A Japanese Fanboy's small moment of satisfaction

[Dive Bomber1]

I still have one pbem going; this one against another strong opponent who happens to live in China. I started this pbem in the same fashion as my pbem against AuTiger, but the difference was that I had PDU set to "on", and I started it later than my game against AuTiger so I was able to correct many mistakes earlier against my Chinese opponent than I did in the pbem against AuTiger.

Never-the-less, the fundamental critical flaws in my strategy were still the same and resulted in a similar situation wherein I found myself over-expanded, out of supply, out of good pilots, out of good planes and generally stalemated everywhere by mid-1942. (For example, my opponent has been able to hang on to Mandalay.) So I have been trying to recover ever since and it is now at the end of September 1942.

My air combat strategies have been particularly ineffectual in my pbems, so I decided very recently in this match to try to group my planes together by type in particular regions in order to take the best advantage of the varying ranges of my planes. Thus, in this pbem I ended up with all of my Tonys in Southeast Asia, and in particular, in Rahaeng.

My opponent has been very successfully emulating AuTiger's "Big Hammer" approach to keep my air fields demolished in the SEA and other regions by means of mass 4E bomber attacks. But thanks to weather and my opponent's decision to close first the bigger air bases in the region such as Rangoon, I was able to bring a number of decent Tony units to Rahaeng along with support troops.

So on September 28, 1942 my opponent got a break in the weather and was able to send a massive attack of 4Es from India against the air fields at Rahaeng:

Day Air attack on Rahaeng, at 31, 35

Japanese aircraft
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 76

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 65
LB-30 Liberator x 46
B-24D Liberator x 48

The 4Es came in at 20K feet.

The result was a Japanese fanboy's dream-come-true:

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 6 destroyed, 50 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 22 destroyed, 21 damaged
LB-30 Liberator: 16 destroyed, 14 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 16 destroyed, 16 damaged

The actual final results from the Intel Air Combat page were 25 B-17Es, 20 LB-30s and 20 B-24Ds shot down against the loss of 8 Tonys in A-to-A combat and 2 Tonys lost to operational damage.

Most of the 4Es aborted their missions and there was no damage on the ground.

Four of my IJA pilots became Aces out of this air battle.

So I will enjoy my brief moment of satisfaction until my opponent starts to get P-38s to send along on escort.

[Mike Solli]

Very nice.  The problem I find is that the Allied opponent can replace any number of planes you shoot down and the filled out squadrons will darken the skies in a day or two. 
 
Still, enjoy it.  It's a great morale boost. [:D]

[dekwik]

nice job! My Japanese AF has been getting serially spanked in simlar circumstances in two pbems. Are you listening Thomas and John?

[Hornblower]

I don’t even know if the Luftwaffe shot down 65 bombers in on mission..   

[lineartube]

Considering that there were German aces with 300s, 200s and 100s kills... that might have happened. [X(] Their squadrons should have impressive results

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

I don’t even know if the Luftwaffe shot down 65 bombers in on mission..   

Oh yes... they did... 1943... unescorted B-17 raids...


Leo "Apollo11"

[lineartube]

Allied bomber losses in Europe were more impressive. About 20000 lost, if you believe wikipedia.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

I don’t even know if the Luftwaffe shot down 65 bombers in on mission..   

It's especially remarkable considering Tony's were just finishing "Prototype" production in September of 1942, and wouldn't recieve effective cannon armament until late in 1943. And you are right..., several hundred Luftwaffe fighters fighting an hours long engagement over their home country never did better than 60 bombers shot down.

Which pretty much exposes the game's air-to-air system as a total crock, and heavily biased towards JFB's. Yes, the replacements on US 4-engined bombers are WAY too high in 1942.., but you are also getting Tony's into squadron service overseas 8-9 months too early as well. With PDU on, you just make an ahistorically bad situation worse.

[Dive Bomber1]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

I don’t even know if the Luftwaffe shot down 65 bombers in on mission..   

It's especially remarkable considering Tony's were just finishing "Prototype" production in September of 1942, and wouldn't recieve effective cannon armament until late in 1943. And you are right..., several hundred Luftwaffe fighters fighting an hours long engagement over their home country never did better than 60 bombers shot down.

Which pretty much exposes the game's air-to-air system as a total crock, and heavily biased towards JFB's. Yes, the replacements on US 4-engined bombers are WAY too high in 1942.., but you are also getting Tony's into squadron service overseas 8-9 months too early as well. With PDU on, you just make an ahistorically bad situation worse.

The main reason that I have so many Tonys in late September 1942 (and equally importantly, one of the main reasons that I ran out of supplies in May 1942) was that right from the beginning of this game I changed all of my Nate factories to Tony "R&D" and expanded them heavily. (I also expanded my Nakajima engine factories heavily.) Therefore, by using the "R&D" function of the game I was able to have a huge capability in Tonys by August 1942 (although it cost me dearly in lost opportunities in Spring 1942).

So by the "logic" of the Game Design I was simply a Japanese planner with immense "foresight". [;)]

In retrospect, I wouldn't do the same thing again in future matches because the cost to my momentum of running out of supplies in Spring 1942 was too much.

But let's not let this discussion drop into the bottemless pit of "Historic vs Fantasy" - I am deliberately trying out the "what if" capability of the Game, as is my opponent.

Thanks -

DB

[Feinder]

Which pretty much exposes the game's air-to-air system as a total crock, and heavily biased towards JFB's.

 
I think it's fair to say,
 
Which pretty much exposes the game's air-to-air system as a total crock
 
But it's just an algorithm that doesn't handle large air-to-air very well.  With the single exception of the bonus-that-shall-not-be-named, there isn't anything that deliberately tilts towards one side or the other.  Each side, depending on the phase-initiative-opportunities of the game, may seem to have an general advantage (such as KB's ability to mass CAP early on, or the same is true for Allies somewhat later). 
 
Like I said, it's just an algorithm that otherwise doesn't handle massive strikes very well.  But it's not biased per se'.

[jwxspoon]

Well in my opinion the early appearance of the Tony certainly helps alleviate the emasculation of the Oscar in this game. 

jw

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Which pretty much exposes the game's air-to-air system as a total crock, and heavily biased towards JFB's.

I think it's fair to say,

Which pretty much exposes the game's air-to-air system as a total crock

But it's just an algorithm that doesn't handle large air-to-air very well.  With the single exception of the bonus-that-shall-not-be-named, there isn't anything that deliberately tilts towards one side or the other.  Each side, depending on the phase-initiative-opportunities of the game, may seem to have an general advantage (such as KB's ability to mass CAP early on, or the same is true for Allies somewhat later). 

Like I said, it's just an algorithm that otherwise doesn't handle massive strikes very well.  But it's not biased per se'.

Part of the problem is the how the engine handles the over-sized airstrikes to begin with. The game really treats it as a bunch of little formations instead of one big one. The 4Es travelled in that big formation so they could support each other. However, the game doesn't appear to roll the dice for 100 A6M2 vs 200 B-17 for instance, instead it allows each A6M2 group engage each B-17 group individually, removing the cover fire effect to an extent.

Each individual bomber has blind spots. However, the formation has 360 degree coverage. And this is the part that is probably not modeled well.

I have a feeling that if the USAAF had actually done in real life what the game appears to do (which is use a bunch of little formations) we'd have suffered a lot worse at the hands of Luftwaffe and Japanese fighter pilots.

[Dive Bomber1]

ORIGINAL: jwxspoon

Well in my opinion the early appearance of the Tony certainly helps alleviate the emasculation of the Oscar in this game. 

jw

Good point. My current strategy with air units is to sit out all Nates after December 1941, and sit out all Oscars after February 1942. (I'm even experimenting with sitting out most A6M2s after May 1942, and conceding the air to the Allies until August when I get Tojos and Tonys.)

Sure, it reduces my fighter capacity tremendously, but it also prevents the horrific fighter losses that I took early on in this pbem and in my pbem against AuTiger.

DB

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Dive Bomber1

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

I don’t even know if the Luftwaffe shot down 65 bombers in on mission..   

It's especially remarkable considering Tony's were just finishing "Prototype" production in September of 1942, and wouldn't recieve effective cannon armament until late in 1943. And you are right..., several hundred Luftwaffe fighters fighting an hours long engagement over their home country never did better than 60 bombers shot down.

Which pretty much exposes the game's air-to-air system as a total crock, and heavily biased towards JFB's. Yes, the replacements on US 4-engined bombers are WAY too high in 1942.., but you are also getting Tony's into squadron service overseas 8-9 months too early as well. With PDU on, you just make an ahistorically bad situation worse.

The main reason that I have so many Tonys in late September 1942 (and equally importantly, one of the main reasons that I ran out of supplies in May 1942) was that right from the beginning of this game I changed all of my Nate factories to Tony "R&D" and expanded them heavily. (I also expanded my Nakajima engine factories heavily.) Therefore, by using the "R&D" function of the game I was able to have a huge capability in Tonys by August 1942 (although it cost me dearly in lost opportunities in Spring 1942).

So by the "logic" of the Game Design I was simply a Japanese planner with immense "foresight". [;)]

In retrospect, I wouldn't do the same thing again in future matches because the cost to my momentum of running out of supplies in Spring 1942 was too much.

But let's not let this discussion drop into the bottemless pit of "Historic vs Fantasy" - I am deliberately trying out the "what if" capability of the Game, as is my opponent.

Thanks -

DB

you surely didn´t run out of supplies because you converted aircraft factories in R&D because those don´t use supplies for repairs nor do they use HI for research. Not a design I like...

[Dive Bomber1]

you surely didn´t run out of supplies because you converted aircraft factories in R&D because those don´t use supplies for repairs nor do they use HI for research. Not a design I like...

Huh? Then what do they use?

All I know is that in my recent starts (pbem and AI) where I deliberately:

- did not change Nate factories to Tonys
- did not increase airframe production of fighters (or other aircraft) in general
- did not increase production of Nakajima engines

My supply situation in the Home Islands is a LOT better than it was in earlier games such as the pbems against AuTiger and against my Chinese opponent.

I find it hard to believe that the "repair" and expansion of aircraft and engine factories can be done at no "cost" to the Japanese player in a "Stock" game.

But thanks for the comments anyway.

DB

[Uamaga]

ORIGINAL: castor troy
you surely didn´t run out of supplies because you converted aircraft factories in R&D because those don´t use supplies for repairs nor do they use HI for research. Not a design I like...

Factories in R&D DO use supplies on repairs (don't use HI pts for research apparently). I think it is safe to say it is established fact. For details please see this post together with a few above.

What is not proved yet is that R&D factories do not make any research until they fully repaired.
In short things aren't so rosy with japanese R&D ... [;)]

[histgamer]

In 43 the germans shot down 60 bombers with fighters and flak and the same mission had another 60 bombers scraped due to damage. So one mission resulted in 120 destroyed air frames. 

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
...heavily biased towards JFB's...

Did the Japanese had to face multiple strikes of 150+ 4E bombers almost every day, who flatten even air big bases in one single attack despite all-out defense efforts - in 1942? I don't think so - but JFB's have to face them! And results like reported above are the exception, not the rule... My opponent sent his B-17s in at 30.000 most of the time, knowing that no early Japanese fighter can intercept at this altitude - and the B-17s still hit from that high up with remarkable accuracy...

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Uamaga

ORIGINAL: castor troy
you surely didn´t run out of supplies because you converted aircraft factories in R&D because those don´t use supplies for repairs nor do they use HI for research. Not a design I like...

Factories in R&D DO use supplies on repairs (don't use HI pts for research apparently). I think it is safe to say it is established fact. For details please see this post together with a few above.

What is not proved yet is that R&D factories do not make any research until they fully repaired.
In short things aren't so rosy with japanese R&D ... [;)]

someone just made a test that repair seems not be using supplies, expansion does. And no HI was used for R&D. I always thought only no HI was used but thought repairing R&D factories cost 1000 supplies/factory.


EDIT: rereading the post with the test, R&D repair DOES use 1000 supplies to repair one point. So my thinking over the years was nevertheless right and I was wrong to believe the recent posts until this test...

[Feinder]

LST - Did the Japanese had to face multiple strikes of 150+ 4E bombers almost every day, who flatten even air big bases in one single attack despite all-out defense efforts - in 1942? I don't think so - but JFB's have to face them!

While I do enjoy each and every one of your posts LST (for purly testosterone related reasons), I'll just point out that -

Actually, the Japanese -did- face strikes by "only" a 10 - 20 B-17s every day, and that -few- number managed to not only close Rabaul, but keep it under thumb afterwards.

Try doing THAT in WitP.

[;)]

-F-