unrealistic air combat...

[Ike99]

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.

At 3,000 feet you could spit on a 2,000 meter airfield with 200 planes on it with a fair hit percentage. Daylight or dark.

[Ike99]

Any airfield capable of supporting 150-200+ aircraft on it, including large 4E bombers would be at least as big as the white box I made in the picture.

The pictures caption says it was take approx 3,000 ft. Could 1 in 4, or even 1 in 3 planes put a bomb in this square from this altitude. I think certainly yes.

Pick one of those trees, let´s say that´s a small airplane in a space and imagine that multiplied by 150 or 200 in different spaces. I don´t think 30 airplanes being hit and damaged are so unbelievable.

[Ike99]

.

[anarchyintheuk]

Don't forget to include the flak batteries in that picture. [;)]

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

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.

At 3,000 feet you could spit on a 2,000 meter airfield with 200 planes on it with a fair hit percentage. Daylight or dark.

But at night you would have to find it first, that's the hard part, assuming the field is blacked-out.

One night during WW II, didn't British intel once trick the Germans from bombing Alexandria by a light-show diversion?

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: Ike994
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.4

...and again the UK got a hit rate of less than 5% so apparently the Japs are 6x better at doing something than the brits yet really never did it. Hmmmm......maybe not right.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Ike99

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.

At 3,000 feet you could spit on a 2,000 meter airfield with 200 planes on it with a fair hit percentage. Daylight or dark.

But at night you would have to find it first, that's the hard part, assuming the field is blacked-out.

One night during WW II, didn't British intel once trick the Germans from bombing Alexandria by a light-show diversion?

This all started over Night time Carrier OPS. Do you want to make ALL night Air combat "gamey"?

[Kingfisher]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Any airfield capable of supporting 150-200+ aircraft on it, including large 4E bombers would be at least as big as the white box I made in the picture.

The pictures caption says it was take approx 3,000 ft. Could 1 in 4, or even 1 in 3 planes put a bomb in this square from this altitude. I think certainly yes.

Pick one of those trees, let´s say that´s a small airplane in a space and imagine that multiplied by 150 or 200 in different spaces. I don´t think 30 airplanes being hit and damaged are so unbelievable.

I think your scale is way off. Guadacanal at the end of '42 had close to 200 aircraft, and the airbase (not just the actual landing strip but aircraft revetments, control towers, etc.) was far bigger than your white box.

Consider also that by the time most airfields grew to support 200 aircraft it usually contained more than one landing strip. Guadacanal had three strips plus the field at Koli point.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Do you read these things. I have stated on numerous occasions that flying to & from Carriers at night was done by the Japs. People said this was not done, but I have provided my evidence ( two sources ). As to anything else that is another matter as I have again stated many times.

It occurs to me that Doctrinal and Operational mindsets may have been against Night Carrier OPS at various levels of Command, but they were also in favour of it at others ( although overruled ). Almost everyone here is surmising as to the reasons behind those overrules, with only circumstantial evidence I might add. If you applied this logic of yours to many things that get done during a game then a lot more would become"gamey". So where do we draw the line.

For instance, several people here seem to think that ALL night Air combat should become "gamey" for a varity of stated reasons. How say you?

By the way you are being a hypocite again, please stop insulting me.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

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.

It's also been pointed out that flares were used ( and we are also talking attacks against bases rather than Ships or Aircraft - so radar has no use).

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Do you want ALL night Air combat made "gamey"?

( That last bit sounds insulting, do please desist. )

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: 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."

READ THE POSTS. We are talking Night Carrier OPS against Bases!
Are you saying you would ban them from WITP?

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: ILCK

ORIGINAL: Ike994
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.4

...and again the UK got a hit rate of less than 5% so apparently the Japs are 6x better at doing something than the brits yet really never did it. Hmmmm......maybe not right.

So you want to make ALL night Air combat "gamey"?

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: DEB
READ THE POSTS. We are talking Night Carrier OPS against Bases!
Are you saying you would ban them from WITP?

Maybe you should STOP SHOUTING AND READ MY POST. All I implied was that this is so minor that it deserves no further attention. Ban? Who said anything about banning?

Just looking for some reasonableness here, Cochise.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: DEB
READ THE POSTS. We are talking Night Carrier OPS against Bases!
Are you saying you would ban them from WITP?

Maybe you should STOP SHOUTING AND READ MY POST. All I implied was that this is so minor that it deserves no further attention. Ban? Who said anything about banning?

Just looking for some reasonableness here, Cochise.

Now you are just playing with words, and rather badly at that.

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 I misunderstood anything written here. You may have course not expressed yourself very well though.
Only the "forget it" implies as you suggest, but given what it follows it is wide open to mis-interpretation.
Whilst my "banning" may have been an overstatement, you certainly appear to be against the use of Carrier Night OPS.
As for the READ THE POSTS, you refered to Ships, we are refering to planes. I was applying normal emphasis where appropriate. Shouting involves using a far larger font size, not caps. If you think otherwise it was rude of you to return the compliment.

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: DEB


So you want to make ALL night Air combat "gamey"?

No, if it exists it should ideally be made to reflect the reality of the capabilities of the forces in '42-'43. That capability is much less effective than Ike has discussed - a 33% hit rate is absurd and indefensible in a "historical" game.

In a human v human game the players should not do it given the lousy implementation and in a human vs AI it is too easy to exploit.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: DEB

Now you are just playing with words, and rather badly at that.

Oh, goody. Criticism from a refugee engineer from the Tower of Babel.

Tell you what. I apologize for anything I said that prompted you to climb onto my case. Let's forget it, let bygones be bygones, and go back to playing furry little snuggle bunnies.

I just think that "energetic" and vituperative assertions about night bombing effectiveness in WWII Pacific theater is a waste of time here.

We still need a good game covering strategy and operations in the Pacific. For me, UV and WitP, while well-intentioned, didn't satisfy. CF and WitP AE may - I hope.

They've got a lot higher mountains to climb than night bombing.

G'nite, DEB. I love you. I promise not to bomb you in your sleep.

[Ike99]

...and again the UK got a hit rate of less than 5% so apparently the Japs are 6x better at doing something than the brits yet really never did it. Hmmmm......maybe not right.

No, if it exists it should ideally be made to reflect the reality of the capabilities of the forces in '42-'43. That capability is much less effective than Ike has discussed - a 33% hit rate is absurd and indefensible in a "historical" game.

I think you´re not comprehending the altitude factor. Stratgeic bombing was done for the most part between 20-30,000+ feet in Europe.

Post a picture of what 20,000+ feet looks like and compare it to my 3,000 feet picture. Huge difference.

I think your scale is way off. Guadacanal at the end of '42 had close to 200 aircraft, and the airbase (not just the actual landing strip but aircraft revetments, control towers, etc.) was far bigger than your white box.

Certainly you are correct. Probably closer to 3-4-or even 5 times that box. I was just trying to give a practical example that hitting such a huge area at such a low altitude is not even close to impossible. ILCK didn´t get it. A good British example of when they went low altitude their accuracy went up would be the dam busters mission.

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 wants that pasternakaski. I don´t think there is much danger in that happening in UV.




------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/09/42

Weather: Clear

Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 8

Allied aircraft
SBD Dauntless x 54
TBD Devastator x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
SBD Dauntless x 8 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 58 damaged
TBD Devastator x 4 destroyed
TBD Devastator x 20 damaged

Japanese Ships

CA Furutaka
CA Kinugasa, Shell hits 8
CA Kako
CA Myoko
CA Haguro
-------------------------

[Ike99]

They've got a lot higher mountains to climb than night bombing.

IMHO the most unrealistic part to UV is something no one ever talks about, the ground combat and how it works. It´s a joke.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Ike99
IMHO the most unrealistic part to UV is something no one ever talks about, the ground combat and how it works. It´s a joke.

I mostly agree with this. The very nature of the game (units have to be in the same hex in order to fight each other) dictates some odd mechanics, yet there is a lot of nonsense in there.

I am particularly fond of the idea that it takes you weeks to move one hex, but you can retreat one hex in a matter of a few hours. It almost makes you want to attack your own troops to get them moving.

But, what you wanna do (as the guy in the coroner's office asked Eddington in "In Harm's Way)? I'd like to hear some fresh ideas (and Ike, you seem pretty fresh). Maybe a new thread directed at Carrier Force development would be good (we're kinda off topic here)...