What I have Learned as Japanese Player

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231

John 3rd don't worry with stock A2A model even if you will not send anything to Burma, and Japs will decide to land in India in Force you will not be able to hold them... i tryed but droped the game it was hopeless "Death Star" Effect coused all my massed assluts on the Invasion Fleet futile and since i had to cover all the bases on the coast the interior was unguarded so my opponent used Paras to land bechind my lines and cut off my supply[:@][:@] any way with stock A2A if Japanese player decides to attack some area (probably execpt West Coast) he can be sure to capture it as he will surly have air dominance over the target area as you will not be able to do anything about that[:@]

Yeah, the stock a2a moddle is hopeless. That's a lot why people are using Nik's mod, and that was also what motivated me to do a mod - I just couldn't take a game with so much potential, but with combat results from a bad 'Hollywood' movie.

But there is a problem with the latest version of Nik´s mod. The durability of fighters and fighter bombers being FAR TOO HIGH. It´s not possible to maintain a decent CAP. The Allied player experiences this for the first year (when he´s on the defense) and the Japanese player is experiencing this for the rest of the war.

If you put your fighters on more than 50% CAP then 70-80% of them are damaged after a few turns. [8|] Let me tell you an example I just had against Przemcio: 190 Japanese fighters at Akyab. I was only able to maintain a 40% CAP (more CAP and my fighters would all become damaged even though there is 300 air support). After reconning Prz know that there are only a couple of fighters in the air and he decided to sweep and bomb it. Result: sweep with 150 planes against 44!!!!![:@] fighters in the air (190 available!!!). Being heavily outnumbered my fighters didn´t have much of a chance. In the afternoon there came the bombers of course and torched the airfield destroying more fighters on the ground...

In stock I would put thoses 190 fighters on 90% CAP and my opponent would have a hell of a hard time against experienced pilots. In my case most of the attacking fighters were just damaged (in stock I would have had more planes in the air and more kills - not damaged planes).

So this is a problem. Of course it´s now only a problem of the Japanese because as the Allied player it´s enough to maintain a 30% CAP and the radar will bring up the rest of the fighters. Not to talk about the fact that the Japanese player is on the defense 98% of the time after 42. As it stands now I have to think about what will happen the next one and a half year. I can take the losses in stock and somehow I accepted them during the years. I don´t know if I can accept them in the mod when my fighters don´t even take off and you can defend major airfields with only 50 fighters on CAP. This coupled with the fact that 4E bombers are nearly immune to attacks this will lead to an even more bloody and out of '!"$)$ game....

All I can say is that Nik mod version around 5 was far better and everyone trying 8.0 should know what will happen starting late 42. So at the moment I´m feeling also more like a tester than a player and it would be a pity if I decide to tell my opponent that I can´t play on because of this issue in a couple of months game time. I´m now in 3/43 playing the mod and the latest stock game I´m playing is in 8/44 (both me playing the Japanese). Both games are producing "strange" results. In stock the same things PzB is experiencing (uber Cap, no leakers, bloody A2A); in Niks mod a less bloody A2A but no chance to bring the planes even in the air in decent numbers and the planes all get killed on the ground...

[Nikademus]

can you send me a save regarding this? (with passwords///both sides if PBEM)

I'm assuming you to mean that this "70-80%" occurs without combat?

thx

lansoar@hotmail.com

[Widell]

ORIGINAL: Riva Ridge

Relatively newer player compared to folks here and am in two PBMs, one Japanese and one Allied against good players. Here is what I have learned as a Japanese Player in the early war months...

.......

Anyrate, these points I believe are important and I state them because I violated near everyone of these and learned them the hard way. I wish I had known these going into my first games. I think I will be better opponent my next PBM by having failed miserably and learning these lessons.

C

I simply had to add this to the infamous Wiki, as it was among the best advice I have seen in a while.... Link to content is here. Feel free to add stuff as usual (although no one ever bothers to do so [;)])

[Nemo121]

Tullius,
 
Well all I have to go on are my own tests. I've run upwards of 4 or 6 million sorties in 42, 43, 44 and 45 testing the air to air model, the intercept model, bombing results etc etc. Hell, I ran over 300,000 sorties just to test the effects of RHS on the port attack model nevermind the air to air model.
 
I've run a lot of air to air combats using the editor to match up the various planes and, from what I know of the Pacific War, I found the air to air model held up extremely well. I also have run enough turns to know that the durability issue being discussed herein isn't, IMO, a factor.
 
Obviously opinions can differ etc but 4 to 6 million sorties run under various conditions using planes from various periods during the war is a good frame of reference. Obviously I understand others won't be convinced until they try RHS. All I can say is that I was and probably continue to be one of the most trenchant critics of RHS I( and refuse to play using supply sinks as I feel they are deeply flawed ) but that the air to air model has validity. I may be wrong but it is, at least, an honestly held opinion.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

can you send me a save regarding this? (with passwords///both sides if PBEM)

I'm assuming you to mean that this "70-80%" occurs without combat?

thx

lansoar@hotmail.com

I´ll tell Przemcio to send his turn to you and I´ll send you mine!

Thanks

[TulliusDetritus]

Nemo, I truly hope you are 100% right and this air model is excellent. Ok, millions of sorties, but isn't El Cid Again adding new toys constantly -- understable, the mod is after all experimental: the flak, the radar thing, etc.? Can't these new changes alter somehow the situation? The job is indeed impressive. Nobody can refute this [:)]

P.S.:
yes, I remember you "hate" the supply sinks. Respectable. To each his/her own taste, indeed [8D]

[Nemo121]

Tullius,
 
Well, any new units added won't change the fundamental issues tested which focused on the major changes ( gun vs cannon-armed planes, % leakers under various conditions, how PGMs work etc). So, I think they'll hold up. My advice is to try it out for yourself.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Tullius,

Well all I have to go on are my own tests. I've run upwards of 4 or 6 million sorties in 42, 43, 44 and 45 testing the air to air model, the intercept model, bombing results etc etc. Hell, I ran over 300,000 sorties just to test the effects of RHS on the port attack model nevermind the air to air model.

I've run a lot of air to air combats using the editor to match up the various planes and, from what I know of the Pacific War, I found the air to air model held up extremely well. I also have run enough turns to know that the durability issue being discussed herein isn't, IMO, a factor.

Obviously opinions can differ etc but 4 to 6 million sorties run under various conditions using planes from various periods during the war is a good frame of reference. Obviously I understand others won't be convinced until they try RHS. All I can say is that I was and probably continue to be one of the most trenchant critics of RHS I( and refuse to play using supply sinks as I feel they are deeply flawed ) but that the air to air model has validity. I may be wrong but it is, at least, an honestly held opinion.

This made me remember air combat testing done by Nicholas Bell last fall.

Here are links to the results of RHS:
tm.asp?m=1239881&mpage=1&key=��

and the B Mod:
tm.asp?m=1246591

An interesting comparison - unfortunately I found no such test of the Nik Mod, and we all know what Stock looks like.

Demo

[Nemo121]

Well two things:
 
1. The tests were flawed because they featured 99 Exp pilots who are demonstrably more lethal than the more normal 60 to 80 Exp pilots we actually see in-game ( my tests were all run with 80 Exp pilots on both sides so as to more closely resemble in-game conditions and to remove any bias due to experience.
 
2. The current RHS air model has been heavily revised from that time.
 
I really don't think that the test linked to are representative for those two reasons. If you want to get a sense for RHS have a look at the Empires Ablaze and Chumming the Water mods. They both feature a slightly modified RHS air model ( instead of making all aircraft weapons have a range of 1 I gave MGs a range of 1, cannons up to 30mm a range of 2 and cannons of more than 30mm a range of 3). Apart from that everything else is the same.
 
The main conclusions I've drawn are that Nates and Oscars are now quite useful over China, Oscars can fight Buffalos and DEI fighters well but fare poorly against Hurris, P40s etc and that Zeroes are extremely useful in A2A combat but far from unbeatable - the I-16 Type 24s and Yak 1s, for example, easily defeat Zeroes with similar numbers and experience ( in fact the Yaks really slaughter them). In addition P-40Es are equal to the Zero if both have equal experience and numbers.
 
In terms of bombers the main thing is that almost no matter how many fighters one surrounds one's carriers with some bombers will almost always get through. They are very badly disrupted and don't often hit but they do tend to get through. This is so even with 100 fighters on CAP in these games... and in my testing if one loads the attack with enough fighters ( even if only of poor quality) you can get a lot of the bombers through as the defending fighters "use up" their smaller number of firing passes in RHS on the fighters such that very few are left over with which to attack the bombers by the time they break through to them.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well two things:

1. The tests were flawed because they featured 99 Exp pilots who are demonstrably more lethal than the more normal 60 to 80 Exp pilots we actually see in-game ( my tests were all run with 80 Exp pilots on both sides so as to more closely resemble in-game conditions and to remove any bias due to experience.

2. The current RHS air model has been heavily revised from that time.

I really don't think that the test linked to are representative for those two reasons. If you want to get a sense for RHS have a look at the Empires Ablaze and Chumming the Water mods. They both feature a slightly modified RHS air model ( instead of making all aircraft weapons have a range of 1 I gave MGs a range of 1, cannons up to 30mm a range of 2 and cannons of more than 30mm a range of 3). Apart from that everything else is the same.

The main conclusions I've drawn are that Nates and Oscars are now quite useful over China, Oscars can fight Buffalos and DEI fighters well but fare poorly against Hurris, P40s etc and that Zeroes are extremely useful in A2A combat but far from unbeatable - the I-16 Type 24s and Yak 1s, for example, easily defeat Zeroes with similar numbers and experience ( in fact the Yaks really slaughter them). In addition P-40Es are equal to the Zero if both have equal experience and numbers.

In terms of bombers the main thing is that almost no matter how many fighters one surrounds one's carriers with some bombers will almost always get through. They are very badly disrupted and don't often hit but they do tend to get through. This is so even with 100 fighters on CAP in these games... and in my testing if one loads the attack with enough fighters ( even if only of poor quality) you can get a lot of the bombers through as the defending fighters "use up" their smaller number of firing passes in RHS on the fighters such that very few are left over with which to attack the bombers by the time they break through to them.

Actually he states that he ran the tests with aircrews at 75 Exp and Moral, and 50% CAP.

Also, I have read the Empires Ablaze and Chumming the Water AAR, and the results look good.

Personally, not to throw mud, but I think both of their results and AARs Ive seen of those two mods, look better than the Nik Mod from spot checking. I think the Nik Mod's losses are actually too low. IMHO anyway.

EDIT: I stand corrected - he does state that RHS test was done at 99 exp

[Riva Ridge]

Thanks Widell for adding me to the Wiki.  I just hope that I learned by lessons sufficiently so I can kick ass and take names in my new PBM.  As far as the models, I use CHS so that definintely has had an effect on my PBMs to date as Allied and Japanese (the roads on Andy Browns map are tough going).  As Japanese, I always wind up in a slog fest around Moulmein because I just cannot get troops up there fast enough and the ones that I did severely hurt my Singapore drive.  I could amass enough forces to push through to Rangoon, but I certainly could not go farther.  The additions of the 33rd and the 2nd Guards Division on the drive to Singapore IMHO makes a DRAMATIC difference in taking Singapore.  They won't arrive in time for the addition push off the Khota Baru and/or Kuntuan beachheads, but they arrive at Malaya just in time to assist in breaking whatever line of resistance that is thrown up as long as there is some artillery/armor/engineers in support.  On the opposite side, playing against a very aggressive and competent Allied Player, I was able to get the before stated forces into Burma by the 1st week of January.  I lost probably a dozen transports and a number of ships damaged but I was able to do it.  I will deal with the India problem if it comes up. 
 
I am pretty convinced that if you do everything right and Singapore is your only focus in SE Asia, than you will have Singapore by late January/early Feburary and by mid March, you will be capable of throwing a reasonably large force into Burma, supported by naval aviation, amphibious assault, paratroops, and armor/artillery/engineers that will allow you to deliver a more devastating and sustainable drive into Burma.  This next game will be my way to test my conviction on this matter.
 
Regards,
 
C

[Przemcio231]

Nik you can PM me your e-mail and i will send you my turn... Well my dear Caster in Stock my Planes would Butcher your's as i got Corsairs/Lightining's + lot's of Fodder and the only difference would be that your planes would be downed in the Air[:D][:D][:D] It's Pay Back Time[:D][:D]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231

Nik you can PM me your e-mail and i will send you my turn... Well my dear Caster in Stock my Planes would Butcher your's as i got Corsairs/Lightining's + lot's of Fodder and the only difference would be that your planes would be downed in the Air[:D][:D][:D] It's Pay Back Time[:D][:D]

[:D] well, actually not! I´ve got enough stock experience that I can tell you that 80+ exp. pilots in Tojos, Tonies, Franks, Georges and Jacks are performing very good. Over my own bases they take on everything easily (at least 1:1 kill rates with many of my pilots safed) and the Corsair is achieving a 2:1 at best.

So the raid we had (70 P38, 70 P40 and 20 F4U against 44 Tojos on cap, 190 Tojos stationed there) was in our game under nik 8.0 a slaughter because you got such a huge numerical advantage, I didn´t have the bounce and 40+ of your fighters were just damaged (in stock they would have been kills). I lost all in the air and the same number on the ground in the afternoon. You lost perhaps 25 planes, many damaged. With the same number of planes in the air I would have killed 40+ fighters more because the damaged would be kills, so even with the small number I would have killed more planes in a2a than you.

But in stock I would have had 160 Tojos in the air and would have shot down 100+ of your fighters (with their poor pilots between 50 and 70), loosing probably 70 fighters myself. And the incoming bomber raid in the afternoon would have met still 60 fighters on cap. Of course this does only work if I can send high experienced pilots into the fight but as it is at the moment ALL my fighters are high experienced in our game. I´m sorry to say but I don´t know how this will go on if I can only bring up 50-70 fighters on cap above my major bases no matter how many fighters I pump in them (and we have a stacking rule). There´s no sense in stacking 450 fighters in one place, just to bring up 100 fighters on cap.

[kkoovvoo]

Guys, i like the fact that planes are damaged when heavily used. Its not real to maintain heavy CAP every day over the base.
 
I also play Niks mod (modified with durabily decreased by 20 %) and face the same problem - planes are damaged when CAP is set too high. You can set up traps - you move fighters in and set them on heavy CAP if you expect enemy raid. But if the trap fails, you cant maintain such heavy CAP for more than day or two and you have to withdraw your fighters from base or lower the CAP if you want to prevent situation when 3/4 of your planes sit on runway damaged.
 
The problem is castor that you want have majority of your fighters in the air or alertfor too long period - you should give up this idea in Niks mod.

[Przemcio231]

No kkoovvoo it happens to CV based Fighters Too... when i set lets say 72 Plane P-40 Group on 80% CAP around 25% of planes are damaged after the 1st day of Flying[:@] The worst thing is with CV based CAP i send my CV's to ambush Caster's CV's raiding my Shipping since i had to keep up CAP all the time around 70% as i got limited inteligence on his whereabouts the day when strike happend few Plane's defended my Fleet lucky for me those brit CV's are tought and they survived[:D]

[kkoovvoo]

And if you set CAP to 30 percent? You have decent radar so you should get more fighters in the air to invite incoming strike. And number of damaged planes will stay in acceptable numbers.
 
 

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: kkoovvoo

Guys, i like the fact that planes are damaged when heavily used. Its not real to maintain heavy CAP every day over the base.

I also play Niks mod (modified with durabily decreased by 20 %) and face the same problem - planes are damaged when CAP is set too high. You can set up traps - you move fighters in and set them on heavy CAP if you expect enemy raid. But if the trap fails, you cant maintain such heavy CAP for more than day or two and you have to withdraw your fighters from base or lower the CAP if you want to prevent situation when 3/4 of your planes sit on runway damaged.

The problem is castor that you want have majority of your fighters in the air or alertfor too long period - you should give up this idea in Niks mod.

I know I have to give this idea up in niks mod. The problem is that this ruins the game I think. No, or nearly no cap means that the attacker is in a such good position that it´s not worth playing at all. And to set traps... well, tell me how I should do that as the Japanese when my Allied opponent sees a big dark sign the same turn the fighters are sent in (THIS IS KNOWN LONG ENOUGH TO BE CHANGED). Though I know there´s some mod around that fixes this.

As I said, it´s just a bit of a strange play if you have no cap over any of your bases (and therefore no other planes there because they would get torched - if no cap). The attacker, no matter what side can easily wait and come in force. And traps just don´t work good enough to keep them up the whole game. It´s disappointing for both players and for me it´s a big problem I haven´t realized quickly enough. Not enough cap over bases, not enough cap over carriers.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: kkoovvoo

And if you set CAP to 30 percent? You have decent radar so you should get more fighters in the air to invite incoming strike. And number of damaged planes will stay in acceptable numbers.

Of course this is fine for the Allied player. Bad for the Japanese as Japanese radar is broken.... So this will even more loopside the effects... [8|]

[kkoovvoo]

But only Type 13 radar (land) is broken...IIRC you have only to change its penetration value to 500 and it works. Each of us can do it. Ship-based radars should work.

I am keeping aircrafts in each of front airfields (at least recons) to prevent uncovering of aircrafts transfers for my opponent. For example I had recon planes in Akyab and I managed to moved in 3 daitais of Tojos and Tonys in and Sweep Chittatong (I shot down 8 and lost 5 planes) unnoticed.

I try to keep bigger concentrations of aircrafts out of range of short-range fighters (i.e. 6 hexes or more distant from nearest enemy base). I am not telling it is safe - i had fierce battles over Rabaul and lost many planes but also destroyed around 80 P38Gs in a month - it will take my opponent 3 months to replace losses and Rabaul wasnt attacked since then. In september (i am in late july 43 now) P38J with replacement rate 90/month will appear so maybe I wont be able to maintain this tactic - but so far it works.

It makes no sense to have 10-20 planes CAP over the front bases - as often mentioned "who tries to defend everything defends nothing". AA fire is improved so take advantage of it.

EDIT:
What I want to say is that despite Allies have superiority in the air, I feel far from helpless as Japanese player.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: kkoovvoo

But only Type 13 radar (land) is broken...IIRC you have only to change its penetration value to 500 and it works. Each of us can do it. Ship-based radars should work.

I am keeping aircrafts in each of front airfields (at least recons) to prevent uncovering of aircrafts transfers for my opponent. For example I had recon planes in Akyab and I managed to moved in 3 daitais of Tojos and Tonys in and Sweep Chittatong (I shot down 8 and lost 5 planes) unnoticed.

I try to keep bigger concentrations of aircrafts out of range of short-range fighters (i.e. 6 hexes or more distant from nearest enemy base). I am not telling it is safe - i had fierce battles over Rabaul and lost many planes but also destroyed around 80 P38Gs in a month - it will take my opponent 3 months to replace losses and Rabaul wasnt attacked since then. In september (i am in late july 43 now) P38J with replacement rate 90/month will appear so maybe I wont be able to maintain this tactic - but so far it works.

It makes no sense to have 10-20 planes CAP over the front bases - as often mentioned "who tries to defend everything defends nothing". AA fire is improved so take advantage of it.

EDIT:
What I want to say is that despite Allies have superiority in the air, I feel far from helpless as Japanese player.

I can tell the difference between a single recon or three daitais of fighters with ease when looking at the airfield sign. And besides that I would recon the target anyway before sending in any bombers. Those traps don´t work with me nor with my opponents. From the moment the Allied player takes one base in the Solomons, New Guinea, Borneo or another big island with lots of bases it would mean I have to give it up completely because the distances are just too short to not have hordes of short legged fighters everywhere. I´m not complaining about losing planes or losing the war (which is unevitable anyway as the Japanese - and I´m playing the Allied also), for me, it´s a problem not to be able to defend major bases. I´m not talking about small size 2 airfields, I´m talking about places like Rabaul, Truk, Tarawa, Rangoon,.... I have to fight for those places - and I know I will lose them, but I should inflict damage to my opponent, which isn´t possible with a trap tactic nor with damaged planes because of flying cap without engaging in a fight...