Tojo vs Tony Manouver ratings

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: castor troy




the first version of the Tojo was a better aircraft than the P-38H? In my PBEM, my P-38 are only E and F models but my "test" game has later versions available too and they do no better. Not really suprising anyway with nearly identical ratings (except that they´re slightly faster and got more range). [&:]

In my particular case it´s not the problem that the Tojo got uber stats or something like that, it´s what is happening. Example: 5 squadrons on sweep (meeting all conditions but having all of them at the same HQ), 5 single squadron kamikaze sweeps, of which 4 usually get dived on and slaughtered with above mentioned rates (pilots 70 skill). Usually the other way around when I catch a couple of fighters leaking Cap. Works the other way around too though, when you see your squadrons going in alone on and on in 95%+ of the time you just ask for disasters. This usually only gets "visible" in the game later on as early on you don´t have a lot of material to throw at the enemy. Neither has the enemy so usually you see "some" aircraft on Cap vs. "some" aircraft on sweep. It gets really bloody when you got "a lot" of aircraft on Cap vs. "a lot" of aircraft on sweep (coming in one by one squadron).

Maybe you just suck at WITP....

perhaps. Perhaps you just suck designing? [:'(]

A pity I have missed your AAR that does better. Glad I haven´t missed your comrades AARs that fail just as miserable when it comes down to "coordinate". lol. And the loops in "my" games are just the same as in other AARs too. The overall situation is ok in the end as four times minus makes two times a plus. So two big loops on one side are neutralized by four smaller loops on the other, making it an ok kill rate in the end (considering the timeframe you´re in and the circumstances).

Actually I am quite convinced that the only way you'll be satisfied is If we were to make this game fool-proof. Then you might be able to play it and have no complaints....

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: TheElf



Maybe you just suck at WITP....

perhaps. Perhaps you just suck designing? [:'(]

A pity I have missed your AAR that does better. Glad I haven´t missed your comrades AARs that fail just as miserable when it comes down to "coordinate". lol. And the loops in "my" games are just the same as in other AARs too. The overall situation is ok in the end as four times minus makes two times a plus. So two big loops on one side are neutralized by four smaller loops on the other, making it an ok kill rate in the end (considering the timeframe you´re in and the circumstances).

Actually I am quite convinced that the only way you'll be satisfied is If we were to make this game fool-proof. Then you might be able to play it and have no complaints....

If you like to, you can think and be convinced about whatever you want.

Foolish is to see ongoing loops. Loops aren´t the exception, they happen quite often. Recent thread about B-25H? Have you missed it? A dozen B-25H taking down 9 Tojos for no loss on their sided? How often would that happen in real life? Once? Twice? In the whole war? I guess Miller was the lucky one to exactly achieve this one time special example... [;)] I´ve always thought my B-25H will be quite poor in fending off enemy fighters and wasn´t really looking forward to them as I´ve thought the more or less forward firing armament would be very poor and could only be made of good use for low level strafing attacks but I was told different and they seem to be even better fighter killers than the 4Es.

What I really do recommend is PLAYING and doing an AAR with the daily combat reports with all details to show the ranting fools like me how it is done. There are a couple of other people who seem to develop themself into the same direction as me it seems, as all those "complain, bitch, whine" threads have not come from me lately. And you will still not believe me, those threads coming from those people (including me) have not got the purpose to attack you guys, well knowing that you will always see it as attacks and therefor react to them. Like I´ve said earlier, I´m glad there are members of the official club doing AARs, unfortunetely not all doing daily combat reports as this is where you can really see what happens. And they look just like I´m used to. [:D] How come? This would mean fools within the official member club too. [:'(]

This "product" is by far not as good as you think about it (who wonders, it´s your product), nor is it as bad as all those complain, bitch, whine threads are saying. It is something in between and it´s the mirror of the WITP release when it took halve a dozen patch releases to actually make WITP what it was in the end. The difference back then was that the "developers" didn´t freak out all the time when people were "complaining" about something. Well, there´s still the excuse that those were paid and you weren´t. As there won´t be anything else than bug busting in AE anymore for the time to come (?), our nice discussion probably won´t end anyway.

[ChezDaJez]

Example: 5 squadrons on sweep (meeting all conditions but having all of them at the same HQ), 5 single squadron kamikaze sweeps, of which 4 usually get dived on and slaughtered with above mentioned rates (pilots 70 skill). Usually the other way around when I catch a couple of fighters leaking Cap. Works the other way around too though, when you see your squadrons going in alone on and on in 95%+ of the time you just ask for disasters. This usually only gets "visible" in the game later on as early on you don´t have a lot of material to throw at the enemy. Neither has the enemy so usually you see "some" aircraft on Cap vs. "some" aircraft on sweep. It gets really bloody when you got "a lot" of aircraft on Cap vs. "a lot" of aircraft on sweep (coming in one by one squadron).

I really haven't had much issue with sweeps except when the sweeping aircraft go in under the standing CAP. Then I'll see some higher loss rates. But I also don't try sweeping areas that have a high concentration of enemy fighters unless I am absolutely sure that my fighters have a good performance margin over them. For example, I will sweep a base guarded by a large number of Buffalos but I will not sweep a base that contains a large concentration of P-40Es.

I have had an occasional fragmentation of a sweep but not often as I tend to sweep with a maximum of 2 units and most of the time with only 1. Plus I make sure that all units are assigned to the same air HQ and that the air HQ is assigned to the same HQ as the base.

Chez

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Example: 5 squadrons on sweep (meeting all conditions but having all of them at the same HQ), 5 single squadron kamikaze sweeps, of which 4 usually get dived on and slaughtered with above mentioned rates (pilots 70 skill). Usually the other way around when I catch a couple of fighters leaking Cap. Works the other way around too though, when you see your squadrons going in alone on and on in 95%+ of the time you just ask for disasters. This usually only gets "visible" in the game later on as early on you don´t have a lot of material to throw at the enemy. Neither has the enemy so usually you see "some" aircraft on Cap vs. "some" aircraft on sweep. It gets really bloody when you got "a lot" of aircraft on Cap vs. "a lot" of aircraft on sweep (coming in one by one squadron).

I really haven't had much issue with sweeps except when the sweeping aircraft go in under the standing CAP. Then I'll see some higher loss rates. But I also don't try sweeping areas that have a high concentration of enemy fighters unless I am absolutely sure that my fighters have a good performance margin over them. For example, I will sweep a base guarded by a large number of Buffalos but I will not sweep a base that contains a large concentration of P-40Es.

I have had an occasional fragmentation of a sweep but not often as I tend to sweep with a maximum of 2 units and most of the time with only 1. Plus I make sure that all units are assigned to the same air HQ and that the air HQ is assigned to the same HQ as the base.

Chez

Chez, when you´re talking about Buffalos you seem to be still early in the game and you also say you usually sweep with one or a maximum of 2 units. Yeah, with one or two units, I get one or two sweeps. With 5 units, I get five sweeps (usually). What I´m refusing to understand is why I´m not able for example to launch 50 fighters from a level 9 airfield to fly together on a sweep three hexes range but see 3x16 ac going in alone (each squadron). I´ve got an endless long list of examples in my AAR of sweeps.

Having one unit on sweep meeting one unit on Cap and you will probably get reasonable results most of the time, no doubt on that. With 5 units on sweep coming in as 5 sweeps (each squadron alone) meeting 5 units on Cap... you don´t want to see the result, that´s the 6-16:1 I´m talking about...

[P.Hausser]

ORIGINAL: Miller

Can anyone answer the original question? Why is the Tojo more manouverable than the Tony?

Miller, if you think about this for a few min you know the answer.

I don't want to offend anyone so I shall abstain from answering the ordinal question, but there was once a man at the forum known as
Yamato Hugger, who answered this question at some point before he got banned.
He was also part of the AE Development team. I don't recall if it was him who called AE for Allied Edition or not.

[Misconduct]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Example: 5 squadrons on sweep (meeting all conditions but having all of them at the same HQ), 5 single squadron kamikaze sweeps, of which 4 usually get dived on and slaughtered with above mentioned rates (pilots 70 skill). Usually the other way around when I catch a couple of fighters leaking Cap. Works the other way around too though, when you see your squadrons going in alone on and on in 95%+ of the time you just ask for disasters. This usually only gets "visible" in the game later on as early on you don´t have a lot of material to throw at the enemy. Neither has the enemy so usually you see "some" aircraft on Cap vs. "some" aircraft on sweep. It gets really bloody when you got "a lot" of aircraft on Cap vs. "a lot" of aircraft on sweep (coming in one by one squadron).

I really haven't had much issue with sweeps except when the sweeping aircraft go in under the standing CAP. Then I'll see some higher loss rates. But I also don't try sweeping areas that have a high concentration of enemy fighters unless I am absolutely sure that my fighters have a good performance margin over them. For example, I will sweep a base guarded by a large number of Buffalos but I will not sweep a base that contains a large concentration of P-40Es.

I have had an occasional fragmentation of a sweep but not often as I tend to sweep with a maximum of 2 units and most of the time with only 1. Plus I make sure that all units are assigned to the same air HQ and that the air HQ is assigned to the same HQ as the base.

Chez

Chez, when you´re talking about Buffalos you seem to be still early in the game and you also say you usually sweep with one or a maximum of 2 units. Yeah, with one or two units, I get one or two sweeps. With 5 units, I get five sweeps (usually). What I´m refusing to understand is why I´m not able for example to launch 50 fighters from a level 9 airfield to fly together on a sweep three hexes range but see 3x16 ac going in alone (each squadron). I´ve got an endless long list of examples in my AAR of sweeps.

Having one unit on sweep meeting one unit on Cap and you will probably get reasonable results most of the time, no doubt on that. With 5 units on sweep coming in as 5 sweeps (each squadron alone) meeting 5 units on Cap... you don´t want to see the result, that´s the 6-16:1 I´m talking about...

I feel your pain castor, I don't see how meeting all the requirements needed (requirements are moral, supply, is there a HQ present, aircraft ready, good weather) and still on a fighter sweep I continue to get 1 squadron after another going to sweep on its own, vs the japanese having 8 squadrons fly a single 100 plane sweep.

However, this is my situation in DEI campaign where my average experience is 60-70, at Port Moresby my average experience is 75-83, with really high skill in sweep (whatever it is I can't recall but I trained on it for months) and at Moresby with all conditions met I can fly 10 squadrons together over a target, with only 1 or 2 squadrons that seem to fly solo, generally speaking the australian units don't fly with americans on sweep more then 80% of the time but always alone.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez



I really haven't had much issue with sweeps except when the sweeping aircraft go in under the standing CAP. Then I'll see some higher loss rates. But I also don't try sweeping areas that have a high concentration of enemy fighters unless I am absolutely sure that my fighters have a good performance margin over them. For example, I will sweep a base guarded by a large number of Buffalos but I will not sweep a base that contains a large concentration of P-40Es.

I have had an occasional fragmentation of a sweep but not often as I tend to sweep with a maximum of 2 units and most of the time with only 1. Plus I make sure that all units are assigned to the same air HQ and that the air HQ is assigned to the same HQ as the base.

Chez

Chez, when you´re talking about Buffalos you seem to be still early in the game and you also say you usually sweep with one or a maximum of 2 units. Yeah, with one or two units, I get one or two sweeps. With 5 units, I get five sweeps (usually). What I´m refusing to understand is why I´m not able for example to launch 50 fighters from a level 9 airfield to fly together on a sweep three hexes range but see 3x16 ac going in alone (each squadron). I´ve got an endless long list of examples in my AAR of sweeps.

Having one unit on sweep meeting one unit on Cap and you will probably get reasonable results most of the time, no doubt on that. With 5 units on sweep coming in as 5 sweeps (each squadron alone) meeting 5 units on Cap... you don´t want to see the result, that´s the 6-16:1 I´m talking about...

I feel your pain castor, I don't see how meeting all the requirements needed (requirements are moral, supply, is there a HQ present, aircraft ready, good weather) and still on a fighter sweep I continue to get 1 squadron after another going to sweep on its own, vs the japanese having 8 squadrons fly a single 100 plane sweep.

However, this is my situation in DEI campaign where my average experience is 60-70, at Port Moresby my average experience is 75-83, with really high skill in sweep (whatever it is I can't recall but I trained on it for months) and at Moresby with all conditions met I can fly 10 squadrons together over a target, with only 1 or 2 squadrons that seem to fly solo, generally speaking the australian units don't fly with americans on sweep more then 80% of the time but always alone.

can´t say it´s one sided in my PBEM or AI game, it happens just the same for both sides it seems, which also would mean that the AI doesn´t know how to fly coordinated strikes either. lol [:D]

[ChezDaJez]

I feel your pain castor, I don't see how meeting all the requirements needed (requirements are moral, supply, is there a HQ present, aircraft ready, good weather) and still on a fighter sweep I continue to get 1 squadron after another going to sweep on its own, vs the japanese having 8 squadrons fly a single 100 plane sweep.

However, this is my situation in DEI campaign where my average experience is 60-70, at Port Moresby my average experience is 75-83, with really high skill in sweep (whatever it is I can't recall but I trained on it for months) and at Moresby with all conditions met I can fly 10 squadrons together over a target, with only 1 or 2 squadrons that seem to fly solo, generally speaking the australian units don't fly with americans on sweep more then 80% of the time but always alone.

Just a quick question... do you have all squadrons set to the same altitude and using the same Air HQ. And is this HQ set to the same parent HQ as the base? And are all the squadrons flying the same model aircraft?

For example, I had 3 fighter units at Rabaul. The fighters were set to the 23rd Air HQ which was assigned to 4th Fleet. The base however was set to Southeast Fleet. With this setting I did see some fragmentation of the units plus I couldn't upgrade one of the units. Once I set the 23RD HQ to Southeast fleet I was able to upgrade and saw very little fragmentation after that.

My game is only in March 42 but I did have issues early on sweeping various bases and was able to resolve them by ensuring the the settings I described above were correct. I still have problems getting Army aircraft to coordinate with Navy aircraft, probably because of the differences in models and HQs.

Just putting this out in the hopes that your issue is related to this.

Chez

[P.Hausser]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Maybe you just suck at WITP....

What a language.
When being the lead developer of the Air model, you should chose your words carefully when talking to one of your customers.
I don't see anything that caster troy have said who Evan nearly legitimate this kind of behavior.

As you have been involved with the development of AE, you indirectly or directly represent Matrix Games, and for some reason I doubt that David, Marc or Erik approves of this kind of behavior from one of their workers or partners.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: P.Hausser

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Maybe you just suck at WITP....

What a language.
When being the lead developer of the Air model, you should chose your words carefully when talking to one of your customers.
I don't see anything that caster troy have said who Evan nearly legitimate this kind of behavior.

As you have been involved with the development of AE, you indirectly or directly represent Matrix Games, and for some reason I doubt that David, Marc or Erik approves of this kind of behavior from one of their workers or partners.

please....

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: P.Hausser

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Maybe you just suck at WITP....

What a language.
When being the lead developer of the Air model, you should chose your words carefully when talking to one of your customers.
I don't see anything that caster troy have said who Evan nearly legitimate this kind of behavior.

As you have been involved with the development of AE, you indirectly or directly represent Matrix Games, and for some reason I doubt that David, Marc or Erik approves of this kind of behavior from one of their workers or partners.

we´ve got a "history" so he surely got the right to say that, I reply with more or less the same statements all the time. As long as we´re not into name calling it´s all ok. I´m a bad player, he´s a bad designer, I´m doing an AAR and have done so in the past, he isn´t. So while I´m proving my bad game play, he´s just confirming it. [:D]