unrealistic air combat...

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: DEB

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Been busy at work lately with little time to post, but I'm enjoying watching DEB................give a fool enough rope.....

I see you have not disagreed the comments I made to Tocaff, or even entered the general disscussion. I wonder why.

Probably beacuse I am tired of this:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warrio ... butter.htm

If the shoe fits.......



That is, of course, the tongue-in-cheek reason. The reeal reason is just as I stated. My days of heavy posting activity here were a result of boredom at work that lasted for about 6 months as the architecture business has been slow. I had a new whirlwind project dumped in my lap last week (command breifing center at Command Forward Headquaters in Qatar for the four start general in command of CENTCOM) that I have only two months to produce. My posting on all forums here has dropped off to the "merely occasional" level. Right now I don't have the mental energy to waste on efforts to educate people like you.

My, what a grand opinion you have of yourself. The length of this post ( & previous ones ) would have been enough for a reasonable viewpoint or three. Still, our gain - your loss.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

Change my settings??? LOL, assuredly you have a much higher opinion of yourself than I have of you.

I'll admit to a little error here. It appears most of your posts overfill my screen & if I move my bottom bar ( between the arrows ) to the right I see the little Blue boxes that I had missed before. It's a shame though that you appear such an unhelpful snob!

Night Carrier Ops would have been mass suicide for the pilots embarking on the mission. No commander worth his salt would have given the order to attack in that manner, not to mention the damage inflicted would have been minimal. If the IJN Carriers was capable they wouldn't have waited to just before dawn to launch their attacks in the carrier engagements. Strange you fail to be able to figure that out for yourself.

Mass suicide is rather an overstatement is it not! Sorry, can't figure out the impossible; by the way, some attacks were made at dawn therefore they took off in the dark!!

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

I don't argue the possibility of such a strike, just that the losses would be devastating on the strike force so as to make it something that's not modeled properly. 

Then we more or less agree. Thank you.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The same observations apply. You have not listed a single instance of a Japanese cv-based night raid on an airbase or indeed a single instance of any Japanese cv-based raid on any kind of target at all. That is because the Japanese had no ability to conduct such raids.

Rubbish, they had the ability and chose not to use it ( presumablly because the possible OPS losses were a deterrant ).

Indeed, why waste the time. It was surely possible to exclude Carrier based Aircraft from night missions. So why did they ( the game designers ) NOT do it?

My answer would be that the game designers erred. Very few powers developed any capability in it at all, during WW2, and the UK started out with the first and best capability both from CVs and lba, and the USAAF and USN quickly learned from and in some ways improved on the technique. The Japanese, in contrast, had no capability for night attacks from cv based planes and very little capability from land based mult-engine types.

Let's not presume.
It would be nice to have some input from Mr Billings here.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


Ike, you never cease to amaze me with your ability to distort reality and bend it to your warped interpretation.
The only thing you are correct about is that it was no error.
It was a lack of desire to engage in the effort necessary to write the additional code necessary to create an entirely separate interface for carrier air operations.
A perfectly plausible explanation for what you see that does not distort reality in order to support your perception.

Ah Hah. So you engage. I think you like to wind up IKE99.

Again, someone presumes to know the thoughts of the designers.
If you are indeed right, it's a BIG goof by them.
From the evidence I have seen, they have given us all the chance to learn that night OPS ( especially Carrier ones ) are very risky. Thats part of the game experience.
By the way do you ever use the optional Jap Sub OPS rule?
THAT is just as gamey judging by most peoples interpretations here.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Night Carrier Ops would have been mass suicide for the pilots embarking on the mission. No commander worth his salt would have given the order to attack in that manner, not to mention the damage inflicted would have been minimal.

Exactly. A good consim would probably let the Japanese player attempt a night raid from KB, automatically reward him with very high ops losses, result in no effect on the target, and then lock the Japanese player out of the game and hand over management of his assets to the AI for two or three months to simulate the reorganization period as the current "cic and staff" is removed from office, shot, replaced with a new cic and staff, and they gear up to figure out how to run the war properly.

My, what an imagination. Would anyone buy that type of game?

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


Oh my, what happened? You no longer claim to be the spawn of Tojo's loins??? Things do seem to be a bit unsettled in your neck of the woods. I hope all goes well for you (and I'm not being facetious).

Hmm, now that is an interesting observation.

[Ike99]

I think this is a bit extreme since night attacks are POSSIBLE but the simple fact is that, based on what we've seen here they are:

a) Way too effective

What is ¨too effective¨? Is this too effective?

Nightime strikes on PM...

[DEB]

Read and weep all you unbelievers.

http://www.ussessexcv9.org/pdfs/Japanes ... ations.pdf

[Ike99]

The apparatus, called chakkan shidoto (literally, landing guidance light), was invented at the Kasumigaura Naval Station in 1932 as a night landing aid. It was fitted on Japan's first carrier, Hosho, in 1933 and after being proved on Hosho, adapted to the other carriers. It was used both day and night from about 1934 onward.

Gets more ¨plausible¨ all the time no? [;)]

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: DEB

Read and weep all you unbelievers.

http://www.ussessexcv9.org/pdfs/Japanes ... ations.pdf

Weep over what? What have you convinced yourself this proves? No one disputes the actual physical capaility to launch and hopefully recover planes existed during the time period covered by the game. What we dispute with complete validity is the far fetched notion that doctrinal and operational mindsets would have ever facilitated it's implementation to represent any signifiacnat percentage of total operations. THIS is what I mean by "resonably plausible" since the concept continues to leave a huge bruise on your forehead as it bounces off and skims over your head.

What you and Ike persist in demonstrating you are in denial of is the simple fact that a physical capability does not automatically equate to a reasonably plausible implementation. Doctrinal and operational mindsets have HUGE impact on what is and is not reasonably plausible.

[Ike99]

What we dispute with complete validity is the far fetched notion that doctrinal and operational mindsets would have ever facilitated it's implementation...

If the operations officer for the 5th flotilla, Captain Yamaoka described 2/3rds of the Japanese carrier pilots as highly trained in night carrier operations in 1942 then how would a person come to the conclusion that night operations from carriers are ¨far fetched¨ in both mindset and doctrinal thinking? They would not have trained anyone in night operations if what you say is true.

If you wanted to make a houserule on night attacks from carriers, why not say only Kates or Vals can bomb at night from carriers, take your pick. To approximately simulate the 2/3rds ¨thoroughly trained at night¨ Japanese carrier pilots.

since the concept continues to leave a huge bruise on your forehead as it bounces off and skims over your head.

You´re not being very nice again.

[decaro]

Night carrier ops for either side are not that far-fetched, esp. later in the war. However, re Battle 360, the strike planes must be radar-equiped in order to be effective.

I imagine a full moon would make a difference, but as far as I know, there's no provision for this in UV, CaW, WitP, WPO or even CF.

[mdiehl]

If the operations officer for the 5th flotilla, Captain Yamaoka described 2/3rds of the Japanese carrier pilots as highly trained in night carrier operations in 1942 then how would a person come to the conclusion that night operations from carriers are ¨far fetched¨ in both mindset and doctrinal thinking? They would not have trained anyone in night operations if what you say is true.

I don't think his claim is correct, or else what he means by "night operations" and "extensively trained" are being misunderstood by yourself. American aviators intensively trained at night launching and night landing in the expectation that they might need to do either in the accomplishment of a dawn or evening attack, and they extensively trained at it starting in 1932. That does not mean that they could have hit anything at night. The complete absence of any such attack by either American or Japanese aviators prior to 1944, at which time only American aviators did it, is compelling enough evidence to me to suggest that the Japanese had no capability to hit *any* target of any kind accurately at night in the time frame covered by UV.

If I ever find substantive corroborating evidence to the contrary I will let you know. But at the moment one Japanese captain's subjective statement is filed with other "interesting but who knows what it means" assertions of the "And We'd Have Gotten Away With It Were It Not For You Meddling Kids" postscript kind.

[pasternakski]

Do you really want a game in which night carrier operations against enemy ships can be effective and possibly decisive in WWII?

I don't. I say, "Forget it."

[Ike99]

Do you really want a game in which night carrier operations against enemy ships can be effective and possibly decisive in WWII?

I don't. I say, "Forget it."

I don´t think anyone here would like to see that.

[decaro]

Because of the limited time span, CV night ops can't historically happen in UV/CF unless you want another hypothetical scenario, but WitP/AE is another story.

From cv6.org:

"When Enterprise stood out from Oahu on Christmas Eve 1944, she had been re-designated CV(N)-6. The "N" stood for "Night". Enterprise was the first fleet carrier ordered into, and capable of, around-the-clock warfare. At night, her planes would fly combat air patrols and launch strikes against the enemy; by day her flight deck was ready to receive planes and pilots too battered to return to their home carriers, to fly CAP missions during enemy attack and to provide fighter direction for the fleet."

I think there was only one night-capable Avenger squadron stationed on the Big E.

[bigbaba]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

I think this is a bit extreme since night attacks are POSSIBLE but the simple fact is that, based on what we've seen here they are:

a) Way too effective

What is ¨too effective¨? Is this too effective?

Nightime strikes on PM...

too bad, that i forgot to save the AAR of the attacks, in which you caused stunning damage to PM, ike. attacks with more then 100 runway hits, more then 500 casualties and 30+ planes drstroyed on the ground.

[Ike99]

too bad, that i forgot to save the AAR of the attacks, in which you caused stunning damage to PM, ike. attacks with more then 100 runway hits, more then 500 casualties and 30+ planes drstroyed on the ground.

If I had over 300 planes hitting PM airfield and scored 100 hits, that´s 33% approx. More or less the 27% airfield hit percentage I posted in the screen shot. It´s the same % roughly. Total hit number by itself doesn´t mean much without the number of attacking aircraft.

The percentage is the primary statistic.

Number of aircraft on the ground destroyed was related to how ¨crowded¨ you had aircraft at PM from what I saw. That´s how the rule book explains it anyway.

¨stunning damage¨

Haha...¨shell shock¨..[:D]...tell me the truth, I ran you out of supply a few time didn´t I? [;)] Your AA guns stopped shooting and that´s a sure sign of low, or no supplies. [8D]

[decaro]

"... Number of aircraft on the ground destroyed was related to how ¨crowded¨ you had aircraft at PM from what I saw. That´s how the rule book explains it anyway."

If you could hit the airfield after dark, it would be a target rich environment w/all the planes on the ground for the night.