Ineffective Jap Naval attacks?

[montesaurus]

I recently attacked an allied landing force, where he had mimimal cap. I went in with about 100+ Kates, and about 50+ Val's. The Vals went in at 10K, and I believe the Kates went in at about 9K(200 feet on delivery). The Val's caused some good damage, where as the Kate's did'nt get a single hit with their torpedoes. I've also noted the ineffectiveness of the Japanese planes in a previous game.

We are using the most recent update download for AE.

Has anyone noted this inablility of being able to hit ships with the Japanese naval air force? This by the way was the same force(-1CV) that hit Pearl Harbor.

Very frustrating to strike with overwhelming force and seeing it being so ineffective!

Monte

[CT Grognard]

Very hard to say without more details.

What was the weather like, what was the composition of the Allied landing force? Are you able to post the combat report?

[montesaurus]

I'm unable to post the report. But the weather was fine. The enemy consisted of AP transports, at least 1 CA, few CL's, and several DD's.

[Halsey]

Rerun the turn with Kates at 5000'.

Single engine TB's are better at low level attacks.

[KenchiSulla]

Shouldn't matter if doing a torpedo run...

[SqzMyLemon]

Been there...

I think in my case it was poor weather. 8 CV's, only about 123 bombers out of a possible 250+ flew. Only 2 DE's and an AK sunk outright and damage to five other AK's and a CL. Only 5 torpedoes hit, of which four were against the same AK. It sucks, but it happens. This TF was unloading over the beach as well, so should have been a sitting duck.

[Halsey]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

Shouldn't matter if doing a torpedo run...

Shouldn't, but it does.
9000' is a level bombing approach altitude.
5000' is a low level approach altitude.

Experiment and you'll see.

[oldman45]

I have to second what Halsey said, put your torp bombers at 5k and for what ever reason they seem to do better.

[Cavalry Corp]

I can tell you almost nothing seems to hit DD f the weather is not perfect etc etc...

[CT Grognard]

Second that.

I find torpedo bombers notoriously ineffective against DDs (unless of course they are dead in the water [:D]).

My Vals are my real DD-killers.

[castor troy]

ppl usually forget how hard it was to actually hit ships with aerial torps and it wasn't the same as in the game that 70%+ of the ships the IJN killed were sunk by Betty or Kate torps.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ppl usually forget how hard it was to actually hit ships with aerial torps and it wasn't the same as in the game that 70%+ of the ships the IJN killed were sunk by Betty or Kate torps.

I find it rather refreshing that players with expectations that the Japanese should almost never miss and every attack they make should be as supremely effective as hitting sitting ducks tied up at docks was at Pearl get a wake up call when attacking ships that can maneuver to avoid the torpodoes.

[montesaurus]

I don't have the expectation that every TB should be gettting a hit. But I do expect better results when 106 Kates are going in, with experienced pilots, very little fighter cover, and only a couple of CA's, Cl's and a few DD protecting the transports. This attack was the first attack since Pearl Harbor, so very little replacements in regards to experienced pilots. Plus I've have this happen at least twice in a previous game. Whereas the allied TB don't seem to have nearly the difficulty obtaining hits. Plus, this is within the first 6 months of the war, when I thought the Japanese had superior planes are at least were comparable in quality. So, if others have experienced this problem let me know how I can address it. Such as, perhaps I should assgn better leaders to all of my sqdns. Something I have'nt done yet.

[SqzMyLemon]

I don't think you will find it to be "one" thing to change, it's a combination of all the variables that go into that particular action. To name just a few things off the top of me head: weather, leadership, altitude, distance to target, fatigue of pilots, skill levels, morale rolls, leaderships rolls, skill of opposing ship Captains, effects of lots, little or no CAP...etc.

I was totally bummed with my results too, and expected better in similiar circumstances as yours. I think what some people forget is those who expect better results aren't necessarily looking for every bomb or torpedo to hit either. An outcome more reflective of the numbers of planes attacking and skill levels is more often sought after and reasonable to expect, than the complete destruction of the opposing force. Not everybody voicing disappointment wants 100% accuracy.

Anyway, really my point was this. Sometimes it all comes together and you get great results, sometimes you get ok results and others you get a whole lot of nothing. It happens, will happen and might happen. You just have to roll with it, sometimes you'll come out on top and others you won't. In this case whatever factors came into play, you got a poor result. Do as you suggested, look at changing a few things and see what happens, maybe you'll figure out that sweet setup that results in good results consistently with the odd bad day thrown in.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Anyway, really my point was this. Sometimes it all comes together and you get great results, sometimes you get ok results and others you get a whole lot of nothing. It happens, will happen and might happen. You just have to roll with it, sometimes you'll come out on top and others you won't.

Exactly! In the good ole days of board wargaming every time you rolled that six sided die you had just as much chance of rolling the one as you did the six. If you whine when you roll the one you aren't going to glean much sympathy. I was trying to make a point by exaggerating to the opposite degree. Too bad so few people understand when I do that........

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Anyway, really my point was this. Sometimes it all comes together and you get great results, sometimes you get ok results and others you get a whole lot of nothing. It happens, will happen and might happen. You just have to roll with it, sometimes you'll come out on top and others you won't.

Exactly! In the good ole days of board wargaming every time you rolled that six sided die you had just as much chance of rolling the one as you did the six. If you whine when you roll the one you aren't going to glean much sympathy. I was trying to make a point by exaggerating to the opposite degree. Too bad so few people understand when I do that........

I'm learning Hans [;)]. Wasn't trying to get your goat at all, just wanted to mention there's a few of us that like the middle of the road. Sure, I'd like to roll more 6's, but I'd settle for some nice gains when proper force is brought to bear. The crushing defeats, spectacular victories or the complete no shows should be the exception, not the norm.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Anyway, really my point was this. Sometimes it all comes together and you get great results, sometimes you get ok results and others you get a whole lot of nothing. It happens, will happen and might happen. You just have to roll with it, sometimes you'll come out on top and others you won't.

Exactly! In the good ole days of board wargaming every time you rolled that six sided die you had just as much chance of rolling the one as you did the six. If you whine when you roll the one you aren't going to glean much sympathy. I was trying to make a point by exaggerating to the opposite degree. Too bad so few people understand when I do that........

Actually .. my favorite was attacking 2:1 in AH's Rise and Decline of the Third Reich and rolling a '5' meaning CouterAttack and then the defense rolling a '6' eliminating the attacker ...[;)] Nothing like those 1/6 * 1/6 outcomes .. [:'(] The only one better was the Rommel scenario in SL and a French sniper rolls snake eyes to kill Rommel ... I tell you the Germans are borked in those games .. [8D]

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Anyway, really my point was this. Sometimes it all comes together and you get great results, sometimes you get ok results and others you get a whole lot of nothing. It happens, will happen and might happen. You just have to roll with it, sometimes you'll come out on top and others you won't.

Exactly! In the good ole days of board wargaming every time you rolled that six sided die you had just as much chance of rolling the one as you did the six. If you whine when you roll the one you aren't going to glean much sympathy. I was trying to make a point by exaggerating to the opposite degree. Too bad so few people understand when I do that........

Actually .. my favorite was attacking 2:1 in AH's Rise and Decline of the Third Reich and rolling a '5' meaning CouterAttack and then the defense rolling a '6' eliminating the attacker ...[;)] Nothing like those 1/6 * 1/6 outcomes .. [:'(] The only one better was the Rommel scenario in SL and a French sniper rolls snake eyes to kill Rommel ... I tell you the Germans are borked in those games .. [8D]

Interesting you should mention my all time favorite game. It was the bread and butter "go to" game for my local wargame group for close to twenty years. My name appears in the list of playtesters in the design credits of Advanced Third Reich. [;)] My real name that is, which can be found in my profile here, if you want to put the claim to the test.

After playtesting rules changes for 2.5 years the last edition was finally published and most of the designers and playtesters gathered at AvalonCon for a huge tournament. I and Jim Moir, my local buddy who got designer credit since he handled all of our local playtest cell's communications with the head designer, squared off against the head designer Bruce Harper and another designer Conrad Struckman, who interestingly enough is a rocket scientist.

They took the Axis and came hard at England, invading three times. We kicked them off the beaches two times, even transporting French armor to England to sweep them away. On the third invasion they hit the beach next to London and my buddy Jim attacked them out of London at 1-1 odds. He rolled the 5 which was "attacker eliminated" and we lost the game. He could just as easily have rolled the 6 which was "defender eliminated" and we would have won as I had already driven deep into Germany with the French armor. It was one of the hardest fought games of TR we ever played and we lost on the luck of the die roll. That's how any good, evenly matched game should go down.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Anyway, really my point was this. Sometimes it all comes together and you get great results, sometimes you get ok results and others you get a whole lot of nothing. It happens, will happen and might happen. You just have to roll with it, sometimes you'll come out on top and others you won't.

Exactly! In the good ole days of board wargaming every time you rolled that six sided die you had just as much chance of rolling the one as you did the six. If you whine when you roll the one you aren't going to glean much sympathy. I was trying to make a point by exaggerating to the opposite degree. Too bad so few people understand when I do that........

I'm learning Hans [;)]. Wasn't trying to get your goat at all, just wanted to mention there's a few of us that like the middle of the road. Sure, I'd like to roll more 6's, but I'd settle for some nice gains when proper force is brought to bear. The crushing defeats, spectacular victories or the complete no shows should be the exception, not the norm.

Trust me, I know where the guy is coming from. If it wasn't for bad luck I wouldn't have any at all. I've been a wargamer since 1973 and nine times out of ten I got the worst die roll possible. I would do everything right in orchestrating my attacks only to fall flat on my face time and time again.

I did learn that it's best not to let frustration over luck get the best of you. If you run 1000 iterations and roll a 1 700 times you have just cause to complain about your bad luck, but you simply don't have just cause to complain that there may be something wrong with the game or even with the way you're playing it. It still comes down to that random factor we superstitious humans call luck.[:D]

[Crackaces]

lost on the luck of the die roll. That's how any good, evenly matched game should go down.

I would disagree with you here Hans ...for me at least, the entire game should not come to one instanace of probablity less why set up the game? Just roll the dice? Also the conclusion should not be preset .. like SPI's WWWIII 4 hours to set the game up [well not quite but close] and on turn three the game is over ..[;)]

BTW) TR was one of my favorite games and one of my most frustrating games because of the rules which in our case were torn to threads arguing over conflicting rules at least interrupted as conflicting [:'(]

BTW2) I think it is very intresting your background. I do not need to research as it is clear to me that you have deep previous gaming experience from the "great era" by the context of your post. I do think there are difference in gaming style between those that have played the ol' boardgames and those that started with computer games. It is not a FPS thing as WitP AE is like a boardgame but with a computer referee that we so longed for in our days. The context is subtile but noticeable.

Ok sorry to highjack the thread .. I just wanted to provide context for this "the game is borked thing .." However, I do want to go on record that not using computer algorithms to figure out circles of apollonius for interception but rather using the target hex and then computing ranges from there is borked [:'(]