Second major air strike in game ends in complete slaughter AGAIN.

[Knavey]

Ok,

My game with Feinder has ended up in here a few too many times.

We had the problem with the replays not being in sync, and that appears to have corrected itself, although it does show up once in a blue moon.

The first airstrike that the IJN launched against the USN early in the war was slaughtered...we chalked it up to USN having radar due to lack of better explanation. Unfortunately I do not have the data from that strike to compare with the one that occurred today.

Today I moved a 5 carrier task force towards a group of CVs (I think 3) that I knew were probably heading towards home after striking a task force off of Lunga. I purposely positioned myself in an area that I thought would give me a fair chance of only having long range attacks going on, and sure enough, at the beginning of the air combat phase I was positioned 10 hexes away from him.

Of course all of the planes lifted off, and then none came back. Once again the IJN air forces had been cut to pieces. He has upgraded to the F4Fs, but 2 of my escorting squadrons were zero3s instead of zero2s. Experiences were relatively high on both sides, fatigue was average (I would think his would be about the same as mine) with all groups less than 30, and the only other factor is that we were in the rain.

We are playing Scn 19, nothing funny in the settings, and it is only July '42.

As the IJN player I would expect a "Midway" style slaughter at least once per game...even early on. Our first encounter resulted in one of these...my loss of 2 CVs with everyone else banged up and my air groups decimated. But having it happen twice (and remember these have been the ONLY two engagements so far) seems a bit far fetched.

It does appear to me that something is amiss...statistically, I would find it hard to believe that it would do this twice. If this is what I am to expect from every CV engagement in this game, then there is absolutely no point to trying to fight the war. At this point in the conflict, the 2 sides should be relatively balanced.

I am putting in a file that shows the IJN losses from before and after, as well as posting the combat txt file.

I am certainly open to suggestions on how to keep this game going, but from what I can see, whatever hidden factor that the program contains seems to not favor the IJN in this at all. If I cant count on my CV air groups to do the job that they are supposed to do, then I might as well just pull everything back to Truck and let Feinder steamroll up the Solomons.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/20/42

Weather: Thunderstorms

Sub attack near Truk at 20,2

Japanese Ships
DD Hatakaze

Allied Ships
SS Cabrilla


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 49,49

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 24
D3A Val x 46
B5N Kate x 16

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 87

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 14 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 3 damaged
D3A Val x 38 destroyed
D3A Val x 4 damaged
B5N Kate x 16 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 18 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 10 damaged

LT B. Harwood of VF-8 is credited with kill number 9

Allied Ships
CV Saratoga
CL Nashville


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 49,49

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 15
D3A Val x 22
B5N Kate x 18

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 35

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero x 7 destroyed
A6M3 Zero x 1 damaged
D3A Val x 15 destroyed
D3A Val x 7 damaged
B5N Kate x 14 destroyed
B5N Kate x 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 16 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 10 damaged

LT B. Harwood of VF-8 is credited with kill number 10

LCDR J. Gray of VF-6 is KILLED

Allied Ships
CV Saratoga
CV Enterprise


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Port Moresby , at 10,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 26
G3M Nell x 11
G4M1 Betty x 11

Allied aircraft
P-400 Airacobra x 3
P-39D Airacobra x 25
P-40E Kittyhawk x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 2 damaged
G3M Nell x 2 destroyed
G3M Nell x 4 damaged
G4M1 Betty x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-400 Airacobra x 1 damaged
P-39D Airacobra x 4 destroyed
P-40E Kittyhawk x 1 destroyed
C-47 Dakota x 1 destroyed

LCDR H. Nishizawa of F1/Tainan Daitai is credited with kill number 4

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 13

Attacking Level Bombers:
1 x G3M Nell at 6000 feet
11 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet
8 x G3M Nell at 6000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 49,49

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 14
A6M3 Zero x 4
D3A Val x 22
B5N Kate x 20

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 47

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 11 destroyed
A6M3 Zero x 3 destroyed
D3A Val x 12 destroyed
D3A Val x 2 damaged
B5N Kate x 19 destroyed
B5N Kate x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 damaged

LTJG S. Ruehlow of VF-8 is credited with kill number 6


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Truk at 20,2


LTJG R. Gray of VF-8 is credited with kill number 6
Japanese Ships
APD 36
DD Kikuzuki
DD Hatakaze

Allied Ships
SS Cabrilla


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 49,49

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 39
A6M3 Zero x 17

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 10
SBD Dauntless x 14
A-24 Dauntless x 11

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 3 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 5 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat x 10 destroyed
F4F-3 Wildcat x 1 damaged
SBD Dauntless x 6 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 1 damaged
A-24 Dauntless x 7 destroyed
A-24 Dauntless x 2 damaged

ENS B. Macomber of VF-42 is credited with kill number 5

ENS B. Macomber of VF-42 is KILLED


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Port Moresby , at 10,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 35
A6M3 Zero x 12
G3M Nell x 28
G4M1 Betty x 51

Allied aircraft
P-400 Airacobra x 4
P-39D Airacobra x 28
P-40E Kittyhawk x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged
A6M3 Zero x 2 destroyed
G3M Nell x 1 damaged
G4M1 Betty x 5 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 3 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 4 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 1 damaged
P-40E Kittyhawk x 6 destroyed
P-40E Kittyhawk x 2 damaged

LCDR H. Nishizawa of F1/Tainan Daitai is credited with kill number 5

FLT R. Vanderfield of No. 76 Sqn RAAF is KILLED


Allied ground losses:
Men lost 20

Airbase hits 5
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 11

Attacking Level Bombers:
23 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet
4 x G3M Nell at 6000 feet
12 x G3M Nell at 6000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Knavey

[Feinder]

Really? I can have the Solomons?

It is true, I'm really surprised that nothing got thru. Yes, I've got nearly 90 F4F4s, and a krap-load of AAA, but I suppose I have "survivor's sydrome" (that's where you live thru the carnage and feel guilty, it has nothing to do with incredibly beaten-to-death TV shows).

The combat report for his 3 airstikes.... It could be worse bro, you hit me 2x at long range, I didn't get anything the 1st day. Bad weather for me the 2nd day, and my Marine squadrons got zip too. (I know, you lost alot of pilots, I'll shut-up and post the text file).

....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 49,49

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 24
D3A Val x 46
B5N Kate x 16

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 87

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 14 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 3 damaged
D3A Val x 38 destroyed
D3A Val x 4 damaged
B5N Kate x 16 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 18 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 10 damaged

LT B. Harwood of VF-8 is credited with kill number 9

Allied Ships
CV Saratoga
CL Nashville


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 49,49

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 15
D3A Val x 22
B5N Kate x 18

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 35

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero x 7 destroyed
A6M3 Zero x 1 damaged
D3A Val x 15 destroyed
D3A Val x 7 damaged
B5N Kate x 14 destroyed
B5N Kate x 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 16 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 10 damaged

LT B. Harwood of VF-8 is credited with kill number 10

LCDR J. Gray of VF-6 is KILLED

Allied Ships
CV Saratoga
CV Enterprise

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 49,49

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 14
A6M3 Zero x 4
D3A Val x 22
B5N Kate x 20

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 47

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 11 destroyed
A6M3 Zero x 3 destroyed
D3A Val x 12 destroyed
D3A Val x 2 damaged
B5N Kate x 19 destroyed
B5N Kate x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 damaged

LTJG S. Ruehlow of VF-8 is credited with kill number 6



Looks like total (combat losses (not counting destroyed on way home) is...

10 A6M3 Zero
25 A6M2 Zero
65 D3A Val
49 B5N Kate

vs.

34 F4F4 Wildcat
....


Actually Dave, if you look at the exchanges, is it that unreasonable that...?

Battle #1
24 Escort + 62 Bombers vs 87 Fighters.

Assume an escort pairs with each fighter, and that the Zero is roughly equal to the Wilcat and they kill each other (roughly, but true according to the losses). The net aftwards is 63 Wildcats left to tangle with 62 bombers (at range because of radar?). Paired off, the bombers won't last long. YES I UNDERSTAND THAT -SOME- SHOULD LEAK THRU. I'm just saying just look at the simplistic view to start with.


Battle #2
15 Escort + 40 Bombers vs 45 Fighters

Again, a net of 30 fighters vs. 40 Bombers (how many leaked thru on the replay?)


Battle #3
18 Escort + 42 Bombers vs 47 Fighters
A net of 25 Fighters vs. 42 Bombers.




Dunno bro. I have yet put any skylights in your CVs yet. We'll see. If you want, we'll replay the turn for testing. Set your escort percentage to 90% escort, 10% cap, that should give you better pairing with my Wilcats, and we'll see how many get thru.

-F-

[Knavey]

I just put the CR in the post since I had to re run it to get the correct one for this turn. I had a different one when I went back a turn to look at the settings of the planes.

Nothing amiss on the settings of the planes, no messages saying your pilots drank too much saki before the raid...just another unexplained slaughter. You really should not be able to even chalk this one up to radar since I highly doubt it was effective during rainstorm.

Oh well, back to getting my ships back to Truck to reform airgroups.

Knavey

[Yamamoto]

I don't really see this one as unusual. When cap outnumbers the escorts by 4 to 1, you're going to lose most of your strike planes. I notice you did win the fighter vs fighter part of the battle. If you had sent more escorts then you probably would have gotten more planes through. Since the attack was at range 10 your B5N's were carrying bombs and souldn't have had to face the super-deadly 200 foot altitude flak. Normally a range 10 attack is what I strive for as a Japanese player.

What was your cap setting?

The only thing that surprises me is that your cap didn't anahilate his strike planes too since you had more cap than he had escorts, by about 4 to 1 also.

Yamamoto

[Knavey]

Hiyas Yam,

We just got off the phone talking about this and that was the only conclusion that we could come up with. My CAP was set at 60, and the USNs was set at 80ish. The zero3s appear to have done their job against the F4Fs, but everyone else appears to have taken a deep six nap.

The other replays are not attacks on him...his CVs actually did not get any strikes off. The one strike that he did get off was a Marine squadron based out of Esprito Santo. I did manage to get decent results on them, much the same as what he got on me.

It is just frustrating to not be able to tell what actually happened. I am a bit inclined to think that CAP may be a bit too powerful based on the discussions with Feinder, but I am going to ask that in another post on the other forum.

Since we are playing Scn 19, the damage is not irreparable, but considering that this is supposed to be the more balanced of the scenarios, the losses (in our game at least) have been awfully high on the IJN side in two encounters that probably should have been split.

Knavey

[Feinder]

So you're not quitting then? Can I still have the Solomons?

-F-

[Veer]

I have generaly found that having a CAP of anything over 70 planes will make your CV TF's invunerable. Unless the escorting fighters are above or equal to CAP - in which case you will still lose half your bombers.

Also, your stikes were rather small. Maybe becasue of the distance (10-9 hexes). For IJN launching attacks at 6-7 hexes is ideal. At that distance with a 5 CV TF i can usually can have over 50 kates and 70 vals attacking in one strike (depending on OP points ofcourse). Yes, loses are still horrific (80%), but atleast I get some hits. Problem is I don't like this becasue losing experienced pilots for the IJN is a huge problem.

Personnaly i think here are two problems: 1)

CAP is too effective vs flak. Generally i've rarely had flak kill much, but CAP runs through everything. My biggest worry and my biggest defence is always CAP - flak is a secondary concern and poor one at that.

2) Players tend to use unhistorical tactics -
CAP was rarely more than 12 planes @ a time per carrier (for this timeframe). For a 4 CV TF i would except that CAP would be no more than a max of 36 planes. Yet players set CAP so high that 60+ CAP's aren't uncommon, infact minimal for a 4 CV TF.

Players tend to concentrate on defense - high CAP over your carriers means your bombers go in without adequate escorts against killer CAP.

In the end it comes down to balance - for IJN this is double-edged sword. Not only are your carriers important, but your experienced pilots are too. Yet IJN TF's lack flank cover - making CAP for the IJN all more important. Yet if the IJN asigns most of his fighters to CAP, your bombers are going to have it....which to the IJN is a loss almost as great as the carriers. By contrast the US can absorb losses of pilots and carriers better, plus their CV's generally have better flak ratings.

[Knavey]

I am not going to blame Feinder for having high CAP this time...he was retiring from the Guadacanal area, was not planning on striking at me, and I don't really think he expected me to have 5 CVs in the area, much less come after him. He told me he had put his CAP at 80% and the calculated % was 81 when we looked at the numbers.

If he had launched strikes at me, I think that there might have been a different story, in that it would have split up his CAP between escort duties, and then perhaps a few of my bombs and torpedoes would have gotten through.

I do recall numbers like you are talking about for CAP in that time frame. But there are many "unconventional" things that players do that never would have been tried back then. After all, in this game, no one dies. In a real war, none of those boys would have been coming home. You just don't run unreasonable risks in war to see if it works...you can do that all day in UV.

[Veer]

I did some quick math:

Generally If i have a strike of 110 bombers going in I usually escort it with 40-50 fighters.

If the enemy has a CAP of 80, atleast 20 fall to my fighters (hopefully!). Of the remianing 60 planes, i expect them to get a max of 1.2x kills on my bombers = 72 kills.

That leaves a minimum of 38 bombers to get through... enough usually (but not always!) to hit and sink atleast 1 CV, plus damaging others.

You could put your losses down to poor operational planning. If you knew his carriers were retireing and not about to attack you, you could have stripped your carriers of CAP and sent them on escort - which would have got you better results. Which you actually should have done if you were attacking at 10 hexes (beyond effective allied CV reactionary range). Though that marine AC attack was bad luck - or poor planning?;)

As IJN, when operating with 10 hexes of friendly owned airfeilds, i generally play aggressive and keep my escort level at around 70 or 80%. I'd rather lose a carrier than my experienced pilots! Plus since the USN is the one doing the attacking sinking his CV's hurts his operational plans more.

[Feinder]

I will chime in one more thing of serious note here tho. When Knavey and I were on the phone, we watched the 2nd strike go off. On the little black-background pop-up (where it initially says the planes in the strike), it reported 35 Wilcats on CAP, which matched the text file.

HOWEVER

When we got to the replay animations, there was actually 71(!) planes in the combat replay. Unfortunately, you can't tell if there was 71 or 35 planes actually participating. 'Bout all I can say is there was also of shooting going on. 71 is plausable, because the intercept for the 1st strike was 87 planes, less the 18 destroyed, is 69 (plus maybe 2 spare from the hanger?). Still, I would have thought that actually 35 planes intercepting would be more plausable, because that would mean the 10 damaged would have RTB'd (I understand these can be easily double counted, but for the sake of simplicity, bear with me) and maybe some loss of cohesion.

87 CAP 1st Strike

18 are Destroyed
10 are Damaged

Pop-up and text file say 35 fighters intercepted.
Replay shows 71 fighters intercepting.

So which is it?

[Mr.Frag]

I have seen this very thing where the text messages show a lower level of fighters then actually show up in the combat animation screen.

I think it is that out of the X number of fighters performing CAP, only X-Y are in the immediate area to actually perform the intercept.

I too have wondered how a CAP of 50 odd planes can shoot down 150 odd planes of which 50 are escorting fighters. Is this a Western movie here? Don't these guys ever run out of ammo? Funny that your AA guns run out of ammo, but the fighters coming in to attack have unlimited rounds...

[Yamamoto]

Originally posted by Veer
Personnaly i think here are two problems: 1)

CAP is too effective vs flak. Generally i've rarely had flak kill much, but CAP runs through everything.

Cap is not too effective vs flak. About 80% of your kills should come from CAP. During 1942 flak weapons on ships were really just an afterthought. Remember, the Navies of the world were still controlled by the Battleship Admirals. Putting lots of AA guns on their ships would be admitting that planes might actually be able to hurt big ships and that was something they weren't ready to admit. After Pearl Harbor, they kind of had to admit that though.

Flak is pleanty tough as it is -- probably too efficitve vs torpedo bombers. It's rare when ANY of my torpedo bombers come back from a strike undamaged.

My biggest worry and my biggest defence is always CAP - flak is a secondary concern.

As it should be.

Yamamoto

[Grotius]

In the big "open beta" thread leading up to version 2.20, I think Matrix mentioned that they were considering imposing "diminishing returns" on CAP, much as naval TFs suffer diminishing combat returns once they exceed size 15. I liked that idea.

So does anyone know whether Matrix implemented diminishing returns for CAP?

[Veer]

I feel for you Knavey... its happened fairly often lots of times. But in my last game i had the most astounding luck. Basically I got my CV TF to within one hex of the allied CV TF without being detected!! The allies wasted all their stikes on a surface combat TF (got very badly mauled) and a invasion TF (ditto). Then my estimed commander launches a 43 kate and 45 Val strike escorted by 35 zeros against the allied TF. Enemy CAP? - 40 F3's. Beautiful clear skies. The result - slaughter! I only lost 3 kates and 2 vals in air to air. Lady lex is now at the bottom of the sea, and York got 2 torps and 4 bombs and is presumed sunk.

My airgroups are intact and my carriers unsunk. First time this happened, and i'm quite pleased.