Perfection, of a kind, spence (A) vs fcharton (J), no spence, please

[MAurelius]

I don't think you'll need all that much shipping as well... as you are someone who prefers the short-hop-convoys vs ppl who load stuff at Singers and then move it to Japan... hence your prudent choice to stop most merchant shipping...

I am just thinking you might be able to use some of your HI to increase your superiority in planes.... the HI cost for pilots will be high either way - but if you have the planes to put those pilots to good use too..... you might just make life a little harder for the Allies...
have 1000 planes attack you in 44 scares everyone - even if someone has 12 CVs or more at his disposal

[fcharton]

June 26th 1942
The music for today is Brahms string quintet op111, an exhilarating piece if there ever was one

And there was evening, and there was morning, and there was Kido Butai

From Truk, KB had been ordered to the coast of New Guinea between Hansa Bay and Madang, off the reach of most bombers based in Rabaul. She arrived today morning and launched four raids against the task forces unloading in Terapo, which all went through, despite heavy losses.

Morning Air attack on TF, near Terapo at 96,127
Weather in hex: Overcast
Raid detected at 39 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 39
B5N2 Kate x 47
D3A1 Val x 56

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIb Trop x 3
P-39D Airacobra x 17
P-40E Warhawk x 11

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed
B5N2 Kate: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane IIb Trop: 1 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra: 1 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed

Allied Ships
CL Phoenix, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DE Litchfield
DD Vendetta
DD Van Ghent
AP President Monroe, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires
DD Griffin
DD Tjerk Hiddes, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires
xAP Marella, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAP Taroona, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DE Humphreys


Morning Air attack on TF, near Terapo at 96,127
Weather in hex: Overcast
Raid detected at 33 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 7
B5N2 Kate x 19

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIb Trop x 2
P-39D Airacobra x 9
P-40E Warhawk x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed
B5N2 Kate: 6 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 1 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
xAP Marella, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Vendetta
CL Phoenix, on fire


Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Terapo at 96,127
Weather in hex: Moderate rain
Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 27
B5N2 Kate x 60
D3A1 Val x 44

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIb Trop x 3
P-39D Airacobra x 13
P-40E Warhawk x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed
B5N2 Kate: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 1 destroyed by flak
D3A1 Val: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 1 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
DE Litchfield
CL Phoenix, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
DD Vendetta
DD Van Ghent
DE Humphreys
DD Tjerk Hiddes, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
xAP Taroona, Bomb hits 4, and is sunk
xAP Zealandia, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage


Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Terapo at 96,127
Weather in hex: Moderate rain
Raid detected at 39 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 10
B5N2 Kate x 10
D3A1 Val x 15

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIb Trop x 2
P-39D Airacobra x 5
P-40E Warhawk x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed
B5N2 Kate: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 1 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
DE Humphreys, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Tjerk Hiddes, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
DE Litchfield

CL Phoenix, xAP Taroona, DE Humphreys, and DD Monssen (must be FOW for Tjerk Hiddes) are reported sunk, but xAP Zelandia and Marella must be in very bad shape, and AP Monroe was seen burning (and was already hit a few days ago).

This came at a price, as KB was fighting at long range. The reports say we lost twenty planes to nine enemy fighters, but the real figures are about twice as many. Still, a Brooklyn class cruiser, a pair of tin cans, and, possibly, three troop transports look like a good trade. And the landings in Terapo were probably quite disrupted, which always is a good thing.

KB wasn’t attacked in return. I suspect we were too far away for short legged bombers, and the long range ones might have been off duty as my opponent sent his fighters to protect the landings. We will now retire, and might turn south and pay a visit to Luganville, were a couple of ships were detected recently.

Building Lunga

In the Solomons, I have been preparing for the next enemy invasions. Tulagi and Lunga have engineers, decent forts, a naval guard unit and guns. An infantry regiment should land soon in Tassafaronga.

At sea, several submarines were deployed in front of the island, just in case, and the large battleship force that bombarded Luganville a few days ago was rearmed in Rekata bay (I am deploying AKE in dot bases close to the front), and is ready to jump on bombardment task forces that might be too bold. Finally, I have mined the harbor in Lunga, and disbanded an ACM in the port.

This paid off today, as SS S-45 came nosing around and hit a mine. Later, S-41 tried to meddle with my unloading cargo, and got hit by her escort.

I don’t intend to fight for Guadalcanal, but I think that such actions can delay enemy operation, which is exactly what I want.

Rude Britannia

Remember those British carriers off Timor? After being spotted two days ago, they went AWOL yesterday, and reappeared today. I still had torpedo bombers on naval attack in Koepang, but not enough, apparently. The first wave barely reached CV Illustrious and Formidable, and the second one didn’t even make it to the carriers, and we lost a dozen more bombers in the process.

The weather was very bad over Timor, and there were no attacks in the afternoon. No British bombers flew, either. Try again tomorrow. I have rotated bombers and fighters. If the British are still in range tomorrow, we will have a second shot at them.

I am curious to see what my opponent has in mind. Will the carriers try to sail east, towards Darwin and Horn Island, in which case I will probably have another shot at them? Or will they retire as they did several times in the past?


Plane production, big fat raids, and PDU off

I have been mulling Roland’s comments most of the evening, and realize that building a strong air force must be my priority now.

My short term options are relatively obvious. I will probably need two or three months to finish China, and then another month to reinforce Burma and the Pacific. By October or November 1942, I should have enough troops to reinforce the front, and stop any Allied advance. Until then, I need to delay, in New Guinea, in the Solomons, in Burma, and prevent a breakthrough.

I believe I can achieve this by concentrating my forces, using the KB and my naval assets to punish the enemy every time I can, but avoid engaging in bold moves. I am on the defensive for four months.

Then, I should have enough units to garrison the front, make allied advance very costly, and perhaps even launch an offensive into India. My goal is to build the large air force I need for such operations, in December 42, or January 43.

With PDU off, this means two things. First, I need to have a precise idea of my frame mix at the beginning of 1943, to organize production, upgrades, and the building of pools. Second, I need to grow the industry in such a way that repairs and upgrades to new models do not deplete my supplies, or slow production.

Just to give an example, by the end of 1942, my main Navy fighter should the A6M3a, which should be available in September. With PDU Off, I can have over 500 of those, and can convert those factories for free into A6M5, which should be available at the end of the year, and would concern over a thousand planes. So far so good.

However, the problem with this line is that the A6M3a upgrades from the A6M3, which is now in production, but only concerns a small number of squadrons (about 100 planes), and not from the A6M2, my current navy fighter.

At present, I am producing 25 A6M3 per month, and repairing 11 more factories, for a final production of 36. For the A6M3, this is the right number, but it won’t be enough for the A6M3a. As such, I probably need to expand, and repair many more A6M3 factories, so as to have a decent production level once the A6M3a comes online.

But then, my A6M2 will become obsolete (most of them upgrade into 3a), and the huge factories (that currently produce over 200 zeroes per month) will need to be converted into A6M3a outfits, ready to upgrade into A6M5. And the total conversion cost would be around 300 000 supply points, and take between three and four months, until the end of the year.

Same goes with army fighters. With PDU Off, the Tojo line is not a very interesting prospect, as you only have 78 planes that can convert into IIa, and 180 that upgrade into IIb (which you be available at the beginning of 43). The Tony line is not really better, as you can only get a hundred 1a, and 200 1b. With PDU off, you have to build Oscars: the upgrade is free from 1c to 2a and then 2b, I already produce 150 1c, and can upgrade up to a thousand IIb, which will be available by November. Compared with the Zeroes, new Oscars will come online very fast, as there is no need to repair factories.

All this means that in October, Oscars and “old Zeroes” will probably be my main duty fighters, with new zeroes appearing at the end of the year. I need to do the maths…

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon
I've been drawing from Saigon, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Keijo and Fusan from day one to see if I can replicate what Pax is able to achieve in his AI game.

If you are drawing from all of them, then forget Fusan. You will never get the resources to flow from there with any rate that would count. To get Fusan to work, you have to commit to it from day one as a single strategy. You know by about 1Jan42 if it will work or not.

With where you are now, you might be able to get flow from Shanghai. Build it up as much as you can and do NOT build HK. Focus your shipments from Shanghai. You should be able to get things to flow from there. Shanghai has only 20 Resource compared to HK's 60, but it has good LI and HI factories. Meaning, the resource movement AI is already having to move resource there to keep those factories supplied.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: fcharton

Plane production, big fat raids, and PDU off

I have been mulling Roland’s comments most of the evening, and realize that building a strong air force must be my priority now.

My short term options are relatively obvious. I will probably need two or three months to finish China, and then another month to reinforce Burma and the Pacific. By October or November 1942, I should have enough troops to reinforce the front, and stop any Allied advance. Until then, I need to delay, in New Guinea, in the Solomons, in Burma, and prevent a breakthrough.

I believe I can achieve this by concentrating my forces, using the KB and my naval assets to punish the enemy every time I can, but avoid engaging in bold moves. I am on the defensive for four months.

Then, I should have enough units to garrison the front, make allied advance very costly, and perhaps even launch an offensive into India. My goal is to build the large air force I need for such operations, in December 42, or January 43.

With PDU off, this means two things. First, I need to have a precise idea of my frame mix at the beginning of 1943, to organize production, upgrades, and the building of pools. Second, I need to grow the industry in such a way that repairs and upgrades to new models do not deplete my supplies, or slow production.

Just to give an example, by the end of 1942, my main Navy fighter should the A6M3a, which should be available in September. With PDU Off, I can have over 500 of those, and can convert those factories for free into A6M5, which should be available at the end of the year, and would concern over a thousand planes. So far so good.

However, the problem with this line is that the A6M3a upgrades from the A6M3, which is now in production, but only concerns a small number of squadrons (about 100 planes), and not from the A6M2, my current navy fighter.

At present, I am producing 25 A6M3 per month, and repairing 11 more factories, for a final production of 36. For the A6M3, this is the right number, but it won’t be enough for the A6M3a. As such, I probably need to expand, and repair many more A6M3 factories, so as to have a decent production level once the A6M3a comes online.

But then, my A6M2 will become obsolete (most of them upgrade into 3a), and the huge factories (that currently produce over 200 zeroes per month) will need to be converted into A6M3a outfits, ready to upgrade into A6M5. And the total conversion cost would be around 300 000 supply points, and take between three and four months, until the end of the year.

Same goes with army fighters. With PDU Off, the Tojo line is not a very interesting prospect, as you only have 78 planes that can convert into IIa, and 180 that upgrade into IIb (which you be available at the beginning of 43). The Tony line is not really better, as you can only get a hundred 1a, and 200 1b. With PDU off, you have to build Oscars: the upgrade is free from 1c to 2a and then 2b, I already produce 150 1c, and can upgrade up to a thousand IIb, which will be available by November. Compared with the Zeroes, new Oscars will come online very fast, as there is no need to repair factories.

All this means that in October, Oscars and “old Zeroes” will probably be my main duty fighters, with new zeroes appearing at the end of the year. I need to do the maths…

Yep, pretty much agrees with my calcs for a PDU OFF game. What you should also consider is looking at your groups ultimate upgrades ... tally all of those and then push the R&D of the major items.

A6M2 vs A6M3a. Ok, yes in my opinion the A6M3a is the best IJN fighter they get until the A7M series. However, the difference between the M2 and M3a is very slight except for range. And for CV's, given the hardcoded max strike range limit, there really isn't any difference. So, yes convert over your M2 factories to M3a, but you don't need to rush it ... you can take your time and minimize the production impact.

[obvert]

The A6M3a is great for range, but man, I lost so many to ops losses. I've mostly stopped using them due to their fragility compared to the A6M5. Still useful in HQ centers for escorting Netties, but otherwise not capable of doing much. Definitely not needed on CVs.

[fcharton]

Hi Obvert,

Why is the A6M3a more fragile? I can't see it from the Tracker data, same service rating, same durability.The main advantage I see with the 3a is the maneuverability at high altitude, which is twice as much at that of the A6M2. But I am very curious about your observations.

Francois

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: obvert

The A6M3a is great for range, but man, I lost so many to ops losses. I've mostly stopped using them due to their fragility compared to the A6M5. Still useful in HQ centers for escorting Netties, but otherwise not capable of doing much. Definitely not needed on CVs.

Great example of differences that players see in their games. I'm sure play style accounts for most of this.

Me? I've never really seen any difference in Op's losses between the two. Yes, durability increases from 22 to 27, but with the speed the same (336, oh so slow) the loss of manouver from 34 to 24 for me just doesn't make up for better durability and armor. I lose the same number of pilots in battle. Do I move up the A6M path? Sure, but I have no rush to do so. My pilot/plane losses remain unchanged between the two planes, and in general increase sharply until I can get the A7M series in production.

SO, I need to go back to looking at my playing style and figure out if I can get better results from the a6M5 as obvert does .... [8D]

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: fcharton

Hi Obvert,

Why is the A6M3a more fragile? I can't see it from the Tracker data, same service rating, same durability.The main advantage I see with the 3a is the maneuverability at high altitude, which is twice as much at that of the A6M2. But I am very curious about your observations.

Francois

Basically just what Pax is saying, (except the speed is actually different, which I also think is the biggest factor against fighters, going to 350). The durability increases from 22-27. If I am going against Jocke's continually massed 4Es, this was crucial in late 42 through early 43. Even against 2nd generation fighters the 3a is more fragile and maneuver seems to add little for me anyway. At the time when I used the 3a most it was escorting long distances from mediocre fields as well. So now with a few groups using it in larger bases, with somewhat shorter distances, it might be better. I only have 2-3 groups still using it, and no more will be made. There are still 200+ in the pools. It might still be very useful with long escorting missions later in the game, but I will also have the Oscar for some of these with its armor.

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: fcharton

Hi Obvert,

Why is the A6M3a more fragile? I can't see it from the Tracker data, same service rating, same durability.The main advantage I see with the 3a is the maneuverability at high altitude, which is twice as much at that of the A6M2. But I am very curious about your observations.

Francois

Basically just what Pax is saying, (except the speed is actually different, which I also think is the biggest factor against fighters, going to 350). The durability increases from 22-27. If I am going against Jocke's continually masses 4Es, this was crucial in late 42 through early 43. Even against 2nd generation fighters the 3a is more fragile and maneuver seems to add little for me anyway. At the time when I used the 3a most it was escorting long distances from mediocre fields as well. So now with a few groups using it in larger bases, with somewhat shorter distances, it might be better. I only have 2-3 groups still using it, and no more will be made. There are still 200+ in the pools. It might still be very useful with long escorting missions later in the game, but I will also have the Oscar for some of these with its armor.

At 15 hexes (the max distance of the A6M3a) attacking missions, however, achieve more or less nothing. 80% of the times the bombers don't find the target if in mid ocean...
And i agree that the late-war oscars III are clearly a better choice for escorting missions on longe range. They have armour and they can get up to 14 hexes....and that's enough to be a better escorter.

The A6M5 is, imho, clearly superior. 15 mph faster means a lot with the actual air combat code.

I do build the A6M3a anyway and am planning to use them untill mid 1943 for LBA groups only. My CVs will only use the A6M5s

[koniu]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: fcharton

Hi Obvert,

Why is the A6M3a more fragile? I can't see it from the Tracker data, same service rating, same durability.The main advantage I see with the 3a is the maneuverability at high altitude, which is twice as much at that of the A6M2. But I am very curious about your observations.

Francois

Basically just what Pax is saying, (except the speed is actually different, which I also think is the biggest factor against fighters, going to 350). The durability increases from 22-27. If I am going against Jocke's continually masses 4Es, this was crucial in late 42 through early 43. Even against 2nd generation fighters the 3a is more fragile and maneuver seems to add little for me anyway. At the time when I used the 3a most it was escorting long distances from mediocre fields as well. So now with a few groups using it in larger bases, with somewhat shorter distances, it might be better. I only have 2-3 groups still using it, and no more will be made. There are still 200+ in the pools. It might still be very useful with long escorting missions later in the game, but I will also have the Oscar for some of these with its armor.

At 15 hexes (the max distance of the A6M3a) attacking missions, however, achieve more or less nothing. 80% of the times the bombers don't find the target if in mid ocean...
And i agree that the late-war oscars III are clearly a better choice for escorting missions on longe range. They have armour and they can get up to 14 hexes....and that's enough to be a better escorter.

The A6M5 is, imho, clearly superior. 15 mph faster means a lot with the actual air combat code.

I do build the A6M3a anyway and am planning to use them untill mid 1943 for LBA groups only. My CVs will only use the A6M5s

Using Oscar as escort have also different advantage.
Army pilot polls. Escort mission is one way trip so why waste navy pilots if You can use army.

[PaxMondo]

A6M series doesn't get armor until A6M5c ... and it has same speed as the A6M3a  (at least when I am looking at Scen 2 in my editor) ... armor is what most players are shooting for.  Sorry if I wasn't clear which model I was comparing against.
 
Interesting that all of you see such differences where I don't.  And yes, if you are comparing losses at 15 hexes vs losses at 12 hex range, that isn't exactly apples vs apples.   My perception is built from battles where the groups are all fighting as CAP or escorting to 7 hex against the typical allied 43 fighter mix (Hellcat/Corsair/TBolt).  In these two scenarios I've never noticed any appreciable differences.  Both ways the A6M gets shredded with pilot losses roughly equivalent. 
 
I'm not suggesting the A6M3a is better, only it isn't any worse and I don't fuss about researching the later models that much.  I do try for the A7M as early as I can.  It does perform noticeably better against the allied fighters.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

A6M series doesn't get armor until A6M5c ... and it has same speed as the A6M3a  (at least when I am looking at Scen 2 in my editor) ... armor is what most players are shooting for.  Sorry if I wasn't clear which model I was comparing against.

Interesting that all of you see such differences where I don't.  And yes, if you are comparing losses at 15 hexes vs losses at 12 hex range, that isn't exactly apples vs apples.   My perception is built from battles where the groups are all fighting as CAP or escorting to 7 hex against the typical allied 43 fighter mix (Hellcat/Corsair/TBolt).  In these two scenarios I've never noticed any appreciable differences.  Both ways the A6M gets shredded with pilot losses roughly equivalent. 

I'm not suggesting the A6M3a is better, only it isn't any worse and I don't fuss about researching the later models that much.  I do try for the A7M as early as I can.  It does perform noticeably better against the allied fighters.

Good to know about the late models. I wouldn't think they would be much better, but the A6M8 has to be somewhat useful with the 350 speed, 17 gun rating and armor, at least until the A7 can be available.

Curious if there is a database error somewhere, as my game shows 351 for the M5 and 336 for the M3a.

[fcharton]

June 30th 1942

A very bad day for the Empire… Today, for some mysterious reason, the powers that be decided that ALL our bomber squadrons in Koepang and Dili should fly, with little escort, against three xAKL that were detected in the port of Darwin, where my opponent has a large airfield and sports lots of fighters. The outcome was predictable: we lost about 70 planes, to ten enemies, as my zeroes, at extreme range, gallantly tried to protect the bombers, hell bent on those high value targets (which they missed).

This is not the first time the AI decides to slaughter a couple of bombers. Last week, I had a bomber squadron in Rabaul fly unescorted to Port Moresby (of all places! That’s the major enemy base in the region, swarming with fighters), after a Mavis detected … three minesweepers. And a few days ago, my opponent lost half a squadron of Devastators to a lone cargo unloading in Lae.

I am more than a little unhappy about this. I do my quota of blunders, I have nothing against CAP traps, and I understand this cuts both ways, but I just don’t understand what such “commander decisions” are supposed to represent.

Such problems can happen with other missions: order a squadron to bomb an airfield, without saying which one, and you might end up over a major enemy base, swarming with fighters. But you can always avoid this by selecting a specific target. You might fall in a CAP trap, but this will be your decision. No such joy with naval attacks, where the engine will just pick a target in range (highest detection or so, I suppose), we the players don’t get a say.

Now, I understand I can (and should) reduce the range of my bombers, to avoid this. But once more, the logic of it escapes me : “sorry guys, you can’t attack this task force 400 miles west, because there’s a big enemy base 350 miles east…”

Also, as I watched my bombers flying to Darwin, I was wondering whether search arcs could have helped. Somehow, if I had not searched the sea around Darwin, I would not have seen this task force, and maybe the AI would have not decided to attack it. But once more, cancelling searches to keep the trigger-happy commander quiet looks just as ridiculous as reducing the range of my squadrons.


Meanwhile, little happened. In Chungking, we are slowly subduing the garrison. Their strength was down 100 AV for several days (whereas we are restoring about 150 a day). I will probably attack in a week, and have good hopes about a victory in August. Near Luganville, our battleships found the enemy, and it was theirs, and we traded punches with the Mississippi and the New Mexico, and it was inconclusive.

I also have been thinking about plane building, but I guess I’m too angry tonight to discuss this. I will catch up on the rest of the war tomorrow, when I’m calmed down.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: obvert

Curious if there is a database error somewhere, as my game shows 351 for the M5 and 336 for the M3a.

Look at the A6M5c version. It is the first one to get armor ... you will see the speed is the same as the M3a

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: fcharton

June 30th 1942

.... but I just don’t understand what such “commander decisions” are supposed to represent.

Such problems can happen with other missions: order a squadron to bomb an airfield, without saying which one, and you might end up over a major enemy base, swarming with fighters. But you can always avoid this by selecting a specific target. You might fall in a CAP trap, but this will be your decision. No such joy with naval attacks, where the engine will just pick a target in range (highest detection or so, I suppose), we the players don’t get a say.

....

Can't say that I have an explanation either. All I can say I do is that I am REALLY careful with putting any unit on NavAttack. I never leave any bomber on NAvAttack after they have hit their target. It is one of my end of turn checks (look at both land and nav bombers to check if they are on Nav Attack).

Even with this, I know that at least once/year (game time) I will have a unit NavAttack a completely different target than intended and usually with terrible consequences like you. So all I can do here is commiserate with you. All those good pilots that take so long to nurture, gone in a flash with no result at all.

[:(]

[koniu]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: obvert

Curious if there is a database error somewhere, as my game shows 351 for the M5 and 336 for the M3a.

Look at the A6M5c version. It is the first one to get armor ... you will see the speed is the same as the M3a

It is a price for extra armor and bigger guns. Nothing for free.
Speed back to 350 with M8 version but they make that by using engine with more horse power
and price was range. But Japan not need range in `45 they need speed, armor and fire power

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: koniu

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: obvert

Curious if there is a database error somewhere, as my game shows 351 for the M5 and 336 for the M3a.

Look at the A6M5c version. It is the first one to get armor ... you will see the speed is the same as the M3a

It is a price for extra armor and bigger guns. Nothing for free.
Speed back to 350 with M8 version but they make that by using engine with more horse power
and price was range. But Japan not need range in `45 they need speed, armor and fire power

Got it. Didn't think you were talking about the late A6M5 versions. I will probably try to bypass the 5c with the low speed and go right to the 8.

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: fcharton

June 30th 1942

.... but I just don’t understand what such “commander decisions” are supposed to represent.

Such problems can happen with other missions: order a squadron to bomb an airfield, without saying which one, and you might end up over a major enemy base, swarming with fighters. But you can always avoid this by selecting a specific target. You might fall in a CAP trap, but this will be your decision. No such joy with naval attacks, where the engine will just pick a target in range (highest detection or so, I suppose), we the players don’t get a say.

....

Can't say that I have an explanation either. All I can say I do is that I am REALLY careful with putting any unit on NavAttack. I never leave any bomber on NAvAttack after they have hit their target. It is one of my end of turn checks (look at both land and nav bombers to check if they are on Nav Attack).

Even with this, I know that at least once/year (game time) I will have a unit NavAttack a completely different target than intended and usually with terrible consequences like you. So all I can do here is commiserate with you. All those good pilots that take so long to nurture, gone in a flash with no result at all.

[:(]

This is distressing every time it happens. The Port Moresby area is especially difficult I find, as to hit anything heading there you have to include dangerous CAP trap areas. If you get Milne Bay soon and build that up then your idea with search arcs will work and in that spot at least you can avoid the issue.

For place like Darwin I always keep my bombers short of that destination hoping they'll hit something moving on the way there, unless on search only. It's a tough problem, as you have to be aggressive to find any success with the Netties, but you will have days where you lose a ton of irreplaceable pilots. (One note; I've been putting a disposable sub, an RO usually, in enemy base hexes to see if some pilots can be saved. Interestingly I think it is working, and I haven't been losing nearly as many as I should for the losses in un-armored planes).

Later today I'll be posting about my 100 loss day of Bettys and Jills and their escorts, but at least there was some success in one of my 5-6 strikes. On estrike went for LSTs in Terapo, where there is a 150 plane CAP!! So yes, I'm still struggling with this in late 43. I do think it is pretty accurate to what happened in the war though as well. How many Japanese missions have you read about that were decimated due to coast-watchers or something else?

I'm not sure what the numbers are for most successful IJ players, but the best players of Japan that I've read (PzB, Nemo, rader, etc) seem to treat the air war as exclusively a game of volume. If you send enough, and lose enough, you may hold the Allies back in spots to force them to take more time. I am no where near this level of play or understanding of the game, but my losses are way behind in the air column Around 9k to 6k for the Allies right now! (Probably not far enough behind to have been really successful, but I'm improving and losing a higher volume as the game moves on! [;)]).

[SqzMyLemon]

Ack, don't even get me started on this. [:D]

There are things the AI does in terms of target selection and force allocation that leave me scratching my head at times. I know your frustration and we've all been there!

[fcharton]

Hi Pax,

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
Can't say that I have an explanation either. All I can say I do is that I am REALLY careful with putting any unit on NavAttack. I never leave any bomber on NAvAttack after they have hit their target. It is one of my end of turn checks (look at both land and nav bombers to check if they are on Nav Attack).

I guess I will have to do this as well. I have read a bit about it on the forum, and it seems that putting squadrons off duty and limiting their range are the only reasonable option. I suspect search arcs might help, too: recent detection by planes from the same base/squadron might be a factor in the decision (insofar you can call such silly moves 'decisions').

In other words, there are two possibilities. Keep squadrons in reserve (training, search, whatever, but not naval attack), commit them once something is detected (and pray that the local commander gets the hint), or keep them on "interdiction naval attacks", but with a range smaller (probably by a few hexes) than the closest enemy base.


This has several interesting consequences. First, it stresses, once more, the “air doxa” of the design team. It is all about fighters. Second, it shows that any area behind fighter bases is pretty much immune to naval attacks. In other words, in defense, you need fighters in forward positions, with target ships in the port in order to lure enemy bombers. And since fighters can operate from much smaller bases than bombers, this creates an asymmetry which can probably be exploited to Japan’s advantage.


I must say this is the kind of flaw that often breaks my enjoyment of a wargame. I like realistic games because they force one to think in realistic terms, and hate systems which force one to reason in terms of rules, or AI specs.

Right, back into the war, and into the past since I’ve skipped a few turns.

June 27th 1942

Santa Ana

The troops in Port Blair must be badly unsupplied. Over the last few weeks, I have caught a number of light cargoes unloading in port. Some were caught by my bombardment forces, the rest by the submarines patrolling this area. Today, SS I-154 caught the Santa Ana. She’s probably accounted for.

Regular sweeps by Oscars from Bangkok are not finding enemy planes anymore, and bombers are keeping the airfield damaged. Seventeen land units, including a several Indian Brigades are apparently stranded on the island. I doubt my opponent can evacuate them. If I can manage to prevent them to be resupplied and therefore keep those units out of the war for a long time, the battle for the Andamans might be considered a strategic victory.

The correct battle of Darwin

It would be unfair, after my rant about AI decisions, not to mention this attack on Darwin today. Nells from Koepang detected a small task force off Darwin, and went for it.

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Darwin at 76,124
Weather in hex: Heavy cloud
Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 31 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 31
G3M2 Nell x 15

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 10

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed
G3M2 Nell: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
xAKL Sinabang, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
xAKL Hamakua, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk

This worked, and might explain, in retrospect, why my opponent had several squadrons on CAP three days later, but I probably was lucky that several bomber squadrons were resting that day, and only a small contingent, with adequate escort, flew.

Clubbing Chungking

For several days, despite the number of units in Chungking still going up (111 now), their AV has been decreasing over time. We are destroying or disabling about 120 combat squads per day, and the enemy seems to be losing 30 AV every day. My infantry needs another week to be back in shape for another attack. I have about 1000 AV on their way, and several HQ that should bring more support in, and help with faster AV recovery.

Ground combat at Chungking (76,45)
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 12867 troops, 987 guns, 785 vehicles, Assault Value = 3249
Defending force 190986 troops, 983 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 5572

Allied ground losses:
357 casualties reported
Squads: 16 destroyed, 45 disabled
Non Combat: 8 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 13 (7 destroyed, 6 disabled)

[Edit] Erik and Joseph, I will reply to your posts in the next installment.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: fcharton

... I suspect search arcs might help, too: recent detection by planes from the same base/squadron might be a factor in the decision

Be careful with this ... other plane's search arcs also come into play. I've lost a bunch of Nettie's due to some shipboard Pete FP searching showing up a target with was heavily CAP'ed. I had the Nettie seach arcs in the opposite direction, thought I was safe. Completely overlooked a little TF with a CL that had ONE Pete on board and lit up a target. ...