and you will see very nice, consistant, normal results.

The days of the US player being able to park their CV's at PM in the harbor and destroy every plane Japan owns are over. [/B][/QUOTE]

-Agree with you that this rule in v2.20 needed correction. But there was clearly an overcorrection here. The current system makes US CAP too ineffective and also seems to make US bombers not to attack with alarming frequence. On the other hand, it should be noticed that IJN bomber losses were really very heavy. Just see what happened in the Santa Cruz battle. And that tatic of putting many fighters in CAP to devastate incoming fighters was really used in the Turkey shot by the USN. Would it be useful if the USN still had F4F�s and the Japanese still had their veteran pilots? We don�t know, because the USA never went to battle more than 2 CV�s in the same TF in 1942. The loss of swarms of Vals and Kates would be quite predictable had the USN placed 5 CV�s in the same TF in 1942. On the fatigue, it must be said that the level of fatigue we access is that from the end of the day phase. When we start the first round of combat the pilots probably have lower levels due to rest in the night phase (they sleep, right?), and so, I don�think high CAP levels should make the fighter�s performance so pathetic.
-On the coastal rule, you are right, but to compensate for this, there should be a "special reaction" rule allowing the CV�s to get out from the harbor if they are threatened by other TF. We don�t expect a commander to stay in port waiting for having his carriers to be slaughtered

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 33

- 5/3/2003 9:10:52 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

Agree with you that this rule in v2.20 needed correction. But there was clearly an overcorrection here. The current system makes US CAP too ineffective and also seems to make US bombers not to attack with alarming frequence.

No, as I have explained, your USE of CV's makes them that way.

quote:

coastal rule, you are right, but to compensate for this, there should be a "special reaction" rule allowing the CV�s to get out from the harbor if they are threatened by other TF. We don�t expect a commander to stay in port waiting for having his carriers to be slaughtered

Absolutely not! once again, you are turning 1942 into 2003 as far as carrier and aircraft performance. CV's doen't just JUMP out of port and magically launch all their aircraft in 3 hours! This rule was added because it was so totally unacceptable and silly.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 34

- 5/3/2003 10:20:05 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

Let me try explaining this another way:

You have 300 planes with bombs. (For simplicities sake: this is about the same between Japan & USA - I am factoring in ships likely to be around in the first 100 days here)

If you are the USA, these 300 planes are devided up over 8 CV and 3 CVL

If you are Japan, these 300 planes are devided up over 6 CV

300 / 11 = 27 planes per ship

300 / 6 = 50 planes per ship

Assuming equal CAP levels and AA losses (which favour the USA later in the game), we eliminate 90% of the aircraft (just keeping it nice and simple again)

27 - 90% = 3
50 - 90% = 5

Now, the odds on the USA side are that those 3 hits per ship will be bombs, not torpedos as the percentage of USA bomb vs torpedo is fairly high. Japan on the other hand, of those 5 hits per ship, half of them will be bombs and half torpedo. Torpedoes are more likely to sink ships then bombs.

This is why Super CV battles turn out the way they do. The game prioritizes targeting against CV/CVL/CVE. This fact is WHY you see the results you see.

Until this is offset later in the game by the second generation aircraft that bail the USA out of the automatic loss catagory, there is nothing you can do to change this. Until then, it will always be a game of craps with the house rules favouring he who can stuff more CV's into the TF.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 35

- 5/4/2003 1:44:43 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]Let me try explaining this another way:

You have 300 planes with bombs. (For simplicities sake: this is about the same between Japan & USA - I am factoring in ships likely to be around in the first 100 days here)

If you are the USA, these 300 planes are devided up over 8 CV and 3 CVL

If you are Japan, these 300 planes are devided up over 6 CV

300 / 11 = 27 planes per ship

300 / 6 = 50 planes per ship

Assuming equal CAP levels and AA losses (which favour the USA later in the game), we eliminate 90% of the aircraft (just keeping it nice and simple again)

27 - 90% = 3
50 - 90% = 5

Now, the odds on the USA side are that those 3 hits per ship will be bombs, not torpedos as the percentage of USA bomb vs torpedo is fairly high. Japan on the other hand, of those 5 hits per ship, half of them will be bombs and half torpedo. Torpedoes are more likely to sink ships then bombs.

This is why Super CV battles turn out the way they do. The game prioritizes targeting against CV/CVL/CVE. This fact is WHY you see the results you see.

Until this is offset later in the game by the second generation aircraft that bail the USA out of the automatic loss catagory, there is nothing you can do to change this. Until then, it will always be a game of craps with the house rules favouring he who can stuff more CV's into the TF. [/B][/QUOTE]

This is just about the biggest crock of nonsense I've ever seen posted.

I hardly know where to begin, but I think the best recommendation is to review the actual ships and air groups available in the game. In sc. 17, the Japanese have 2 CVs and a CVL with 50 A6M2, 43 D3A, and 46 B5N. The Allies have 2 CVs with 38 F4F-3, 74 SBD, and 24 TBD. Japanese pilots are superior. Obvious advantage to the Japanese (but watch out for those SBDs). The balance tilts back a little with the arrival of F4F-4s and augmentation of the US carrier fighter groups to 36 aircraft each. The Allies have a tiny window of opportunity when their third and fourth carriers show up toward the end of June, but this disappears when the Japanese "Midway" carriers arrive shortly thereafter. Later, Allied pilots and aircraft are better and sheer numbers begin to tell (add in the vast Allied LBA resources, and the handwriting is on the wall for the Japanese if they haven't done well in the early going and established a strategically defensible position and a significant VP lead).

The bottom line is this. The Allies, whose strategic position improves with time, need to be careful in the early going and pick their opportunities, hoping that luck doesn't run strongly against them. A Japanese carrier sunk in the early going is money in the bank for the Allies. From the Japanese perspective, the American carriers are bigger (and, thus, more valuable) and eventually will be better protected by AA and CAP. The TBF is a lethal anti-shipping weapon to be dealt with, as well. You've got to whittle the US CVs down in the early going, because you likely won't get the chance later on. There is incentive, therefore, for both sides to seek early engagements, but they have to be on your terms and at odds that favor your success.

This is one of the greatest things about UV. It models this aspect of the historical campaign perfectly and presents the players with great challenges and opportunities. In this regard, at least, I see nothing in the game engine that needs the slightest change.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 36

It's the other way around... - 5/4/2003 2:52:58 AM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]

If you are the USA, these 300 planes are devided up over 8 CV and 3 CVL

If you are Japan, these 300 planes are devided up over 6 CV

[/B][/QUOTE]

Hmm... I think this is typo...

I must be the other way around (i.e. exchange "USA" and "Japan" above)...

Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 37

- 5/4/2003 3:23:05 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
No, as I have explained, your USE of CV's makes them that way.

-Hmmmm, in 4 battles I used my CV wrongly one time, two USN human opponents used them wrong two times (one each) and the AI used it wrong a fourth time, it seems you�re the only who know the secret of correct use of US CV�s. I keep that high CAP levels are a reasonable choice when you�re have 4-5 US CVN�s. On the other hand, this high levels shouldn�t be as effective as they were in v2.2. That�s because the % CAP don�t imply in having this % of your AF flying at a given time. This is a sum of (1) planes who are flying at a giving moment and (2) planes who are armed and refueled to take off as an attack is detected. So it will very difficult to have all the planes you put on CAP airborne to intercept an incoming raid (except, maybe in the first wave), as we have in v2.2 (because those planes must land to refuel, and carriers must be in correct position to launch all carriers and launching of fighters must be coordinated with launching of bombers). So, a player with 150 fighters and 90% CAP should never have 135 planes able to fight the enemy at a given moment. He shouls have, maybe 80% of those 90% (108), and this must decrease at each attack wave. Sucessive waves of attack must disorganize the enemy CAP (remeber Midway) to such an extent that even poorly escorted bombers should be able to get some hits. On fatigue, even with high levels of CAP, the fatigue level of pilots shouldn�t be so high because few pilots are flying combat missions and some of them are flying just a % of the day. So, CV to CV combat should be bloody for both sides, as far as air losses are of concern, but also bloody for CV losses as usually both sides are able to attack and score a few hits (and in the 4 CV battles in 1942, all the sides were able to sink or damage enemy ships in all the battles)

Absolutely not! once again, you are turning 1942 into 2003 as far as carrier and aircraft performance. CV's doen't just JUMP out of port and magically launch all their aircraft in 3 hours! This rule was added because it was so totally unacceptable and silly.

-A good point if you assumes the carrier to be docked (but in this case it shouldn�t be able to launch any aircraft at all). However, in #3, the enemy was just passing near a beaxh hex. He should be able to move out of that position and launch his planes...

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 38

Re: It's the other way around... - 5/4/2003 5:59:41 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Apollo11
[B]Hmm... I think this is typo...

I must be the other way around (i.e. exchange "USA" and "Japan" above)...

Leo "Apollo11" [/B][/QUOTE]

Naw, it is the right way around ... Think from a target standpoint, not from a what you have standpoint ;)

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 39

- 5/4/2003 7:26:19 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

pasternakski,

here are the EXACT numbers since you seem to have issues with my simple math.

USA:

Lexington = 36, 36, 15
Yorktown = 36, 36, 15
Enterprise = 36, 36, 15
Hornet = 36, 36, 15
Saratoga = 36, 36, 15
Wasp = 30, 36, 10

6 CVs = 210F, 216D, 85T

Japan:

Akagi = 24, 24, 24
Kaga = 27, 27, 27
Hiryu = 21, 21, 21
Soryu = 21, 21, 21
Shokaku = 24, 24, 24
Zuikaku = 24, 24, 24
Junyo = 17, 17, 17
Hiyo = 17, 17, 17
Ryujo = 22, 0, 14
Shoho = 18, 0, 12
Zuiho = 18, 0, 12

11 CV/CVL = 233F, 175D, 213T

So, we come once again back to simple math:

USA can place EXACTLY 216 Dive Bombers and 85 Torpedo Bombers against 11 Targets.

Japan can place EXACTLY 175 Dive Bombers and 213 Torpedo Bombers against 6 Targets.

The 210 USA Fighters cancel out the 233 Japan Fighters. USA AA advantage will negate the extra planes Japan has, bringing us right back to EXACTLY what I posted, 300 planes on target by each side. Want some more math lessons?

Now, as I stated, torpedoes are more effective at sinking ships the bombs for obvious reasons. This is somewhat mitigated by the USA use of larger bombs, but as you can see from the EXACT numbers of planes, Japan has a MUCH better chance of sticking multiple torpedoes into your CV then you have of sticking bombs through the deck all the way down to the waterline to cause the same desired goal of letting the water in :D

When you couple this with the higher number of planes concentrated on the target CV due to the USA having less CV's to target, you come to see exactly why UV playes the way it does and start thinking that it is a really good thing that Midway happened, putting all those Torpedo Bombers out of the picture.

It is not until the arrival of the true Fleet CV's that the USA in is a position to flaunt it's fleet at Japan when playing the non-Midway scenarios. It is rather silly to debate the facts as they clearly exist within the game. All you have to do is hit you I key and count for yourself. Scenario 17/19 are exactly the same in this respect except for some additional skilled pilots and a quicker replacement rate on Japan's side. It does not in any way change the above numbers.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 40

- 5/4/2003 7:57:39 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

Mr.Frag, I have nothing but respect for you and your numbers. UV played as a numbers game without early combat very often comes out the way your analysis suggests.

I, however, am a gameplayer who fancies himself a difference maker. I am Admiral Torrey, not Admiral Broderick. Further, I have yet to be put in the position of being confronted by 11 Japanese CV/CVLs. My play in the early campaign, perhaps aided by luck, has always visited some attrition on the sons of the heathen gods of old Japan - human or artificial intelligence.

As Marion Morrison once said, "tell your statistics to shut up" (a quote borrowed by Jim Bouton).

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 41

- 5/4/2003 8:09:15 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]pasternakski,

here are the EXACT numbers since you seem to have issues with my simple math.

USA:

Lexington = 36, 36, 15
Yorktown = 36, 36, 15
Enterprise = 36, 36, 15
Hornet = 36, 36, 15
Saratoga = 36, 36, 15
Wasp = 30, 36, 10

6 CVs = 210F, 216D, 85T

Japan:

Akagi = 24, 24, 24
Kaga = 27, 27, 27
Hiryu = 21, 21, 21
Soryu = 21, 21, 21
Shokaku = 24, 24, 24
Zuikaku = 24, 24, 24
Junyo = 17, 17, 17
Hiyo = 17, 17, 17
Ryujo = 22, 0, 14
Shoho = 18, 0, 12
Zuiho = 18, 0, 12

11 CV/CVL = 233F, 175D, 213T

So, we come once again back to simple math:

USA can place EXACTLY 216 Dive Bombers and 85 Torpedo Bombers against 11 Targets.

Japan can place EXACTLY 175 Dive Bombers and 213 Torpedo Bombers against 6 Targets.

The 210 USA Fighters cancel out the 233 Japan Fighters. USA AA advantage will negate the extra planes Japan has, bringing us right back to EXACTLY what I posted, 300 planes on target by each side. Want some more math lessons?

Now, as I stated, torpedoes are more effective at sinking ships the bombs for obvious reasons. This is somewhat mitigated by the USA use of larger bombs, but as you can see from the EXACT numbers of planes, Japan has a MUCH better chance of sticking multiple torpedoes into your CV then you have of sticking bombs through the deck all the way down to the waterline to cause the same desired goal of letting the water in :D

When you couple this with the higher number of planes concentrated on the target CV due to the USA having less CV's to target, you come to see exactly why UV playes the way it does and start thinking that it is a really good thing that Midway happened, putting all those Torpedo Bombers out of the picture.

It is not until the arrival of the true Fleet CV's that the USA in is a position to flaunt it's fleet at Japan when playing the non-Midway scenarios. It is rather silly to debate the facts as they clearly exist within the game. All you have to do is hit you I key and count for yourself. Scenario 17/19 are exactly the same in this respect except for some additional skilled pilots and a quicker replacement rate on Japan's side. It does not in any way change the above numbers. [/B][/QUOTE]

The question seems to be:
Does it reflect reality?

_____________________________

�It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.�

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 42

- 5/4/2003 10:15:48 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

The question seems to be:
Does it reflect reality?

Reality or History? :D

History is USA CV's sunk due to silly deployments. History is Midway.

Now, if you alter History as we do with scenario 17/19 in UV, the CV's perform exactly as they would have had they been available in our theater of war.

The problem is that most folks seem to be quite shocked when our altered reality turns out the way it does. Prior to the introduction of the Essex class of CV's and F6F/F1U aircraft, CV battles favour the Japan player. This is our altered reality simply because Japan HAS the CV's available. Some folks seem to have a tough time dealing with the fact that Japan has such power early on and fault the game engine as unrealistic. It is not the game engine to blame. It is simply the altered reality at play. The engine does a very nice job given the fact that Japan has these assets and does not unrealistically give the USA magic aircraft that shoot down 20+ aircraft each as was happening in the 2.20 patch level where 2 USA CV's could stand against 5 Japan CV's and take no hits. That as I am sure most of you will agree was extremely unrealistic. It takes time to unlearn bad behavour, which has prior to 2.30 been pretty much rewarded by USA CV actions.

Remember, the USA LOST CV's, a fair number of them! And that is Historical Reality even with Japan loosing most of their skilled pilots and CV's at Midway ;)

Facing off against the full might of Japan (untouched by Midway) is something that the USA was not ready for. Yes, no one is going to debate that Japan was a lost cause, but the area covered by UV specifically is very sensitive to CV power projection, so the difference of 1 or 2 CVs in theater can be very dramatic.

It will be very interesting with WitP to see just how dramatic this is going to play out when we have full control to control our fate. I'm chomping at the bit for it :p

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 43

- 5/4/2003 10:44:46 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 44

- 5/4/2003 12:29:22 PM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]Reality or History? :D

History is USA CV's sunk due to silly deployments. History is Midway.

Now, if you alter History as we do with scenario 17/19 in UV, the CV's perform exactly as they would have had they been available in our theater of war.

The problem is that most folks seem to be quite shocked when our altered reality turns out the way it does. Prior to the introduction of the Essex class of CV's and F6F/F1U aircraft, CV battles favour the Japan player. This is our altered reality simply because Japan HAS the CV's available. Some folks seem to have a tough time dealing with the fact that Japan has such power early on and fault the game engine as unrealistic. It is not the game engine to blame. It is simply the altered reality at play. The engine does a very nice job given the fact that Japan has these assets and does not unrealistically give the USA magic aircraft that shoot down 20+ aircraft each as was happening in the 2.20 patch level where 2 USA CV's could stand against 5 Japan CV's and take no hits. That as I am sure most of you will agree was extremely unrealistic. It takes time to unlearn bad behavour, which has prior to 2.30 been pretty much rewarded by USA CV actions.

Remember, the USA LOST CV's, a fair number of them! And that is Historical Reality even with Japan loosing most of their skilled pilots and CV's at Midway ;)

Facing off against the full might of Japan (untouched by Midway) is something that the USA was not ready for. Yes, no one is going to debate that Japan was a lost cause, but the area covered by UV specifically is very sensitive to CV power projection, so the difference of 1 or 2 CVs in theater can be very dramatic.

It will be very interesting with WitP to see just how dramatic this is going to play out when we have full control to control our fate. I'm chomping at the bit for it :p [/B][/QUOTE]

-You are right in many aspects. It is true that IJN had the upper hand in CV�s until late 1942. It is also right to say that the USA would had serious trouble if Midway didn�t happen. I agree with you that v2.10-v2.11 was biased towards IJN (althought almost all of you disagreed from me when I posted this by the first time-and I started two threads on this topic). However, it must be considered that, under the current engine, the US carriers are usually failing even to launch counterattacks against IJN carriers, while the decreased US CAP effectiveness usually results in lots of US carriers being sunk in each CV battle. Consider this, in 4 CV battles I had under v2.30, I had 9-10 USA CV�s sunk, versus no IJN CV damaged. In two of those 4 battles the USN wasn�t outnumbered (#3 and #4). Now, let�s compare it with history. In three CV vs CV battles (excluding Midway), the results were as following
1-IJN: 2CVL�s sunk plus 2CV�s damaged (Shokaku 2 times)
2-USN: 2CV�s sunk plus 3 CV�s damaged (Yorktown plus Enterprise 2 times)
Of course, none of those battles had Super CV TF�s....which makes that discussion somewhat sterile. It�s possible that super CV TF�s allowed the USN (and IJN?) to do better with large CAP�s. It would be difficult to penetrate large defensive formations. On the other hand, a Super CV TF also implies in better escort for bombers. Also you must consider that Japanese bombers were REALLY very fragile and they took heavy losses even withouth facing massive US CAP�s (in 1942 the USA never had more than 2 CV�s in a TF). From my point, the best model of CV to CV combat was still in v1.4 (althought it probably resulted in less planes being shot down....but it resulted in damage to carriers from both sides and usually even the winner of a CV confrontation was unable to pursue the loser)

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 45

Air-to-Air Broken?? - 5/6/2003 12:00:37 AM

dpstafford

Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline

I have been arguing for some time with one of the UV play-testers, who is also one of my PBEM opponents, that air-to-air combat is "broken" in 2.3. By increasing the effects of fatigue in the model, that CAP (which is always tired, even at 50% coverage), that air combat has become too bloodless. Even more so than in versions 1.x. The fatigue factor is causing NOT a higher loss rate on the more fatigued side, but an over all decrease in air combat kills, due presumably to failed moral checks, or whatever. I haven't been able to convince anyone.

Have I come to the right thread to make this case?

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 46

Re: Air-to-Air Broken?? - 5/6/2003 11:34:18 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dpstafford
[B]I have been arguing for some time with one of the UV play-testers, who is also one of my PBEM opponents, that air-to-air combat is "broken" in 2.3. By increasing the effects of fatigue in the model, that CAP (which is always tired, even at 50% coverage), that air combat has become too bloodless. Even more so than in versions 1.x. The fatigue factor is causing NOT a higher loss rate on the more fatigued side, but an over all decrease in air combat kills, due presumably to failed moral checks, or whatever. I haven't been able to convince anyone.

Have I come to the right thread to make this case? [/B][/QUOTE]

-Well, I agree 100% with you. But I should also add that US CV based bombers are EXTREMELY cautious towards attacking IJN CV�s and this further distorts the results of carrier battles....

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 47

Re: Re: Air-to-Air Broken?? - 5/6/2003 11:37:53 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by afenelon
[B]-Well, I agree 100% with you. But I should also add that US CV based bombers are EXTREMELY cautious towards attacking IJN CV�s and this further distorts the results of carrier battles.... At least v1.x allowed both sides to attack and to score hits. Due to this, results of CV battles were usually more realistic because the winner wasn�t able to pursue the loser, scoring an overhelming victory.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 48

Fatigue - 5/6/2003 1:47:52 PM

mapr

Posts: 72
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

I also feel that fatigue(and moral decreases) level increases too easily too high or atleast have too much effect in 2.30(and earlier versions too) . Would be understandable to me if pilots would be running engines using muscle power and not sleeping at all...

One days action of sinking couple DD's at full(there is no other kind with AI) strike increases fatigue 20 points. If you expect your opponent to have rested crews there is no going forward.

After second day of such activity you have 30+ fatigue and then it is time run for a rest unless you are sure that enemy have similar fatigue levels.

If your pilots have to fly combat mission three days in a row and having same time 50% CAP they become next to useless, even if those combat missions does not include air to air combats. Even if targets are lightweigh without heavy AA.

Did pilots sleep/rest at all if they had mission at current day? I could understand problems at third day if you have not slept at all for two days. But if they slept even for some hours in in a day they should stay capable of flying effectively for several days in row. Which is impossible right now.

Some questions to demonstrate you all my ignorance:

How physically straining it was to fly WW II planes?
How straining it was serve in CV if having to fight every day? Any differences between CV&LBA?

Or were pilots fysically totally untrained and so unable to recover from previous days burdens? How could they stay in bad shape if flying planes was that hard?

I'd love hear if someone could tell what it was like to serve in CV or LBA... Describing daily routines, or if pilots themselves thought or noticed that their fellow pilots were no good after several combat missions in during several days. Were they so badly fatigued that several hours rest would not restore effectivity?
What pilots did at nights if there was fighting expected? Having parties? Appreciate anything that would help to estimate if fatigue is properly simulated. I just feel that it is not...

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 49

- 5/6/2003 7:49:40 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

There are very few examples I can find of CAP being flown. CV's went out, flew a small percentage of seach planes (maybe accounting for 5% fatigue) then flew a massive raid against the detected target, throwing everything they had, including rearming the search planes to be part of the strike.

Where this idea of taking 50+% of the fighters and deploying them as CAP instead as escort for the raid came from, I don't know. This tactic did not seem to come into play until much later in the war, after UV's time period, with the much larger fleet carriers.

Maintaining 50% of your fighters airborne over your task force (which translates to 100% of your fighters as there are two phases) means that 100% of your planes will be flying each day, with repairs and such only being done at night by the tired maint crews. Add the fact that the fighters are only a 3rd of the planes that must be kept flying and you quickly see just how silly it is to expect to be able to sustain that level of operations.

The CV's simply did not carry enough fuel/bullets/bombs for round the clock operations. The planes during that time period did not have any labour saving devices to keep the pilot rested, he had to physically fly the plane, do the navigation, etc, all by himself.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 50

Re: Fatigue - 5/7/2003 6:38:02 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mapr
[B]I also feel that fatigue(and moral decreases) level increases too easily too high or atleast have too much effect in 2.30(and earlier versions too) . Would be understandable to me if pilots would be running engines using muscle power and not sleeping at all...

One days action of sinking couple DD's at full(there is no other kind with AI) strike increases fatigue 20 points. If you expect your opponent to have rested crews there is no going forward.

After second day of such activity you have 30+ fatigue and then it is time run for a rest unless you are sure that enemy have similar fatigue levels.

If your pilots have to fly combat mission three days in a row and having same time 50% CAP they become next to useless, even if those combat missions does not include air to air combats. Even if targets are lightweigh without heavy AA.

-I think you�re right, and we have been both victimized and benefited by that overvaluation of fatigue (this is quite frustating, you being the winner or the loser). It�s unbelievable to see that something like 10 more fatigue points imply that F4F�s simply run from battle (as in our 2nd battle), and Vals and Kates are unable to score a single hit (as happened in our first battle). The BIG effect of fatigue were already evident in v2.11-2.2 and became really crazy in v2.3 I�ve been playing as IJN vs the computer and I�m amazed how F4F pilots (both CV and land based) are fighting like rabbits......My suggestions:
1-Decrease a lot the effect of fatigue (at least in the first air combat phase) both for fighters and bombers
2-Give CAP a penalty (80% of the assigned planes can fly CAP at the same time) to force people to avoid 90% CAP
3-Keep a reasonable to high�performance of CAP (bombers really MUST be shot down in large numbers, mainly in the first waves-I really like to see those poor guys going down)
4-Improve the performance of surviving bombers. Air battles must be bloody, but bombers able to attack should have a better chance of hitting their targets, at least if their experience is better than 70
5-Most battles must end with a marginal victory, and with the winner unable to pursue the loser (again Midway is an exception, but in SP Front, both sides had LBA recon, so a replay of Midway in this front would be unlikely-there was no surprise in SP Carrier battles)
6-Coordination penalty, please, it�s unrealistic to have a commander being able to launch fully coordinated attacks (and placing high levels of CAP) in super TF�s of 8-10 Carriers. This was possible in 1944, not in 1942 (I don�t know how much CV�s the USN used in the same TF in 1942)
Well, this dicussion is interesting, but my HD is heavily damaged and will be replaced with another. Until then, I can�t go on with this topic.

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 51

- 5/7/2003 8:37:08 AM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

Here is a question.

What was the normal pattern of CAP flown by 1942-43 era carriers?

My guess is that it was not 60% of all fighters all the time. If we know the historical reference for how CAP was employed, it might give us a better idea on how fatigue should be modeled to reflect reality.

I would venture that it was directly proportional to the relative threat.

So having 20-30% CAP may be a standard when not expecting contact, with increased CAP for anticipation of contact.

Even then, a higher CAP percentage might not cause that much fatigue, as you would have a certain amount of fighters at the ready on deck, with radar being used to lauch additional CAP in response to an attack.

I would like to hear from somebody read in on this, as it is very relavant to this discussion.

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 52

- 5/7/2003 4:48:40 PM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh
[B]Here is a question.

What was the normal pattern of CAP flown by 1942-43 era carriers?

My guess is that it was not 60% of all fighters all the time. If we know the historical reference for how CAP was employed, it might give us a better idea on how fatigue should be modeled to reflect reality.

I would venture that it was directly proportional to the relative threat.

So having 20-30% CAP may be a standard when not expecting contact, with increased CAP for anticipation of contact.

Even then, a higher CAP percentage might not cause that much fatigue, as you would have a certain amount of fighters at the ready on deck, with radar being used to lauch additional CAP in response to an attack.

I would like to hear from somebody read in on this, as it is very relavant to this discussion. [/B][/QUOTE]

-Agree with you. I also have the impression that "historical" CAP was around 50-60%. And you are right on fatigue (althought IJN didn�t have radar in early 1942-maybe they should keep more planes flying?)
-Last message before the death of m HD....

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 53

- 5/7/2003 7:51:30 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

Since Midway is really the only major CV battle that occured in UV's timeframe, I'll ask again, what CAP was there flying over the CV's? This was the biggest CV battle in the history books.

Past that loss, CV airpower no longer existed os it is probably the only battle we can draw any numbers from as to historical use...

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 54

- 5/7/2003 9:26:44 PM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

Mr Frag, the battle of Santa Cruz may also be relevant as to the use of CAP as well.

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 55

Re: Fatigue - 5/8/2003 12:21:49 AM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mapr
[B]I also feel that fatigue(and moral decreases) level increases too easily too high or atleast have too much effect in 2.30(and earlier versions too) . Would be understandable to me if pilots would be running engines using muscle power and not sleeping at all...

One days action of sinking couple DD's at full(there is no other kind with AI) strike increases fatigue 20 points. If you expect your opponent to have rested crews there is no going forward.

After second day of such activity you have 30+ fatigue and then it is time run for a rest unless you are sure that enemy have similar fatigue levels.

If your pilots have to fly combat mission three days in a row and having same time 50% CAP they become next to useless, even if those combat missions does not include air to air combats. Even if targets are lightweigh without heavy AA.

Did pilots sleep/rest at all if they had mission at current day? I could understand problems at third day if you have not slept at all for two days. But if they slept even for some hours in in a day they should stay capable of flying effectively for several days in row. Which is impossible right now.

Some questions to demonstrate you all my ignorance:

How physically straining it was to fly WW II planes?
How straining it was serve in CV if having to fight every day? Any differences between CV&LBA?

Or were pilots fysically totally untrained and so unable to recover from previous days burdens? How could they stay in bad shape if flying planes was that hard?

I'd love hear if someone could tell what it was like to serve in CV or LBA... Describing daily routines, or if pilots themselves thought or noticed that their fellow pilots were no good after several combat missions in during several days. Were they so badly fatigued that several hours rest would not restore effectivity?
What pilots did at nights if there was fighting expected? Having parties? Appreciate anything that would help to estimate if fatigue is properly simulated. I just feel that it is not... [/B][/QUOTE]

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 56

Whoops! - 5/8/2003 12:35:12 AM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

This is my reply to the previous quote.

Flying aircraft in the Pacific or in any theater of WWII was extremely draining under all conditions. Fighter craft had no autopilots so the pilots had to be alert at all times on at all times. WWII fighters were "hot", high performance planes that required detailed attention all the time. The biggest drain on pilots was the adrenaline rush from the fear and excitment of actual combat. One tight engagement or bombing run could physically exhaust a pilot. Two or three days of actual combat (remember most missions did not necessarily have much in the way of combat for fighter pilots) could break a pilot down. Navy pilots generally had it better as carriers had first rate medical facilities and excellent food. Most forward land based air pilots had not only to deal with combat but with disease and very rudimentary diets. This in itself would contribute heavily to fatigue. Somtimes the situation would dictate that pilots with milder forms of malaria or dystentery would have to go up. This is especially true of Japanese land based pilots who had very little access to proper medical facilities and very poor diets when compared to Allied pilots.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 57

- 5/8/2003 5:36:05 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]Since Midway is really the only major CV battle that occured in UV's timeframe, I'll ask again, what CAP was there flying over the CV's? This was the biggest CV battle in the history books.

Past that loss, CV airpower no longer existed os it is probably the only battle we can draw any numbers from as to historical use... [/B][/QUOTE]

-I don�t know what are the numbers, but IJN CAP (+flak) simply devastated the US attackers (the US lost 35/41 TBD�s, 8/16 Land based SBD�s, 2/4 B-26�s, 5/6 TBF�s, 2/12 SB2U�s, for a total of 52 bombers which dared to attack IJN carriers). Most of those losses were due to fighters. Was this the result of a 30% CAP? And the US CAP of Yorktown (+flak) shot down more than 50% of bombers in both waves from Hiryu. If the US CAP was 30%, they would have 6-9 fighters flying. Very good results, aren�t them? So I would say US CAP were more than 30% too....Or maybe we could agree that flak is so effective that no CAP is needed?

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 58

- 5/8/2003 5:38:31 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh
[B]Mr Frag, the battle of Santa Cruz may also be relevant as to the use of CAP as well. [/B][/QUOTE]

-And what about Coral Sea and East Salomons?

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 59

- 5/8/2003 5:56:30 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

Here is data from CAP at Midway. This points to something close to 40-50% of CAP. Must consider that the% CAP can be changed during a combat and not all fighters are able to fly at the same time

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/8384/midway.html

As the planes of VB-3, VS-6 and VB-6 headed home, they left behind them three Japanese carriers afire, beyond hope. Akagi, Kaga and Soryu, all three the prides of Japanese navy, Pearl Harbor veterans were reduced to burning wrecks in only three minutes! But the fourth Japanese carrier, the Hiryu was not damaged. Her planes were ready, and at 1054 the first plane took off. The strike consisted of 18 dive bombers and 6 Zeros. There were no torpedo bombers, because there was no time to put torpedoes on the planes that returned from Midway strike. This small force found the American carriers by following American planes that were returning home.

Escort=30%

The cruisers Astoria and Portland stood off to starboard, in between the Yorktown and incoming intruders. Yorktown turned southeast, showing her stern to the attackers, and crancked up her speed from 25 to 30.5 knots. Fuel lines were drained and filled with carbon dioxide. All guns were manned, pointing west where the attack was going to come from. Combat Air Patrol (CAP) of 12 Wildcats was vectored to intercept the bogeys.

Yorktown CAP=40-50% (Yorktown had 25-27 fighters, not 36 in Midway)

In the meantime, Hiryu prepared another strike consisting of 10 torpedo planes and 6 fighters. Only 6 planes from the first strike survived. They radioed that the enemy carrier is burning and that there are two more carriers present. The second strike was sent at 1245. While Hiryu was trying to turn the tide of the battle, Akagi, Kaga and Soryu were losing their battle for life, flooding, and fires raging.

Escort=30% (plus 30% of first strike=60%?).

Btw: My HD was ressurected....in only 6 hours (clonning is great...)

(in reply to afenelon)

Post #: 60