Corsair not a killer but crap??

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: rroberson

Forgive my stupidty. What exactly is the sir robin defense I keep hearing about?

In short, "Run Away! Run Away!!" Basically, as the Allies, retreating as fast as possible to try to save as many units as possible.

The name Sir Robin Defense comes from the character Sir Robin from the movie, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". The character is a cowardly English knight of the Round Table, part of the quest for the Holy Grail. He is followed around by a group of minstrels who happily sing about how "Brave Sir Robin, he ran away".

When the minstrels were eaten during a particularly rough winter, there was much rejoicing.

He's actually Bravely Bold Sir Robin but it's been reduced for brevity's sake.

[Charles2222]

This all boils down to the allied player thinking it unfair the IJ player can super-train his pilots while he cannot (because of pilot rotation if I'm not mistaken). I am a bit shocked that you could pull this off and I too like nurturing my pilots, but I thought GG had an 80 exp. governor on this think like he's had for other games. It must had slipped through the cracks this time.

[Charles2222]

Because nobody knew it could be done. I'm still not convinced it's worth all the supplies it must had cost, but then it seems I had read in the manual that there was an 80exp governor for training, though they must had forgot to implement it, as it was on some of GG's other games. The fix would be to either impose a governor or expand the allied pilot rotation to longer periods, or eliminate it altogether, but the governor seems far better to me. Considering that most of us thought there was a governor, or should be, I basically consider it cheating to do this. Maybe doing it with one fighter group, just to have a band of elites like with Galland with the Germans (just for kicks). but otherwise not very good.

[mlees]

It is a game right? or it is historical simulation? What would American public opinion/politician do for not fighting in the war about a year? Would morale of American/British soldiers would be still high? (i guess you were in Army so you know that the worst thing for soldiers is sitting and doing nothing...)

The first Allied counter offensive came against Guadalcanal. Date: August '42.

9 months of retreat and digging in, retreat, and digging in, retreat, and digging in, in the Pacific.

This offensive occured before Operation Torch, and El Alamain, as well as when Germany was kicking Russian tail in the southern Ukraine/Cacasus.

Morale seemed to be doin ok, because of Doolittle, Midway, Coral Sea.

I think you are confusing current real world effect of 24 hour news driven polling data, compared to the Pearl Harbor generation... They knew it was going to be a long and bloody war. (I suggest that if Americans today had to wake up to images of oil tankers burning off the New Jersey coast every few days, they would have more steel in their backbone then they are perceived to have now.)

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: rroberson

Yes he can, precisely what ale has been doing at noumea and the PI. THere is nothing left there alive. But the base never turns.

Great...., the designers screwed up even worse than I had thought. I honestly didn't think that was possible....

[aletoledo]

an interesting occurance with the battle for Kwajalein happened subsequant to the results of the corairs that was initially described.

Rob assaulted the airfield from two of his, with well over two hundred planes. the first day, he lost horribly (this time it was wildcats and not corsairs), but his bombers damaged the field.

the second day the loses were about equal on both sides and the bombers damaged the field even more.

the third day I had to start withdrawing my planes because 80% of my planes remained damaged on the field and he outnumbered me too much in the air.

this isn't really the first time we've fought this type of battle. everytime, the most I can hold on is about three days. then he closes the base by bombing.

I hate to think how much worse things might have been without the 150 fighters (all 90+ exp) I had trying to stop him. if they were 70s or 8i0s, it would have been a lot easier for him I'm sure. we play a lot of turns every day and I think it will be interesting to see how this plays out, because it doesn't appear that I'm stopping him from closing any airfield he chooses. the only thing I have accomplished so far with 90+ exp pilots is making him pay for what he does take.

[veji1]

From what I get severall major issues need to be adressed to make Air war issues more history like, yet still enjoyable gamewise, Without completely revamping the actual A2A code, some of these might be possible :

- Solve the Winner takes all issue ( related to the second point )
- Make combat less bloody ( not all the planes on each side engage each other )- Nemo made a post on it not long ago that was quite specific.
- Make air combat more costly supply wise.
- Make the difference between single and 2 engines planes on one side and 4 on the other in term of VPs.
- Make repair of damage planes lots longer ( dice roll, 1 to 4 days for single and 2 engines, 2 to 8 days for 4 engines ) I don't have stats but I am sure for that each day of the war an enormous percentage of the planes on the theater were being repaired rather than flying conditions
- Past a certain experience ( 60 ) no gain of experience whatsoever without interaction with ennemy ( whether fighter, Recon, transport, Bomber, no dice roll for experience if the pilot hasn't met ennemy planes or Flak, be it from land or ship ). If this was implementable, transport and many recon or patrol pilots would stay stuck around 60, while bombers an fighters would keep progressing if surviving... Training function in the game would bring pilots to 60, with time, and from them, all experience gain ennemy related...

Many other things I guess, but if this could be adressed somewhat it would be good already.

[Nemo121]

If I might make a suggestion...

Why on earth are you fighting him at a time and place of his choosing in defence of an objective which isn't vital? Sure, you have to lose planes when you resist him BUT you don't have to fight him when he attacks non-decisive targets OR targets you cannot, in the final reckoning, hold.

What I would suggest is that any time you are fighting to "hurt" the Allied airpower you are committing to a fight you shouldn't be having. Let the Allies have aerial supremacy over the battlefield, let them bomb your airfields ( on which there are no fighters or bombers). Only defend the bare minimum you have to in order to launch long-range torpedo-bomber strikes at his fleet and/or provide LRCAP to your surface TF bombardment and invasion fleet intercept efforts.

In short only fight when doing so can help achieve a major operational victory, preferably with a good deal of strategic effect. Yes, even with maximal concentrationyou might only be able to effectively keep an airfield open for three days before having to withdraw your forces BUT if you can, in those 3 days, cover a carrier TF raid, intercept his transports or bombard his landings and then drive his troops back into the sea you will have expended those planes in a far more operationally influential manner than if you expend them in simply trying to keep a doomed airfield open for " a few turns more".


E.g. In my current PBEM the only times I committed to a fights in an effort to attrition Allied airpower have been:
1. A few test runs of Nates vs P-40s and Zeroes vs B-17s just to get a feel for how useful the planes would be in those respective roles.

2. The AVG and British Hurricane IIs over Rangoon. The attrition at that location greatly favoured Japan because I still have the reserves required to replace front-line losses for a few months yet and attriting Allied planes at Rangoon helped my Indian invasion fleets survive when I invaded India 2 weeks later.

Nowhere else has attritional, symmetrical air warfare been accepted. Despite this about 150 Allied four-engined bombers have been downed in just the first three months. I see about 300 four-engined bombers flying daily but their effects are very much limited.


Not a criticism of anyone's play I just find it amazing that Japanese players continually enter into engagements which serve the Allies.

[aletoledo]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

If I might make a suggestion...

Why on earth are you fighting him at a time and place of his choosing in defence of an objective which isn't vital? Sure, you have to lose planes when you resist him BUT you don't have to fight him when he attacks non-decisive targets OR targets you cannot, in the final reckoning, hold.

What I would suggest is that any time you are fighting to "hurt" the Allied airpower you are committing to a fight you shouldn't be having. Let the Allies have aerial supremacy over the battlefield, let them bomb your airfields ( on which there are no fighters or bombers). Only defend the bare minimum you have to in order to launch long-range torpedo-bomber strikes at his fleet and/or provide LRCAP to your surface TF bombardment and invasion fleet intercept efforts.

In short only fight when doing so can help achieve a major operational victory, preferably with a good deal of strategic effect. Yes, even with maximal concentrationyou might only be able to effectively keep an airfield open for three days before having to withdraw your forces BUT if you can, in those 3 days, cover a carrier TF raid, intercept his transports or bombard his landings and then drive his troops back into the sea you will have expended those planes in a far more operationally influential manner than if you expend them in simply trying to keep a doomed airfield open for " a few turns more".


E.g. In my current PBEM the only times I committed to a fights in an effort to attrition Allied airpower have been:
1. A few test runs of Nates vs P-40s and Zeroes vs B-17s just to get a feel for how useful the planes would be in those respective roles.

2. The AVG and British Hurricane IIs over Rangoon. The attrition at that location greatly favoured Japan because I still have the reserves required to replace front-line losses for a few months yet and attriting Allied planes at Rangoon helped my Indian invasion fleets survive when I invaded India 2 weeks later.

Nowhere else has attritional, symmetrical air warfare been accepted. Despite this about 150 Allied four-engined bombers have been downed in just the first three months. I see about 300 four-engined bombers flying daily but their effects are very much limited.


Not a criticism of anyone's play I just find it amazing that Japanese players continually enter into engagements which serve the Allies.

actually in this case it is an extremely strategic target. he's trying to take Kwajalein, which would practically cut off my bases at pago pago and canton island. he was supposed to attack pago pago first then canton island and finally Kwajalein, but somehow he's failing to read the script correctly and is skipping the first two islands.

my point being though, despite having 90s pilots, the allied airpower advantage still wins the day. if I can't benefit greatly from having 90s pilots, then what difference does it make in the end? I spent so much time training them up and the results are just slightly higher allied casulaties thqan historic?

OK, sure lets nerf the training routines and give the allied players the advantage back in pilot experience. otherwise they might not win the war before 1945, which would be ahistoric!

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

If I might make a suggestion...

Why on earth are you fighting him at a time and place of his choosing in defence of an objective which isn't vital? Sure, you have to lose planes when you resist him BUT you don't have to fight him when he attacks non-decisive targets OR targets you cannot, in the final reckoning, hold.

What I would suggest is that any time you are fighting to "hurt" the Allied airpower you are committing to a fight you shouldn't be having. Let the Allies have aerial supremacy over the battlefield, let them bomb your airfields ( on which there are no fighters or bombers). Only defend the bare minimum you have to in order to launch long-range torpedo-bomber strikes at his fleet and/or provide LRCAP to your surface TF bombardment and invasion fleet intercept efforts.

In short only fight when doing so can help achieve a major operational victory, preferably with a good deal of strategic effect. Yes, even with maximal concentrationyou might only be able to effectively keep an airfield open for three days before having to withdraw your forces BUT if you can, in those 3 days, cover a carrier TF raid, intercept his transports or bombard his landings and then drive his troops back into the sea you will have expended those planes in a far more operationally influential manner than if you expend them in simply trying to keep a doomed airfield open for " a few turns more".


E.g. In my current PBEM the only times I committed to a fights in an effort to attrition Allied airpower have been:
1. A few test runs of Nates vs P-40s and Zeroes vs B-17s just to get a feel for how useful the planes would be in those respective roles.

2. The AVG and British Hurricane IIs over Rangoon. The attrition at that location greatly favoured Japan because I still have the reserves required to replace front-line losses for a few months yet and attriting Allied planes at Rangoon helped my Indian invasion fleets survive when I invaded India 2 weeks later.

Nowhere else has attritional, symmetrical air warfare been accepted. Despite this about 150 Allied four-engined bombers have been downed in just the first three months. I see about 300 four-engined bombers flying daily but their effects are very much limited.


Not a criticism of anyone's play I just find it amazing that Japanese players continually enter into engagements which serve the Allies.

actually in this case it is an extremely strategic target. he's trying to take Kwajalein, which would practically cut off my bases at pago pago and canton island. he was supposed to attack pago pago first then canton island and finally Kwajalein, but somehow he's failing to read the script correctly and is skipping the first two islands.

my point being though, despite having 90s pilots, the allied airpower advantage still wins the day. if I can't benefit greatly from having 90s pilots, then what difference does it make in the end? I spent so much time training them up and the results are just slightly higher allied casulaties thqan historic?

OK, sure lets nerf the training routines and give the allied players the advantage back in pilot experience. otherwise they might not win the war before 1945, which would be ahistoric!

Going to have to disagree with you here ale. Its not about nerfing. In our game, I let you run roughshod because I was curious to see how it would play out. If you are training pilots in the homeland. I have no problems seeing hordes of squadrons with 90s plus pilots. The fact is ...this is an exploit. Just like the creative use of PDUs I have seen from players...these are the same players who crow about the allies trying to build fleets of 4Es to pound the Japanese (another exploit). I think the point of most people here is that it needs to be "nerfed" or balanced so both sides can do it. Obviously with the Japanese rolling over so much territory in the intial phases of the game that's not possible.

Now in our game I really don't mind it. I knew what I was in for and was curious to see how this would play out. But the day after I heard about the Mogami training program I knew it was an exploit.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Because nobody knew it could be done. I'm still not convinced it's worth all the supplies it must had cost, but then it seems I had read in the manual that there was an 80exp governor for training, though they must had forgot to implement it, as it was on some of GG's other games. The fix would be to either impose a governor or expand the allied pilot rotation to longer periods, or eliminate it altogether, but the governor seems far better to me. Considering that most of us thought there was a governor, or should be, I basically consider it cheating to do this. Maybe doing it with one fighter group, just to have a band of elites like with Galland with the Germans (just for kicks). but otherwise not very good.

The Training mission tops out at 65. Ale didn't use "Training", he used ground/airfield/port attack missions to build up his experience if i'm understanding correctly. There's no govenor on combat missions in regards to exp gain.

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

i, I've played the Allies a few times. I don't think in a stock scenario the Allies can use 100 B-17 in DEI in Jan 42.

Respawn PI divisions (have you looked at the replacement rate?)

British in Pacific whats wrong with this? Japanese in India? Japanese offensives in China? Japanese invading Oz?

Greetings,

you might be right, but i'm sure that he can use at least 80 B-17 - still too much.

No i did not look at PI replacement rate. My point was, if we want historical simulation we should have SAME RINCIPLE for everything. Ground training to the 90 isn't realistic, i mentioned it before but neither the respawning units from the PI was (including American ones).

Personally i dont see any problem with British in Pacific because i'm playing the game. But don't expect from me that i would agree to "historical/realistic" approach when Japanese needs to be screwed.

If someone raises "historical arguments" i would turn it back with same arguments.

Actually, Japanese was in OZ

http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/japsland/japsland.htm[:D]

Seriously, i do not have anything against historical simulation and i would like that WiTP is real historical simulation.

Is it possible to achive that? I don't know, maybe in WiTP II...

Here is my thoughts:

Air combat is key factor in the game. I think that we can all agree on that. Does it works perfectly? No? What can we do about it?

#1. Lowering experience of the pilots at both sides (as Ron and you proposed)
#2. Tweaking four engine bomber efficiency against naval targets
#3. Longer repair rate for heavies
#4. Limiting ground training
A) max experience gained by ground attack is, lets say 70
B) non combat missions (CAP, supply mission, transport) are limited to 59
C) figthers can not attack empty enemy base
#5. Overstacking - and i mean seriously with overstacking - if you have +1 plane than is allowed per certain AF your planes wont fly AT ALL.
#6. Air support - if you don't have enough air support your planes rapidly gets out of service
#7. victory points - fighters and bombers shouldn't be rated as equal....

This is not complete list, and i do not pretend that is a perfect. But do think that is a good start.

And I would accept only similar (systematic) approach to changes in air combat. I'm just tired to explain people why I'm against one sided approach (hey, air combat doesn't work - we need #4 from the list in 1.9)...


I just want same principle for all issues. Am i asking to much?

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: rroberson

Yes he can, precisely what ale has been doing at noumea and the PI. THere is nothing left there alive. But the base never turns.

That's explains why he have so many groups with 90+.... i never train on empty bases so can't get results as atoledo have...

[Andy Mac]

100 B17's is just possible in Jan 42

There are 3 BG's and 1 Sqn of B17 C's and E's at start but they are all severely under strength at max you can concentrate about 30 - 40 on day +6 at Singapore depending on status of Rabaul/Wake

Pearl/Canton/Rabaul/Darwin/Singapore

or Pearl/Wake/Rabaul/Darwin/Singapore

or Pearl/Vladivostock/Chungking/Rangoon/Singapore (although this route is not allowed in non lunacy games)

A reinforcement full BG turns up on about day 9 of 48 B17's

Add them together after ops losses from rushing forward and damaged planes scattered all over the pacific and it is just about possible with replacements to get up to c 100 ish B17's by early jan but its tough and its all of the B17's on map with only Dutch fighters with the range to escort

[Andy Mac]

#1. Lowering experience of the pilots at both sides (as Ron and you proposed)

Yup I agree

#2. Tweaking four engine bomber efficiency against naval targets

Disagree lower xp and heavier AA damage for heavies should resolve its not accuracy thats the issue its the height they bomb from in game compared to reality and servicability allied with ultra high xp from bombing land units/af's

#3. Longer repair rate for heavies

Agree 2xMedium/Fighter at least (Fighter as higher performance I compare directly with 2E mediums)

#4. Limiting ground training

A) max experience gained by ground attack is, lets say 70
B) non combat missions (CAP, supply mission, transport) are limited to 59
C) figthers can not attack empty enemy base

Agree to all of that

#5. Overstacking - and i mean seriously with overstacking - if you have +1 plane than is allowed per certain AF your planes wont fly AT ALL.

Agree for atoll and 1 hex islands disagree for large land masses able to support more than 1 AF.

Perhaps have a requirement for additional air support. i.e size 5 AF in India can support 250 aircraft with 250 av supp.

Each additional over capacity needs 2 or 3 av support per plane

#6. Air support - if you don't have enough air support your planes rapidly gets out of service

That happens now to me anyway

#7. victory points - fighters and bombers shouldn't be rated as equal....

Yup best answer I ever heard was based on number of engines or crew size

[aletoledo]

ORIGINAL: rroberson

Going to have to disagree with you here ale. Its not about nerfing. In our game, I let you run roughshod because I was curious to see how it would play out. If you are training pilots in the homeland. I have no problems seeing hordes of squadrons with 90s plus pilots. The fact is ...this is an exploit. Just like the creative use of PDUs I have seen from players...these are the same players who crow about the allies trying to build fleets of 4Es to pound the Japanese (another exploit). I think the point of most people here is that it needs to be "nerfed" or balanced so both sides can do it. Obviously with the Japanese rolling over so much territory in the intial phases of the game that's not possible.

Now in our game I really don't mind it. I knew what I was in for and was curious to see how this would play out. But the day after I heard about the Mogami training program I knew it was an exploit.

if what people are saying is that both sides should be able to do it in some fashion I agree, but completely eliminate the chance to highly train a squadron up doesn't sound too appealing to me. from my impression from what everyone is saying is that they expect japanese experience to be equal or less than USA pilots.

I'd simply like a way that I could devote a portion of my squadrons to become ultra-elite. perhaps it would be from training or perhaps just the ability to let me reorganize the individual pilots. Idealling I'd like to have 3-4 elite squadrons to shuffle around the map to assist the regular squadrons.

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

ORIGINAL: rroberson

Going to have to disagree with you here ale. Its not about nerfing. In our game, I let you run roughshod because I was curious to see how it would play out. If you are training pilots in the homeland. I have no problems seeing hordes of squadrons with 90s plus pilots. The fact is ...this is an exploit. Just like the creative use of PDUs I have seen from players...these are the same players who crow about the allies trying to build fleets of 4Es to pound the Japanese (another exploit). I think the point of most people here is that it needs to be "nerfed" or balanced so both sides can do it. Obviously with the Japanese rolling over so much territory in the intial phases of the game that's not possible.

Now in our game I really don't mind it. I knew what I was in for and was curious to see how this would play out. But the day after I heard about the Mogami training program I knew it was an exploit.

if what people are saying is that both sides should be able to do it in some fashion I agree, but completely eliminate the chance to highly train a squadron up doesn't sound too appealing to me. from my impression from what everyone is saying is that they expect japanese experience to be equal or less than USA pilots.

I'd simply like a way that I could devote a portion of my squadrons to become ultra-elite. perhaps it would be from training or perhaps just the ability to let me reorganize the individual pilots. Idealling I'd like to have 3-4 elite squadrons to shuffle around the map to assist the regular squadrons.

Oh I don't disagree at all. The fact is, you are taking the rules/design of the game and using it. I don't have any issue with that.

But what you are looking for is hardly historical (coming from mr ahistorical himself)the japanese simply didn't change thier doctrine to allow for massed elite pilot training like you desire.

I was simply stunned to see the number of 90 plus squadrons you have.

Of course from my point of view, it will make the game far more entertaining .

[Nikademus]

don't worry, you have the July 43 CAP bonus. [;)]

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Because nobody knew it could be done. I'm still not convinced it's worth all the supplies it must had cost, but then it seems I had read in the manual that there was an 80exp governor for training, though they must had forgot to implement it, as it was on some of GG's other games. The fix would be to either impose a governor or expand the allied pilot rotation to longer periods, or eliminate it altogether, but the governor seems far better to me. Considering that most of us thought there was a governor, or should be, I basically consider it cheating to do this. Maybe doing it with one fighter group, just to have a band of elites like with Galland with the Germans (just for kicks). but otherwise not very good.

The Training mission tops out at 65. Ale didn't use "Training", he used ground/airfield/port attack missions to build up his experience if i'm understanding correctly. There's no govenor on combat missions in regards to exp gain.

Yes, I was referring to training governors and it's good to see the number there, but irrespective of the number it's apparent that it's not working. Before he did this, I was thinking the number was 80, so I was successfully getting units in the 70's higher. I always knew the roof on combat missions was 99. No, ale was using "training" missions, as he had forgotten about the unit completely. I suppose once he saw that, then he decided he would expand that advantage through the usual means and use htis new means as well. I think I got that right.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: rroberson

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

ORIGINAL: rroberson

Going to have to disagree with you here ale. Its not about nerfing. In our game, I let you run roughshod because I was curious to see how it would play out. If you are training pilots in the homeland. I have no problems seeing hordes of squadrons with 90s plus pilots. The fact is ...this is an exploit. Just like the creative use of PDUs I have seen from players...these are the same players who crow about the allies trying to build fleets of 4Es to pound the Japanese (another exploit). I think the point of most people here is that it needs to be "nerfed" or balanced so both sides can do it. Obviously with the Japanese rolling over so much territory in the intial phases of the game that's not possible.

Now in our game I really don't mind it. I knew what I was in for and was curious to see how this would play out. But the day after I heard about the Mogami training program I knew it was an exploit.

if what people are saying is that both sides should be able to do it in some fashion I agree, but completely eliminate the chance to highly train a squadron up doesn't sound too appealing to me. from my impression from what everyone is saying is that they expect japanese experience to be equal or less than USA pilots.

I'd simply like a way that I could devote a portion of my squadrons to become ultra-elite. perhaps it would be from training or perhaps just the ability to let me reorganize the individual pilots. Idealling I'd like to have 3-4 elite squadrons to shuffle around the map to assist the regular squadrons.

Oh I don't disagree at all. The fact is, you are taking the rules/design of the game and using it. I don't have any issue with that.

But what you are looking for is hardly historical (coming from mr ahistorical himself)the japanese simply didn't change thier doctrine to allow for massed elite pilot training like you desire.

I was simply stunned to see the number of 90 plus squadrons you have.

Of course from my point of view, it will make the game far more entertaining .

In my view if IJ secures more oil, quicker, and for longer periods of time then the historic counterpart (and who could know that?) then increasing pilot experience should be a reward, as lack of fuel was one of the chief reasons they shortened training programs and so on.
One tell-tale way you could achieve the idea that Ij had done better for longer, for example, would be if the Us didn't go on a massive offensive until '44 and certainly if they more land up till that time. In my view the game should find a way of differentiating between the historic IJ, a better IJ, or a worse IJ. It seems most games the IJ does worse, at least measuring by the US going into great successful offensives yardstick.

Maybe this pilot training to 99 is an accidental stroke of genius within limited confines. For example, I can limit training missions as I believe things are historic to the 65 level, but if I think I'm doing significantly better, the limit might go up to 80, any better, then maybe 90, and so on. In my case I only play the AI, so there's no risk of somebody getting burned by this when I do it. Another thing, as long as this is within the game, do we anticipate the AI IJ will stop training them respecting this sort of house rule? Of course not, and so when I play the allies I may be getting something of a short end of a stick.