Wild Sheep Chase - obvert (J) vs JocMeister (A)

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Wild Sheep Chase

Post by LoBaron »

So how did the majority of escorts magically arrive together?

Ok I try again: All of the strike arrived together! It was coordinated. The escorts engaged CAP and were outnumbered, so in your situation they only were able to pretect those bombers you see with them together in the combat animation. That you see the rest of the bombers arriving without protection is just a sign of the escorts being overwhelmed, not lack of coordination.
Explaining the details of the abstraction doesn't really help make the coordination any better.

No it doesn´t, but that is what I tried to explain. You are in a situation where what you percieve as 'coordination' (= everything, or most of the strike, moving in together and protected by CAP in a single combat animation) is close to impossible. You are running several hundreds of planes from multiple bases of origin into the heaviest CAP/EW combinatino the Allies can muster. There are a whole lot of things preventing your single big combat animation. The more complex the setup, the number of units, the heavier the defense, the more often a strike cohesion will be less than perfect, and it will happen due to multiple different reasons. Only part of what you see is caused by coordination issues as I define the term and as it is used by the game engine.

In your situation I would assume the chance of several combat animations occuring to arrive 100%. I was not posting to help you to improve coordination, but to lower your expectations on how a coordinated strike looks like in this situation.
I don't mean to be a pain, and I realize you're offering a lot of knowledge, but I wonder if you've tried this version. Are you playing the beta? Do you have these same problems, or not?

Yes, and loving it. I have not played the beta this far into the war as you are (last stock game PBEM was still with the latest official patch), so I do not have any experience with huge late war strikes, but I already know what to expect based on the changes.

Image
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Wild Sheep Chase

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
So how did the majority of escorts magically arrive together?

Ok I try again: All of the strike arrived together! It was coordinated. The escorts engaged CAP and were outnumbered, so in your situation they only were able to pretect those bombers you see with them together in the combat animation. That you see the rest of the bombers arriving without protection is just a sign of the escorts being overwhelmed, not lack of coordination.

Hmmmm. Does that mean that every strike is coordinated? [;)] I guess I don't really buy that. I don't think they are coordinated because even against smaller CAP it is often the same kind of result. For the Allies too. They sent massive waves of LBA that was shredded as the fighters and bombers 'arrived,' or were 'shown,' or were 'in' different packages. Yet those same planes could coordinate into one package arriving protected from CVs?

Maybe we need to wok on more precise terms for what is going on. If this is coordinated, what was the CV strike that blew up most of the Allied CVEs, uber-coordinated? There is a big difference. So what are the right terms?

Why is it so different, and usually a much better result for the attacker, coming from 4 separate CV TFs maybe up to 10 miles apart as opposed to coming from one big LBA base?
Explaining the details of the abstraction doesn't really help make the coordination any better.

No it doesn´t, but that is what I tried to explain. You are in a situation where what you percieve as 'coordination' (= everything, or most of the strike, moving in together and protected by CAP in a single combat animation) is close to impossible. You are running several hundreds of planes from multiple bases of origin into the heaviest CAP/EW combinatino the Allies can muster. There are a whole lot of things preventing your single big combat animation. The more complex the setup, the number of units, the heavier the defense, the more often a strike cohesion will be less than perfect, and it will happen due to multiple different reasons. Only part of what you see is caused by coordination issues as I define the term and as it is used by the game engine.

Almost all from one base actually. A few escorts from the base in the next hex, but most all from Fusan. Are you say we can NEVER expect any decent coordination against a well protected target? That is inherently false, if so, as it happens occasionally from LBA and often from CV air.

I don't mind some 'uncoordination.' That would be expected. What sucks is when the bulk of escorts arrive almost completely without bombers, not sweeping but struggling under the close escort penalty, and yet those escorts are all different speeds, as I said, set to different alt bands, and the other several hundred bombers come in to get massacred completely. This just a turn after a large package from a CV (not all planes mind you, but still around 440) arrived together, with devastating results.

It doesn't make sense. The HQ numbers are similar from the CV commander to the LBA HQ commander. What is so different?
In your situation I would assume the chance of several combat animations occuring to arrive 100%. I was not posting to help you to improve coordination, but to lower your expectations on how a coordinated strike looks like in this situation.
I don't mean to be a pain, and I realize you're offering a lot of knowledge, but I wonder if you've tried this version. Are you playing the beta? Do you have these same problems, or not?
Yes, and loving it. I have not played the beta this far into the war as you are (last stock game PBEM was still with the latest official patch), so I do not have any experience with huge late war strikes, but I already know what to expect based on the changes.

Cool. I actually like the beta too, in spite of my comments here. it is better this way than everything in a mass that obliterates every target.

My expectations will always be higher though than what I'm seeing now because I have seen it work. Rarely, but I have. I want to know more and make it work better. It should in my opinion if it does from the CVs. In fact LBA should be able to organize and and take off closer together than CV air, find their way better using landmarks, etc. Just don't' see why there is the massive difference in result unless there is an inherent and unalterable game system advantage for CV air coordination. If there is, then this all makes more sense. If not, then something is wrong with LBA calculations at present or with our understanding of what makes those strikes coordinate better.

At one point I think Damien said he and Nemo 'figured out' LBA coordination in using the beta. I have some hunches about what it would take, but a larger discussion might be better. I'll think about posting in the main forum. It's a worthy topic, although charged, but common understandings really need an update in using the beta.

All of this said, I'm not completely unhappy with my own results here. Three CVEs hit while challenging a massive fleet with huge CAP and lots of very good flak. The CV strike is the one that seems really odd in terms of results, but somewhere in between would be ideal, where LBA can be a real danger and CV air is not going to obliterate 15-20 ships with each launch.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Wild Sheep Chase

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: obvert
Cool. My expectations all always be higher than what i'm seeing now because I have seen it work. Rarely, but I have. I want to know more and make it work better.

I am aware of what you expect. And what I explained is that your expectations are (partly) wrong.

I have seen USN CA SAGs maul a Japanese equivalent TF in night battles in mid ´42. Does that make it the norm? No. Does this suggest you can influence the environment on your side only to make it the norm without significantly changing the force relation? No.
If you expect that then you are are confusing an understanding how it works with the capability to influence the result.

Let me tell you what might influence such a result (this is pretty obvious): Overwhelm the CAP with high quality escort fighters and change the relation of your strikes to contain at least 2/3rds escorts to 1/3rd strike a/c. That means in this specific situation you need to at least get 3k top line fighters to escort at least 1.5k dedicated naval strike aircraft. Such a composition might enable you to penetrate the present Allied CAP screen throughout multiple combat animations and might result in the annihilation of the allied fleet.

Your composition was the other way around, if not worse, and contained only a fraction of the required aircraft total. Chances are low you can field enough to meet above requirements at this stage of war.

And last, one of the reasons you bagged 20+ CVEs was because a part of your strike was defended by all your outnumbered escorts. That was as near perfect as you can get given the environment. Had the escorts split into small packages of insufficient numbers, chances are that the outcome would have been much worse for you.
Image
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Wild Sheep Chase

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: obvert
Cool. My expectations all always be higher than what i'm seeing now because I have seen it work. Rarely, but I have. I want to know more and make it work better.

I am aware of what you expect. And what I explained is that your expectations are (partly) wrong.

Well, please don't put words in my mouth, or assume you are 'aware of whatI expect.' I'm not interested in being 'right' or 'wrong.' I'm interested in learning more.[:)]

I'm not expecting to wipe out the Allied fleet. I'm hoping for a slightly more coordinated strike to get more of the bombers though, inflict a bit more damage so that LBA actually has the teeth it should. Commanders had a healthy respect for LBA in the war for a reason.
[/quote]
I have seen USN CA SAGs maul a Japanese equivalent TF in night battles in mid ´42. Does that make it the norm? No. Does this suggest you can influence the environment on your side only to make it the norm without significantly changing the force relation? No.
If you expect that then you are are confusing an understanding how it works with the capability to influence the result.

Let me tell you what might influence such a result (this is pretty obvious): Overwhelm the CAP with high quality escort fighters and change the relation of your strikes to contain at least 2/3rds escorts to 1/3rd strike a/c. That means in this specific situation you need to at least get 3k top line fighters to escort at least 1.5k dedicated naval strike aircraft. Such a composition might enable you to penetrate the present Allied CAP screen throughout multiple combat animations and might result in the annihilation of the allied fleet.

Your composition was the other way around, if not worse, and contained only a fraction of the required aircraft total. Chances are low you can field enough to meet above requirements at this stage of war.

And last, one of the reasons you bagged 20+ CVEs was because a part of your strike was defended by all your outnumbered escorts. That was as near perfect as you can get given the environment. Had the escorts split into small packages of insufficient numbers, chances are that the outcome would have been much worse for you.

Yet that near perfect result you mention from the CV strike happens almost exclusively with CV strikes, not with LBA. Any opinion on that?

Sometimes questions are better than answers. You seem to 'know' exactly how this all works, and are very assured of that. I don't think we should be so assured of our understanding right now in beta, especially late war. You're undoubtedly one of the long time experts on coordination, and I certainly respect that, but something is fishy in our communal understanding. My expectations are not what you think they are.

I'll do a count but I think you're underestimating the numbers I actually had there and the composition based on the outcome. It was not 3k escorts (I think the IJ has about 4500 total fighters right now) but it was close to the 2/3-1/3 ratio.

The quality was there. I used several 49 plane Ki-84r units with some of the best 70-80exp pilots on the map, the equivalent of the KB groups, another very good Ki-100 group as well as Georges and Sams with good pilots.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Wild Sheep Chase

Post by LoBaron »

Well, for example your last CR posted shows roughly 150 escorts total per phase in support of anti naval strikes. Against this the Allies were fielding 600 fighters easily. I do not see numbers anywhere near what would be required.

Anyways, my attempt was to hint that you, given the circumstances, are doing ok, and given the complex situation have to expect significant parts of the battle out of your control. How and if you integrate this into your understanding of the air combat model is up to you.
Image
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Wild Sheep Chase

Post by LoBaron »

Just one further question: do you rotate squadrons in and out of the bases used for the strikes on a regular basis? If yes this might impact their availability for the AM strikes.
Image
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Wild Sheep Chase

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Just one further question: do you rotate squadrons in and out of the bases used for the strikes on a regular basis? If yes this might impact their availability for the AM strikes.

This is a great point, and in this case I think was significant. I was about to mention that I actually had 294 escorts fly in the morning phase out of around 550 set to fly. Because many moved in during the turn, I think you're right a lot did not fly those first strikes in the morning. Although the bombers that were brought in that turn did fly!! [:)]

I had 410 bombers strike durning the morning out of about ~450 set. So what I set was not exactly at 2/3-1/3 strike balance, but quite close, and with a bigger overall total of planes than those that flew from the CVs the turn before. Yet extremely different results.

Some also diverted to support an LBA attack, which was my fault. Too much set in the same area, even though those fighters I wouldn't expect to go with the LBA at a different alt band (10k) and when the airfield strikes had dedicated escorts at their band flying from the originating base, Hiroshima.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Wild Sheep Chase

Post by obvert »

@ LoBaron (or anyone else as well )

One question for you.

Still trying to figure out the difference between CV strikes and LBA strikes at naval targets.

Does leader naval skill help in strikes coordinating for LBA and/or CV air, flying 'together' and finding the target? I mean both group leader and HQ leaders?

Often a good CV air TF leader will have both high air and naval skills as well as potentially high inspiration. A commander for an IJA air HQ will have only high air and inspiration skills, maybe high aggression (but I don't think aggression matters for air HQ leaders, right?).
[font="Trebuchet MS"]
For group leaders of F/FB groups I prioritize in this order:

air
aggression
(naval - if they are IJN CV groups)
inspiration
leadership

Often for naval units I can find leaders at 60+ in all five categories. Almost all KB group leaders are the best of the best.

For group leaders of DB/TB/LB groups I prioritize in this order:

inspiration
(naval - if they are IJN CV groups)
leadership
aggression/air (high aggression can be a bad thing for strike groups I know, heading into unbeatable odds unwisely)

For HQ leaders of CV TFs I prioritize in this order:

air
naval
inspiration
leadership

aggression (judged by whether I want CVs to react or not, the stage of the war and situation, etc)

Usually the best will be high in all of these, and I have been limiting aggression in CV TFs after some disastrous scattered fleet reactions in 44.

For HQ leaders of LBA I prioritize in this order:

air
inspration
leadership
aggression

naval (I've not thought of assessing this previously for LBA HQ leaders - should I?)

Usually most of the air HQ leaders, and especially those of the Air Army/Air Fleet 4-5 hex HQs will have all of these high.
[/font]
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Wild Sheep Chase

Post by obvert »

Here is the current map. The Allies did not move out of the area of the CV strikes the day before. So will they do that today? Are there damaged ships that need shepherding, or are they simply consolidating at long distance to lessen the strength and coordination of LBA strikes? Will anything move to Moppo?

The LBA air strikes will be limited in range tomorrow, and bombardments will attempt to move in to Moppo. Lots of night search, ASW and small kami SAGs heading in before to get the minefield DL up and possibly get the subs detected as well before the BBs arrive.

Lots of questions and intrigue here. Makes for a good exciting and tense game right now.

I don't think the Allies will come back at the HI raiding industry after the previous turn, but I've been wrong before. Just in case I stepped up some areas of CAP and turned on a few units that were resting even though their morale is low. Can't afford an uncontested strike at this point.

Image
Attachments
mapnow.jpg
mapnow.jpg (874.66 KiB) Viewed 210 times
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24615
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Wild Sheep Chase

Post by Chickenboy »

Obvert,

Great map! Just one typographical correction: KB is not "retreating" to Ominato, but is conducting a retrograde advance for the purposes of resupply. Alternatively, they have expended all available munitions upon their adversaries, leaving them aflame and sinking. Now, KB needs additional munitions to finish the job!

Onwards! BANZAI! [&o]
Image
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Wild Sheep Chase

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Obvert,

Great map! Just one typographical correction: KB is not "retreating" to Ominato, but is conducting a retrograde advance for the purposes of resupply. Alternatively, they have expended all available munitions upon their adversaries, leaving them aflame and sinking. Now, KB needs additional munitions to finish the job!

Onwards! BANZAI! [&o]

Ha! Yeah, it's going to be a miracle if any of the 5 CVs survive another battle, but it's definitely been 'good value' to make those CVs. Almost wish I even had Shinano now. I certainly have the extra HI to use for it. Any extra 45 planes and a massive armored deck would be pretty useful.

I forgot to mention that since the Kasagi, Katsuragi, Taiho and Kaga survived and are in or almost in port, their groups can move off and begin to function as LBA immediately while the CVs try to not get sunk while repairing damage.

I'll get system done as a priority first and may even use the decks in limited action with massive float and engine damage. Could have all four ready in a month this way for very limited and risky use, but as this point ... worth it if I can.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Wild Sheep Chase

Post by LoBaron »

Attributes/skills and their effect on the game is an extremely complex topic. Basically I very much doubt that anyone outside the NDA zone has a complete overview on what influences what.

There are a few obvious choices though, and some 'nice to haves when in doubt'. I have a lot of rules of thumb, but many are gut feelings more than anything else. In general, focusing on one skill set only usually leads to drawbacks on another mission critical aspect.

For group commander (of any planetype), if you ONLY focus on maximising coordination of a well rested and otherwise unaffected group, the most important attributes to my best knowledge are leadership and aggression. Thats it. The rest may help in steadying the group when suffering losses, increase the success on specific missions, and so on, but are not required to get the flights in the air and coordinated in the first place.

For the HQ commander (independent of whether it is a TF or an air HQ) I would choose leadership, air skill, admin, and aggression, but take this with a grain of salt already. It is a personal preference.

None of the above I would prioritise in a particular order. A high aggression commander with no leadership skill has a pretty high chance to fly in alone and get mauled, a high leadership commander with very low aggression will sit on the ground waiting for better weather. Both is undesireable.


Btw: There usually are a couple of factors favouring CV strike coordination over LBA coordination.
Those are (with no guarantee for completeness): Less diverse plane types, higher avg exp, less skill/exp variation between leaders/groups compared to LBA, less fatigue/morale variation between groups compared to LBA, usually same distance to target for all groups, always sufficient air support, always sufficient supply (in case sorties are full that is), all groups share a common HQ (personal observation, feel free to disagree), more balanced strike composition in terms of planetypes, usually no other missions set for other groups on same base compared to LBA which could confuse coordination.
Image
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: Wild Sheep Chase

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: obvert
ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: obvert
Cool. My expectations all always be higher than what i'm seeing now because I have seen it work. Rarely, but I have. I want to know more and make it work better.

I am aware of what you expect. And what I explained is that your expectations are (partly) wrong.

Well, please don't put words in my mouth, or assume you are 'aware of whatI expect.' I'm not interested in being 'right' or 'wrong.' I'm interested in learning more.[:)]

I'm not expecting to wipe out the Allied fleet. I'm hoping for a slightly more coordinated strike to get more of the bombers though, inflict a bit more damage so that LBA actually has the teeth it should. Commanders had a healthy respect for LBA in the war for a reason.
I have seen USN CA SAGs maul a Japanese equivalent TF in night battles in mid ´42. Does that make it the norm? No. Does this suggest you can influence the environment on your side only to make it the norm without significantly changing the force relation? No.
If you expect that then you are are confusing an understanding how it works with the capability to influence the result.

Let me tell you what might influence such a result (this is pretty obvious): Overwhelm the CAP with high quality escort fighters and change the relation of your strikes to contain at least 2/3rds escorts to 1/3rd strike a/c. That means in this specific situation you need to at least get 3k top line fighters to escort at least 1.5k dedicated naval strike aircraft. Such a composition might enable you to penetrate the present Allied CAP screen throughout multiple combat animations and might result in the annihilation of the allied fleet.

Your composition was the other way around, if not worse, and contained only a fraction of the required aircraft total. Chances are low you can field enough to meet above requirements at this stage of war.

And last, one of the reasons you bagged 20+ CVEs was because a part of your strike was defended by all your outnumbered escorts. That was as near perfect as you can get given the environment. Had the escorts split into small packages of insufficient numbers, chances are that the outcome would have been much worse for you.
Yet that near perfect result you mention from the CV strike happens almost exclusively with CV strikes, not with LBA. Any opinion on that?

Sometimes questions are better than answers. You seem to 'know' exactly how this all works, and are very assured of that. I don't think we should be so assured of our understanding right now in beta, especially late war. You're undoubtedly one of the long time experts on coordination, and I certainly respect that, but something is fishy in our communal understanding. My expectations are not what you think they are.

I'll do a count but I think you're underestimating the numbers I actually had there and the composition based on the outcome. It was not 3k escorts (I think the IJ has about 4500 total fighters right now) but it was close to the 2/3-1/3 ratio.

The quality was there. I used several 49 plane Ki-84r units with some of the best 70-80exp pilots on the map, the equivalent of the KB groups, another very good Ki-100 group as well as Georges and Sams with good pilots.



I really wouldn't put too much thought on airbattles and the outcome at this stage. Forget about the woodoo and explanations pulled out of thin air that hardly ever stood up a test. All in all, it's the same about
the air routine like it is about all the other routines, they work very well IMO early on, with limited aircraft, ships and troops. None of the code routines works even somewhat at these late stages of the war with
ten thousand aircraft engaging in one day and Armies of several hundred thousand men hitting each other. It just doesn't work like we would expect or want it to, it is just too complex to work. Takes a couple of
years but at some point one just gets over it and accepts it while others still try to sacrifice a chicken in hopes it would help, when it just doesn't.
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Wild Sheep Chase

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: castor troy

I really wouldn't put too much thought on airbattles and the outcome at this stage. Forget about the woodoo and explanations pulled out of thin air that hardly ever stood up a test. All in all, it's the same about
the air routine like it is about all the other routines, they work very well IMO early on, with limited aircraft, ships and troops. None of the code routines works even somewhat at these late stages of the war with
ten thousand aircraft engaging in one day and Armies of several hundred thousand men hitting each other. It just doesn't work like we would expect or want it to, it is just too complex to work. Takes a couple of
years but at some point one just gets over it and accepts it while others still try to sacrifice a chicken in hopes it would help, when it just doesn't.

There are always ways to improve. If you stop paying attention, you might miss something or not consider something that ends up working. I firmly believe player control changes outcomes at this stage, maybe even more than early on precisely because there is so much going on.

I'm mostly concerned in the difference I witness, and that is demonstrable by CR evidence, between LBA and CV strikes. There is a difference, so is that something we can help control with LBA to get it close to the level of a CV strike? Greyjoy has done it several times in 44, as I mentioned above (if I recall correctly) Damien and Nemo said they had done it in the late game downfall game using the beta.

LoBaron makes some very good points above. I can see the differences between how the game would 'see' LBA vs CV air strikes, and some of those things I can try with LBA right now. Doesn't hurt to try right? [:)]
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Wild Sheep Chase

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Obvert,

Great map! Just one typographical correction: KB is not "retreating" to Ominato, but is conducting a retrograde advance for the purposes of resupply. Alternatively, they have expended all available munitions upon their adversaries, leaving them aflame and sinking. Now, KB needs additional munitions to finish the job!

Onwards! BANZAI! [&o]
Shoot, where's my dictionary...
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Wild Sheep Chase

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Attributes/skills and their effect on the game is an extremely complex topic. Basically I very much doubt that anyone outside the NDA zone has a complete overview on what influences what.

There are a few obvious choices though, and some 'nice to haves when in doubt'. I have a lot of rules of thumb, but many are gut feelings more than anything else. In general, focusing on one skill set only usually leads to drawbacks on another mission critical aspect.

For group commander (of any planetype), if you ONLY focus on maximising coordination of a well rested and otherwise unaffected group, the most important attributes to my best knowledge are leadership and aggression. Thats it. The rest may help in steadying the group when suffering losses, increase the success on specific missions, and so on, but are not required to get the flights in the air and coordinated in the first place.

For the HQ commander (independent of whether it is a TF or an air HQ) I would choose leadership, air skill, admin, and aggression, but take this with a grain of salt already. It is a personal preference.

None of the above I would prioritise in a particular order. A high aggression commander with no leadership skill has a pretty high chance to fly in alone and get mauled, a high leadership commander with very low aggression will sit on the ground waiting for better weather. Both is undesireable.


Btw: There usually are a couple of factors favouring CV strike coordination over LBA coordination.
Those are (with no guarantee for completeness): Less diverse plane types, higher avg exp, less skill/exp variation between leaders/groups compared to LBA, less fatigue/morale variation between groups compared to LBA, usually same distance to target for all groups, always sufficient air support, always sufficient supply (in case sorties are full that is), all groups share a common HQ (personal observation, feel free to disagree), more balanced strike composition in terms of planetypes, usually no other missions set for other groups on same base compared to LBA which could confuse coordination.

I try for high leadership in groups, but will often chose air skill first if I can't have both. That might be telling. Maybe the leadership is more important to the strikes coming together just slightly better. I'll have a look and see.

For CV TFs I think they are very different HQs, especially late when I have to run so many multiple TFs to keep under the 200 plane limit per. I have guys that are good but wildly different in each. So the planes do very different things sometimes.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Wild Sheep Chase

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Just one typographical correction: KB is not "retreating" to Ominato, but is conducting a retrograde advance for the purposes of resupply.
[/quote]

Somehow this reminds me of our marketing department notifying customers about a price increase by 'informing them about changes of service and contract not entirely to their benefit'.
Image
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Wild Sheep Chase

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Just one typographical correction: KB is not "retreating" to Ominato, but is conducting a retrograde advance for the purposes of resupply.

Somehow this reminds me of our marketing department notifying customers about a price increase by 'informing them about changes of service and contract not entirely to their benefit'.

[/quote]
Oh, and here I was thinking 'retrograde' was like disco. [:D]
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Wild Sheep Chase

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Just one typographical correction: KB is not "retreating" to Ominato, but is conducting a retrograde advance for the purposes of resupply.
Somehow this reminds me of our marketing department notifying customers about a price increase by 'informing them about changes of service and contract not entirely to their benefit'.


[:D]
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
Grollub
Posts: 6676
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:46 am
Location: Lulea, Sweden

RE: Wild Sheep Chase

Post by Grollub »

... and I remember getting a mail from my car insurance company informing me about a 50% fee increase due to "greatly improved information services".

I phoned them and asked what the "greatly improved information service" was and got the reply (from a slightly embarrased helpdesk person) "we'll send you an info folder with every monthly bill telling you about our other insurances" ...

I moved my insurance to another company.
“Not mastering metaphores is like cooking pasta when the train is delayed"
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”