Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
Personally I avoid going as low as 2k for whatever mission. It seriously messes with the engine and detection times. No matter what CAP you have and at what altitude they are flying I´ve very, very rarely (if ever) seen the CAP able to react.
ORIGINAL: Encircled
Personally I avoid going as low as 2k for whatever mission. It seriously messes with the engine and detection times. No matter what CAP you have and at what altitude they are flying I´ve very, very rarely (if ever) seen the CAP able to react.
Still a valid tactic as part of a mass strike at all altitudes I'd have thought.
ORIGINAL: Encircled
Personally I avoid going as low as 2k for whatever mission. It seriously messes with the engine and detection times. No matter what CAP you have and at what altitude they are flying I´ve very, very rarely (if ever) seen the CAP able to react.
Still a valid tactic as part of a mass strike at all altitudes I'd have thought.
ORIGINAL: JocMeister
ORIGINAL: Encircled
Personally I avoid going as low as 2k for whatever mission. It seriously messes with the engine and detection times. No matter what CAP you have and at what altitude they are flying I´ve very, very rarely (if ever) seen the CAP able to react.
Still a valid tactic as part of a mass strike at all altitudes I'd have thought.
Depends on how you look at it IMO. I have never tested this myself but going by what I read in that AAR going in at 1-2k means CAP will never be able to respond. If that is true and the engine can´t handle it I would deem it an exploit weather or not you use it in a mass strike with other altitudes.
Perhaps not a major issue on land but if you can get say 50 TBs right through CAP it can be a war changing event.
As I said I havn´t tested it myself so I´m only going by what I read. Its a bloody shame I can´t remember whos AAR it was. Hopefully whoever it was reads this and can give more info! [:)]
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I wouldn't go as far as calling it an exploit. Perhaps one of the oddities in the code would be a better explanation. As I've said, the balance of benefit versus cost just seems a little off in regards to low level night bombing.
ORIGINAL: Lowpe
You can intercept low flying planes. Your CAP has to be low, and generally at the base attacked but not always.
With ships, I have intercepted low flying planes all time. Again you need to have low CAP.
At least that has been my experience.
ORIGINAL: Lowpe
You can intercept low flying planes. Your CAP has to be low, and generally at the base attacked but not always.
With ships, I have intercepted low flying planes all time. Again you need to have low CAP.
At least that has been my experience.
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
ORIGINAL: Encircled
Personally I avoid going as low as 2k for whatever mission. It seriously messes with the engine and detection times. No matter what CAP you have and at what altitude they are flying I´ve very, very rarely (if ever) seen the CAP able to react.
Still a valid tactic as part of a mass strike at all altitudes I'd have thought.
I agree, it's as valid a tactic as any I've used, and I've used some real scrub tactics.
At least I get radar equipped night fighters for the IJN, and the first IJA night fighters as well. Hopefully they can make a difference.
The crux of the issue for me is that the benefits of flying at 2k (increased accuracy, to the point that moonlight becomes irrelevant) far, far outweigh the costs (flak, mainly, but balloons as well).
ORIGINAL: JocMeister
ORIGINAL: Encircled
Still a valid tactic as part of a mass strike at all altitudes I'd have thought.
Depends on how you look at it IMO. I have never tested this myself but going by what I read in that AAR going in at 1-2k means CAP will never be able to respond. If that is true and the engine can´t handle it I would deem it an exploit weather or not you use it in a mass strike with other altitudes.
Perhaps not a major issue on land but if you can get say 50 TBs right through CAP it can be a war changing event.
As I said I havn´t tested it myself so I´m only going by what I read. Its a bloody shame I can´t remember whos AAR it was. Hopefully whoever it was reads this and can give more info! [:)]
I wouldn't go as far as calling it an exploit. Perhaps one of the oddities in the code would be a better explanation. As I've said, the balance of benefit versus cost just seems a little off in regards to low level night bombing.
I think it's also important to keep in mind that there's a lot of info about Loka's 4E groups that I don't see. Morale, fatigue ect. It could be that his pilots require copious quantities of medicinal alcohol after a night raid to deal with the fear of flying into Japanese night fighters, flak and balloons!
Mass strikes as a perfectly valid tactic as far as I'm concerned. In fact, they'll be my resort to breaching the late-war Allied super-carrier-CAP!
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Any fighter--Nates even--that engages ruins aim. If you focus on how many bombers you destroyed you miss the point of the defense.
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
ORIGINAL: Encircled
Still a valid tactic as part of a mass strike at all altitudes I'd have thought.
I agree, it's as valid a tactic as any I've used, and I've used some real scrub tactics.
At least I get radar equipped night fighters for the IJN, and the first IJA night fighters as well. Hopefully they can make a difference.
The crux of the issue for me is that the benefits of flying at 2k (increased accuracy, to the point that moonlight becomes irrelevant) far, far outweigh the costs (flak, mainly, but balloons as well).
ORIGINAL: JocMeister
Depends on how you look at it IMO. I have never tested this myself but going by what I read in that AAR going in at 1-2k means CAP will never be able to respond. If that is true and the engine can´t handle it I would deem it an exploit weather or not you use it in a mass strike with other altitudes.
Perhaps not a major issue on land but if you can get say 50 TBs right through CAP it can be a war changing event.
As I said I havn´t tested it myself so I´m only going by what I read. Its a bloody shame I can´t remember whos AAR it was. Hopefully whoever it was reads this and can give more info! [:)]
I wouldn't go as far as calling it an exploit. Perhaps one of the oddities in the code would be a better explanation. As I've said, the balance of benefit versus cost just seems a little off in regards to low level night bombing.
I think it's also important to keep in mind that there's a lot of info about Loka's 4E groups that I don't see. Morale, fatigue ect. It could be that his pilots require copious quantities of medicinal alcohol after a night raid to deal with the fear of flying into Japanese night fighters, flak and balloons!
Mass strikes as a perfectly valid tactic as far as I'm concerned. In fact, they'll be my resort to breaching the late-war Allied super-carrier-CAP!
tm.asp?m=2206908&mpage=1&key=�
I exchanged a few emails with Loka on the subject of night bombing during your discussions. It's a game area where it's ridiculous to lean on history for Japan's case given how various mechanisms work in the game.
Your posts here also leave out an important piece of the negotiations, so far as I understand them. He offered a compromise to the 6000ft. proposal; you weren't interested in THAT either. It wasn't as one sided as you propose here.
Night bombing from the Allied perspective is a tool. It certainly is not cost-free or some kind of wonder weapon. Japan players see only a fraction of the downsides, however. If you want to maximize your defenses against it do not rely on NFs. Any fighter--Nates even--that engages ruins aim. If you focus on how many bombers you destroyed you miss the point of the defense.
ORIGINAL: Lowpe
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Any fighter--Nates even--that engages ruins aim. If you focus on how many bombers you destroyed you miss the point of the defense.
+1[&o]
Petes, Alfs, Daves...work well too. Fighters with horrendous climb rates, set at 10% CAP worked well for me.
You also need AA; so it is a holistic approach. NF need lots of radar just like daytime CAP.
I saw a big improvement going from Irving S to Sa; they don't run out of ammo so fast.
What percent do your run your Irvings at?
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I agree, it's as valid a tactic as any I've used, and I've used some real scrub tactics.
At least I get radar equipped night fighters for the IJN, and the first IJA night fighters as well. Hopefully they can make a difference.
The crux of the issue for me is that the benefits of flying at 2k (increased accuracy, to the point that moonlight becomes irrelevant) far, far outweigh the costs (flak, mainly, but balloons as well).
I wouldn't go as far as calling it an exploit. Perhaps one of the oddities in the code would be a better explanation. As I've said, the balance of benefit versus cost just seems a little off in regards to low level night bombing.
I think it's also important to keep in mind that there's a lot of info about Loka's 4E groups that I don't see. Morale, fatigue ect. It could be that his pilots require copious quantities of medicinal alcohol after a night raid to deal with the fear of flying into Japanese night fighters, flak and balloons!
Mass strikes as a perfectly valid tactic as far as I'm concerned. In fact, they'll be my resort to breaching the late-war Allied super-carrier-CAP!
tm.asp?m=2206908&mpage=1&key=�
I exchanged a few emails with Loka on the subject of night bombing during your discussions. It's a game area where it's ridiculous to lean on history for Japan's case given how various mechanisms work in the game.
Your posts here also leave out an important piece of the negotiations, so far as I understand them. He offered a compromise to the 6000ft. proposal; you weren't interested in THAT either. It wasn't as one sided as you propose here.
Regarding barrage balloons: I've tested it. At night, they are nerfed to the point of being completely irrelevant.
Losses to barrage balloons during the day are reported as flak losses. At 5k, in daylight, 4E's run into them left, right and center.
At night, at 5k, is nothing in comparison. I think I had one plane reported lost due to flak - there was no flak at the base, so it was a balloon. That was out of a hundred plane raid, IIRC.
Obviously, one trial does not an experiment make, as at the time I wanted to verify that the code for balloons at night actually worked, rather than assess it's effectiveness. Even so, there was a stark difference in planes destroyed/damaged due to balloons between the day/night strikes.
I might go back and run that experiment ten times or so to see what sort of losses balloons cause at night.
RE: House Rules
There was no compromise, as I read it. The 6k limit was my proposal. Loka pointed out quite rightly that I had oversized groups and active kamikazes and there was no further mention of house rules. I can forward you the email chain or post it here if you wish.
Night bombing from the Allied perspective is a tool. It certainly is not cost-free or some kind of wonder weapon. Japan players see only a fraction of the downsides, however. If you want to maximize your defenses against it do not rely on NFs. Any fighter--Nates even--that engages ruins aim. If you focus on how many bombers you destroyed you miss the point of the defense.
Therein lies the crux. It's getting fighters to engage that's the real issue for night CAP. Even then, they'll get worn down due to the fragmented nature of night strikes. The first few raids might get disrupted, but the vast majority will get a good run at things.
ORIGINAL: Lowpe
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Any fighter--Nates even--that engages ruins aim. If you focus on how many bombers you destroyed you miss the point of the defense.
+1[&o]
Petes, Alfs, Daves...work well too. Fighters with horrendous climb rates, set at 10% CAP worked well for me.
You also need AA; so it is a holistic approach. NF need lots of radar just like daytime CAP.
I saw a big improvement going from Irving S to Sa; they don't run out of ammo so fast.
What percent do your run your Irvings at?
I have everything you list marked off. AA, NF, radar. It's all there, it just doesn't seem to work together holistically.
I can't check the settings on my Irvings just now, give me a couple of hours and I'll get back to you.
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
tm.asp?m=2206908&mpage=1&key=�
I exchanged a few emails with Loka on the subject of night bombing during your discussions. It's a game area where it's ridiculous to lean on history for Japan's case given how various mechanisms work in the game.
Your posts here also leave out an important piece of the negotiations, so far as I understand them. He offered a compromise to the 6000ft. proposal; you weren't interested in THAT either. It wasn't as one sided as you propose here.
Regarding barrage balloons: I've tested it. At night, they are nerfed to the point of being completely irrelevant.
Losses to barrage balloons during the day are reported as flak losses. At 5k, in daylight, 4E's run into them left, right and center.
At night, at 5k, is nothing in comparison. I think I had one plane reported lost due to flak - there was no flak at the base, so it was a balloon. That was out of a hundred plane raid, IIRC.
Obviously, one trial does not an experiment make, as at the time I wanted to verify that the code for balloons at night actually worked, rather than assess it's effectiveness. Even so, there was a stark difference in planes destroyed/damaged due to balloons between the day/night strikes.
I might go back and run that experiment ten times or so to see what sort of losses balloons cause at night.
RE: House Rules
There was no compromise, as I read it. The 6k limit was my proposal. Loka pointed out quite rightly that I had oversized groups and active kamikazes and there was no further mention of house rules. I can forward you the email chain or post it here if you wish.
Night bombing from the Allied perspective is a tool. It certainly is not cost-free or some kind of wonder weapon. Japan players see only a fraction of the downsides, however. If you want to maximize your defenses against it do not rely on NFs. Any fighter--Nates even--that engages ruins aim. If you focus on how many bombers you destroyed you miss the point of the defense.
Therein lies the crux. It's getting fighters to engage that's the real issue for night CAP. Even then, they'll get worn down due to the fragmented nature of night strikes. The first few raids might get disrupted, but the vast majority will get a good run at things.
ORIGINAL: Lowpe
+1[&o]
Petes, Alfs, Daves...work well too. Fighters with horrendous climb rates, set at 10% CAP worked well for me.
You also need AA; so it is a holistic approach. NF need lots of radar just like daytime CAP.
I saw a big improvement going from Irving S to Sa; they don't run out of ammo so fast.
What percent do your run your Irvings at?
I have everything you list marked off. AA, NF, radar. It's all there, it just doesn't seem to work together holistically.
I can't check the settings on my Irvings just now, give me a couple of hours and I'll get back to you.
Michael makes no mention of a night/day piece to the code. I have no idea if there's a difference.
In my games losses to balloons are reported that way, not as flak. I look at balloons as chrome on a level with USN blimps. I've never not done something out of fear of balloons.
Part of the ahistoric nature of night bombing in the game is how often and well Japanese fighters find and intercept raids. No radar, no ground fighter direction, no radios even sometimes, yet we see entire CAPs stage attacks on the raids. This par tis rarely mentioned in challenges to the tactic. I can give you dozens of CRs where CAP did find me, did attack, and did disrupt aim. Also many where flak hurt or killed me at low altitudes. All against Lokasenna.
You have supersized LBA torpedo bombers. I had thought that was a counter-proposal, to break them up. You can see in the CR you posted that the Allies, who must invade and take bases to win the game, cannot survive in any sort of historical manner against multiple 80+ torpedo raids on their carriers. When you super-size you inherently avoid any coordination penalty. The Allies cannot counter this. They also have limited pools. Look at the one combat you posted and then look up how many CVEs the USN lost in the whole war. A bit ahistoric.
The game was not deeply play-tested in 1944-45. It has certain warts we all live with, the power of Japanese torpedo bombers being a primary one.
