Nemesis...
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
RE: The Bomber Offensive
Curious to see how the Ki-264 will fair in the Kami role you mentioned in response to my question on the most effective Kami..
Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.
1100 planes lost in a day....
And its a great day for Japan. All those planes were Ki-79s or Ki-27s and other trainers and so all they were doing was speeding up pilot training a little at a huge cost in supplies. Losing the 1100 planes is going to save me a minimum of 50,000 tons of supplies per month, saving 600,000 tons over the next 12 months. My pilot training will be a bit slower but 600,000 tons of supplies is something I cannot afford to pass up.
In addition I have an idea of using this same base as another gathering post in a week's time but, this time, gathering 800 fighters there and seeing what they can do to his B-29 numbers. It'd be worth taking a risk to make an ambush like that work out.
Elsewhere my first group of Ki-94 kamikazes is ready for action and I have converted a second group of kamis from Ki-43s over to Ki-94s. So, at this moment in time I have 2 Ki-94 kami groups and 4 Ki-43 kami groups. All I really need now is his navy to bring CVs into range so I can expand the Ki-94s on worthwhile targets.
Amazingly enough the IJAAF and IJNAF protective CAP bubble is beginning to expand outward. At its worst I was CAPing only three Japanese bases on the whole map ( Tokyo, Kobe and Osaka ). Today I'm CAPing 7 bases with a view to expanding to 8 or 9 over the next fortnight. That's a huge change and reflects my growing confidence in my new generation of fighters' ability to deal with bombers.
In other news I've lost 4 ships ( including 2 escorts ) to submarine attack today. There are hordes of US subs and with so many attacks some are bound to get through.
I'm finding myself relying more and more on fast transports everywhere except one or two very short, heavily mined routes ( e.g. Korea to Japan/ Honshu to Hokkaido ).
In the north the final batch of reinforcements has arrived for Hokkaido and the Kuriles and are sitting in northern Honshu waiting to be ferried across. Some 4,500 AV are available for strengthening Hokkaido/Kuriles which should give each base 1,000 AV behind Level 6 forts + a reasonable operational ( airmobile ) reserve.
I'm also about half-way through the process of reconstituting my strategic reserve and have about half of the necessary 5,000 AV of troops ( including large numbers of tank formations ) in mainland Japan ready to rapidly reinforce any landing sites. My goal is to have a division of tanks on-site within 2 days of any invasion and to have half of the strategic reserve on-site within a week of the first landing. So, 1,000 AV ( basic garrison ) + local operational reserves ( 2,000 AV ) + half of strategic reserves ( 2,500 AV ) = 5,500 AV + Level 6 forts. That's what I expect to have at my least defended bases. At my most defended bases the original garrison is obviously much, much higher.
Most of the USN TFs have pulled back to Manilla and elsewhere with just a couple of replenishment TFs moving from Saipan to Manilla at present. I believe that the Allies are pulling back in order to mount another operation - I think they may hit Formosa next using their LBA to cover the landings. If they hit Formosa I plan to let them have it and accordion my defence ever inward, slowly.
jeffk3510,
I've been toying with this for some time but recently made the decision that given the HUGE amount of supplies the Ki-264s consume per month I cannot justify their continued use so I'm saving some of my top IJA pilots for re-assignment to the Ki-264s and they'll fly them into whatever seems useful. My current thinking is that if I see a USN CV TF I might send in the Ki-94s first ( letting 100 of them attack ) and then send in 40 Ki-264s the next day, taking advantage of the lack of CAP ( assuming I've hit some CVs ) to avoid attrition in the CAP zone and get a very high hit rate. With each Ki-264 carrying 20 x 250 Kg bombs even a single hit should devastate any CV or BB. I'd expect 2 hits to sink anything and 1 hit to leave any CV or BB crippled and easy picking for follow-on raids.
In addition I have an idea of using this same base as another gathering post in a week's time but, this time, gathering 800 fighters there and seeing what they can do to his B-29 numbers. It'd be worth taking a risk to make an ambush like that work out.
Elsewhere my first group of Ki-94 kamikazes is ready for action and I have converted a second group of kamis from Ki-43s over to Ki-94s. So, at this moment in time I have 2 Ki-94 kami groups and 4 Ki-43 kami groups. All I really need now is his navy to bring CVs into range so I can expand the Ki-94s on worthwhile targets.
Amazingly enough the IJAAF and IJNAF protective CAP bubble is beginning to expand outward. At its worst I was CAPing only three Japanese bases on the whole map ( Tokyo, Kobe and Osaka ). Today I'm CAPing 7 bases with a view to expanding to 8 or 9 over the next fortnight. That's a huge change and reflects my growing confidence in my new generation of fighters' ability to deal with bombers.
In other news I've lost 4 ships ( including 2 escorts ) to submarine attack today. There are hordes of US subs and with so many attacks some are bound to get through.
I'm finding myself relying more and more on fast transports everywhere except one or two very short, heavily mined routes ( e.g. Korea to Japan/ Honshu to Hokkaido ).
In the north the final batch of reinforcements has arrived for Hokkaido and the Kuriles and are sitting in northern Honshu waiting to be ferried across. Some 4,500 AV are available for strengthening Hokkaido/Kuriles which should give each base 1,000 AV behind Level 6 forts + a reasonable operational ( airmobile ) reserve.
I'm also about half-way through the process of reconstituting my strategic reserve and have about half of the necessary 5,000 AV of troops ( including large numbers of tank formations ) in mainland Japan ready to rapidly reinforce any landing sites. My goal is to have a division of tanks on-site within 2 days of any invasion and to have half of the strategic reserve on-site within a week of the first landing. So, 1,000 AV ( basic garrison ) + local operational reserves ( 2,000 AV ) + half of strategic reserves ( 2,500 AV ) = 5,500 AV + Level 6 forts. That's what I expect to have at my least defended bases. At my most defended bases the original garrison is obviously much, much higher.
Most of the USN TFs have pulled back to Manilla and elsewhere with just a couple of replenishment TFs moving from Saipan to Manilla at present. I believe that the Allies are pulling back in order to mount another operation - I think they may hit Formosa next using their LBA to cover the landings. If they hit Formosa I plan to let them have it and accordion my defence ever inward, slowly.
jeffk3510,
I've been toying with this for some time but recently made the decision that given the HUGE amount of supplies the Ki-264s consume per month I cannot justify their continued use so I'm saving some of my top IJA pilots for re-assignment to the Ki-264s and they'll fly them into whatever seems useful. My current thinking is that if I see a USN CV TF I might send in the Ki-94s first ( letting 100 of them attack ) and then send in 40 Ki-264s the next day, taking advantage of the lack of CAP ( assuming I've hit some CVs ) to avoid attrition in the CAP zone and get a very high hit rate. With each Ki-264 carrying 20 x 250 Kg bombs even a single hit should devastate any CV or BB. I'd expect 2 hits to sink anything and 1 hit to leave any CV or BB crippled and easy picking for follow-on raids.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
-
Capt. Harlock
- Posts: 5379
- Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
RE: 1100 planes lost in a day....
If they hit Formosa I plan to let them have it
Given the massive stock of Kamis and other things you have prepared the phrase "let them have it" is a wee bit ambiguous. I'm going to assume you meant a temporary Sir Robin maneuver. [;)]
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?
--Victor Hugo
--Victor Hugo
RE: 1100 planes lost in a day....
Ah, I can see how that would be....
Well, basically my plan has always been to extend the perimeter out beyond P-51H+drop tank sweep range. That way I can prevent the Allies using fighters to attrit my CAP before they send bombers in. That was essential before I had the new generation of fighters online. As it is now my new generation of fighters are, I believe, more than a match for the P-51H and other sweeping Allied fighters at long range.
So, if the Allies invade Okinawa ( as they have invaded China ) that will mean they will get airbases within 18 hexes of mainland Japan. So, at that point I am planning to accordion my defences inwards slowly but surely conducting a strategic amphibious withdrawal. I won't abandon every island since some are useful as bases for spoiling attacks but, basically, if he has 5 bases within 18 hexes of Osaka on one axis it doesn't really make much sense to lose 3,000 AV trying to deny him another 5 bases the same distance from Osaka on another axis.
Since he is now marching up China towards Shanghai ( which I will let him have with only a little resistance from me) the time is coming when the forces on Okinawa will be rendered irrelevant and so some basic planning is going on about how to FT the vital forces out.
Shrinking the perimeter means more IJA troops per base and, overall, greater problems for the Allies. In a sense allowing me to accordion makes the next phase of operations more difficult for Damian. Personally I'd look to strike deep with a view to preventing the huge forces in the outer perimeter from joining up with the forces in the inner perimeter. It'd be costly to strike deep but in the long run it'd be much, much cheaper.
Elsewhere, over the past 2 days;
1. the B-32s struck Daito Shoto again and were met by 60+ Ki-94s. The Ki-94s downed 13 of the B-32s... even better than last time.
2. I've begun removing my armoured formations from Okinawa for the central strategic reserve in Japan.
3. The Allies have taken all of the bait of my planning and have invaded Chichi-Jima. This is brilliant news and means I should be able to lure them to invade the next base in line. When they invade that they are going to run into hell. I've made preparations which will make what happened to the USN around Okinawa look like a water balloon fight.
Since the time is coming for another major fight aimed at destroying USN CV TFs I want to test my formations just a little. To that end I'm sending 60 G9Ms and 100 Ki-94 kamikazes in against the USN amphibious TFs. I am supporting them with a long-range sweep by 150 IJA fighters - 100 Ki-94s and 50 Ki-84rs. I've also finally switched my first group of 36 Ki-264s to kamikaze missions. They won't be ready for another day or so but I'm hopeful they'll be able to hit some of the stragglers from the amphibious TFs.
If Damian pulls back entirely from Chichi-Jima tomorrow he can avoid these attacks since they are all going in at pretty much maximum range in order to avoid being sucked into the CAP trap of Iwo-Jima. If he sticks around we'll get to see the Ki-94 kamis in action and I'll learn much about the best force mix going forward.
Well, basically my plan has always been to extend the perimeter out beyond P-51H+drop tank sweep range. That way I can prevent the Allies using fighters to attrit my CAP before they send bombers in. That was essential before I had the new generation of fighters online. As it is now my new generation of fighters are, I believe, more than a match for the P-51H and other sweeping Allied fighters at long range.
So, if the Allies invade Okinawa ( as they have invaded China ) that will mean they will get airbases within 18 hexes of mainland Japan. So, at that point I am planning to accordion my defences inwards slowly but surely conducting a strategic amphibious withdrawal. I won't abandon every island since some are useful as bases for spoiling attacks but, basically, if he has 5 bases within 18 hexes of Osaka on one axis it doesn't really make much sense to lose 3,000 AV trying to deny him another 5 bases the same distance from Osaka on another axis.
Since he is now marching up China towards Shanghai ( which I will let him have with only a little resistance from me) the time is coming when the forces on Okinawa will be rendered irrelevant and so some basic planning is going on about how to FT the vital forces out.
Shrinking the perimeter means more IJA troops per base and, overall, greater problems for the Allies. In a sense allowing me to accordion makes the next phase of operations more difficult for Damian. Personally I'd look to strike deep with a view to preventing the huge forces in the outer perimeter from joining up with the forces in the inner perimeter. It'd be costly to strike deep but in the long run it'd be much, much cheaper.
Elsewhere, over the past 2 days;
1. the B-32s struck Daito Shoto again and were met by 60+ Ki-94s. The Ki-94s downed 13 of the B-32s... even better than last time.
2. I've begun removing my armoured formations from Okinawa for the central strategic reserve in Japan.
3. The Allies have taken all of the bait of my planning and have invaded Chichi-Jima. This is brilliant news and means I should be able to lure them to invade the next base in line. When they invade that they are going to run into hell. I've made preparations which will make what happened to the USN around Okinawa look like a water balloon fight.
Since the time is coming for another major fight aimed at destroying USN CV TFs I want to test my formations just a little. To that end I'm sending 60 G9Ms and 100 Ki-94 kamikazes in against the USN amphibious TFs. I am supporting them with a long-range sweep by 150 IJA fighters - 100 Ki-94s and 50 Ki-84rs. I've also finally switched my first group of 36 Ki-264s to kamikaze missions. They won't be ready for another day or so but I'm hopeful they'll be able to hit some of the stragglers from the amphibious TFs.
If Damian pulls back entirely from Chichi-Jima tomorrow he can avoid these attacks since they are all going in at pretty much maximum range in order to avoid being sucked into the CAP trap of Iwo-Jima. If he sticks around we'll get to see the Ki-94 kamis in action and I'll learn much about the best force mix going forward.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
17th November: The Battle for Chichi Jima
Once again Allied efforts to approach the inner perimeter have resulted in significant Allied losses. While the Ki-94s, unfortunately, did not fly due to bad weather around Chichi Jima and suffered 50% losses to a massive B-29 raid the G9Ms more than made up for this failure sortieing to Iwo Jima ( again, avoiding Chichi Jima because of bad weather ) and pushing home a large, co-ordinated low-level, radar-avoiding attack in the face of severe storms.
They attacked what appeared to be an amphibious TF ( Damian seems to default to having 5 to 6 CVEs, 2 or 3 CAs and a dozen DD/DEs in each of his amphibious TFs ). FlAK was extremely heavy causing severa G9Ms to be so badly damaged that they attempted to ram US CVEs. Gushi W succeeded and inflicted a mortal wound on the CVE Kasaan Bay.
Elsewhere the other 61 G9Ms managed to secure 15 torpedo hits spread amongst the 5 enemy CVEs and put another 3 torpedoes into APAs. All attacks on the CA Chicago II were ineffective, including a torpedo which hit but failed to detonate.
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Iwo-jima at 108,77
Weather in hex: Severe storms
Raid detected at 77 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes
Japanese aircraft
G9M Marlin x 62
Allied aircraft
FM-2 Wildcat x 13
F4U-1D Corsair x 13
F6F-5 Hellcat x 38
Japanese aircraft losses
G9M Marlin: 1 destroyed, 45 damaged
G9M Marlin: 1 destroyed by flak
Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1D Corsair: 9 destroyed
F6F-5 Hellcat: 20 destroyed
I think these losses include Allied planes which went down with the ships.
Allied Ships
CVE Kasaan Bay, Torpedo hits 4, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk
CVE Shamrock Bay, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
CVE Commencement Bay, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
CVE Takanis Bay, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
CVE Long Island, Torpedo hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
3 CVEs sank during the attack. I imagine Tanakis Bay and Long Island are both doomed also.
Personally I'm going to claim 5 CVEs today. That makes a total of 4 CVs, 5 BBs and 18 CVEs over the past 10 weeks. Not bad for an on-the-ropes Japan. I think it is interesting to look at the difference between what happens when he hits my inner perimeter or traps ( places I've prepared and can bring combinations of forces/spotters into action ) and what happens when I try to resist him on the outer perimeter ( where I don't have the option of combining my airpower with my navy or delaying ground forces ).
CA Chicago II
APA St. Mary's, Torpedo hits 1
APA Kittson, Torpedo hits 2, heavy damage
Allied ground losses:
Guns lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Ammo storage explosion on CVE Shamrock Bay
Ammo storage explosion on CVE Shamrock Bay
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CVE Kasaan Bay
Gushi W. gives his life for the Emperor by ramming CVE Kasaan Bay
Massive explosion on CVE Commencement Bay
Fuel storage explosion on CVE Takanis Bay
Ammo storage explosion on CVE Takanis Bay
Ammo storage explosion on CVE Long Island
I've pulled the Ki-94s back to rebuild. I'll probably try them near China next, I see some CVE TFs there I'd like to hit.
Tomorrow the first Ki-264 Kamikaze squadron takes to the air. The pilots have between 50 and 60 LOW NAVAL Skill and I'm expecting 1 hit kills. I have set their ranges so they can either hit Chichi Jima, Iwo Jima or Foochow ( the base the CVEs were at ) using their central position to threaten multiple bases. Their base is covered by 300 fighters and, to be honest, there's no way Damian can be expecting this so I'm confident they'll at least live long enough to launch their attack.
They attacked what appeared to be an amphibious TF ( Damian seems to default to having 5 to 6 CVEs, 2 or 3 CAs and a dozen DD/DEs in each of his amphibious TFs ). FlAK was extremely heavy causing severa G9Ms to be so badly damaged that they attempted to ram US CVEs. Gushi W succeeded and inflicted a mortal wound on the CVE Kasaan Bay.
Elsewhere the other 61 G9Ms managed to secure 15 torpedo hits spread amongst the 5 enemy CVEs and put another 3 torpedoes into APAs. All attacks on the CA Chicago II were ineffective, including a torpedo which hit but failed to detonate.
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Iwo-jima at 108,77
Weather in hex: Severe storms
Raid detected at 77 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes
Japanese aircraft
G9M Marlin x 62
Allied aircraft
FM-2 Wildcat x 13
F4U-1D Corsair x 13
F6F-5 Hellcat x 38
Japanese aircraft losses
G9M Marlin: 1 destroyed, 45 damaged
G9M Marlin: 1 destroyed by flak
Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1D Corsair: 9 destroyed
F6F-5 Hellcat: 20 destroyed
I think these losses include Allied planes which went down with the ships.
Allied Ships
CVE Kasaan Bay, Torpedo hits 4, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk
CVE Shamrock Bay, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
CVE Commencement Bay, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
CVE Takanis Bay, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
CVE Long Island, Torpedo hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
3 CVEs sank during the attack. I imagine Tanakis Bay and Long Island are both doomed also.
Personally I'm going to claim 5 CVEs today. That makes a total of 4 CVs, 5 BBs and 18 CVEs over the past 10 weeks. Not bad for an on-the-ropes Japan. I think it is interesting to look at the difference between what happens when he hits my inner perimeter or traps ( places I've prepared and can bring combinations of forces/spotters into action ) and what happens when I try to resist him on the outer perimeter ( where I don't have the option of combining my airpower with my navy or delaying ground forces ).
CA Chicago II
APA St. Mary's, Torpedo hits 1
APA Kittson, Torpedo hits 2, heavy damage
Allied ground losses:
Guns lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Ammo storage explosion on CVE Shamrock Bay
Ammo storage explosion on CVE Shamrock Bay
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CVE Kasaan Bay
Gushi W. gives his life for the Emperor by ramming CVE Kasaan Bay
Massive explosion on CVE Commencement Bay
Fuel storage explosion on CVE Takanis Bay
Ammo storage explosion on CVE Takanis Bay
Ammo storage explosion on CVE Long Island
I've pulled the Ki-94s back to rebuild. I'll probably try them near China next, I see some CVE TFs there I'd like to hit.
Tomorrow the first Ki-264 Kamikaze squadron takes to the air. The pilots have between 50 and 60 LOW NAVAL Skill and I'm expecting 1 hit kills. I have set their ranges so they can either hit Chichi Jima, Iwo Jima or Foochow ( the base the CVEs were at ) using their central position to threaten multiple bases. Their base is covered by 300 fighters and, to be honest, there's no way Damian can be expecting this so I'm confident they'll at least live long enough to launch their attack.
- Attachments
-
- ae.jpg (70.06 KiB) Viewed 237 times
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
18th November:
Well today was a quiet day. My Ki-264s bombed Ishigaki again and tomorrow I'll be ready to launch another attack. I've driven the Allied AV down from 1,000 AV to just 450. I have 2,000 AV ready to attack after bringing another division in overnight and so tomorrow I'll attack. I'm hopeful that I won't have to bring any additional reinforcements in after tomorrow.
I've also gotten a major reinforcement of Shinyo Suicide Motorlaunch Flotillas at Tokyo. 35 of them came into service today, which is more than I had on-map prior to today. I have spotted a potential opening in Allied defences and over the next 3 days I'm going to test that potential gap with 1 Shinyo flotilla while moving the Shinyos from Tokyo ( and local reserves ) into position. If everything goes right I may, in 4 or 5 days, be launching a 50 Shinyo assault on an allied force - that should be fairly devastating to Allied forces.
More importantly though it'll establish a narrative where it is dangerous for Allied forces to use forward staging areas for pre-invasion forming up and I'd really like to push their deployment zones back to Saipan and the Phillipines as that extra day or two of warning is crucial in really getting significant forces into action defensively.
I also upgraded one of my land-based Zero units to J7W2s. Why is this important? Well, I've been upgrading a unit every 3 or 4 days but this is the first of my "mediocre" units I've upgraded. What I mean by this is that while I've been switching fighter units with high A2A skill ( anything above 60 ) to J7W2s and A7M2s for a while now I've never had the pilots or planes to begun upgrading my mediocre units. Today was the first day that my experienced fighter groups all had top-line fighters and I had enough pilots to completely remove all of the 50 A2A skill pilots from a mediocre group, replace them with 70 A2A Skill pilots from training AND upgrade the group to the new generation of fighters in a single day.
The 50 A2A Skill pilots have gone into the general reserve from which I'll send them to training groups. Instead of 3 months of training they should only need 1 month of training to get up to 70 A2A Skill and so by doing this, in 1 month's time, I should begin to have a large, steady flow of trained pilots for the IJAAF again.
Oh, lastly, the Allies took Chichi Jima. Not really a big deal as it was only bait. There's 1 more bait island and then he'll hit rock and find the going very, very tough.
Oh I should have mentioned losses from yesterday.
Basically I lost 7 G9Ms. Almost all of the rest were damaged but the short range to target let them make it home. The Allies lost 90 planes on the CVEs ( about 50 Corsairs, 35 Hellcats and some Avengers ). Today recon shows 1 CVE docked at Iwo Jima. So, 4 CVEs down, 1 badly damaged. Since Iwo is a tiny port and since the CVE must be on fire I'm quite hopeful it will sink soon.
Irrespective though I should get a few more CVEs soon.
I've also gotten a major reinforcement of Shinyo Suicide Motorlaunch Flotillas at Tokyo. 35 of them came into service today, which is more than I had on-map prior to today. I have spotted a potential opening in Allied defences and over the next 3 days I'm going to test that potential gap with 1 Shinyo flotilla while moving the Shinyos from Tokyo ( and local reserves ) into position. If everything goes right I may, in 4 or 5 days, be launching a 50 Shinyo assault on an allied force - that should be fairly devastating to Allied forces.
More importantly though it'll establish a narrative where it is dangerous for Allied forces to use forward staging areas for pre-invasion forming up and I'd really like to push their deployment zones back to Saipan and the Phillipines as that extra day or two of warning is crucial in really getting significant forces into action defensively.
I also upgraded one of my land-based Zero units to J7W2s. Why is this important? Well, I've been upgrading a unit every 3 or 4 days but this is the first of my "mediocre" units I've upgraded. What I mean by this is that while I've been switching fighter units with high A2A skill ( anything above 60 ) to J7W2s and A7M2s for a while now I've never had the pilots or planes to begun upgrading my mediocre units. Today was the first day that my experienced fighter groups all had top-line fighters and I had enough pilots to completely remove all of the 50 A2A skill pilots from a mediocre group, replace them with 70 A2A Skill pilots from training AND upgrade the group to the new generation of fighters in a single day.
The 50 A2A Skill pilots have gone into the general reserve from which I'll send them to training groups. Instead of 3 months of training they should only need 1 month of training to get up to 70 A2A Skill and so by doing this, in 1 month's time, I should begin to have a large, steady flow of trained pilots for the IJAAF again.
Oh, lastly, the Allies took Chichi Jima. Not really a big deal as it was only bait. There's 1 more bait island and then he'll hit rock and find the going very, very tough.
Oh I should have mentioned losses from yesterday.
Basically I lost 7 G9Ms. Almost all of the rest were damaged but the short range to target let them make it home. The Allies lost 90 planes on the CVEs ( about 50 Corsairs, 35 Hellcats and some Avengers ). Today recon shows 1 CVE docked at Iwo Jima. So, 4 CVEs down, 1 badly damaged. Since Iwo is a tiny port and since the CVE must be on fire I'm quite hopeful it will sink soon.
Irrespective though I should get a few more CVEs soon.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
RE: 18th November:
Nemo-
I think it is safe to claim 5 CVEs... they don't have to take a whole lot before they slip under the waves..
I am very excited to see your KI-264 Kamis in action against the fleet CVs if the opportunity presents itself...
I think it is safe to claim 5 CVEs... they don't have to take a whole lot before they slip under the waves..
I am very excited to see your KI-264 Kamis in action against the fleet CVs if the opportunity presents itself...
Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.
RE: 18th November:
You and me both.
I had a gander at the turn last night ( I'm doing some logistical housekeeping while Damian travels ) and so far my intel is telling me I've sunk 5 fleet CVs ( 90 planes each = 450 ) and 14 CVEs or CVLs ( 30 planes each = 420 ) for a total USN flightdeck space loss of 870 planes.
They get 40 fleet CVs ( including some 100+ deckspace CVs ) for a total of about 3,800 flight deck spaces and they get 102 CVEs/CVLs with roughly 3,060 flight deck spaces. So they had a potential of 6,860 flight deck spaces and now have 5,990.
So, there's been a 13% or so reduction in their flight deck space. That's important because their CVs are what they'll have to use to cover their amphibious invasions in the Kuriles or closer to Japan and so anything which reduces those flight deck spaces ( or causes them to be diverted to convoy protection duties ) helps me.
It puts the USN into perspective though to realise they still have 6,000 flight deck spaces and that probably equals the entire strength of my IJAAF and IJNAF non-kamikaze units. Basically the USN can, without any support, equal my aerial combat power. Pretty impressive!!!
I had a gander at the turn last night ( I'm doing some logistical housekeeping while Damian travels ) and so far my intel is telling me I've sunk 5 fleet CVs ( 90 planes each = 450 ) and 14 CVEs or CVLs ( 30 planes each = 420 ) for a total USN flightdeck space loss of 870 planes.
They get 40 fleet CVs ( including some 100+ deckspace CVs ) for a total of about 3,800 flight deck spaces and they get 102 CVEs/CVLs with roughly 3,060 flight deck spaces. So they had a potential of 6,860 flight deck spaces and now have 5,990.
So, there's been a 13% or so reduction in their flight deck space. That's important because their CVs are what they'll have to use to cover their amphibious invasions in the Kuriles or closer to Japan and so anything which reduces those flight deck spaces ( or causes them to be diverted to convoy protection duties ) helps me.
It puts the USN into perspective though to realise they still have 6,000 flight deck spaces and that probably equals the entire strength of my IJAAF and IJNAF non-kamikaze units. Basically the USN can, without any support, equal my aerial combat power. Pretty impressive!!!
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
RE: 18th November:
Never thought of it that way. That is very impressive.
Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.
-
Capt. Harlock
- Posts: 5379
- Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
RE: 18th November:
Basically the USN can, without any support, equal my aerial combat power. Pretty impressive!!!
Not unless the CV's are carrying F8F Bearcat squadrons. Numbers alone don't tell the story when you've created a force of uber-fighters. (Not that I blame you for doing so.)
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?
--Victor Hugo
--Victor Hugo
RE: 18th November:
Harlock,
Hmm, numbers alone don't tell the whole story but in my view the USN CV TFs don't have to "win" anything at this stage. They just have to not lose.
What I mean by that is that USN CV TFs exist in order to secure the unhindered passage of amphibious TFs to their targets. In order to do that they don't have to conduct strikes ( beyond whatever naval strikes are necessary to clear the waters ), they just have to be able to mount a strong numerical CAP.
Japanese escorts exist only to absorb "firing passes" in-game ( given the way the code currently works - if you're interested you can read two threads discussing this and suggesting changes which would improve the code's ability to model plausible outcomes in the Tech forum ). Once that is done and the fighters get at the bombers what matters is not their quality ( since even a Wildcat is more than good enough to shoot down a laden Judy or Netty ) but their numbers ( again, up to a certain point beyond which numbers don't matter due to the way the code currently works ).
Bottom line though, I'm not sure that USN CV fighter quality actually matters much in the defensive role since the fighter vs fighter and fighter vs bomber combat rounds seem to be resolved independently without carry-over of results ( so, for example, if there are 300 fighter vs fighter firing passes that doesn't impact the number of fighter vs bomber firing passes ---- whereas historically the longer you spent fighting the fighters ( fighter vs fighter firing passes ) the less time ( fewer firing passes ) you'd have in the fighter vs bomber phase.
I've thought about this a little tonight once the model was clarified by michaelm and given the current CAP vs strike model the determinant of whether or not a USN CV TF CAP is successful or not actually lies in Japanese hands and is independent of USN CV TF fighter technical-tactical characteristics. In other words, given the number of fighters USN CV TFs can put up 1,000 Wildcats are likely to do just as well against an optimal strike package as 1,000 F8F Bearcats. Obviously against sub-optimal strike packages the Bearcats would do better since sub-optimal strike packages wouldn't be designed to negate US technical-tactical superiority.
I've looked into it and while my basic approach is still valid this code issue definitely favours larger co-ordinated strikes with large numbers of Ki-264s/G9Ms along in order to "absorb" firing passes until the hard-coded limit is reached as a means of relatively sparing the much more fragile single-engined and twin-engined strike aircraft. With this in mind I'm going to look at co-ordinating G9M strikes with single and twin-engined strike groups from now on once USN CVs are in range. I believe G9Ms, on their own, can tackle CVEs/CVLs TFs.
So, technical-tactical issues matter but given the way CAP vs bomber fights are modelled at present there are ways to utterly negate this advantage if one is willing to pay the cost. For Japan that also means a further shift away from attrition to a series of pulsed battles in which there are long periods of very little combat followed by short periods in which almost the entire air force is committed, en masse, into a very high risk environment accepting massive losses over a short period of time in order to overwhelm Allied defences.
So, yes, the Bearcat is better than the F6F5 but defensively I don't think it actually matters much which he deploys. Offensively it matters a lot. To my mind if I were the Allies this would mean that I would reverse the usual doctrinal approach of sending lesser quality planes along to act as escorts since higher quality planes would do better as escorts but wouldn't do substantially better in the CAP role. What it also means is that one should preferentially use fighters with the heaviest armament in the CAP role so as to maximise the odds that each of the limited number of firing passes would result in a kill.
So, there are a lot of ramifications to this code issue and certainly my conclusions seem to support the view that it is much more complex than just looking at the technical-tactical characteristics would seem to suggest. There's an interplay between technical-tactical characteristics, role and code base and combining all three of those factors appropriately will yield the optimal outcome.
Of course, the solution is to fix the code base so that this sort of gap doesn't actually exist OR to HR it so that no side attacks with more than x planes and no side defends with more than y but that sort of HR would be laborious and relatively impossible to enforce given that Japanese strike packages are formed during the resolution phase without recourse to the player.
In terms of ueber-fighters... Well the P-51H is better than any of mine except, perhaps, the J7W2 so I'm not sure about ueber-fighters. I definitely have tried to build the best I could afford though - it was the only way I was ever going to be competitive vs his numbers and quality.
Hmm, numbers alone don't tell the whole story but in my view the USN CV TFs don't have to "win" anything at this stage. They just have to not lose.
What I mean by that is that USN CV TFs exist in order to secure the unhindered passage of amphibious TFs to their targets. In order to do that they don't have to conduct strikes ( beyond whatever naval strikes are necessary to clear the waters ), they just have to be able to mount a strong numerical CAP.
Japanese escorts exist only to absorb "firing passes" in-game ( given the way the code currently works - if you're interested you can read two threads discussing this and suggesting changes which would improve the code's ability to model plausible outcomes in the Tech forum ). Once that is done and the fighters get at the bombers what matters is not their quality ( since even a Wildcat is more than good enough to shoot down a laden Judy or Netty ) but their numbers ( again, up to a certain point beyond which numbers don't matter due to the way the code currently works ).
Bottom line though, I'm not sure that USN CV fighter quality actually matters much in the defensive role since the fighter vs fighter and fighter vs bomber combat rounds seem to be resolved independently without carry-over of results ( so, for example, if there are 300 fighter vs fighter firing passes that doesn't impact the number of fighter vs bomber firing passes ---- whereas historically the longer you spent fighting the fighters ( fighter vs fighter firing passes ) the less time ( fewer firing passes ) you'd have in the fighter vs bomber phase.
I've thought about this a little tonight once the model was clarified by michaelm and given the current CAP vs strike model the determinant of whether or not a USN CV TF CAP is successful or not actually lies in Japanese hands and is independent of USN CV TF fighter technical-tactical characteristics. In other words, given the number of fighters USN CV TFs can put up 1,000 Wildcats are likely to do just as well against an optimal strike package as 1,000 F8F Bearcats. Obviously against sub-optimal strike packages the Bearcats would do better since sub-optimal strike packages wouldn't be designed to negate US technical-tactical superiority.
I've looked into it and while my basic approach is still valid this code issue definitely favours larger co-ordinated strikes with large numbers of Ki-264s/G9Ms along in order to "absorb" firing passes until the hard-coded limit is reached as a means of relatively sparing the much more fragile single-engined and twin-engined strike aircraft. With this in mind I'm going to look at co-ordinating G9M strikes with single and twin-engined strike groups from now on once USN CVs are in range. I believe G9Ms, on their own, can tackle CVEs/CVLs TFs.
So, technical-tactical issues matter but given the way CAP vs bomber fights are modelled at present there are ways to utterly negate this advantage if one is willing to pay the cost. For Japan that also means a further shift away from attrition to a series of pulsed battles in which there are long periods of very little combat followed by short periods in which almost the entire air force is committed, en masse, into a very high risk environment accepting massive losses over a short period of time in order to overwhelm Allied defences.
So, yes, the Bearcat is better than the F6F5 but defensively I don't think it actually matters much which he deploys. Offensively it matters a lot. To my mind if I were the Allies this would mean that I would reverse the usual doctrinal approach of sending lesser quality planes along to act as escorts since higher quality planes would do better as escorts but wouldn't do substantially better in the CAP role. What it also means is that one should preferentially use fighters with the heaviest armament in the CAP role so as to maximise the odds that each of the limited number of firing passes would result in a kill.
So, there are a lot of ramifications to this code issue and certainly my conclusions seem to support the view that it is much more complex than just looking at the technical-tactical characteristics would seem to suggest. There's an interplay between technical-tactical characteristics, role and code base and combining all three of those factors appropriately will yield the optimal outcome.
Of course, the solution is to fix the code base so that this sort of gap doesn't actually exist OR to HR it so that no side attacks with more than x planes and no side defends with more than y but that sort of HR would be laborious and relatively impossible to enforce given that Japanese strike packages are formed during the resolution phase without recourse to the player.
In terms of ueber-fighters... Well the P-51H is better than any of mine except, perhaps, the J7W2 so I'm not sure about ueber-fighters. I definitely have tried to build the best I could afford though - it was the only way I was ever going to be competitive vs his numbers and quality.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
RE: 18th November:
Japanese escorts exist only to absorb "firing passes" in-game
I always knew they were only ablative armor (as someone else said).
-
Capt. Harlock
- Posts: 5379
- Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
RE: 18th November:
What I mean by that is that USN CV TFs exist in order to secure the unhindered passage of amphibious TFs to their targets. In order to do that they don't have to conduct strikes ( beyond whatever naval strikes are necessary to clear the waters ), they just have to be able to mount a strong numerical CAP.
I'm not wholly convinced. At this point the greatest threat to USN amphibious TF's is clearly Japanese LBA. Therefore, the USN CV's should be able to neutralize at least some of the nearby airfields. Otherwise, leakers are inevitable. Actually, now that I think about it, leakers are highly likely in any case. The CV's need to be able to reduce the number to a level causing acceptable losses.
Japanese escorts exist only to absorb "firing passes" in-game ( given the way the code currently works - if you're interested you can read two threads discussing this and suggesting changes which would improve the code's ability to model plausible outcomes in the Tech forum ). Once that is done and the fighters get at the bombers what matters is not their quality ( since even a Wildcat is more than good enough to shoot down a laden Judy or Netty )
Hmm -- what about the Ki-264's and G9M's?[:D] My understanding of the code is that an intercepting fighter must still maneuver to attack an incoming bomber, which is not too difficult but by no means certain. An F8F would have a better chance of getting into firing position, and a better chance of downing the heavier bombers.
What a difference three days makes:
1/21/2012
As it is now my new generation of fighters are, I believe, more than a match for the P-51H and other sweeping Allied fighters at long range.
1/24/2012
Well the P-51H is better than any of mine except, perhaps, the J7W2 so I'm not sure about ueber-fighters.
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?
--Victor Hugo
--Victor Hugo
RE: 18th November:
Rader,
Interestingly enough I read my post differently. I think that once the raid is more than 200 strike aircraft escorts aren't necessary at all. Below 200 they may have a purpose, above 200 I don't see that they actually do ( vs large CAPs ). Caveat - that's given the current code base and the issue which has recently been discovered limiting the number of firing passes fighters have vs bombers to 200 --- no matter how many fighters there are on CAP.
Harlock,
Well, USN CV TFs ARE able to neutralise nearby airfields if they wish. I just think that's not necessarily the best use of USN CV TFs. If my opponent wants to go around blasting airfields I'm happy to take the opportunity to inflict significant losses on him in letting him do so - opening him up to a counter-thrust.
As to G9Ms and Ki-264s. I don't understand how your point relating them relates to the quote. Could you clarify?
As to the quotes.... You appear to have missed a crucial portion of the quotes.
1st quote: My fighters are more than a match for the P-51H and other sweeping fighters AT LONG RANGE. A mission flown to 20 hexes by P-51 Hs operating at high altitude can result in those fighter pilots having 20 to 40 points of fatigue by the time they reach the target. Previously I've established ( in testing and this game ) that fatigue acts to functionally reduce a pilot's A2A skill so that a 70 A2A skill pilot who has 30 fatigue might function like a 55 A2A skill pilot. In-game testing has shown me that P-47Ns can handle my Ki-94IIs when they are flying 10 hexes ( to Ishigaki ) or so but when they are flying 18 to 20 hexes ( to Nago or to Japan from Iwo Jima ) my Ki-94s tend to get the better of them. This is why Allied sweeps of Formosa and Ishigaki tend to result in about a 1:1 exchange rate for J7Ws and Ki-94s while Allied sweeps over Japan proper have been utterly abandoned ( since they are flown at longer range, have higher fatigue and tend to result in hugely disproportionate casualties. ).
The last time the Allies did a sweep over Ishigaki they actually got a bit better than a 1:1 exchange rate vs my planes. The last time the same planes swept Japan proper they took roughly 80% casualties ( about 28 out of 35 lost ) in return for minimal friendly casualties ( I believe I lost 3 or 4 planes ). I was defending with an equivalent mix of fighters each time. The difference was distance. Pilot experience should have been identical and this isn't a one-off, this is something I've seen happen when the same unit swept at close range and then, a couple of days later, was order to sweep at long range.
2nd quote: Technical-tactical characteristics of the P-51H are definitely better than any of mine except the J7W2. I stand by that statement. With that said a brilliant plane ( the P-51H ) flown by an exhausted pilot ( if they conduct very long range sweeps ) can be easy meat due to the effect of fatigue.
When I tried to turn the tables and used my own Ki-94s to conduct long-range sweeps I found they got absolutely slaughtered by the Allies ( in this situation the fatigue differential was entirely in the Allies' favour). When I keep them on the defensive ( minimising fatigue on my part and maximising it on the enemy's part - making the fatigue differential work in my favour ) I find they do 1:1 at short range and considerably better as we move into extended range ( for the Allies ).
I really think the effect of fatigue on performance is huge -- and magnified by the latest game code changes to stratospheric sweeps ( which tend to make them a much less attractive option and have had the effect in-game in this game to reduce sweep altitudes back down to 25,000 to 30,000 feet or so from the previous high of 35,000 feet or 40,000 feet ). Certainly most of my CAP is now flying at 25,000 feet in order to avoid becoming excessively fatigued.
Hopefully that helps clarify the internal consistency of those two posts. Obviously you're free to disagree but my opponents seem to agree with me since they've stopped long-range sweeps in favour of short to medium-range sweeps. They wouldn't be doing that if they felt the P-51Hs were a match for mine at long-range but they still evidently feel free to use them at short range ( over Ishigaki ). Hell Damian sweeps Ishigaki all the time but won't even sweep Nago because of the difference in fatigue at those two ranges. One would be a normal range sweep, the other is an extended range sweep ( which is where the problems begin ).
Interestingly enough I read my post differently. I think that once the raid is more than 200 strike aircraft escorts aren't necessary at all. Below 200 they may have a purpose, above 200 I don't see that they actually do ( vs large CAPs ). Caveat - that's given the current code base and the issue which has recently been discovered limiting the number of firing passes fighters have vs bombers to 200 --- no matter how many fighters there are on CAP.
Harlock,
Well, USN CV TFs ARE able to neutralise nearby airfields if they wish. I just think that's not necessarily the best use of USN CV TFs. If my opponent wants to go around blasting airfields I'm happy to take the opportunity to inflict significant losses on him in letting him do so - opening him up to a counter-thrust.
As to G9Ms and Ki-264s. I don't understand how your point relating them relates to the quote. Could you clarify?
As to the quotes.... You appear to have missed a crucial portion of the quotes.
1st quote: My fighters are more than a match for the P-51H and other sweeping fighters AT LONG RANGE. A mission flown to 20 hexes by P-51 Hs operating at high altitude can result in those fighter pilots having 20 to 40 points of fatigue by the time they reach the target. Previously I've established ( in testing and this game ) that fatigue acts to functionally reduce a pilot's A2A skill so that a 70 A2A skill pilot who has 30 fatigue might function like a 55 A2A skill pilot. In-game testing has shown me that P-47Ns can handle my Ki-94IIs when they are flying 10 hexes ( to Ishigaki ) or so but when they are flying 18 to 20 hexes ( to Nago or to Japan from Iwo Jima ) my Ki-94s tend to get the better of them. This is why Allied sweeps of Formosa and Ishigaki tend to result in about a 1:1 exchange rate for J7Ws and Ki-94s while Allied sweeps over Japan proper have been utterly abandoned ( since they are flown at longer range, have higher fatigue and tend to result in hugely disproportionate casualties. ).
The last time the Allies did a sweep over Ishigaki they actually got a bit better than a 1:1 exchange rate vs my planes. The last time the same planes swept Japan proper they took roughly 80% casualties ( about 28 out of 35 lost ) in return for minimal friendly casualties ( I believe I lost 3 or 4 planes ). I was defending with an equivalent mix of fighters each time. The difference was distance. Pilot experience should have been identical and this isn't a one-off, this is something I've seen happen when the same unit swept at close range and then, a couple of days later, was order to sweep at long range.
2nd quote: Technical-tactical characteristics of the P-51H are definitely better than any of mine except the J7W2. I stand by that statement. With that said a brilliant plane ( the P-51H ) flown by an exhausted pilot ( if they conduct very long range sweeps ) can be easy meat due to the effect of fatigue.
When I tried to turn the tables and used my own Ki-94s to conduct long-range sweeps I found they got absolutely slaughtered by the Allies ( in this situation the fatigue differential was entirely in the Allies' favour). When I keep them on the defensive ( minimising fatigue on my part and maximising it on the enemy's part - making the fatigue differential work in my favour ) I find they do 1:1 at short range and considerably better as we move into extended range ( for the Allies ).
I really think the effect of fatigue on performance is huge -- and magnified by the latest game code changes to stratospheric sweeps ( which tend to make them a much less attractive option and have had the effect in-game in this game to reduce sweep altitudes back down to 25,000 to 30,000 feet or so from the previous high of 35,000 feet or 40,000 feet ). Certainly most of my CAP is now flying at 25,000 feet in order to avoid becoming excessively fatigued.
Hopefully that helps clarify the internal consistency of those two posts. Obviously you're free to disagree but my opponents seem to agree with me since they've stopped long-range sweeps in favour of short to medium-range sweeps. They wouldn't be doing that if they felt the P-51Hs were a match for mine at long-range but they still evidently feel free to use them at short range ( over Ishigaki ). Hell Damian sweeps Ishigaki all the time but won't even sweep Nago because of the difference in fatigue at those two ranges. One would be a normal range sweep, the other is an extended range sweep ( which is where the problems begin ).
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
RE: 18th November:
There's no contradiction there at all. Nemo's plans have been to keep the P-51s out of anything but extreme sweep range for as long as possible. Basically, he believes his fighters can match and exceed the P-51H when it has fatigue from long range, but are inferior at close ranges when the fight is more equal. Sensible.
-
Capt. Harlock
- Posts: 5379
- Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
RE: 18th November:
The point was that G9Ms and Ki-264s are not Judys or Netties. I doubt the Wildcats are equal to Bearcats in their ability to shoot down Japan's more advanced bombers.As to G9Ms and Ki-264s. I don't understand how your point relating them relates to the quote. Could you clarify?
The point about long-range sweeps raises on off-topic issue. (Although, everything about the P-51H is off-topic since they cannot fly from CV's, which was the original issue.) The P-47N had rudder pedals that folded down and transformed into leg rests for long-range flying, as well as a primitive auto-pilot and the spacious cockpit that all Thunderbolts were known for. This seems to have been an advantage at least for one 1st Lt Oscar F. Perdomo, who became an ace in a single day when doing a sweep over the Korean peninsula in August 1945. But I imagine the code is not sophisticated enough to model fatigue rating for individual aircraft!
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?
--Victor Hugo
--Victor Hugo
RE: 18th November:
Aye well, unfortunately the way the game works the Bearcats don't have much more luck than the Wildcats. A bit more but not much - 20mm cannon are not 4-engined killers. The 4-engineds appear to have a prime utility in "absorbing firing passes" allowing the other bombers accompanying them to get through.
As re: the code: No there is no modelling for that sort of thing in code. Same way as there's no modeling of the fact that B-29s and Ki-94s ( due to pressure cabins ) shouldn't have the same penalties for flying high as other planes. While there are still significant issues with the basic bombing model ( and other areas ) I think that those sorts of lovely to have minutiae will remain untouched as michaelm focuses on the bigger stuff.
As re: the code: No there is no modelling for that sort of thing in code. Same way as there's no modeling of the fact that B-29s and Ki-94s ( due to pressure cabins ) shouldn't have the same penalties for flying high as other planes. While there are still significant issues with the basic bombing model ( and other areas ) I think that those sorts of lovely to have minutiae will remain untouched as michaelm focuses on the bigger stuff.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
RE: 18th November:
Given the outcome of GJ and Rader's recent battle and the fact that in the pivotal round of that combat 1200 US fighters were held off the bombers by 474 Japanese escorts such that, according to Greyjoy's pics in his AAR, not a single strike aircraft was shot down by defending CAP I am planning to approach my opponent to ask whether or not he wishes to introduce HRs re: maximum CAP size or maximum strike size in this game.
I don't believe that with 700+ extra fighters the USN would, in real life, have been unable to intercept a single one of the strike aircraft and so I think it is only fair to ask if he wants to HR this. Otherwise when he comes near the Home Islands and I unleash 3,000 planes vs his Coronet style operation I'm worried I might actually sink a sizeable percentage of the US fleet in a day --- when really I shouldn't be doing so.
I don't believe that with 700+ extra fighters the USN would, in real life, have been unable to intercept a single one of the strike aircraft and so I think it is only fair to ask if he wants to HR this. Otherwise when he comes near the Home Islands and I unleash 3,000 planes vs his Coronet style operation I'm worried I might actually sink a sizeable percentage of the US fleet in a day --- when really I shouldn't be doing so.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
-
Capt. Harlock
- Posts: 5379
- Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
RE: 18th November:
I don't believe that with 700+ extra fighters the USN would, in real life, have been unable to intercept a single one of the strike aircraft and so I think it is only fair to ask if he wants to HR this. Otherwise when he comes near the Home Islands and I unleash 3,000 planes vs his Coronet style operation I'm worried I might actually sink a sizeable percentage of the US fleet in a day --- when really I shouldn't be doing so.
I have to agree -- and I salute you for your sportsmanship.
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?
--Victor Hugo
--Victor Hugo
RE: 18th November:
Nemo, I'm curious what you think might be an in-game counter to make the fleet less vulnerable. For something like GreyJoy's situation (with the IJN surface assets mostly attrited) would it be wiser to split carriers into 2 or maybe even 3 adjacent hexes with a cap range of 1? Or would that further dilute the effect of CAP to the point of making all formations more vulnerable at once? I'm wondering whether the desire to stack everything doesn't, in fact, make the carriers more vulnerable late war. At least, I would think, splitting up the fleet slightly more might make each individual element more vulnerable, but it would seem to me to make a complete disaster somewhat less likely, especially as ship FlAK doesn't seem to work the same way as ground FlAK (I haven't tested, but I imagine that even if GreyJoy had had every Allied BB, CA, CL, and CLAA in that hex it wouldn't have been the same as ground stacked FlAK).