RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

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: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/7/2019 7:41:04 AM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Any tips on J7W uses and drawbacks? I plan to use it for spot defence interception. It's range is restrictive for much else.

Yeah. CAP. high %'s because the climb is not good. (80-100% instead of 60%). DUR is only 30. That means you have to cycle them to keep the numbers up. Its all about managing the ops losses with these beasts. That's the bad.

The good. What they hit dies. Even 4E. A2A losses will be low for you due to their speed. You'll use them at the top of your CAP stack with your Franks. I really wish the Devs had chosen the 6x20mm (same weight), but they went for the 4x30mm. Still C/L is 30% acc and x4 you will get a hit with almost every burst. And as I say, pretty much every hit is a kill. Oh, the best thing about the 30mm is the range = 6. That's 50% more than the browning 50. It means when attacking 4E, you get hit a LOT less.

I don't see the range helping as much A2A against P47's, I suspect that is because of relative speeds keeping engagement time low? Just a guess. But against 4E's, you will notice a lot lower losses. So, your J7W's are going take damage, but with you being on CAP, losses won't be as high. P47's though, almost every 30mm hit is a kill � and they have a long way to return, so it usually turns out that way. That damage has to be managed or you will start to fly with too many damaged planes that will turn into high Ops losses, I check my groups every turn when they are on CAP to control that. Good luck!!

That helps. Thanks!

I'll not have too many to start at least, due to the Ha-43 shortage mostly. I can't build more factories with a deficit running on the engines, and of course I don't know how long I'll have the factories now producing before getting them burned out.

I'll plan to fill one 36 plane group to start, then another in a month.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 121

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/7/2019 8:56:45 AM

jdsrae

Posts: 2716
Joined: 3/1/2010
From: Gandangara Country
Status: offline

ok, i'm caught up and now know what this thread is all about. Good luck Mike!
I was going to post a few of my recent calcs on airframes and engines etc in the war room but will throw them up here instead. Mike, I hope you convert your modern ships to IJN use and don't waste them on hauling resources!

On airframe and engine research. I won't waste time trying to convince anyone what model of each type of plane to build, but to figure out how many airframes of each type I first figured out the peak demand of each to fill out the existing and arriving sentai/chutai. You then need to select a replacement rate. I chose 1/5th (20%) for fighters and 1/8th (12.5%) for everything else. Yet to be tested in anger.
Then once you select your models to meet the production rate you can set your factories for build and research. I also went heavy on fighter research but went a single research factory on certain types that I want to build and they come just before standard arrival, and start building at 30/month on day 1. I think GA does this and I agree as it avoids you having to spend supply again changing the factory later. There are definite diminishing returns on research factories once you get > 10ish. Each additional factory above about 12 might save you a few weeks, but not months of research time.
Your engine demand can then be calculated. Engine factories are one thing I steadily increase just-in-time to keep up with aircraft production. Surprisingly, I found that the 500+ engine pool bonus only applies to a few engine types and sometimes only for a few months. Some months it will only be partial assistance to your research factories, but it all helps.
I'll throw up the aircraft demand graphs separately and it shows that you need to at least have a plan to seriously ramp up production of aircraft and engines to be able to fill your mid and later war arrivals as the demand for some types hits like a tsunami. I've plotted out Plan A for this so I have something to adjust as the in-game situation onfolds.
I have also just done some calcs on what setting all of this up in the first month or two does to supply, and that did make me adjust a few things. My model suggests you can be aggressive and set most things up in the first few months. By doing that, supply is tight for 2-3 months so no export from Japan, hold off an anything else but building a few key Ports for resource/oil movement, but my choices show that by Mar 42 I'll be well into supply surplus at home again and all my aircraft factories will already be set up with research pumping. Same for initial research factory changes to 0(30) each.
I then modelled engine factory changes to keep pace with the aircraft demand for the entire war, and engine factories need to be steadily increased over time. Once an early engine factory isn't needed anymore it converts to a later war engine and expands steadily again to feed the demand for the modern planes.
I then modelled HI demand for all industry expansion and manufacturing for the duration and tweaked a few other things to avoid HI going into the negative. The HI pool never gets into the multi-millions. To enable my aggressive aircraft/engine program I had to give up on a bit of the naval shipyard expansion that I would have liked, but that was it. Everything links to everything else!
I'll also throw up the HI pool graph to show how it looks and interestingly the critical point was some time in late 44 when pilot training ramps up and manufacturing is high everywhere, with limited numbers of research facilities left apart from the late war models. Once naval and merchant shipyards start ramping down from late 44 the HI pools start to build again. I'll throw up a few graphs to spark some discussion, but I am planning to produce pretty high numbers of fighters through all phases to try and maintain air superiority. I don't care if I slightly over-produce early (Oscar/Zero, not Nate!) and mid-war fighters as when I finally get to test this on a human opponent I am expecting that they will have read something like an obvert vs lowpe AAR and will be aggressive allied early, so if anything I will have still undercooked my early fighter production. These graphs are for Scenario 1, generally based on the # of things needed to fill the groups by type as they arrive except for my FP expansion plan for ASW.
This graph shows the # of aircraft required on map to fill out your IJN afloat air groups (Kido Butai + FP units on ships).
To translate this into how many aircraft factories, apply your own replacement rate:

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by jdsrae -- 3/7/2019 9:08:40 AM >

_____________________________

Currently playing my first PBEM, no house rules Scenario 1 as IJ.
AAR link (no SolInvictus): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4684655

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 122

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/7/2019 9:01:42 AM

jdsrae

Posts: 2716
Joined: 3/1/2010
From: Gandangara Country
Status: offline

this graph shows the number of active aircraft required on map in land based IJN groups.
Again, to estimate aircraft production factory requirement from this apply the replacement rate you think you will need. Again, mine is 20% of this = # of fighter factories, #12.5% = number of factories for everything else.

Note the ramp up in land based IJN fighter demand from about Aug 43.
Also the Light Bomber (LB) spike is when the kamikaze / trainer squadrons arrive. You can plan for that spike so that come April 45 you have a reasonable number of Toka/Kikka already in the pools to start equipping those units. I think I chose Toka to keep the Ha-35 engine which will already have fairly large factories from earlier model aircraft demands.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by jdsrae -- 3/7/2019 9:07:17 AM >

_____________________________

Currently playing my first PBEM, no house rules Scenario 1 as IJ.
AAR link (no SolInvictus): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4684655

(in reply to jdsrae)

Post #: 123

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/7/2019 9:12:08 AM

jdsrae

Posts: 2716
Joined: 3/1/2010
From: Gandangara Country
Status: offline

And finally the IJAAF. I came here a few hours ago to read the discussion on NF.
Not much demand for NF, so I picked the early type to research 0(30) then build it for a while. Shut it off once the pool is what you want. Then change that factory to the later model NF that you want to build.

Note that these graphs are based on the aircraft type that arrives on map. For those units that you want to change type, you'd have to adjust.
The summary is that by Aug 45 you need to have a plan to keep nearly 5000 IJAAF aircraft in the air and half of them fighters!

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by jdsrae -- 3/7/2019 9:48:02 AM >

_____________________________

Currently playing my first PBEM, no house rules Scenario 1 as IJ.
AAR link (no SolInvictus): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4684655

(in reply to jdsrae)

Post #: 124

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/7/2019 10:33:20 AM

jdsrae

Posts: 2716
Joined: 3/1/2010
From: Gandangara Country
Status: offline

Last graph, Heavy Industry Points production/spend forecast.

Mike, you mentioned a few weeks back that this isn't a game of fighting the allies, it's about the logistics of bringing stuff back to Japan.
You could take that a step further as the only reason you're bringing raw materials back to Japan is to make war machines out of it.

This graph is a work in progress showing my current working, and is influenced by all decisions related to building war machines.
It shows that the impact on the HI pool of aggressive early industry expansion is minimal compared to the HI spend on everything else. (Supply is the limiting factor for industry changes/expansion, but only for the first 2-3 months).

The main impact on HI point use and the reason it never gets above 1M in this graph is that I expanded aircraft factories and engines based on my replacement rate forecast, and plan to build decent numbers through all phases of the war.
If the allied player is reasonably passive, I can easily adjust the plan by switching off some factories and expand further in mid/late war, but if the allied player is aggressive I will need this sort of HI spend profile. I think it's better to plan for an aggressive allied player from day 1.
The increase in HI points required to train Japanese pilot replacements is also significant as it triples over the course of 1943.

My Admirals would all resign if I even suggested halting production of the Shinano, so going aggressive on airframe research and production (with the engines to match) means limited naval shipyard expansion and therefore limited acceleration of ship building.
I haven't planned naval and merchant shipyard production in detail yet but I can save a fair few HI points there on merchants by reducing merchant build and switching off merchant shipyards earlier than shown here.
Also, by 1945 I don't expect the HI point pool to ramp up again as the allies should be interfering with manufacturing by then.

The summary here is that I feel that by manufacturing decent numbers of the latest war machines through all phases of the war (early/mid/late) you will be better able to win battles early, compete hard through the mid-war and therefore delay or perhaps avoid complete destruction in 1945.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Currently playing my first PBEM, no house rules Scenario 1 as IJ.
AAR link (no SolInvictus): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4684655

(in reply to jdsrae)

Post #: 125

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/7/2019 1:05:45 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

NF: I use Nick FB in night CAP until Randy. There just aren't a lot of IJA choices. And Nick isn't good as it is slow, but what else? Have to have night CAP.
IJN: has more choices, but I end up with Myrt and A7M mostly as single engine.

The whole NF thing still has me messed up. Just when I think that I may have it doped out, someone throws in another monkey-wrench.

Still not sure how to resolve the issues. Planes too slow, too few groups for what seems to be a large R&D investment if I want to get something in time. Not to mention Army/Navy. What's to be done? Time to reevaluate again????

NF are a numbers game. You need to painstakingly search thru all groups that can upgrade to the NF and convert them. If you search posts by my name I did this for both Army and Navy stock game night fighters in the war room.

There are basically three generations of NF: 1st: IrvingS, IrvingSA, Nick, Dinah; 2nd Gen: Frances, Peggyd, Zero, Judy, Myrt; 3rd: Denko and Randy.

You need Irving Sa, Nick and Dinah to convert squadrons, you need the Zero to resize some of the tiny groups. For 2nd gen and later pick one...I like Peggyd to replace Nick/Dinah and Frances. Myrt has a lot to recommend it too. Randy never really gets radar, but some swear by it. Denko has sky high SR.

There are some odd ones. Several recon groups that convert, a FB group and even a FP group that convert to NF. Make them all.

The key to NFs is using them with several hex bleed and radar. The Irving NF will travel and engage even faster planes at several hexes distance. Also, don't scrimp on pilot quality. I have 70-80exp pilots in my NF groups. I also keep layers of altitude bands covered in an area.

The Randy is good!

Here are the groups:

Scenario 1 night fighters...

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3895701&mpage=1&key=frances�

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 126

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/7/2019 2:02:16 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

Holy cow, guys! This is crazy, but really interesting.

The game really hasn't started yet. Mike is working on his massive 8 Dec turn right now. He's taking a long weekend for his first wedding anniversary

so I hope the slacker gets the turn back to me before he goes MIA.

I really like the NF discussion. I'm using it in my other game. I've been having a hard time finding the units in that game so this helps immensely. Thanks!

I have made some decisions on my fighter program (and R&D in general). Once I get it all worked out, I'll post it. It's in my head, but I need to put it on paper. My brain is old...

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 127

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/7/2019 2:52:13 PM

Kull

Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: jdsrae

legend obvert, that�s saved me a few thousand clicks!

You still might have a few clicks to go for some, and I'm not sure the list is complete. I have to reference my game to see again. It's been a while since I looked at this. To complicate matters more, the groups change names in the mid-to-late war. So these are mostly the late war names. You might need tracker to sort out all of it.

You can get the answer quickly using the "Jap Airgroup Upgrades" tab in my Japan set-up spreadsheet. Just have the list of model numbers you are looking for, and then look for them using the "Upgrade" filter buttons starting in column X (and working sequentially to the left through each upgrade column). The tab includes the starting unit name, arrival dates, airframe counts, locations, and everything else that might be of interest.

Anyway this process will give you the conclusive answer, in a fraction of the time it would take to manually hunt through the editor.

_____________________________

AE-Japan Setup

AE-Allied Setup

Japan Air-Engine Plan

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 128

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/7/2019 2:53:45 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

He's taking a long weekend for his first wedding anniversary so I hope the slacker gets the turn back to me before he goes MIA.

AE, or play with the wife?

For me, I don't see the question here

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 129

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/7/2019 6:05:28 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

Can confirm that the J7W is murder on 4Es. Have personally experienced. Also does well against late war Allied fighters, relatively speaking.

So would you recommend a red or white with that?

Why not a blush?

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 130

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/7/2019 10:16:03 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Holy cow, guys! This is crazy, but really interesting. The game really hasn't started yet. Mike is working on his massive 8 Dec turn right now. He's taking a long weekend for his first wedding anniversary so I hope the slacker gets the turn back to me before he goes MIA. I really like the NF discussion. I'm using it in my other game. I've been having a hard time finding the units in that game so this helps immensely. Thanks!

I have made some decisions on my fighter program (and R&D in general). Once I get it all worked out, I'll post it. It's in my head, but I need to put it on paper. My brain is old...

I think you've had solid input from everyone else regarding R&D.

Now I'll upset the boat and suggest a radical proposition for the IJA R&D:

- Do absolutely no R&D or production of any Helen model.
- Improvise with Sally & Lily (including DB varients)
- Put maximum effort into accelerating Peggy T and Ki-74

I suggest this as the Helen is only a series of marginal improvement over the Lily/Sally.

The Peggy T is really a game-changer for the IJNAF, and the 74 gives you a lot of defence in depth. The Helen is a bit of a letdown in comparison.

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 131

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/7/2019 10:29:49 PM

jdsrae

Posts: 2716
Joined: 3/1/2010
From: Gandangara Country
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

The game really hasn't started yet. Mike is working on his massive 8 Dec turn right now.

Another thing on my to do list is to see if it's possible to flatten Cagayan with a Bombardment task force and invade asap to try and kill his 4E bombers on the ground?

_____________________________

Currently playing my first PBEM, no house rules Scenario 1 as IJ.
AAR link (no SolInvictus): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4684655

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 132

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/7/2019 10:50:45 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Holy cow, guys! This is crazy, but really interesting. The game really hasn't started yet. Mike is working on his massive 8 Dec turn right now. He's taking a long weekend for his first wedding anniversary so I hope the slacker gets the turn back to me before he goes MIA. I really like the NF discussion. I'm using it in my other game. I've been having a hard time finding the units in that game so this helps immensely. Thanks!

I have made some decisions on my fighter program (and R&D in general). Once I get it all worked out, I'll post it. It's in my head, but I need to put it on paper. My brain is old...

I think you've had solid input from everyone else regarding R&D.

Now I'll upset the boat and suggest a radical proposition for the IJA R&D:

- Do absolutely no R&D or production of any Helen model.
- Improvise with Sally & Lily (including DB varients)
- Put maximum effort into accelerating Peggy T and Ki-74

I suggest this as the Helen is only a series of marginal improvement over the Lily/Sally.

The Peggy T is really a game-changer for the IJNAF, and the 74 gives you a lot of defence in depth. The Helen is a bit of a letdown in comparison.

Not that radical at all. Helen is absolutely not worth accelerating. Peggy T doubles down as a solid kamikaze, while the Lilly DB models are outstanding. Patsy is a solid plane recon plane too, and might not earn her VP back, but will at least cause the Allies to spread their forces.

Having said all that, you can probably get by with 5 on Patsy, 3 on Peggy T, 1 on Lilly DB. Having said all that, I would rather get the Kikka & Ki115b.

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 133

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/7/2019 11:07:38 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Holy cow, guys! This is crazy, but really interesting. The game really hasn't started yet. Mike is working on his massive 8 Dec turn right now. He's taking a long weekend for his first wedding anniversary so I hope the slacker gets the turn back to me before he goes MIA. I really like the NF discussion. I'm using it in my other game. I've been having a hard time finding the units in that game so this helps immensely. Thanks!

I have made some decisions on my fighter program (and R&D in general). Once I get it all worked out, I'll post it. It's in my head, but I need to put it on paper. My brain is old...

I think you've had solid input from everyone else regarding R&D.

Now I'll upset the boat and suggest a radical proposition for the IJA R&D:

- Do absolutely no R&D or production of any Helen model.
- Improvise with Sally & Lily (including DB varients)
- Put maximum effort into accelerating Peggy T and Ki-74

I suggest this as the Helen is only a series of marginal improvement over the Lily/Sally.

The Peggy T is really a game-changer for the IJNAF, and the 74 gives you a lot of defence in depth. The Helen is a bit of a letdown in comparison.

Not that radical at all. Helen is absolutely not worth accelerating. Peggy T doubles down as a solid kamikaze, while the Lilly DB models are outstanding. Patsy is a solid plane recon plane too, and might not earn her VP back, but will at least cause the Allies to spread their forces.

Having said all that, you can probably get by with 5 on Patsy, 3 on Peggy T, 1 on Lilly DB. Having said all that, I would rather get the Kikka & Ki115b.

The Patsy in the kami role should be far superior to just about anything else. The amazing range on it means you can forward deploy them and use them offensively, or have them deployed far to the rear to give depth to any defence. The Kikka at 115's are nice, but the range is the difficult part with actually deploying them. They're point defence, while the Patsy is area denial.

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 134

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/7/2019 11:36:13 PM

JoV

Posts: 99
Joined: 2/27/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Holy cow, guys! This is crazy, but really interesting. The game really hasn't started yet. Mike is working on his massive 8 Dec turn right now. He's taking a long weekend for his first wedding anniversary so I hope the slacker gets the turn back to me before he goes MIA. I really like the NF discussion. I'm using it in my other game. I've been having a hard time finding the units in that game so this helps immensely. Thanks!

I have made some decisions on my fighter program (and R&D in general). Once I get it all worked out, I'll post it. It's in my head, but I need to put it on paper. My brain is old...

And you were surprised that I was able to fill 50 odd pages of notes from your other thread. Its already several pages longer owing to this discussion

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 135

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/7/2019 11:37:59 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The Patsy in the kami role should be far superior to just about anything else.

Doubtful.

Plus, to get the great range attacks, you have to shut down all naval search except for one narrow band and then pray. I don't see that many 20+ hex naval attacks on anything.

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 136

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/8/2019 12:35:10 AM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The Patsy in the kami role should be far superior to just about anything else.

Doubtful.

Plus, to get the great range attacks, you have to shut down all naval search except for one narrow band and then pray. I don't see that many 20+ hex naval attacks on anything.

It's a Helen with some real range.

Quick and reasonably durable. Flies at 44k, well above most Allied CV craft. In general I just find the twin-engine planes to be better at lasting through CAP.

For long-range attacks, I don't think shutting down naval search as you suggest would be ideal, but that's one option. I'd max out DL and hope for a lucky intercept on a un-CAPed TF. Flying at anything from 100 ft to 44k ft you're bound to get something, and the VP return from un-CAPed merchantmen is excellent.

Infinitely better than the Kikka or 115s, where you're using them at best on D-Day-1 or even D-Day itself. The Patsy gives you the chance to get strikes in for a long way off.

My preferred option would be to keep them as a reserve to act in co-operation with conventional strikes. In a Honshu or Kyushu landing scenario, having them based from Korea, for example.

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 137

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/8/2019 1:06:45 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Holy cow, guys! This is crazy, but really interesting. The game really hasn't started yet. Mike is working on his massive 8 Dec turn right now. He's taking a long weekend for his first wedding anniversary so I hope the slacker gets the turn back to me before he goes MIA. I really like the NF discussion. I'm using it in my other game. I've been having a hard time finding the units in that game so this helps immensely. Thanks!

I have made some decisions on my fighter program (and R&D in general). Once I get it all worked out, I'll post it. It's in my head, but I need to put it on paper. My brain is old...

I think you've had solid input from everyone else regarding R&D.

Now I'll upset the boat and suggest a radical proposition for the IJA R&D:

- Do absolutely no R&D or production of any Helen model.
- Improvise with Sally & Lily (including DB varients)
- Put maximum effort into accelerating Peggy T and Ki-74

I suggest this as the Helen is only a series of marginal improvement over the Lily/Sally.

The Peggy T is really a game-changer for the IJNAF, and the 74 gives you a lot of defence in depth. The Helen is a bit of a letdown in comparison.

Ki-74, Sorry MM, I'm not a fan.

Only 3 hex more range than G3M, G3M takes no RnD and you get it in '42. I build a ton of them to use exactly as you state.
Also use them as Patrol/Recon � 2E and 26 hex range.

I hate the IJ LB selection. There isn't one to speak of. Why did they stay with the Ki-21 the whole war? Simple, they never got anything much better. We can get the Helen, but IRL they didn't have that choice as they were just hangar queens (the twin chargers never worked on the Ha-34's). Peggy is faster, but smaller bomb load. what is up with 3x250kg? FB's have bigger bombloads for the allies.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 138

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/8/2019 2:54:26 AM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

It's a Helen with some real range.

Quick and reasonably durable. Flies at 44k, well above most Allied CV craft. In general I just find the twin-engine planes to be better at lasting through CAP.

It has half the bomb load of a Sally or Helen.

Even flying sky high, it will still be intercepted by CAP over carriers, with no fighter protection they will all be shot down.

Patsy does have a camera. Patsy can force the allies to disperse their fighters and AA somewhat. But it is a fringe plane.

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 139

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/8/2019 10:42:16 AM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Holy cow, guys! This is crazy, but really interesting. The game really hasn't started yet. Mike is working on his massive 8 Dec turn right now. He's taking a long weekend for his first wedding anniversary so I hope the slacker gets the turn back to me before he goes MIA. I really like the NF discussion. I'm using it in my other game. I've been having a hard time finding the units in that game so this helps immensely. Thanks!

I have made some decisions on my fighter program (and R&D in general). Once I get it all worked out, I'll post it. It's in my head, but I need to put it on paper. My brain is old...

I think you've had solid input from everyone else regarding R&D.

Now I'll upset the boat and suggest a radical proposition for the IJA R&D:

- Do absolutely no R&D or production of any Helen model.
- Improvise with Sally & Lily (including DB varients)
- Put maximum effort into accelerating Peggy T and Ki-74

I suggest this as the Helen is only a series of marginal improvement over the Lily/Sally.

The Peggy T is really a game-changer for the IJNAF, and the 74 gives you a lot of defence in depth. The Helen is a bit of a letdown in comparison.

Ki-74, Sorry MM, I'm not a fan.

Only 3 hex more range than G3M, G3M takes no RnD and you get it in '42. I build a ton of them to use exactly as you state.
Also use them as Patrol/Recon � 2E and 26 hex range.

I hate the IJ LB selection. There isn't one to speak of. Why did they stay with the Ki-21 the whole war? Simple, they never got anything much better. We can get the Helen, but IRL they didn't have that choice as they were just hangar queens (the twin chargers never worked on the Ha-34's). Peggy is faster, but smaller bomb load. what is up with 3x250kg? FB's have bigger bombloads for the allies.

I'm not sure what version of the game data you're looking at. I'm playing stock, the Patsy is 29 (36) hexes range. The G3M3 is 21 (26).

Those extra 8 (10) hexes range matter a great deal IMO, as now there's a substantially greater number of rear-area bases that the Allies need to defend.

For reference, the range on the B-29-1 is 28 (35).

The bombload isn't amazing, but two bombs on a target you can reach is better than four bombs on a plane sitting at home because it doesn't have the range. IIRC the G3M3 carries 2x250 plus 2x60 normal bombload, so the Patsy is only losing out on the 60kg hand grenades...

The other point in favor of it is that it's an IJA aircraft. By the time you have the Patsy the pools should be awash with LowNav/GrdB IJA bomber pilots, leaving the IJN to focus absolutely on anti-shipping.

quote:

It has half the bomb load of a Sally or Helen.

Even flying sky high, it will still be intercepted by CAP over carriers, with no fighter protection they will all be shot down.

Patsy does have a camera. Patsy can force the allies to disperse their fighters and AA somewhat. But it is a fringe plane.

Half the bombload but triple the range. That's a strong argument in itself for usage.

As for interception, the Patsy can fly at 44k ft max altitude. The highest flying Allied CV fighters are the late-model Corsairs, and they can only fly to 41.6k ft.

These Corsair models are also the fastest flying carrier fighters - IOW the quickest interceptors.

Utilizing the Patsy as a tactical option at 44k feet means that these planes are going to get drawn up into the stratosphere to effect an intercept. The might do it, they might not. If they don't, then the Patsy's get to try and beat the flak. But even if they do intercept and shoot down all the Patsy, there's a bunch of the fastest Allied fighters up at 44k feet that now need to dive down to 1, 5, 10 or 15k to intercept the next strike aimed at the CVs.

Rinse and repeat that a few times and that's where the real value of the Patsy comes in.

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 140

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/8/2019 12:35:33 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

I tried using kamikazes that fly well above the deathstar CAP's ability to fly, and they were engaged and shot down easily.

You are trying to do it at long range with no other protection....just don't see it working. But, as always, prove me wrong but I guess it will be years before we find out.

Plus, what is the point at drawing the CAP so high at such great range...there is nothing to take advantage of it. You could accomplish the same thing with Randy A kamikaze close in.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 3/8/2019 12:40:56 PM >

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 141

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/8/2019 1:28:45 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I tried using kamikazes that fly well above the deathstar CAP's ability to fly, and they were engaged and shot down easily.

You are trying to do it at long range with no other protection....just don't see it working. But, as always, prove me wrong but I guess it will be years before we find out.

Plus, what is the point at drawing the CAP so high at such great range...there is nothing to take advantage of it. You could accomplish the same thing with Randy A kamikaze close in.

Correction to my previous comments, the patsy flies at 39k. Not that it changes much IMO

It's all feeds in to the hollistic strategy needed to make operations difficult for the Allies in the late war.

The Patsy in the kami role means there needs to be CAP over Allied TF's up to 36 hexes away from Japanese bases.

That then requires the Allies to:
A. Include a CV force with every TF operating in that region, and therefore disperse their potential to concentrate CAP.
B. Concentrate their air assets in over a small number of hexes to maximize protection.

Both options massively increase click-fatigue for Allied players, and it's worth it for that alone.

Option B is currently the Allied meta, and will probably remain so.

The key role of the Patsy is that creates a massive 36 hex wide cirlce where the Allies need to provide CAP in. Within that bubble, Allied CAP needs to accommodate the possibility of strikes flying from anything from 100 to 39,000 ft.

Within the context of dealing with the deathstar specifically, the Patsy is the hidden hammer. You can base Patsy squadrons deep, deep into the rear (well beyond Allied recon) and unleash them safe in the knowledge that the Allied deathstar isn't going to bob out of range very quickly.

If you imagine the scenario of an Allied landing on Kyushu, you can safely base Patsy's as far afield as Manchuria to strike at the Allied carriers, and they'll lend weight to whatever aircraft you're throwing at them from Kyushu, Honshu and elsewhere.

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 142

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/8/2019 4:02:49 PM

Bif1961

Posts: 2014
Joined: 6/26/2008
From: Phenix City, Alabama
Status: offline

MIA = Missing In Anniversary? Try missing an Anniversary then you will really be MIA.

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 143

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/8/2019 5:24:40 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I'm not sure what version of the game data you're looking at. I'm playing stock, the Patsy is 29 (36) hexes range. The G3M3 is 21 (26).

Those extra 8 (10) hexes range matter a great deal IMO, as now there's a substantially greater number of rear-area bases that the Allies need to defend.

I was comparing equivalent bombloads: 2x250. 26 hex G3M vs Patsy 29 hexes. only 3 hex difference.

And night bombing at 44,000 ft, do you actually get any hits? I don't think I would even have to have night CAP on that. I have to send my G3M at night in at ~7-9K to have any effect. And I generally am at only 21 hex range so 50% more bombload.

Seriously, I don't see this. I'll put it on my list for sandbox, but �.

OK, you're not talking about bombing, just kami. So see next below.

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 3/8/2019 5:34:42 PM >

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 144

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/8/2019 5:33:44 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
The Patsy in the kami role means there needs to be CAP over Allied TF's up to 36 hexes away from Japanese bases.

That then requires the Allies to:
A. Include a CV force with every TF operating in that region, and therefore disperse their potential to concentrate CAP.
B. Concentrate their air assets in over a small number of hexes to maximize protection.

Both options massively increase click-fatigue for Allied players, and it's worth it for that alone.

Option B is currently the Allied meta, and will probably remain so.

The key role of the Patsy is that creates a massive 36 hex wide cirlce where the Allies need to provide CAP in. Within that bubble, Allied CAP needs to accommodate the possibility of strikes flying from anything from 100 to 39,000 ft.

Within the context of dealing with the deathstar specifically, the Patsy is the hidden hammer. You can base Patsy squadrons deep, deep into the rear (well beyond Allied recon) and unleash them safe in the knowledge that the Allied deathstar isn't going to bob out of range very quickly.

If you imagine the scenario of an Allied landing on Kyushu, you can safely base Patsy's as far afield as Manchuria to strike at the Allied carriers, and they'll lend weight to whatever aircraft you're throwing at them from Kyushu, Honshu and elsewhere.

OK, in testing night Naval attacks I had two key results:
1. You need high EXP pilots and really good leaders to even launch.
2. Getting them to launch at targets over 10 hex is tough and NOT reliable. Over 15 hex, random, I was never able to get reliable launches. Over 20 hex, rare to launch. Very rare. Like I got it to happen once, and I could not repeat it.

So while your concept I applaud, you will need to share some secrets on how to get it to work because I have not been able.
Night Naval attack with the target within 10 hexes, yeah, barring weather, I can get those to launch and they are effective. Not talking kami here, just a straight Night Naval Attack, G3M, G4m, P1Y, Ki-67 all work really well. B7A can be crushingly effective up to 10 hex.

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 3/8/2019 5:35:39 PM >

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 145

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/8/2019 6:05:05 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

You can't use kamikazes at night.

The Patsy is an interesting bomber, but it isn't a game changer...like the way the Kikka can be. I have sandboxed it, and they can penetrate a 3000 plane CAP from a deathstar. The end game mechanics changes a lot when one 36 plane squadron can get 5-10 hits on fleet carriers.

I think other 400mph+ fighters would stand the best chance of penetrating a 3,000 plane CAP, but they lack the the damage the kikka achieves.

Interestingly enough, the Shinden makes a great kamikaze but will bounce against most warships like all other fighter kamikazes.

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 146

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/9/2019 9:00:45 AM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
The Patsy in the kami role means there needs to be CAP over Allied TF's up to 36 hexes away from Japanese bases.

That then requires the Allies to:
A. Include a CV force with every TF operating in that region, and therefore disperse their potential to concentrate CAP.
B. Concentrate their air assets in over a small number of hexes to maximize protection.

Both options massively increase click-fatigue for Allied players, and it's worth it for that alone.

Option B is currently the Allied meta, and will probably remain so.

The key role of the Patsy is that creates a massive 36 hex wide cirlce where the Allies need to provide CAP in. Within that bubble, Allied CAP needs to accommodate the possibility of strikes flying from anything from 100 to 39,000 ft.

Within the context of dealing with the deathstar specifically, the Patsy is the hidden hammer. You can base Patsy squadrons deep, deep into the rear (well beyond Allied recon) and unleash them safe in the knowledge that the Allied deathstar isn't going to bob out of range very quickly.

If you imagine the scenario of an Allied landing on Kyushu, you can safely base Patsy's as far afield as Manchuria to strike at the Allied carriers, and they'll lend weight to whatever aircraft you're throwing at them from Kyushu, Honshu and elsewhere.

OK, in testing night Naval attacks I had two key results:
1. You need high EXP pilots and really good leaders to even launch.
2. Getting them to launch at targets over 10 hex is tough and NOT reliable. Over 15 hex, random, I was never able to get reliable launches. Over 20 hex, rare to launch. Very rare. Like I got it to happen once, and I could not repeat it.

So while your concept I applaud, you will need to share some secrets on how to get it to work because I have not been able.
Night Naval attack with the target within 10 hexes, yeah, barring weather, I can get those to launch and they are effective. Not talking kami here, just a straight Night Naval Attack, G3M, G4m, P1Y, Ki-67 all work really well. B7A can be crushingly effective up to 10 hex.

I would not use the Patsy against naval targets at night. There are better airframes for that, namely the Frances/Betty/Nell with their torpedoes and radar.

I would use the Patsy against airbases or port attacks at night - large scale nusiance raids against B-29 bases or large Allied ports. The purpose is less for actual tactical success but to bleed CAP off the frontlines. 36 hexes to the rear equates to a lot of bases, and as Patsy has a camera, they can do their own recon. It will keep the Allies honest about dumping ships into port for upgrades/repairs and so on.

With regards to the Patsy against naval targets, it should be used completely in the kami role, in daylight. By the time it rolls around you should have sufficent IJA LB pilots to throw in a few weeks of NavS training so that Patsy's provide thier own search to complement dedicated search assets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You can't use kamikazes at night.

The Patsy is an interesting bomber, but it isn't a game changer...like the way the Kikka can be. I have sandboxed it, and they can penetrate a 3000 plane CAP from a deathstar. The end game mechanics changes a lot when one 36 plane squadron can get 5-10 hits on fleet carriers.

I think other 400mph+ fighters would stand the best chance of penetrating a 3,000 plane CAP, but they lack the the damage the kikka achieves.

Interestingly enough, the Shinden makes a great kamikaze but will bounce against most warships like all other fighter kamikazes.

Have you got a replay (or better yet a turn file) that provides a good example?

Not to imply that I doubt what you're saying, but I'd like to watch the replay for myself to see how the game generates those outcomes.

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 147

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/9/2019 11:49:43 AM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Have you got a replay (or better yet a turn file) that provides a good example?

Sadly no turn file, but I did document it in my AAR vs Tiemanj. I used fighters only that had an altitude higher than the CV fighters of the Americans. I was a tad bit disappointed at the time.

I will look for it as I get the chance.

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 148

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/9/2019 7:19:18 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

...like the way the Kikka can be. I have sandboxed it, and they can penetrate a 3000 plane CAP from a deathstar. The end game mechanics changes a lot when one 36 plane squadron can get 5-10 hits on fleet carriers.
...

I understand the sandbox results (never tested myself), but with the range involved, would it actually work? Do players actually bring the DS within 4 hexes of shore? Just asking here. Against the AI I do, but against a player I don't think I would � have to think about that some more.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 149

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J) - 3/9/2019 10:23:17 PM

DanSez

Posts: 1023
Joined: 2/5/2012
Status: offline

Should the Deathstar be the focus of the attack or disruption/destruction of the invasion fleet?
Have to penetrate the cap, yes.
What is the effect of a kami on a fully loaded transport ship?

My luck would be plowing through a bunch of AMs instead. The game system's 'targeting', like its internal choices for task force leadership is poor to incredulous. Other peeps have noted the targeting for subs (shooting the lesser valued escorts). An inextricable problem I fear.

Throw the dice and pray to the Random God.

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 150

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)