BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Is using Allied heavies without escort to intentionally 'sweep' fighter aerodromes gamey? You bet your bippy. "

So... is every time a 4E bomber mission is sent without escort to be considered to be a "gamey sweep" mission? Are the allies supposed to just ignore their only long ranged weapons platform?

In most of 1942 there are no long ranged allied fighters, and a good Japanese player will establish his defensive perimeter outside of standard allied fighter range. In that case, the only offensive missions that the allies can send will be either unescorted bombers or carrier raids.

bradfordkay,

No-every time a 4E bomber mission is sent w/o escort is not a gamey sweep mission. The Allies are welcome to use heavy bombers escorted or unescorted to bomb naval/ground/strategic whatever, as they did IRL. Escort was not available for most of the useage of heavy bombers IRL so they went it alone. I get that and have no beef with it.

I don't believe that the Allies made use of heavy bomber sweeps where the predetermined role of the bomber was to go in there, guns blazing, without bombs, to explicitly shoot down airborne enemy fighters as a means to an end.

The issue is INTENT. If the B17s, in the conduct of their recon/bombing/search roles encounter enemy fighters, then go right ahead and shoot 'em down. If it's intentional use of an ahistoric program / coding / game loophole just to kill more Jap fighters as a proxy workaround, now I've got a problem.

Another analogy: There's nothing amiss about an Allied CL/DD SCTF intercepting and destroying a Japanese transport TF of xAKs, xAPs and let's say PB escorts. I would be disappointed by the loss (as the IJ player), but stuff happens. I would not intentionally sail my transport TF into the waiting jaws of the allied SCTF in this example, as I can't fathom a rationale for why this would be done IRL. Sure, if the transports were dropping off supply or transporting something that's OK.

Now-let's say that I take my transport TF and intentionally sail it to 'intercept' your waiting SCTF. Only this time, I'm doing it intentionally to run the Allied ships out of main gun ammo prior to next turn, where I send Yamato and friends into the same hex to meet your ammo-less SCTF.

Any difference? Can't I, as the Japanese player, use my xAKs and transport ships the way I choose to in the game? I'm sure that I can cobble up some damage a Jap trawler conveyed to an Allied submarine IRL as a rationale for my argument for how all Jap xAKs and PB TFs can be used in this offensive capacity.

The B17s intentionally, explicitly as fighters strikes me the same way.

Hope this clarifies.

So how do you decide if your opponent is using them explicitly as fighters or just trying to run a bombing campaign?

The problem with your analogy is that B17s were (erroneously) designed to perform unescorted missions, so using them as such is not a violation of USAAF doctrine (at least not in the early war).

This complaint seems to be based more on user intent than on the action itself, and as such is never going to be resolved - but is likely to ruin otherwise decent gaming partnerships.

[ChezDaJez]

Even if the weapons are not accurrate (I personally belive that they are) a very large percentage (waiste,radio and nose are not turret), many many guns firing at the same target are bound to produce a significant number of hits. Frankly, I wasn't arguing for or against the turret----that depends more on the marksman than the weapon.

But I do defy anyone to tell me that having dozens and poetenitally hundreds of heavy machine guns firing at one target at a time isn't devastating.

Okay, but that only worked well in Europe when there were hundreds of B-17s on a mission and even then their effectiveness wasn't that great before they began using the box formation in mid-late 43. Prior to that they used the vee formation which was far less effective at fighter defense. In the Pacific, missions seldom consisted of more than 10 B-17s. Even after they were replaced with B-24s, missions remained relatively small. It wasn't until the B-29 came along with the bombing of the Home Islands that we began to see raids approaching anything like the number fo bommbers assigned to missions in Europe.

I do believe that the gunner's position should affect accuracy. I have always disliked how the defensive armament on all bombers is modeled. Waist guns were far less likely to hit than a tail gunner or top turret due to the physics involved in calculating target and shell ballistics. These positions should have a lower accuracy than turret and tail guns.

Here's why I say that. Using the US .50 cal as an example, it is modeled at 29 for accuracy regardless of its position or platform. It is the same accuracy whether installed on a P-51 or a B-17. I would certainly argue that the .50 cals on P-51s are far more accurate than the waist gunner on a B-17.

The Japanese accuracy ratings vary greatly depending upon the platform and position as it should be. The 7.7mm MGs on the A6M2 Zero have an accuracy of 54 compared to the same MGs on a Betty being modeled at 18 and 27 on a Sally. These are all Type 89 7.7mm MGs. So why are they modeled differently? Should we change all Type 89 MGs to an accuracy rating of 54 regardless of platform or position?

And the argument to leave things as is because of all the perceived advantages the Japanese player has doesn't wash. Turn PDU off and it's a whole new ball game. Japanese aircraft production becomes a mute point. Build all you want but without a unit to assign them to, you're just wasting HI. I'll still be flying A6M2s and Ki-43s well into 1943 and beyond due to the historical upgrade paths imposed with PDU off. In my game with Brad, it's September 1942 and half of my army units are still flying Nates!

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

So how do you decide if your opponent is using them explicitly as fighters or just trying to run a bombing campaign?

The problem with your analogy is that B17s were (erroneously) designed to perform unescorted missions, so using them as such is not a violation of USAAF doctrine (at least not in the early war).

This complaint seems to be based more on user intent than on the action itself, and as such is never going to be resolved - but is likely to ruin otherwise decent gaming partnerships.

I whoeheartedly agree with both of your points, Brad. You have to trust your opponent. If you don't, why are you playing him?

I have not seen this issue in AE of the B-17 being a super fighter. Brad's Forts are nearly as bad at shooting down my fighters as my fighters are at bringing down his Forts.

Chez

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
So how do you decide if your opponent is using them explicitly as fighters or just trying to run a bombing campaign?

The problem with your analogy is that B17s were (erroneously) designed to perform unescorted missions, so using them as such is not a violation of USAAF doctrine (at least not in the early war).

This complaint seems to be based more on user intent than on the action itself, and as such is never going to be resolved - but is likely to ruin otherwise decent gaming partnerships.

I imagine that I would 'decide' the same way I would in my transport TF analogy. If something seemed amiss, I would ask my opponent how they were using this in the game. If it was unintentional, s'OK. If it was intentional, again sticking with my transport TF analogy, then we've a problem in the game that we need to address.

I'm sorry I'm not being clear about the use of unescorted bombers on bombing missions. I think I've said twice now that I've no problem with that approach, erroneously or otherwise.

Lastly, I'm not sure about the 'ruining decent gaming relationships' comment. I never said this was a showstopper or something folks in 'good' relationships couldn't be talked out of. It is a point of discussion, like most other odditities, bugs and quirks with this game.

[bradfordkay]

I imagine that I would 'decide' the same way I would in my transport TF analogy. If something seemed amiss, I would ask my opponent how they were using this in the game. If it was unintentional, s'OK. If it was intentional, again sticking with my transport TF analogy, then we've a problem in the game that we need to address.

I'm sorry I'm not being clear about the use of unescorted bombers on bombing missions. I think I've said twice now that I've no problem with that approach, erroneously or otherwise.

Lastly, I'm not sure about the 'ruining decent gaming relationships' comment. I never said this was a showstopper or something folks in 'good' relationships couldn't be talked out of. It is a point of discussion, like most other odditities, bugs and quirks with this game.

How many players would man up and admit to using heavy bombers in a sweep role? Since running a bombing campaign unescorted is legit, why would any player admit to doing something others consider gamey when they can just as easily claim to be using a legitimate tactic?

This is where I see a problem with your statement, and why I think that following such a line of thought could end up ruining an otherwise decent gaming relationship. EG: you think that your opponent is pulling something gamey and ask him about it. He sincerely believes that his ops are legit, and is now affronted at the thought you would think that he would stoop to something so cheesy. The result is that you don't know if you trust his response (and therefore any future response) while he is now concerned that he will be accused of gamey tactics whenever he tries something different. The relationship is now soured... and will take a long while to recover, if it can.

I am happy to have had a great gaming partner over the last several years. I don't think that we have ever felt the need to question each others methods - and he has shown great patience with my plodding strategies... Unfortunately he tends to kick my sorry buns far too often!

[ChezDaJez]

Unfortunately he tends to kick my sorry buns far too often!

Not often enough!!!

Chez

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Maybe big ones or any planes should not fly at all when there's severe storms...

Due to the wonky weather in Storms in the Pacific that would mean nobody would fly ever...

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Is using Allied heavies without escort to intentionally 'sweep' fighter aerodromes gamey? You bet your bippy. "

Good thing your "bippy" isn't worth anything, because that bet is a sure-fire loser. Until the P-51 arrived in strength in the Spring of 1944, virtually ALL B-17 raids were unescorted. Against the Germans this was a tough proposition, but in the Pacific it worked just fine.

Except that wasn't my quote...

Didn't mean to imply it was Brad..., it was just convenient to lift it from your post. Sorry if you felt I was misquoting you.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

I'd like to throw in my results, which may be a-typical.  Playing scenario 2 as japs and I took koepang...my opponent started a 4e campaign against it starting mid-jan 42.  Japs have high starting pilot quality, but because I don't like losing high quality pilots in the early part of the war, I pulled roughly 30% of the top pilots out of all my air squadron into tracom and reserve and replaced with replacement pilots, so they aren't near top quality squadrons.  Average experience is probably low to mid-60s. 

When he started this, I was taking zero losses, but I moved AA btns (4), engineer companies, air support (more than I need) and 4 zero squadrons to the base.  He was initially attacking with roughly 30+ bombers and a few 2Es...he's abandoned the campaign.  It's early Feb now and he's lost 70 B-17Es and B-17Ds... I haven't lost even half that amount of zeroes..possibly only a quarter.

Looking at that, one has to wonder if durability is king or # of planes and pilot quality, plus AAs help a bit.

I can believe these numbers.

Also 70 heavy bombers is I believe 7 months 1942 production. You've pretty much wiped out six months worth. He'll now be feeling an acute bomber shortage until the B-24D1 arrives in 1943. So the 4E menace has been effectively eliminated for all of 1942.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I imagine that I would 'decide' the same way I would in my transport TF analogy. If something seemed amiss, I would ask my opponent how they were using this in the game. If it was unintentional, s'OK. If it was intentional, again sticking with my transport TF analogy, then we've a problem in the game that we need to address.

I'm sorry I'm not being clear about the use of unescorted bombers on bombing missions. I think I've said twice now that I've no problem with that approach, erroneously or otherwise.

Lastly, I'm not sure about the 'ruining decent gaming relationships' comment. I never said this was a showstopper or something folks in 'good' relationships couldn't be talked out of. It is a point of discussion, like most other odditities, bugs and quirks with this game.

How many players would man up and admit to using heavy bombers in a sweep role? Since running a bombing campaign unescorted is legit, why would any player admit to doing something others consider gamey when they can just as easily claim to be using a legitimate tactic?

This is where I see a problem with your statement, and why I think that following such a line of thought could end up ruining an otherwise decent gaming relationship. EG: you think that your opponent is pulling something gamey and ask him about it. He sincerely believes that his ops are legit, and is now affronted at the thought you would think that he would stoop to something so cheesy. The result is that you don't know if you trust his response (and therefore any future response) while he is now concerned that he will be accused of gamey tactics whenever he tries something different. The relationship is now soured... and will take a long while to recover, if it can.

I am happy to have had a great gaming partner over the last several years. I don't think that we have ever felt the need to question each others methods - and he has shown great patience with my plodding strategies... Unfortunately he tends to kick my sorry buns far too often!

I would ,will and have. And I see nothing wrong with it, nor do I apologize. I see it as an absolutely legitmate tactic, especially when house rules so often prohibit using B-17's for strategic bombing so early in the war. It seems that many Japanese players feel that B-17's should be used only for naval search....or perhaps we can ask Matrix to create a new mission..."leaflet dropping". [:(]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I imagine that I would 'decide' the same way I would in my transport TF analogy. If something seemed amiss, I would ask my opponent how they were using this in the game. If it was unintentional, s'OK. If it was intentional, again sticking with my transport TF analogy, then we've a problem in the game that we need to address.

I'm sorry I'm not being clear about the use of unescorted bombers on bombing missions. I think I've said twice now that I've no problem with that approach, erroneously or otherwise.

Lastly, I'm not sure about the 'ruining decent gaming relationships' comment. I never said this was a showstopper or something folks in 'good' relationships couldn't be talked out of. It is a point of discussion, like most other odditities, bugs and quirks with this game.

How many players would man up and admit to using heavy bombers in a sweep role? Since running a bombing campaign unescorted is legit, why would any player admit to doing something others consider gamey when they can just as easily claim to be using a legitimate tactic?

This is where I see a problem with your statement, and why I think that following such a line of thought could end up ruining an otherwise decent gaming relationship. EG: you think that your opponent is pulling something gamey and ask him about it. He sincerely believes that his ops are legit, and is now affronted at the thought you would think that he would stoop to something so cheesy. The result is that you don't know if you trust his response (and therefore any future response) while he is now concerned that he will be accused of gamey tactics whenever he tries something different. The relationship is now soured... and will take a long while to recover, if it can.

I am happy to have had a great gaming partner over the last several years. I don't think that we have ever felt the need to question each others methods - and he has shown great patience with my plodding strategies... Unfortunately he tends to kick my sorry buns far too often!

I´m for example not deliberately keeping my fighters grounded or set them to another mission than escort to keep them from flying with the B-24 for example but in the end, I´m happy if KB with it´s 300 Zekes stays outside of my fighter range and my B-24 attack the Japanese on their own in numbers around two dozen in each strike? Why? Because if I would send 50-100 fighters with my bombers at 10000ft then I would probably lose 50% of the fighters for at best the same number of Zekes downed (pretty much depends on how the dive turns out). Now I can not afford to lose 50 of my fighters nor am I willing to sacrifice 50 pilots (I´m in March 44 and still say this) and if the B-24 go in alone, they lose perhaps 20-25 out of 75. A 33% loss rate (or higher) which is comparable to a Schweinfurt raid and sure would be a disaster in real life. Most of these losses would be write offs, probably a dozen crews lost. Now this doesn´t look unrealistic to me at all in the end, what is a bit off to me is that after the B-24 turn home, there usually is no Zeke Cap left, when you start off with 300. Probably only a dozen downed (not unrealistic either to me) but the "effect" of these B-24 attacks are nothing else than a fighter sweep as they absolutely cleared the sky over the carriers. Just imagine what happens if there are other strikes coming in after the heavies, strikes that actually can hit the carriers?

Here´s an example from my PBEM:

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Makassar at 64,107

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 41 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 338



Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 28


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zero: 3 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-24J Liberator: 4 destroyed, 23 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Hiei
CVE Unyo
CVL Shoho
CVL Chiyoda
CV Taiho
BB Mutsu



Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 10 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
6 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 10 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
2 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 10 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
4 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 10 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 2 on standby, 6 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 17000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 41 minutes
261 Ku S-1 with A6M5 Zero (3 airborne, 8 on standby, 16 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes
265 Ku S-1 with A6M5 Zero (2 airborne, 6 on standby, 17 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 38500 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 38000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 46 minutes
331 Ku S-1 with A6M5 Zero (3 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 38500 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 38000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 45 minutes
Akagi-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 16 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 38500 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 23 minutes
Kaga-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 7 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 38500 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 14000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 37 minutes
Soryu-1 with A6M5 Zero (2 airborne, 6 on standby, 13 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 16000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 41 minutes
Hiryu-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 14 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 12000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
Shokaku-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 5 on standby, 11 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 38500 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 38000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 41 minutes
Zuikaku-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 5 on standby, 11 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 38500 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 38000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 41 minutes
Ryujo-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 17 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000 , scrambling fighters between 2000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes
Junyo-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 5 on standby, 10 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters between 3000 and 17000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 40 minutes
Shoho-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 5 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes
Zuiho-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 5 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes
Ryuho-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 38500 , scrambling fighters to 38000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 40 minutes
Hosho-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 3 on standby, 6 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 13000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 43 minutes
Taiho-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 19 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 38500 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 38000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes
Unryu-1 with A6M5 Zero (3 airborne, 8 on standby, 16 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes
Taiyo-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 13000 , scrambling fighters to 13000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
Unyo-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 13000 , scrambling fighters to 13000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Makassar at 64,107

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 26 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 250



Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 9


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zero: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-24J Liberator: 1 destroyed, 8 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Unryu



Aircraft Attacking:
7 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 10 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M5 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 6 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes
331 Ku S-1 with A6M5 Zero (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 38500 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 14 minutes
Akagi-1 with A6M5 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 14 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 38500 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 14000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 41 minutes
Kaga-1 with A6M5 Zero (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 38500
Raid is overhead
Soryu-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 13 scrambling)
6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 45 minutes
Hiryu-1 with A6M5 Zero (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 14 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 12000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 48 minutes
Shokaku-1 with A6M5 Zero (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 10 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 38500 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 14000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 41 minutes
Zuikaku-1 with A6M5 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 11 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 38500 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 12000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 38 minutes
Ryujo-1 with A6M5 Zero (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 15 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 13000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
Junyo-1 with A6M5 Zero (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 10 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 43 minutes
Shoho-1 with A6M5 Zero (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes
Zuiho-1 with A6M5 Zero (6 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 16000
Raid is overhead
Ryuho-1 with A6M5 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 38500 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 9 minutes
Hosho-1 with A6M5 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 6 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 13000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 14000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 42 minutes
Taiho-1 with A6M5 Zero (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 19 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 38500 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 38000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 43 minutes
Unryu-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 13 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
Taiyo-1 with A6M5 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 13000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 44 minutes
Unyo-1 with A6M5 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 13000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 48 minutes
Chuyo-1 with A6M5 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 13000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 45 minutes
Kaiyo-1 with A6M5 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 51 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Makassar at 64,107

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 14 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 181



Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 6


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-24J Liberator: 6 damaged

Japanese Ships
CVL Nisshin
CVL Chitose



Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 10 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
Soryu-1 with A6M5 Zero (6 airborne, 0 on standby, 7 scrambling)
6 plane(s) intercepting now.
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 46 minutes
Shokaku-1 with A6M5 Zero (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 5 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 38500 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 14000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 48 minutes
Zuikaku-1 with A6M5 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 12 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 38500 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 11000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 44 minutes
Ryujo-1 with A6M5 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 8 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 12000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 46 minutes
Junyo-1 with A6M5 Zero (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 11 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 13000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 34 minutes
Shoho-1 with A6M5 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 16000
Raid is overhead
Hosho-1 with A6M5 Zero (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 1 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 13000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes
Unryu-1 with A6M5 Zero (8 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 18 minutes
Chuyo-1 with A6M5 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 3 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 13000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes
452 Ku S-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 1 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 43 minutes
261 Ku S-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 20 scrambling)
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 17000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes
265 Ku S-1 with A6M5 Zero (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 11 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 38500 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 13000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 45 minutes
Akagi-1 with A6M5 Zero (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 10 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 38500 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 42 minutes
Hiryu-1 with A6M5 Zero (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 10 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 16000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 44 minutes
Zuiho-1 with A6M5 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
Ryuho-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 1 scrambling)
Group patrol altitude is 38500 , scrambling fighters to 13000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 38 minutes
Taiho-1 with A6M5 Zero (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 15 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 38500 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 47 minutes
Taiyo-1 with A6M5 Zero (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 13000
Raid is overhead
Unyo-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 3 scrambling)
Group patrol altitude is 13000 , scrambling fighters to 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes
Kaiyo-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 1 scrambling)
Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters to 11000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 28 minutes


in this case, two dozen B-24 were reported lost in the end, 10 A2A. If you´ve got attacks in the morning and afternoon by twice the number of bombers, then this is all you need to totally reduce the enemy´s Cap over the carriers. The fighters aren´t shot down but reduced by 50% in the end, done by 43 bombers. Nothing serious happened here, neither were the bomber losses irreplacable nor did they achieve hits on the carriers (thank god) but I wouldn´t want to imagine what would have happened to my fighters if they would have escorted the bombers (far outside the fighters range) and the 300+ Zekes would have gotten a loooong dive session on the 100 or so escorting fighters. Losing 50+ fighters plus the two dozen bombers for no hits is different than losing 7 days of bomber replacements as a couple fewer would be shot down. Again, not saying that the actual LOSSES here are out of the line, they look good IMO, I just want to point out that FOR ME I seem to be better off sending bombers (heavy bombers) unescorted instead of sending a hundred first line fighters with excellent pilots to escort them because the fighters usually get totally shot up if on escort and being dived by the Cap. Perhaps not a problem of the bombers, perhaps a problem of the routine and how it treats escorts.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Maybe big ones or any planes should not fly at all when there's severe storms...

Due to the wonky weather in Storms in the Pacific that would mean nobody would fly ever...

yeah, this would reduce my flight ops by around 90% [:D]

[bradfordkay]

"I just want to point out that FOR ME I seem to be better off sending bombers (heavy bombers) unescorted instead of sending a hundred first line fighters with excellent pilots to escort them because the fighters usually get totally shot up if on escort and being dived by the Cap. Perhaps not a problem of the bombers, perhaps a problem of the routine and how it treats escorts. "

I think that the general consensus is that your fighters need to fly a sweep mission in order to be effective. Of course, you can't fly a sweep over a naval target, so that does make this a sticky wicket...

As for your last point, I can agree somewhat... in WITP all escort is considered close escort and thus tends to get chewed up pretty badly. Too bad there isn't a toggle between close and high escort.

[AW1Steve]

I have only one question for those who feel that this aspect of the game is flawed....in all the time this game, and it's predecessor, War in the Pacific has been released, has this point ever been raised before? Is there any other threads out there on this same question? I couldn't find any. If you do find one, please link it. [&:]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I have only one question for those who feel that this aspect of the game is flawed....in all the time this game, and it's predecessor, War in the Pacific has been released, has this point ever been raised before? Is there any other threads out there on this same question? I couldn't find any. If you do find one, please link it. [&:]

In WITP it surely wasn´t raised because there it was truly unrealistic as you saw a hundred 4E whiped out in no time against anything that had quite a Cap. IIRC the biggest loss in WITP (stock) that I´ve ever suffered were 115 B-24 in one day. Guess around 7-800 have met 300 or so fighters. As with many other things, AE has gone in the right direction here.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I imagine that I would 'decide' the same way I would in my transport TF analogy. If something seemed amiss, I would ask my opponent how they were using this in the game. If it was unintentional, s'OK. If it was intentional, again sticking with my transport TF analogy, then we've a problem in the game that we need to address.

I'm sorry I'm not being clear about the use of unescorted bombers on bombing missions. I think I've said twice now that I've no problem with that approach, erroneously or otherwise.

Lastly, I'm not sure about the 'ruining decent gaming relationships' comment. I never said this was a showstopper or something folks in 'good' relationships couldn't be talked out of. It is a point of discussion, like most other odditities, bugs and quirks with this game.

How many players would man up and admit to using heavy bombers in a sweep role? Since running a bombing campaign unescorted is legit, why would any player admit to doing something others consider gamey when they can just as easily claim to be using a legitimate tactic?

This is where I see a problem with your statement, and why I think that following such a line of thought could end up ruining an otherwise decent gaming relationship. EG: you think that your opponent is pulling something gamey and ask him about it. He sincerely believes that his ops are legit, and is now affronted at the thought you would think that he would stoop to something so cheesy. The result is that you don't know if you trust his response (and therefore any future response) while he is now concerned that he will be accused of gamey tactics whenever he tries something different. The relationship is now soured... and will take a long while to recover, if it can.

I am happy to have had a great gaming partner over the last several years. I don't think that we have ever felt the need to question each others methods - and he has shown great patience with my plodding strategies... Unfortunately he tends to kick my sorry buns far too often!

I might add that is is mainly my policy to send my heavy bombers in first with no escort. Yes, it may be called a bit gamey but I find that any sort of coordination of fighters in the game is almost impossible, and fighter escort no matter the quality just get creamed. In addition uncordianted fighter sweeps into large CAP can itself lead to disaster. The virtual absence of coordination also causes severe loss to my mediums which I find I just cannot replace. So, my formula is to hit first with heavies then sweep with fighters. Once the opposition is cleared out, I use my mediums to keep pressure on and keep the airfield damaged. But it is the heavies that go in first. I wish it could be otherwise but the shortfalls of the game mechanics dictate the need.

[Chickenboy]

@crsutton:

Understood. Which is why I hope you won't find it inappropriate for IJ production to accelerate research of the late war IJ fighters in as efficient a manner as possible. You know-because the shortfalls of the game mechanics dictate the need.

So, by switching R&D the month before a new model comes online, IJ players can rapidly move into premier late war IJ fighters in the mid-1943 to early 1944 timeframe. Allied 4E HB air-to-air victories against undergunned Oscars in 1942 won't seem so enticing a shortcut when you have clouds of cannon-equipped interceptors 8-12 months before schedule.

There's other workarounds for the IJ, of course. Most IJ players will try to implement these as well as the accelerated R&D technique.

[AW1Steve]

Yeah, and I want a pony too![:D]

[Chickenboy]

You want horse flesh? Have you tried "Bully Beef" from down under lately? [;)]

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: crsutton


I might add that is is mainly my policy to send my heavy bombers in first with no escort. Yes, it may be called a bit gamey but I find that any sort of coordination of fighters in the game is almost impossible, and fighter escort no matter the quality just get creamed. In addition uncordianted fighter sweeps into large CAP can itself lead to disaster. The virtual absence of coordination also causes severe loss to my mediums which I find I just cannot replace. So, my formula is to hit first with heavies then sweep with fighters. Once the opposition is cleared out, I use my mediums to keep pressure on and keep the airfield damaged. But it is the heavies that go in first. I wish it could be otherwise but the shortfalls of the game mechanics dictate the need.

Looks like Allied bombing 101 to me. Players of the Japanese side are able to make improvements using historical hindsight but when an Allied player does it , it's wrong?

I heavy bomb the heck out of any airfield I can get to and mix in sweeps and medium bombers when the field is damaged to my liking.

If you come within 7 hex's of my level 9 airfields expect lots of steel raining down.[:'(]