CAP vs Escort Results

[jcax101]

Back, and thanks to all the vets for chiming in. No more need for secrecy as this was the final straw in a very long Scenario 1 PBEM game between four players. Myself and my oldest buddy Daniel as the Empire versus two brothers doing the Allies. Though in five years of real time we only got to Mar 43 it was an awesome experience, and the Empire came out on top this time. Banzai to all the JFBs. Okay fanfare is over. Back to the details.

Had lost Ryujo and Shokaku but all other flattops were there, except for Junyo which was at Batavia. So Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, Soryu, Zuikaku, Hiyo, Shoho, Zuiho, Ryuho, Hosho, Taiyo, Unyo, Chuyo were present, and each was loaded to max AC capacity. Most CVL and CVE had only fighters. Yamaguchi was a TF CDR. Ample, and I mean ample, IJN naval search assets (land based and within the TF) had been scanning the area for days, and the Allied TFs were well tracked prior to this turn (if that plays a part in the strike detection).

Zuikaku had her radar, and there were only three radar equipped Akizukis in the TFs. That's it. Op tempo didn't allow me to get radars on the other CVs. Plan was to get them outfitted after this battle, but the game ended.

The vectored onto bombers was from the IJN strike only. I didn't see that in the report of the Allied strike, but maybe because of FOW I wouldn't get to see that. I've asked my PBEM opponents if we could exchange our files now that the game is over, but no answer so far. Range between the US and IJN TF was five hexes.

Obvert: Not worried and extremely pleased with the results. Chuyo laughed off the two 1000lbers with minimal sys and float damage. Incredible result. However as ridiculous as it sounds I'm trying to understand if the IJN escort could have performed better in defense of the strike they were escorting. So my question is could I have done something different to get better results.

[rustysi]

However as ridiculous as it sounds I'm trying to understand if the IJN escort could have performed better in defense of the strike they were escorting. So my question is could I have done something different to get better results.

Probably not, sounds more like a 'die roll' thing than any thing else.

Just some things to look out for...

Aircraft fatigue is all over the place. Perhaps an average of 40.

That's a pretty high aircraft fatigue level, but will probably only make a difference in losses, both combat and ops.

though I did find two whoppers at 40.

Yeah, not good.

Average pilot fatigue was 10.

That's fine.

Overall things look pretty good.

I've seen results like this before. Upon inspection of 'Why?' I could not always pinpoint a reason. So I fall back to the AE 'die roll' result. Doesn't mean you shouldn't be as prepared as possible, just means anything may happen no matter what.

[HansBolter]

Was the CAP set to range 0?

If not is was spreading out the standard 3 hexes which is 120 miles.

Don't need radar to spot incoming raids when your CAP fighters are patrolling 120 miles out.

Can see easily how a raid is detected at 80 miles by CAP that extends out 120 miles.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Was the CAP set to range 0?

If not is was spreading out the standard 3 hexes which is 120 miles.

Don't need radar to spot incoming raids when your CAP fighters are patrolling 120 miles out.

Can see easily how a raid is detected at 80 miles by CAP that extends out 120 miles.

Hans,

I don't think the engine works that way. I think it simply measures what is in hex, and when you set a cap at say 3 hex range, the major impact it has is some of the airborne CAP will be out of position and it might actually hurt your chances of spotting the raid because there are less planes airborne in the hex.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


There is a message in the combat report: "vectored onto bombers"

I wonder if this has anything to do with radar, it seems to me it is used when the CAP is set to a range greater than 0 and the fighters are airborne but not in the target hex, hence they are vectored back to the target hex?

[spence]

A6M2 Zero x 64
A6M5 Zero x 74

Frankly you are all ignoring the fact that in the IJN there was NOBODY to tell the CAP where the enemy was...Japanese radar was practically a waste of time since they never developed any sort of fighter direction center.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


There is a message in the combat report: "vectored onto bombers"

I wonder if this has anything to do with radar, it seems to me it is used when the CAP is set to a range greater than 0 and the fighters are airborne but not in the target hex, hence they are vectored back to the target hex?

Not quite the correct reasoning.[:)]

There are two main reasons why the fighters being vectored message appears.

1. Radar provides sufficient early warning to "bring" airborne CAP fighters into position to meet the incoming raid..

2. The code determines that because there is more than sufficient CAP fighters to deal with the enemy escorting fighters, the surplus to requirement CAP fighters are sent directly to meet the enemy bombers.

Alfred

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


There is a message in the combat report: "vectored onto bombers"

I wonder if this has anything to do with radar, it seems to me it is used when the CAP is set to a range greater than 0 and the fighters are airborne but not in the target hex, hence they are vectored back to the target hex?

Not quite the correct reasoning.[:)]

There are two main reasons why the fighters being vectored message appears.

1. Radar provides sufficient early warning to "bring" airborne CAP fighters into position to meet the incoming raid..

2. The code determines that because there is more than sufficient CAP fighters to deal with the enemy escorting fighters, the surplus to requirement CAP fighters are sent directly to meet the enemy bombers.

Alfred

That really explains a lot![&o] Especially #2.

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


There is a message in the combat report: "vectored onto bombers"

I wonder if this has anything to do with radar, it seems to me it is used when the CAP is set to a range greater than 0 and the fighters are airborne but not in the target hex, hence they are vectored back to the target hex?

Not quite the correct reasoning.[:)]

There are two main reasons why the fighters being vectored message appears.

1. Radar provides sufficient early warning to "bring" airborne CAP fighters into position to meet the incoming raid..

2. The code determines that because there is more than sufficient CAP fighters to deal with the enemy escorting fighters, the surplus to requirement CAP fighters are sent directly to meet the enemy bombers.

Alfred

Alfred, this is beautiful. I have to ask. Do you have access to the code or the old development forum where this level of detail would have been discussed when being designed? I can't imagine any other way to be able to find this info.

Either way, thank you for your detailed contributions!

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


There is a message in the combat report: "vectored onto bombers"

I wonder if this has anything to do with radar, it seems to me it is used when the CAP is set to a range greater than 0 and the fighters are airborne but not in the target hex, hence they are vectored back to the target hex?

Not quite the correct reasoning.[:)]

There are two main reasons why the fighters being vectored message appears.

1. Radar provides sufficient early warning to "bring" airborne CAP fighters into position to meet the incoming raid..

2. The code determines that because there is more than sufficient CAP fighters to deal with the enemy escorting fighters, the surplus to requirement CAP fighters are sent directly to meet the enemy bombers.

Alfred

How does this interface with the manner in which combat is executed?

In combat there is a round of interaction between interceptors and escorts that occurs before the interaction of interceptors with bombers.

This first round occurs regardless of whether, or not, there are any escorts with the bombers. If there are no escorts the round occurs with no combat happening between the interceptors and bombers. It is essentially an empty round, followed by the round wherein the interceptors get to make passes at the bombers.

If the engine is determining that there are sufficient interceptors to handle the escorts and vectoring arriving fighters toward the bombers, this interaction with the bombers still doesn't occur until the second round. Does this mean that fighters over and above what is needed to handle the escorts are being held back from combat in the first round?

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: USSAmerica

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Lowpe





I wonder if this has anything to do with radar, it seems to me it is used when the CAP is set to a range greater than 0 and the fighters are airborne but not in the target hex, hence they are vectored back to the target hex?

Not quite the correct reasoning.[:)]

There are two main reasons why the fighters being vectored message appears.

1. Radar provides sufficient early warning to "bring" airborne CAP fighters into position to meet the incoming raid..

2. The code determines that because there is more than sufficient CAP fighters to deal with the enemy escorting fighters, the surplus to requirement CAP fighters are sent directly to meet the enemy bombers.

Alfred

Alfred, this is beautiful. I have to ask. Do you have access to the code or the old development forum where this level of detail would have been discussed when being designed? I can't imagine any other way to be able to find this info.

Either way, thank you for your detailed contributions!

I don't have direct access to the code. The only person who officially does have direct access to the code and who still posts on the forum (albeit nowadays very infrequently) is our esteemed moderator, wdolson. Those few devs who infrequently pop into the forum (such as Andy Mac) don't have access to the code itself too. I do however have access to the private dev forum where relevant parts of the code would often be disclosed during the analysis of specific issues. So if an issue was raised there and it was necessary to consider the effect of the existing code and that of possible alterations to it, I have second hand "access" to it. If the issue was not discussed on the private dev forum, then I have no second hand access.

In this instance the information is publicly available on the AE forum. Wdolson, theElf and michaelm75au have all commented on this issue of vectoring fighters. Generally before I post game mechanic answers I check to see if the information has been previously publicly disclosed by the devs. I very rarely find the private dev forum discussed issues which did not attract dev clarification on the public forum.

It would be very improper of me to publicly disclose information which the devs decided not to publicly disclose. You will remember what happened to the tester Yamotohugger (sp) when he improperly disclosed private dev communications.[;)]

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Lowpe





I wonder if this has anything to do with radar, it seems to me it is used when the CAP is set to a range greater than 0 and the fighters are airborne but not in the target hex, hence they are vectored back to the target hex?

Not quite the correct reasoning.[:)]

There are two main reasons why the fighters being vectored message appears.

1. Radar provides sufficient early warning to "bring" airborne CAP fighters into position to meet the incoming raid..

2. The code determines that because there is more than sufficient CAP fighters to deal with the enemy escorting fighters, the surplus to requirement CAP fighters are sent directly to meet the enemy bombers.

Alfred

How does this interface with the manner in which combat is executed?

In combat there is a round of interaction between interceptors and escorts that occurs before the interaction of interceptors with bombers.

This first round occurs regardless of whether, or not, there are any escorts with the bombers. If there are no escorts the round occurs with no combat happening between the interceptors and bombers. It is essentially an empty round, followed by the round wherein the interceptors get to make passes at the bombers.

If the engine is determining that there are sufficient interceptors to handle the escorts and vectoring arriving fighters toward the bombers, this interaction with the bombers still doesn't occur until the second round. Does this mean that fighters over and above what is needed to handle the escorts are being held back from combat in the first round?

Generally correct but technically I would describe it a bit differently.

At the macro level CAP breaks up an enemy raid into two separate components; fighter v fighter and fighter v bomber. The fighter v fighter component is always first and the fighter v bomber component is always second. This order can be easily seen when watching the combat animation. The Combat Report conflates the two separate components into a single report.

When the player looks at the Combat Report, the aggregated number of CAP fighters is always provided.. That aggregated number often is not the actual number of CAP fighters who participated in the fighter v fighter component, let alone were present ab initio for that component. It often includes CAP which did not even participate in the fighter v bomber component. From the combat algorithm POV what is very important is the respective fighter strengths disclosed in the Combat Report. The decision as to whether there are surplus to requirement CAP fighters is made taking into account these aggregated numbers.

Accordingly when an enemy raid appears without any escorting enemy fighters, the first component is skipped entirely. If there were escorting enemy fighters the first component is resolved first, without the participation of any CAP fighters who were directly vectored onto the enemy bombers. These vectored fighters are fresh, not having endured fatigue nor expended "ammo/fuel" from fighting the first component.

Alfred

[Alpha77]

Interesting. 2 more questions come to mind:

a) Will CAP fighters even if at 0 or 1 hex range "hang out" or fight longer with drop tanks? Or are they only really modelled to get longer range and not eg. loiter time or fuel consumption during combat. In theory the message out of fuel should then not appear much with droptanks.

b) It was said escorts fly 2000ft above the strike (iirc). Means e.g. the strike is at 14k and the escort would be at 16k (if the escorts are set to 14k). What if I set escorts to eg. 18k will they fly also 2000ft over the bombers ? Or is the higher number of 18k used then [&:] I know it is better to set escorts to the same height like the bombers for coordination. But if I have 2 fighter groups one set to 14k and one to perhaps 25k (flying top cover for both the lower escorts and bombers)

[USSAmerica]

It would be very improper of me to publicly disclose information which the devs decided not to publicly disclose. You will remember what happened to the tester Yamotohugger (sp) when he improperly disclosed private dev communications.

I do indeed remember that. "Interesting" times. [:D]

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Interesting. 2 more questions come to mind:

a) Will CAP fighters even if at 0 or 1 hex range "hang out" or fight longer with drop tanks? Or are they only really modelled to get longer range and not eg. loiter time or fuel consumption during combat. In theory the message out of fuel should then not appear much with droptanks.

b) It was said escorts fly 2000ft above the strike (iirc). Means e.g. the strike is at 14k and the escort would be at 16k (if the escorts are set to 14k). What if I set escorts to eg. 18k will they fly also 2000ft over the bombers ? Or is the higher number of 18k used then [&:] I know it is better to set escorts to the same height like the bombers for coordination. But if I have 2 fighter groups one set to 14k and one to perhaps 25k (flying top cover for both the lower escorts and bombers)

RE: a)

Not that I'm aware of, or at least that's not the only factor. There is some kind of endurance dimension for planes and the fuel they carried was only part of that. Ammo is also a factor. In game terms, there is a die roll made "against" this number and if failed the plane leaves the combat. These are the "out of ammo", "low on fuel", etc. messages that you see in the replay.