The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

[Canoerebel]

Oof. Those are tough numbers.

....which is why it's so important - vital, critical, essential! - that the Allies open up a second front for the air war.

[Canoerebel]

On a more encouraging note, the Allied advantage in aircraft downed has increased to 2,050. That's up about 500 since we last discussed this roughly one month back. This trend indicates that the Allies are fighting efficiently. That, combined with the likely higher losses to IJ pilots, might mean the Allies are giong in the right direction in terms of overall airforce quality.

[GreyJoy]

If this can help, at that stage of war I was producing 180 Tojos/month

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

A quick final word. Looking over the Total Air Losses charts for the 9/6/42 and 9/16/42, I obtained the following info:

Total Allied planes downed: 287
Total IJ planes downed: 495

Here are some of the critical numbers:

P40E: 52
P39: 42
P400: 14
P38F: 18
P40K: 8
Hurr IIb: 36
Hurr IIc: 28
B17E: 18

Tojo: 150
Zero: 184
Kate: 69
Val: 53
Betty: 23
Nell: 34

this might be a 1.25:1 in total losses in the end (while he lost far more pilots) because if you purely go with the aircraft loss list you'll be overclaiming kills while your losses are of course correct. Probably something like 400 enemy ac lost I'd say.

[Canoerebel]

Castor, my experience is different, though I may be wrong. So input from the gallery is welcome.

My experience regarding accuracy of enemy air losses is a follows (in order from least to most accurate):

1. Combat reports
2. Air Loss totals on the main information screen
3. Air Loss totals on the sub-aircraft loss screen (the one I used)
4. Keeping track by hand the "kills" will watching the movie (combat replay)

I feel pretty sure the totals I gave are pretty accurate.

[castor troy]

combat reports are the most inaccurate, for whatever reason this seems to be what was called FOW. I can have no flak fire over a base at all and still in the combat report there are 25 bombers showing up as damaged (by non existing flak - no, not balloons). Aircraft shot down in the combat report seem to be pretty much always roughly 50% of what I lose/shoot down. The reports seem to have become nothing but fake.

Air loss TOTALS in the loss list so far have always been the most accurate (if you don't get the 100% exact numbers from your opponent). You might have noted that if you sum up the individual losses you will get always more than the total loss per day.

Taking notes during the replay might be the best thing but that's something I've actually never tried nor would I think about to really do this. Toyed around for some time with air engagements I have set up head to head and if you don't have a look at the real enemy losses which you won't have in PBEM it always was total losses in the air loss list that came closest to actual losses when comparing that to real losses in H2H.

With the list of individual losses you have posted I thought that this would be just summing up hence why I said I fully doubt the enemy actually lost 500 aircraft and I am not sure that the 400 I was guessing are even as much as John actually lost. What is accurate are the numbers you gave for your losses [;)], but the claims of enemy aircraft lost is not even close I'd bet. But to prove we would have to ask John or I'd have to look it up in his AAR if he posted his losses but that would be intel I would never even think about giving to anyone playing PBEM.

[Paladin1dcs]

I want to be very, very careful in what and how I say this, as I'm reading both AARs, but I will say this.

Castor Troy's idea about the accuracy, or rather the inaccuracy, of reports seems to be accurate. John has detailed his losses, to a certain degree, and I'm always surprised at the discrepency between the two AARs, to the point that I thought one side or another might be altering the results for whatever reason. I realized though that this probably wasn't the case, so it had to be the FoW function.

And that's all I'll say. I'd love to explore this more, from a technical point of view, to determine the best way to evaluate the results of aerial combat over a given time period and thereby get a clearer view of enemy losses through the FoW, but I'll save that for another thread.

I'll hush now before I say something I regret.

[Paladin1dcs]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Taking notes during the replay might be the best thing but that's something I've actually never tried nor would I think about to really do this.

I actually have done this in my game against the AI, although on a fairly small scale, and it seems to be the most accurate method available at this time to pierce FoW. Not foolproof, by any means, but more accurate by far than the Combat Report.

I think it also depends largely on where the mission takes place, which would make sense. If you're counting crashed enemy airframes around your own airfield, you're more than likely going to get a more accurate count than you would if you were trying to count kills over an enemy airbase or "neutral" territory. Aerial battles over the sea are notoriously wrong, to the point that I almost trust the Combat Report more than the actual video. If there's not a confirmed hard kill, as opposed to "x aircraft spins away on fire", then it's damaged and not destroyed.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Oof. Those are tough numbers.

....which is why it's so important - vital, critical, essential! - that the Allies open up a second front for the air war.

In 1942-mid 1943, the Allies risk being their own worst enemy in the air war, IMO. Combined Allied fighter production does not and cannot match Japanese production in quantity OR quality, once the Tojos come online. Too aggressive an Allied forward deployment will result in ripping through combined airframes at a prodigious pace. Can you lose 1:1 with a fighter platform that is being replaced at, say, 180 planes / month (see GreyJoy's numbers)? When combined with the A6M line, Oscars and a few other airframe types, make that some 300 fighters / month. Ish.

1. Can you afford 1:1 losses to the tune of 300 fighters / month?

2. Would opening up another air war front in mid-1942 be to your benefit or detriment in terms of fighter airframe exchange?

Once mid-1943 rolls around, the Allies will start to make inroads on qualitative improvements, but this is slow going. Particularly against a Japanese player that pushes the envelope on R&D and fighter production numbers.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Oof. Those are tough numbers.

....which is why it's so important - vital, critical, essential! - that the Allies open up a second front for the air war.

In 1942-mid 1943, the Allies risk being their own worst enemy in the air war, IMO. Combined Allied fighter production does not and cannot match Japanese production in quantity OR quality, once the Tojos come online. Too aggressive an Allied forward deployment will result in ripping through combined airframes at a prodigious pace. Can you lose 1:1 with a fighter platform that is being replaced at, say, 180 planes / month (see GreyJoy's numbers)? When combined with the A6M line, Oscars and a few other airframe types, make that some 300 fighters / month. Ish.

1. Can you afford 1:1 losses to the tune of 300 fighters / month?

2. Would opening up another air war front in mid-1942 be to your benefit or detriment in terms of fighter airframe exchange?

Once mid-1943 rolls around, the Allies will start to make inroads on qualitative improvements, but this is slow going. Particularly against a Japanese player that pushes the envelope on R&D and fighter production numbers.

Good point, but I think the Allies have to open the fronts regardless in anticipation of the coming replacement rate. The tojo breaker is the hellcat, which was my go to fighter for the second half of 1943. Hellcats can beat any Japanese fighter save the Frank. So, I would look to get my foot in the door now. Even if the Japanese hold air superiority for a while it will be worth it. It also gives the Allies a chance to put their rapidly growing DD and CA force to work wearing down the Japanese fleet. I think looking for a chance in early 43 is the best bet but not one that would put undue risk on the carrier force.

I played a cautious game vs Viberpol and now knowing what I know, wish that I was a little more aggressive. Canoe knows his business here. And even if the Allies take a loss. an aggressive (not suicidal) stance helps keep the enemy off balance.

[Chickenboy]

Hi crsutton,

I'm not implying (at all) that CR doesn't know his business. I'm also restricting my applicable comments to prior to mid-1943 (thought I was clear on that).

My main point was that the Allied player cannot extrapolate or presuppose parity to come in mid-1943 with parity in the air in mid-1942 without incurring some risk. The typical risk is that the Allied airframes are depleted, resulting in decreased ability to resist.

If the Allies are being significantly worn down in one theatre, then there are aerial hazards to opening up another theatre. It is difficult / impractical for the Allies to expect to attrit IJ fighter pools thoroughout 1942, without implosion of their own fighter air forces.

So. For Canoerebel, I expect the problem to become increasingly acute as John gets more and more Tojos online and into theatre. Most experienced IJ players will produce several hundred of these good fighters per month as soon as they can.

Since it's only July 1942, the Allies have a long, long way to go before they get 'spelled' with better fighters-and more of 'em. Burning through the pools in forward offensives will come at a cost.

[Encircled]

Its a tough balancing act, isn't it?

If you avoid combat to preserve your fighters, then you are not going to be able to hurt the Japanese

If you only start your counter invasions when the Hellcat comes online, then you are looking at a long war.

[Nemo121]

So much conventional wisdom and binarity in one place... Is the unchallenged binary really correct?

[Canoerebel]

I have no idea what Nemo said, but he's probably right.

I don't know about air loss totals. I feel pretty comfortable stating the overall situation to date. I think the Allies have done pretty well, especially in facing such large numbers of Tojos. I do know that the Allies can't "win" the air war in the real-war sense - there's almost no way for the Allies to deplete the Japanese air force - but I do think the Allies keep keep Japanese pilot quality repressed. If the Allies can't wage an effective defensive air war in late 1942 (by the way, Poultry Lad, we're mid September now, not July), then how can the Allies fight?

I also feel confident that opening up a second front now is important. The Tojo is tough, but the Zero and the Oscar get chewed up by experienced Allied pilots. So if John over commits in Burma, the Allies should be able to fight effectively elsewhere. So I will proceed unless the KB shows up somewhere inconvenient.

[Canoerebel]

I should also add that I have prior experience with an intense air war in mid and late '42 in this theater. In my game with Q-Ball, the Japanese held most of India and the battles were fierce for months. I eventually learned that a good mix of P-38, P-40K and Hurricanes could handle everything in the Japanese arsenal, including the Tojo.

[Canoerebel]

In this case, the vigorous Allied air defense meshed well with both naval defense and ground combat. As a combined total, the Allies seem to have just won a signal victory in Assam (though the battle might not be over yet). The strong air network permitted the Allies to base combat ships forward. In turn, those combat ships achieved some strong results against a strong enemy combat force. And the drawing of so much attention by the IJ air force has allowed Allied ground troops to fight in the open with very little bombing against them. The whole probably exceeds the sum of the parts, but I'm pleased with each of the parts.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Encircled
Its a tough balancing act, isn't it?

Aye, I think that's what I was striving to get at. Neither a 'binarity' nor an unchallenged wisdom, just the fruit of my experiences and observations from other games in progress.

-balance edited for brevity-

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

In this case, the vigorous Allied air defense meshed well with both naval defense and ground combat. As a combined total, the Allies seem to have just won a signal victory in Assam (though the battle might not be over yet). The strong air network permitted the Allies to base combat ships forward. In turn, those combat ships achieved some strong results against a strong enemy combat force. And the drawing of so much attention by the IJ air force has allowed Allied ground troops to fight in the open with very little bombing against them. The whole probably exceeds the sum of the parts, but I'm pleased with each of the parts.

As well you should be pleased with the end results. Those of us following both AARs struggle to identify the 'what ifs' rife in this game. "What if John had engaged in a more concerted air war earlier and more often?" is one of the questions that will not be answerable. His piecemeal approach to several aspects of the game leave us shaking our heads wondering what could have been.

Like so many results, was the end borne of poor play on one side or solid play on the other? Or one from column A and one from column B?

Was the Oakland A's 11-3 victory over the Rangers a function of good A's pitching and hitting, or a poor show from both aspects of the Rangers? Was it really the poor weather (weather toggle=on) predictability or a runner thrown out for stealing a base (intercepted bombardment TF) that cost the game? Or were there other contributing factors?

The conventional wisdom of most Allied players is that the Allies won the air war (eventually), therefore the Japanese should fall in line for their destruction tootsweet. The unconventional wisdom is that, in the hands of a good Japanese player of the game, conventional wisdom goes out the window for a full game year, maybe more. Which is the untested binarity, or conventional wisdom that is being followed in this game?

[Nemo121]

Sometimes when you have an unpalatable answer which, no matter how you twist it, appears immutable the solution is to ask a different question.

My comments on binarity and conventional wisdom were focused on the questions being asked re: how to handle the Tojos. The answers ranged from them not being counterable to them being counterable using the right mix of fighters. What I said was designed to get people to stop looking at the ANSWERS and instead to look at the QUESTION without just handing the solution to them in their laps since that's not hugely fair to CR's opponent and thinking about it rather than dismissing it might be good for CR. Is the question of whether or not Tojos can be countered by Allied air forces in 1942 the right question? Is it even relevant?

I don't mind people having fun picking a couple of words out and having fun/mocking... but I wouldn't like the meaning of what I said to be misunderstood - hence this clarification. I'll go back into cloak now.


Other examples:

If you avoid combat to preserve your fighters, then you are not going to be able to hurt the Japanese (air force)

If.... then. Really? Firstly is the above statement true and secondly if it is true is it actually undesirable? And then whether it is desirable or undesirable does it even matter? The answer isn't the problem, the question is.


P.s. I'm tired, I amn't trying to come across criticisey here, just trying to illustrate another approach to looking at these issues.

[Canoerebel]

Nemo, you're way over my head. This isn't a criticism. Some teachers and mentors think/teach at levels suited to those capable of thinking at the highest levels. Others may be better suited to teaching students at the next level down (or two levels down, etc.). I just want to say that I'm playing as well as I can, and I think the Allies are doing quite well.

As for PoultryLad's comments, if he's saying the situation in the game is a complex mix of good play and bad play and good luck and bad luck and missed opportunities and taken opportunities...by both sides, I agree. I suppose every PBEM match fits that description.

It's important to note that many Allied moves since March have been taken with this Assam situation in mind. Even the invasions in the Gilberts were designed to take the heat off the Allied move into Ramree (or vice versa if the circumstances warranted). For six months the Allies have worked land, sea, air and logistics to allow just such a battle as has taken place this week. Back when John focused on the Gilberts, as I figured he would, there were a few pretty hot assertions that I had made a mistake in letting him re-take them. I disagreed then and this was why - I was convinced that the Allies could fight effectively and efficiently in Assam but not in CenPac. Assam was the jewel above all others.

Still much to be done, of course. The campaign is up in the air. So by no means am I declaring victory in Assam yet. But the Allies have a bit of a lead in the 3rd inning of the game. Some of John's fielders made some errors that contributed, but I think I've made some good calls and gotten several base hits. Now I've got to build the lead and hold it through the ninth inning.