Modeling of Carrier Battles

[Nikademus]

That sounded teasing. [:)]

I should add that I'm at work at the moment. I can post the exact numbers tonight. (Believe I did this a few months earlier here too)

Basically your looking at around a half dozen or less total USN planes shot down by IJN flak when combining all four carrier battles. In other words, they got very few. USN flak kills were initially little better. (Lundstrom described USN Coral Sea flak preformance as abysmal) But unlike the IJN example, it got progressively better and more intense with each subsequent action. Santa Cruz, going by memory scored roughly around 24 AA kills directly. (with more damaged) The psychological impact of having to fight/operate through such an experience was telling on the Japanese airmen.

[Ron Saueracker]

Happy Holidays Steve. How are you?

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


Ahhh...the scale issue. With the use of such generalizations as hexes and rigid time pulses (especially with air and naval movement being totally seperate phases, should an operational game have included such tactical game elements such as exact ranges of aircraft, Japanese strike coordination benefits yet not include CV launch/recovery rates, coordinated strike range penalties and non coordinated strike range bonuses and Allied CAP direction team bonuses? What is needed is to either include all tactical details into the operational scope of the game's mechanics to allow for more historical results or remove the few that exist which lead to ahistorical results.

A question that ranks right up there with "Why are we here"!
[:D]

Well, I started playing something called War In The Pacific, in about 1978 IIRC. The scale was 60 mile hexes, 2.33 day turns and individual ships, at least at the CV/CVL/CVE/BB/BC/CA/CL level. So, very similar at the high level.
Airpoints were modeled at 10:1 .. so one airpoint equalled 10 planes. But each major plane type was individualized, So Akagi, might have 3xA6m2, 2xD3Y and 3xB5N. And the ranges, attack strengths, defense strengths etc. were all individualized.

One of the strengths and weaknesses of that game and this one (WITP by 2b3/Matrix) is the multi-level aspect. I bet being able to be King and Nimitz on the one hand while also being able to command a minesweeper TF or manage the training of a fighter squadron, is one of the reasons many of us are here. This "multi-level" aspect of the game of one of the things that make it truly unique. Of course, life is full of trade-offs.

For ground units, the problem is that we have daily turns (well most players do) yet in the game it can take weeks to move one hex. So the "decision/effect" cycle is not ideal. For carrier vs carrier combat, we seem to have some control over decisions that might be made in cycles of like 4 hours or 8 hours (what planes to launch with at what altitude and range) yet we have to make them for a 24 (or even 48) hour period.

But, I've been living with this problem for about 30 years now - it was in the original WITP - it is still there. If I really want to play Flattop or CV, I've got 5 copies of flattop and 2 copies of CV, so I can wip those out and play them. For WITP, I have to compromise and live with some abstractions at least as things stand now.

For WITP_II, I suspect we might be able to have a variable "tactical" cycle with perhaps 2 hour, 4 hour, 6 hour or 8 hour options. But for WITP and for AE, we will have to live with the 12 hour naval phase and the 12 hour (pseudo 8 hour) air phase(s).

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Happy Holidays Steve. How are you?

Older.....but wiser (in some areas at least). Quarter break is always a fun time. Allows for more beer and time spent on my lil aircraft losses day to day project.

How's the weather in Greece?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


Ahhh...the scale issue. With the use of such generalizations as hexes and rigid time pulses (especially with air and naval movement being totally seperate phases, should an operational game have included such tactical game elements such as exact ranges of aircraft, Japanese strike coordination benefits yet not include CV launch/recovery rates, coordinated strike range penalties and non coordinated strike range bonuses and Allied CAP direction team bonuses? What is needed is to either include all tactical details into the operational scope of the game's mechanics to allow for more historical results or remove the few that exist which lead to ahistorical results.

A question that ranks right up there with "Why are we here"!
[:D]

Well, I started playing something called War In The Pacific, in about 1978 IIRC. The scale was 60 mile hexes, 2.33 day turns and individual ships, at least at the CV/CVL/CVE/BB/BC/CA/CL level. So, very similar at the high level.
Airpoints were modeled at 10:1 .. so one airpoint equalled 10 planes. But each major plane type was individualized, So Akagi, might have 3xA6m2, 2xD3Y and 3xB5N. And the ranges, attack strengths, defense strengths etc. were all individualized.

One of the strengths and weaknesses of that game and this one (WITP by 2b3/Matrix) is the multi-level aspect. I bet being able to be King and Nimitz on the one hand while also being able to command a minesweeper TF or manage the training of a fighter squadron, is one of the reasons many of us are here. This "multi-level" aspect of the game of one of the things that make it truly unique. Of course, life is full of trade-offs.

For ground units, the problem is that we have daily turns (well most players do) yet in the game it can take weeks to move one hex. So the "decision/effect" cycle is not ideal. For carrier vs carrier combat, we seem to have some control over decisions that might be made in cycles of like 4 hours or 8 hours (what planes to launch with at what altitude and range) yet we have to make them for a 24 (or even 48) hour period.

But, I've been living with this problem for about 30 years now - it was in the original WITP - it is still there. If I really want to play Flattop or CV, I've got 5 copies of flattop and 2 copies of CV, so I can wip those out and play them. For WITP, I have to compromise and live with some abstractions at least as things stand now.

For WITP_II, I suspect we might be able to have a variable "tactical" cycle with perhaps 2 hour, 4 hour, 6 hour or 8 hour options. But for WITP and for AE, we will have to live with the 12 hour naval phase and the 12 hour (pseudo 8 hour) air phase(s).

OK. But is there any way to simply add range penalties for coordinated strikes (the larger the strike the shorter the range), range bonuses for uncoordinated strikes (to ensure that CVs with shorter range a/c have a much higher chance of getting off a strike within the limits of the games operational scale), enhanced Allied CAP to reflect fighter direction, and reduced Japanese flak in CV TFs to reflect the two differrent CV TF defensive doctrines to level the playing field?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Happy Holidays Steve. How are you?

Older.....but wiser (in some areas at least). Quarter break is always a fun time. Allows for more beer and time spent on my lil aircraft losses day to day project.

How's the weather in Greece?

Good to hear! I'm older and more mellowed! That was a needed change.[;)] Wiser is questionable.[:D]

The weather in Greece is awesome...the island I've been on had an avg 40C temps from May to November with no rain but the winter months are almost all rain and 10-20C. I'm in Ottawa for a 6 week visit and am enjoying[8|] the highest snowfall sine 1947!

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

OK. But is there any way to simply add range penalties for coordinated strikes (the larger the strike the shorter the range), range bonuses for uncoordinated strikes (to ensure that CVs with shorter range a/c have a much higher chance of getting off a strike within the limits of the games operational scale), enhanced Allied CAP to reflect fighter direction, and reduced Japanese flak in CV TFs to reflect the two differrent CV TF defensive doctrines to level the playing field?

First, let me analyse what you are saying here, to align it with my list of 11 factors http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1657775

So I think you are really focusing on two areas:

(1) & (2) Strike Coordination, Strike Cycle Times and Strike Range

(8) & (9) Flak and CAP.

Regarding the second one, I think Nik will post some data for us, basically showing us the flak and cap losses inflicted by the IJN and USN over the four 1942 carrier battles, so that should help us decide if there is a different in 1942 that needs to be represented. If so, then we can consider mechanisms to implement. For 1943 and beyond, there is already some "Allied CAP" enhancement code, that might cover a CAP increase there and there also might already be some Allied flak enhancement code, I'll have to check on that. I know I've seen the CAP code, I do think I've looked for the flak code.

Regarding the first one. Let's discuss further. Can you come up with a nice simple, maybe 2-3 part proposal that would implement the idea? I've got some ideas myself, but if your brain works faster than mine feel free to post away!

[m10bob]

I see Ron bringing some excellent points to this thread. Indeed, if the game did not include certain "tactical" elements, it would just be another AXIS AND ALLIES, and I would not be here, 'fer sure.
The designers have recently been accused(in this thread) of not having tactics as an important consideration,(or close), but if this were true Matrix would not have touted the fact the elements included groups as small as squads, nor the minuscule mosquito boats, etc.

I consider TITANS OF THE SEAS somewhat of a "bible" of WWII carrier tactics and evolution in the Pacific war, and the authors make it clear distance was a very important factor during carrier vs carrier battles.
During Operation Forager, 216 American planes spotted and actually attacked the Japanese flattops and at battles end, only 3 ships were sunk with several damaged.
IMHO the MANY elements of carrier battle idiosyncrasies which this one book illustrate in text should be a must read by anybody wanting to improve this already excellent game.

In the epilogue of the book, the authors state the dive bomber had become obsolete for both sides as the F6F proved it could carry bombs at a greater range and with equal accuracy, as the Curtiss SB2c Helldiver, and the Japanese discovered the same of their A6m2 (which by 1944 was a true "fighter-bomber".
The authors wonder why the F6F was not used earlier on glide-bombing missions as it's speed (like that of the A6m5) allowed it to get in close and contravene enemy flak ...

Since AE allows more types of experience level, entire avenues are opened to replace those past "bonus's", (which IMHO had good intent, but were so controversial.

[jwilkerson]

I guess just re-stating what I was hoping to do with this thread:

(a) Discuss those 11 factors I keep throwing out, from three perspectives
a.1 - Theoretical advantages/disadvantages
a.2 - Observed advatages/disadvantages
a.3 - Modeling in the game

(b) Prioritize perceived gaps and proposed solutions for possible future inclusion. If we come up with something really easy maybe it can still get in initial release, otherwise maybe patch.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

A while back I tried to come up with a list of "factors" which would influence carrier battles. Actually, I think there was more than one version of that list, but here is at least one version to kick things off.

(1) Idea that multiple carriers constitute an “air group”
(2) Aircraft handling facilities and practices (such as ability to bring ordnance to the flight deck)
(3) Light Landing System
(4) Air Search
(5) Damage Control (both designed in DC as well as “as practiced”
(6) Air frames (for example, in early ’42 we have A6M2, D3Y, B5N versus F4F, SDB, TBD)
(7) Air Crew Skills
(8) Shipboard and Fleet anti-aircraft
(9) CAP control
(10) Air Ordnance
(11) Strike Targeting (1-Pre-strike-targeting 2-Base-to-target-strike-navigation 3-tactical-over-the-enemy-fleet-targeting)




Also note that the "scope of discussion" should be specified. We could be discussing:

(a) General capabilities, within a particular timeframe (such as early 1942, all of 1942, the entire war, etc.)
(b) Specific examples (such as the four carrier battles of 1942).
(c) Game capabilities

JW, for what it is worth, my mention of the book is not off topic as every one of your points are discussed in detail, in this book.[:)]
I think your list is excellent.

[jwilkerson]

Oh, I think all your comments are on topic!

[spence]

Regarding the second one, I think Nik will post some data for us, basically showing us the flak and cap losses inflicted by the IJN and USN over the four 1942 carrier battles, so that should help us decide if there is a different in 1942 that needs to be represented. If so, then we can consider mechanisms to implement. For 1943 and beyond, there is already some "Allied CAP" enhancement code, that might cover a CAP increase there and there also might already be some Allied flak enhancement code, I'll have to check on that. I know I've seen the CAP code, I do think I've looked for the flak code.

Regarding the first one. Let's discuss further. Can you come up with a nice simple, maybe 2-3 part proposal that would implement the idea? I've got some ideas myself, but if your brain works faster than mine feel free to post away!

With regards to flak effectiveness I read that there was a "proximity fuze bonus" in WitP which applies to Allied flak starting some time in early 1943.

I recall a statement in "Shattered Sword" something along the line of Japanese flak from the KB claimed exactly 2 planes shot down on June 4, 1942. But Flak from both sides was sufficiently effective that a fairly substantial number of planes were put out of action
at least temporarily.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: spence

With regards to flak effectiveness I read that there was a "proximity fuze bonus" in WitP which applies to Allied flak starting some time in early 1943.

I recall a statement in "Shattered Sword" something along the line of Japanese flak from the KB claimed exactly 2 planes shot down on June 4, 1942. But Flak from both sides was sufficiently effective that a fairly substantial number of planes were put out of action
at least temporarily.

Yeah, I've heard about the Allied flak bonus too - just need to go hunt it down and see exactly how it works.

[Nikademus]

Ok. here's the AA breakdown:

Coral Sea

Over Shoho:

zip

Over Shok and Zuik

1 x SBD

Failed Dusk attack near USN TF 5/7/42

1 x D3A

Over Lex and York

2 x B5N
1 x D3A

Over Neosho and Simms

1 x D3A

Midway

Over Kido Butai

1 x A6M (friendly fire)
possibly 1 x B-26
1 x SBD

Over Tanikaze

1 x SBD

Over Mikuma/Mogami

2 x SBD

Over Yorktown

2 x D3A
2 x B5N

Eastern Solomons

Over Ryujo

zip

Over Enterprise

1 x F4F (friendly fire)
4 x D3A

(no B5N's attacked)

Santa Cruz

Over Shok and Chukuma

possibly 1 x SBD (Lundstrom is unclear here)

Over USN TF's

14 x D3A
11 x B5N

These figures represent immediate losses directly attributed to AA. They do not include damaged planes that ditched or were written off. It should also be noted that AA may have contributed in the loss of some Japanese bombers scored by USN fighters.


edited 12/29/07 corrected Eastern Solomon figure

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Ok. here's the AA breakdown:

Coral Sea

Over Shoho:

zip

Over Shok and Zuik

1 x SBD

Failed Dusk attack near USN TF 5/7/42

1 x D3A

Over Lex and York

2 x B5N
1 x D3A

Over Neosho and Simms

1 x D3A

Midway

Over Kido Butai

1 x A6M (friendly fire)
possibly 1 x B-26
1 x SBD

Over Tanikaze

1 x SBD

Over Mikuma/Mogami

2 x SBD

Over Yorktown

2 x D3A
2 x B5N

Eastern Solomons

Over Ryujo

zip

Over Enterprise

1 x F4F (friendly fire)
2 x D3A

(no B5N's attacked)

Santa Cruz

Over Shok and Chukuma

possibly 1 x SBD (Lundstrom is unclear here)

Over USN TF's

14 x D3A
11 x B5N

These figures represent immediate losses directly attributed to AA. They do not include damaged planes that ditched or were written off. It should also be noted that AA may have contributed in the loss of some Japanese bombers scored by USN fighters.

Cool, thanks Nik!


Ok, so looks like there is a quantum leap for Santa Cruz. Next question for the master, is why?

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


Cool, thanks Nik!


Ok, so looks like there is a quantum leap for Santa Cruz. Next question for the master, is why?

AA upgrades: 20mm and 40mm

They scored the lion's share of the kills. The heavy AA was frightful but accounted for only 5% of the losses that day according to Frank. The proximity fuse would later make the heavies a supreme threat to Japanese well being.

Will post the CAP preformance later. Right now I have a dinner date to attend too. [:)]

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


Cool, thanks Nik!


Ok, so looks like there is a quantum leap for Santa Cruz. Next question for the master, is why?

AA upgrades: 20mm and 40mm

They scored the lion's share of the kills. The heavy AA was frightful but accounted for only 5% of the losses that day according to Frank. The proximity fuse would later make the heavies a supreme threat to Japanese well being.

Will post the CAP preformance later. Right now I have a dinner date to attend too. [:)]

Correct(according to my "book", as the weapons used before the 40's were merely "revenge" weapons with short range,(only able to hit attackers which had already delivered their goodies), rather than preventative weapons with range of the 40mm guns.
Again, according to my book, by 1944 the allies had radar directed guns to go with the VT fuzes which completely negated even the special-trained night attacking Betty units.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Cool, thanks Nik!


Ok, so looks like there is a quantum leap for Santa Cruz. Next question for the master, is why?

Possible answer:

In Battleship at War by Ivan Musicant, which is the story of the USS Washington, the charge is made that the CO of USS South Dakota had the AA figures for his ship grossly inflated for the battle. I would have to search to be certain that we are talking about the same battle, but IIRC it is. Question for Nick: did the source you are using cross check against Japanese sources? That could provide a useful verification.

[jwilkerson]

We're using Lundstrom here.

[witpqs]

I understand - I don't have it. What I mean is did Lundstrom use multiple primary sources to get rid of the kind of potential bad data that I'm referring to?