ORIGINAL: Iridium
Is it me or is taking a few actual battle results and declaring them the norm been done and found to be rather inaccurate?
LOL that's why I chose an early battle. Flak losses are far worse later in the war.
Jim
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
ORIGINAL: Iridium
Is it me or is taking a few actual battle results and declaring them the norm been done and found to be rather inaccurate?
ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
ORIGINAL: Iridium
Is it me or is taking a few actual battle results and declaring them the norm been done and found to be rather inaccurate?
LOL that's why I chose an early battle. Flak losses are far worse later in the war.
Jim

-------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: This is meant to give everyone a bit on insight. A preview, if you will, of what is going on behind the curtain. WE ARE IN BETA. Whatever dynamics, trends, paradigms you detect or disagree with are subject to change. Let's not ruin this for everyone. This is not intended to foster debate or support anyone's agenda. Mostly just enjoy and take the time to learn about what is in store with AE.
-------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL: Gunner98
Your not too far off the speculative estimate
ORIGINAL: witpqs
AND - at Santa Cruz there were additional AA upgrades in place plus the presence of a whopping big (in AA terms) US fast battleship.
I'm feeling pretty good about the results Elf is showing us here.
ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
I don’t know the specifics as to strike packages, but I do know that 69 Japanese planes (includes the fighters I think) attacked and 27 were lost. Most of these were probably bombers, so an educated guess would be well above 50% destroyed if the fighters are not counted.
I don’t think any air to air CAP intercepts were made because the few fighters in the air were vectored to the wrong altitude and were too close to their ships to be of much use due to being low on fuel. Many were landing or already landing and being refueled when the attack occurred, so we can assume most of the 27 were flak losses, if not all of them.
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/st/~mic ... .what.html
Jim
ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
Ok this site gives CAP details:
23 Dauntless dive bombers shot down 4 torpedo-planes (the rest of the CAP was out of position), so 23 of the 27 destroyed are from flak. Though it doesn't say how many of the 69 are zeroes.


ORIGINAL: Terminus
Remember that Miss Betty carries a very teeny-tiny bombload.
It's not as bad as it looks. FoW is on. Lex is not in too bad a shape. At least not for having received 4 torpedoes. She'll make port and fight again.ORIGINAL: Tallyman662
From this example looks like strikes may be more brutal on the receiver.


ORIGINAL: briny_norman
Is it possible to turn FOW on and off - also during a game, not just at the beginning?
Is it possible to turn FOW on/off just for the combat reports?
If not, would any of the above be possible through modding?
ORIGINAL: m10bob
In Elf's last example it looks like the Zeke's did a good job of protecting the bombers and keeping the Wildcats busy...Nice..So much damage to the bombers with the escort, It would be a waste to send un-escorted bombers against a defended target.