Air combat

[Tristanjohn]

Listen, Tristanjohn I will say it again I am not picking on you, I have no agenda, my position has always been a simple one.

"I am not getting the kind of results you are reporting." PERIOD.

Tranquilo. No one said you were. Besides, I am perfectly able to handle myself in a pinch. You're the least of my worrres.

Re results: as it turns out, my newest PBEM opponent chose to play the Japanese side in "Hard Road Ahead" (I've yet to find anyone willing to play the USN ) and wouldn't you know? but his initial air attacks on the 'Canal and Tulagi went sour.

This amounts to the most realistic action I've seen to date with this model regarding Japanese attacks on shipping. It went this way.

With the weather partly cloudy on 9 August 1942 I positioned my carriers in the shallow all-sea hex SE of Florida assigning Wasp CV TF CAP @ 60% with "Sara" covering the landing at Tulagi, Enterprise handling guard duty over Guadacanal. (Due to the idiotic ratings for fatigue and morale assigned USN carrier Wildcat squadrons to start the scenario these assignments are almost obligatory, as is the late invasion date necessitated by the need to recuperate my fly boys before going in. If you go in there and work the opening moves for the invasion for yourself you'll immediately see what I mean.)

Neither Tulagi nor the larger island across the way drew "thunderheads" and the Japanese attacks struck both landing areas hard. I'd have to go back and review the AAR but I think I saw nine separate movements of airplanes come down from Rabaul, some escorted by Rufe's stationed I believe on Tulagi, the rest by A6M2's out of the latter site. The enemy sent all he had, Bettys and Nells. They came in packages mostly of around 3 and 6, though one large group of 18 Bettys muscled in around "midday" and gave me quite a scare for a few minutes.

Three of the Japanese attacks had to make it without escorts and they just weren't up to that. In all I'd say I shot down a dozen planes from these groups and damaged all the rest, with not a torpedo delivered. The fighter-escorted flights did much better in terms of casualties but didn't get a single hit either--I consider myself very fortunate in that regard.

The AI, as I said, attacked Guadacanal as well as Tulagi and this helped the Allied cause as the only TFs then off Lunga Point were a couple of good-sized SC screens sent ahead to ensure my main fleet of transports on 10 August would make their landing unopposed from the sea. (This is another failing of the model, I'm afraid. Gary's insistence to treat this model operationally is unfortunate due to his inability to provide players with an AI up to its end of that bargain. As it stands I believe the best course would be to allow players to pull all the strings if they so wished to do so. This would certainly make for more intelligent play all around.) So about half of the Japanese strike strength not only was dissipated tangling with combat vessels well-armed with AA but more regretably still missed the primary target in a sea invasion: the ships carrying the troops and supply which go to make up the invasion!

Again, only a greenhorn would play like this, whereas with the AI it's the toss of a coin. Not a good model by any stretch. This needs to be changed.

Anyway, the results from this action are pretty much what you claim you see all the time, TIMJOT, do not support my earlier contention re the type of action I've seen all too much around those two very important islands. But, true to my no-agenda agenda I happily report this news.

Just reporting it as it is. (Is anyone in this forum besides me old enough to remember who used to say that?)

[TIMJOT]

Just reporting it as it is. (Is anyone in this forum besides me old enough to remember who used to say that?)

Lowell Thomas?

Just stand your CV a/c down while the transports are loading. By the time you are ready to set sail their morale will be in the 80s and fatigue zero or near zero. You might not agree with initial morale and fatigue levels but personally I find it little more than inconvenience rather than a game breaker.

Actually fatique in the teens seem reasonable to me considering we must assumed they have just arrive from steaming halfway accross the pacific. You have a case regarding morale, but on the other hand I have read accounts that the majority of the pilots were newbies interspersed with vetrans. At that time in the war the was still widespread bogey man mentality regarding the zero as some sort of super weapon. Along with a correspondent underlying belief that their own aircraft was inferior.

That being said I cant say I disagree with you that the starting morale for USN fighters in this particular scenerio is probably too low.

[Tristanjohn]

Lowell Thomas? Just stand your CV a/c down while the transports are loading. By the time you are ready to set sail their morale will be in the 80s and fatigue zero or near zero. You might not agree with initial morale and fatigue levels but personally I find it little more than inconvenience rather than a game breaker.

Actually fatique in the teens seem reasonable to me considering we must assumed they have just arrive from steaming halfway across the pacific. You have a case regarding morale, but on the other hand I have read accounts that the majority of the pilots were newbies interspersed with vetrans. At that time in the war the was still widespread bogey man mentality regarding the zero as some sort of super weapon. Along with a correspondent underlying belief that their own aircraft was inferior.

That being said I cant say I disagree with you that the starting morale for USN fighters in this particular scenerio is probably too low.

There may or may not be a case for whatever "morale" rating is assigned. What is important to note is that USN morale ratings are universally lower than Japanese morale ratings and this is both (part of) the problem and indicative of where the design bias of this game certainly lies. As far as "fatigue" goes, sailing around the world in a virtual floating city like Enterprise wolfing down Navy chow fatigues n-o-b-o-d-y. If American pilots were seasick I haven't read of this, and they sure as hell were less mosquito-bitten then their rice-ration-consuming Japanese counterparts at Rabaul heading into this battle.

It is not sufficient to have these American pilots stand down for a mere two days while the transports load in Segond Channel. The American Wildcat pilots come onto the board with morale in the low 60s (60, 62, 63) and they need to rest (and I mean do nothing at all) right up to 9 August when the attacks go in. If they are not so rested they quickly become useless for CAP duty long before the last transport weighs out of Lunga Roads.

Meanwhile, at Rabaul the A6M2 pilots have a morale rating of 87 (they must like those mosquitoes) with their bomber mates happily slopping down whatever's in their rice bowls to the merry little tune of 91, 90, 90, 82.

That is my definition of design bias, and it can be found throughout the system. Part of it might be explained by the mdiehl "myth" theory (I have no doubt this was in play 20 years ago when Gary first started on this greater project) but there is also the little detail of simulation "balance" which apparently Gary figures is either best achieved through this transparent means, or . . . is simply a fudge he has resorted to out of despair for not being able to find anything better. (I'd expect there's a little of both in there.)

Pretty much same problems face the designer for both the air and naval models with regard to personnel ratings and how these might be caused to shift upward and downward over time. Let's broach this here and now, though briefly.

The designer apparently wishes to impart to the gamer some sort of Japanese proficiency which he estimates to be relatively higher than the USN's. Okay. So what does he do? He simply beefs up the ratings (multipliers) for one side (the Japanese) while lowering those of the other (USN). Mathematically that has to be a success in the end. That this rationalization with numbers might not be terribly "accurate" doesn't bother him apparently and is readily rationalized in forgiving venues like this forum as an "operational-study" necessity. Or as you said, it's not a "game breaker."

Well as a matter of fact it is a "game breaker" for the reason it is simplistic and thus not a method to be trusted on its face. You get out of models what you put into them.

Now I don't know math from Spanish cheese, but allow me anyway to examine this problem as best I might and see if I cannot come up, someway, somehow, with a better approach.

(I'll begin with the air model and use fighters as my working example.)

First of all I need to know at what point in the math model opposing fighters were likely to shoot each other down at a 1:1 ratio. I assume this would be when all multipliers (pilot ratings, leader ratings, plane ratings, base modifiers, whatever) are the same for both sides. If that isn't the case then there must be some other modifier in play, something we are not aware of, but we'd only know that if the designer released detailed specs. (And why shouldn't he? Formulas were no state secret in PW, why should they be in this game?)

The point I want to make here is that these modifiers never change globally, with the exception of plane models, but is the case that as pilots are used in battle they'll become better over time, assuming they survive.

That all sounds reasonable on its face, doesn't it? (Simple stuff usually does.) But does this actually model World War II history?

How about the naval model? Japanese ships (there are no crews so there is no fatigue or morale modifier in play--a mistake I believe but we'll let that slide for the moment) start the game with higher experience ratings, as a general rule, for both day and night operations. Again, the only way to bump up these ratings (multipliers) is to use one's ships in battle. (To an extent it's possible to increment these numbers upward by availing oneself of "shakedown" cruises but in reality that's just silly and would take forever anyway.)

Again, on it's face the model seems to well simulate ships' crews with regard to their combat experience. No?

And does this, too, reasonably model World War II history?

Please think about that, and should you have interest get back to me. It might even make for a splendid kick-off of pbear's extended thread which wants to deal with design issues in detail--assuming he has interest in that.

Have a good day, TIMJOT.

[Tristanjohn]

Lowell Thomas?

No.

[Tristanjohn]

Getting back to "fatigue": yesterday I found it more or less convenient to shuttle several float-plane sections off cruisers at anchor in Noumea onto shore. In spite of Mogami's claim that he can't see this in the game the result of this exercise was to once again severely fatigue my poor Seagull pilots.

The three sections involved were 1/VCS-5, 2/VCS-5, 5/VCS-9 which started with respective fatigue ratings of 1,12 and 20. After the transfer flight the three sections' fatigue ratings stood, respectively, at 19,18 and 27.

I've noticed that as fatigue runs upward the hit units take decreases, a sort of "law of diminishing returns" at work here, I'd guess. What that hopes to model I've no clue, just wanted to point it out.

Point is, a unit with 1 fatigue jumps 18 (this is always the case for low-fatigued planes on this short hop) while even the fatigued sections took hits of 6 and 7.

In general I find the fatigue system not only senseless but alarmingly inconsistent. Start out with a number of bombers in the New Hebrides or Brisbane and transfer them to Port Moresby and the difference in hits can be substantial. It's always too high, of course, but why isn't it at least similar? I've seen swings in the 20s!

Dumb.

[mogami]

Hi, Just ran a test of air combat and fatigue in WITP

F1/Tainan Daitai And F2/Tainan Daitai (the two best fighter groups in IJN) Fly a sweep over PM. All airgroups unchanged except to set morale to 99 and fatigue to 0
Over Port Moresby the 8th FG set to LRCAP target PM All airgroups at 10k

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 48

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 36

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 9 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 2 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 1 damaged

FO J. Mckeon of 8th FG is credited with kill number 3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 39

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 2 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 2 damaged


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual loss 4 P-39 and 8 A6M2 shot down in air to air no op loss.

F1/Tainan post flight report fat 37 kills 3
F2/Tainan fat 40 Kill 1

8th FG fat 3 kills 8

I'm going to run the exact test again

[Tristanjohn]

Here's an example of what I'm talking about when it comes to design bias.

All of the Allied planes involved in this attack are the best the USN has, off carriers, shuttled to Irau for the purpose of this action.

This AAR was recieved here a few minutes ago. You'll notice my planes failed to find any ships in Lunga Roads though I know for a fact at least one SC TF was hanging around the vicinity. The weather is clear.


Air attack on Lunga , at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 12

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 15
F4F-4 Wildcat x 63
SBD Dauntless x 104

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 4 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat x 2 destroyed
F4F-3 Wildcat x 1 damaged
F4F-4 Wildcat x 5 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 4 damaged
SBD Dauntless x 8 damaged

LT J. Yamashita of F2/1st Daitai is credited with kill number 3

LT J. Yamashita of F2/1st Daitai is KILLED

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 132

Port hits 4
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 2

[mogami]

Hi, In the above the USN groups were set to Primary Naval and secondary Port attack? You don't say how many patrols you had out.
Also the text report is often not what actually was lost. You have to use the intel screen for that.

Here is another test from WITP. This time I decided to just try to shut down Port Moresby airfield with bombers from Rabaul.

F1/Tainan Daitai Avg Exp 87 Morale 99 Fatigue 0 27xA6M2
H. Nishizawa 97
S. Sakai 97
K. Uto 94
Y. Kozono 94
M. Shimakawa 94
S. Iduhara 93
M. Endo 92
S. Ushara 91
C. Isozaki 90
T. Ono 89
W. Kibota 89
S. Kudo 87
B. Nagahama 87
S. Abe 87
T. Takatska 86
A. Okano 86 (88) 2 kills
W. Handa 85
V. Nagano 85
Y. Oki 84
K Yagui 84
C. Kurihara 84
S. Yamishita 83 KIA
M. Yoskida 83
N. Nishura 83 KIA
U. Muranaka 81
Y. Nakaya 81
T. Kumagaya 80

F2/Tainan Daitai Avg Exp 87 Morale 99 Fatigue 0 27xA6M2
T. Ota 99
T. Nakajima 96
S. Kawai 96
J. Sassi 96
S. Ishui 96
T. Honda 95
G. Nakagawa 94
P. Nomura 92
H. Endo 91
G. Miyazaki 89
K. Obuchi 88
N. Yamakawa 87
I. Kawakubo 87
R. Mikami 87
O. Katagi 86
N. Muto 86
L. Ishumura 86
K Yoshimura 84 (85) 1 kill
S. Matsuki 83
N. Tobushigo 83
E. Kukmoto 83
R. Kawamua 83
I Yamazaki 82 KIA
D. Fukomor 82 KIA
M. Hori 81
J. Minoua 78
MHaguri 77

(One of the KIA had first shot down an enemy AC)


8th FG P-39D Morale 99 Fatigue 0 (only pilots with kills listed)
L. Everhart 86 2 kills
D. McGee 85 1 kill
E. Crass 94 1 kill
J. Jones 87 1 kill
C. Smith 89 1 kill
J. Myers 84 1 kill
P. Murphey 85 1 kill

Total results mission 1
4xP39D shot down
4xA6M2 shot down
4xG4M1 shot down (A2A)
1xG4M1 shot down flak

no op loss
A6M2 fatigue after mission 18 P39D Fatigue after mission 6



FTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/06/42

Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 51
G4M1 Betty x 44

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 27

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 5 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged
G4M1 Betty x 4 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 4 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 2 damaged
P-40E Kittyhawk x 1 destroyed

PO2 A.Okano of F1/Tainan Daitai is credited with kill number 2

Runway hits 8

Attacking Level Bombers:
15 x G4M1 Betty at 9000 feet
10 x G4M1 Betty at 9000 feet
8 x G4M1 Betty at 9000 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 9000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 9000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PM airfield damage 1. LCAP 10k F1 11k F2 12k

[mogami]

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/12/42

Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 54
G4M1 Betty x 48

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 33
P-40E Kittyhawk x 18

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 7 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 7 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 5 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 5 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 4 damaged
P-40E Kittyhawk x 3 destroyed
P-40E Kittyhawk x 2 damaged

FO L. Everhart of 8th FG is credited with kill number 3

Airbase hits 11
Runway hits 2

Attacking Level Bombers:
11 x G4M1 Betty at 9000 feet
20 x G4M1 Betty at 9000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 9000 feet
5 x G4M1 Betty at 9000 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty at 9000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F1/Tainan Daitai Avg Exp 87 Morale 99 Fatigue 0 27xA6M2
H. Nishizawa 97
S. Sakai 97*
K. Uto 94
Y. Kozono 94
M. Shimakawa 94
S. Iduhara 93 (94) 1 kill
M. Endo 92
S. Ushara 91
C. Isozaki 90
T. Ono 89
W. Kibota 89
A. Okano 88 (2 kills)
S. Kudo 87
B. Nagahama 87
S. Abe 87
T. Takatska 86
W. Handa 85
V. Nagano 85
Y. Oki 84
K Yagui 84
C. Kurihara 84
M. Yoskida 83 (85) 2 kills
U. Muranaka 81 KIA
Y. Nakaya 81 KIA
T. Kumagaya 80
J . Kawasaka 57 (63) 1 kill
I. Aihara 54 (59) 1 kill

F2/Tainan Daitai Avg Exp 87 Morale 99 Fatigue 0 26xA6M2
T. Ota 99*
T. Nakajima 96 1 kill
S. Kawai 96
J. Sassi 96
S. Ishui 96
T. Honda 95
G. Nakagawa 94
P. Nomura 92
H. Endo 91
G. Miyazaki 89
K. Obuchi 88
N. Yamakawa 87
I. Kawakubo 87
R. Mikami 87
O. Katagi 86
N. Muto 86
L. Ishumura 86
K Yoshimura 85 (1 kill)
S. Matsuki 83 KIA
N. Tobushigo 83 KIA
E. Kukmoto 83 KIA
R. Kawamua 83 KIA
M. Hori 81 KIA
J. Minoua 78
M. Haguri 77
H. Hamano 58

7xA6M2 shot down
6xG4M1 shot down
1xG4M1 op
5xP39D shot down
3xP-40E shot down

2 Japanese pilots that had kills in mission were also killed
*=group leader

8th FG P-39D Morale 99 Fatigue 0 (only pilots with kills listed)
L. Everhart 86 2 kills 87 3 kills
D. McGee 85 1 kill
E. Crass 94 1 kill
J. Jones 87 1 kill 88 3 kills
C. Smith 89 1 kill
J. Myers 84 1 kill
P. Murphey 85 1 kill 87 3 kills
J. Mcleon 85 1 kill
H. Mcelland 80 1 kill
V. Jett 85 1 kill
R. Smith 80 1 kill
L. Blair 80 1 kill
J Wilson 79 1 kill

(1 pilot from 8th FG who is KIA first scored 1 kill)
R. Burgess 64 1 kill (P-40 E pilot)

The P-40E groups 75th and 76th RAAF had morale of 56 and 55

Totals after 2 missions (air to air only)
11xA6M2
11x G4M1
9xP-39D
3xP-40E

This is an out of box scenario, Only Morale and Fatigue altered prior to first mission

[Tristanjohn]

Hi, In the above the USN groups were set to Primary Naval and secondary Port attack? You don't say how many patrols you had out.
Also the text report is often not what actually was lost. You have to use the intel screen for that.

Recons from Luganville (2) and Irau (1), both hitting successfully twice. Dive-bombers on 10% search (each squadron). I've been conducting similar recon continuously for the past month, with pretty much the same sightings in Lunga Roads all during that extended period. I also had a squadron of B-17s posted at Efate on naval search (100%) and they turned up the same enemy TF data as did the recons.

There is no place on earth better reconnoitered than Guadacanal in my PBEM with this guy.

The bombers were set as you suggest. (Is your implication I ought to have only set them for port attack? My experience there is the same, if so: they usually only strike the port, rarely spot any ships in harbor. I can think of only a couple of times ever hitting a ship with bombers so ordered.)

Again, this was in clear weather, all morale was at least 92, experience across the board no lower than 74, most of it in the 80s, fatigue no higher than it took to ferry the completely-rested pilots/planes from Segond Channel and the flattops (approximately 12 hexes out from the port).

I'll be hitting Lunga again as soon as the weather lifts. (For some reason it swung from clear to rain in one turn.)

Re your P-39/P-40 results vis-a-vis "Zeroes": I've seen similar kill ratios but only when I choose to intercept those stupid super-"Zekes" I've described which fly continuous sweeps over both PM and Gili Gili with 0-fatigue piloits/planes, morale into the 90s, experience 70s+. Oh, and sometimes (not often) versus fighter escorts out of Rabaul, though usually in those cases the losses on both sides are light and the bombers go through more or less unscathed.

[mogami]

Hi, If you want the airgroups on Irau to attack TF's set them to Naval Attack/rest. Otherwise they will wait for the first search and if nothing turns up launch port attack (and then not be ready to attack any TF spotted in 2nd phase or late in 1st phase.)
If I want to attack both Port/airfield and TF's I set some groups to just Naval attack and some groups to just Port/airfield attack. My secondary mission is always rest.

I'm going to start over and not change morale fatigue from what scenario begins with.

[Tristanjohn]

Hi, If you want the airgroups on Irau to attack TF's set them to Naval Attack/rest. Otherwise they will wait for the first search and if nothing turns up launch port attack (and then not be ready to attack any TF spotted in 2nd phase or late in 1st phase.)
If I want to attack both Port/airfield and TF's I set some groups to just Naval attack and some groups to just Port/airfield attack. My secondary mission is always rest.

I'm going to start over and not change morale fatigue from what scenario begins with.

Except all of the first seaches spotted the TF (actually there were two in there as it turned out--he must have sent another overnight).

By not toggling port attack as your second option there's a grand chance nothing will fly at all.

Dumb.

[Mike_B20]

Tristanjohn,

You really should stop posting the AAR exerpts.
They only serve to underline your incredible ignorance of things UV.
The latest shows you are incapable of setting aircraft for naval attack...and you come on these boards to criticize others/ UV designers/UV model for stupidity, idiocy, etc. (the list of insults you've used is near endless).

Guys...this guy has to be a troll.

Noone could be as ignorant as Tristanjohn about UV and be for real.
Joel probably put him up to it and they're all having a good laugh

[mogami]

Except all of the first seaches spotted the TF (actually there were two in there as it turned out--he must have sent another overnight).

By not toggling port attack as your second option there's a grand chance nothing will fly at all.

Dumb.

Hi, Why do you have to attach those little nuggests. It might be dumb if you are playing a 1 turn game. But since there is tomorrow to think about, not flying a mission you don't want today will help you fly the one you want tomorrow. Make up your mind when you assign groups just what their mission is to be. Naval Attack groups do not fly port attack. Port attack groups do not fly Naval attack. If your just wanting target of oppurtunity OK but then the next day when a really good TF moves into range and your groups do not fly....

You are giving your AI commanders a choice and then complaining about the ones they make. Take away the choice and they will do what you want.

What is airfield size of Irau, and number of aircraft deployed there?

[Tristanjohn]

Hi, Why do you have to attach those little nuggests. It might be dumb if you are playing a 1 turn game. But since there is tomorrow to think about, not flying a mission you don't want today will help you fly the one you want tomorrow. Make up your mind when you assign groups just what their mission is to be. Naval Attack groups do not fly port attack. Port attack groups do not fly Naval attack. If your just wanting target of oppurtunity OK but then the next day when a really good TF moves into range and your groups do not fly....

You are giving your AI commanders a choice and then complaining about the ones they make. Take away the choice and they will do what you want.

What is airfield size of Irau, and number of aircraft deployed there?

The base is maxed out for all but fortification level, which stands at level 2. I can't recall but I'd say I was over the nominal limit of planes for a 4-level airfield by some 50 or so (though as you can see I still got off a good-sized package). This turn it's back down to 197 aircraft so I'll not be hit with a penalty again. Base air support stands at 362 I believe.

I don't care about results on any given turn, Mogami. I look for tendencies of the model and patterns in play. And I'm very good at finding these things. That's how I know the model's goofy.

Well, one of the reasons. A study of the relational database would tell as much.

As for giving AI commanders a choice: the choice is hierarchal, afterall, and with good intelligence dating back a month, with three reons hitting twice (that's for a total of six good recons) on that very turn (three impacting the first air phase) it doesn't take a genius to see the system isn't up to its work. At least not always, or even usually to any dependable degree.

As I've written elsewhere the sensible course would be to can the AI (leave it as variable to be turned on by the lazy and careless folk) and allow the player to control all functions.

As for "tomorrow": I'm a "bird in the hand" kind of guy. I'm ready to move on the lower Solomons today and worrying about "tomorrow" isn't part of my game plan. Let the Japanese worry about "tomorrow"--and they ought to. Besides, as it turns out I've plenty more bombers and Wildcats waiting in reserve at Segond Channel to swap for anything that tires or wears out or becomes depressed at Irau--that only takes one turn to happen. After the attack my assets were still in good shape so I've left them for another turn, then I'll make those transfers to and from.

I'm fine and my strategy is sound. It's the system that creaks along.

Actually I'm not prepared to move today and have no desire to do so. He's still furiously building up the airfield at Lunga. The convoy that's headed for Irau port (several sailing together) hauls 75K+ supply and almost 40K fuel. It'll turn right around and pick up more supply and the invasion troops at Luganville and then I'll move on Guadacanal--this will be a coordinated invasion with yet another convoy currently loading at Brisbane. And as far as I know there isn't a blessed thing he can do about it.

But we'll see. I've seen the system FUBAR simpler plans than this one.

[mogami]

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/07/42

Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 27

Allied aircraft
P-40E Kittyhawk x 6

no losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Kittyhawk x 1 destroyed


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

75th RAAF Sqd 51 morale 0 Fatigue 16xP40E
1xP40E shot down

F2/Tainan Daitai Avg Exp 87 Morale 56 Fatigue 0 27xA6M2
01. T. Ota 99
02. T. Nakajima 96
03. S. Kawai 96
04. J. Sassi 96
05. S. Ishui 96
06. T. Honda 95
07. W. Kanno 90
08. G. Miyazaki 89
09. J. Matsumara 87
10. D. Fujimatsu 87
11. N. Yamakawa 87
12. A. Ohara 87
13. I. Sagara 86
14. E. Matso 86
15. C. Kumagaya 86
16. B. Ihura 86
17. K. Yoshimura 84 1 kill
18. G. Kanako 84
19. F. Matsuhara 84
20. S. Matsuki 83
21. N. Tobushigo 83
22. E. Kukmoto 83
23. H. Kabota 83
24. I Yamazaki 82
25. D. Fukomor 82
26. M. Hori 81
27. V. Minami 80

[mogami]

F1/Tainan Daitai Avg Exp 87 Morale 85 Fatigue 0 27xA6M2
01. H. Nishizawa 97
02. S. Sakai 97
03. K. Uto 94
04. Y. Kozono 94
05. M. Shimakawa 94
06. S. Iduhara 93
07. M. Endo 92
08. R. Kasai 92
09. S. Ushara 91
10. C. Isozaki 90
11. T. Ono 89
12. W. Kibota 89
13. K. Nagahama 89
14. S. Kudo 87
15. T. Takatska 86
16. W. Handa 85
17. P. Kusamoto 85
18. Y. Oki 84 (86) 2 kills
19. K. Yasui 84
20. M. Matsuba 84
21. S. Yamishita 83
22. M. Yoskida 83
23. K. Nishura 83 1 kill
24. O. Fujiwara 83
25. R. Kamuhira 80 (82) 2 kills
26. N. Ogawa 80 1 kill
27. L. Matsunaga 80 (81)1 kill


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/11/42

Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 27

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 20
P-40E Kittyhawk x 36

no losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 1 destroyed
P-40E Kittyhawk x 6 destroyed
P-40E Kittyhawk x 1 damaged

PO2 Y. Oki of F1/Tainan Daitai is credited with kill number 2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6xP40E shot down
1xP39D shot down

49th FG Morale 56 Fatigue 0
8th FG Morale 60 Fatigue 0
75th RAAF Sqd Morale 54 Fatique 0

75th RAAF Squadron P-40E
01. P. Turnbull 90
02. J. Jackson 85
03. L. Jackson 83
04. G. Atherton 75 KIA
05. R. Woodroffe 61
06. G. Murray 60
07. M. Thompson 59
08. F. Fisher 59
09. R Downey 57
10. S. Astin 56 (57)
11. N. Astin 56
12. L. Hackett 56
13. T. Gilmour 54
14. U. Caldwell 53
15. P. Peirse 53
16. O. Palmer 53

The Japanese leader of F1/Tainan Daitai is better then any other fighter group leader on map. Unlike UV where you have to try to get a bad leader killed in WITP you can change leaders. So far I have replaced every Allied leader but none of these new ones are all that much better.
The orginal 8th FG leader was actually causing morale loss.

[mogami]

The day after the last battle Richard Bong took over the 49th FG so that group has a good leader. One of the 75th RAAF Sqd assumed command and he is a good leader only the 8th FG still has the 40/40 leader.
When leaders fly they will be noted with * (kill) means previous total

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/14/42

Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 54

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 27
P-40E Kittyhawk x 30

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 4 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 1 damaged
P-40E Kittyhawk x 3 destroyed

WO of is credited with kill number 0


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4xA6M2 shot down (2 by P-39 2 by P40)
1x A6M2 op
3xP40E shot down

F1/Tainan Daitai Avg Exp 87 Morale 82 Fatigue 0 27xA6M2 15k
01. H. Nishizawa 97
02. S. Sakai 97*
03. K. Uto 94
04. Y. Kozono 94
05. M. Shimakawa 94
06. S. Iduhara 93
07. M. Endo 92
08. R. Kasai 92
09. S. Ushara 91
10. C. Isozaki 90
11. T. Ono 89
12. W. Kibota 89 KIA
13. K. Nagahama 89
14. S. Kudo 87
15. T. Takatska 86
16. Y. Oki 86 (2 kills)
17. P. Kusamoto 85 KIA
18. W. Handa 85
19. K. Yasui 84 (85) 1 kill
20. M. Matsuba 84
21. S. Yamishita 83
22. M. Yoskida 83 KIA
23. K. Nishura 83 (1 kill) KIA
24. O. Fujiwara 83
25. R. Kamuhira 82 (2 kills) KIA replaced by Y. Nakaya 81
26. L. Matsunaga 81 (1 kill)
27. N. Ogawa 80 (1 kill)


F2/Tainan Daitai Avg Exp 87 Morale 61 Fatigue 0 27xA6M2 11k
01. T. Ota 99*
02. T. Nakajima 96
03. S. Kawai 96
04. J. Sassi 96
05. S. Ishui 96
06. T. Honda 95
07. W. Kanno 90
08. G. Miyazaki 89
09. J. Matsumara 87
10. D. Fujimatsu 87
11. N. Yamakawa 87
12. A. Ohara 87
13. I. Sagara 86
14. E. Matso 86 KIA
15. C. Kumagaya 86
16. B. Ihura 86
17. K. Yoshimura 84 1 kill
18. G. Kanako 84 1 kill
19. F. Matsuhara 84
20. S. Matsuki 83
21. N. Tobushigo 83
22. E. Kukmoto 83
23. H. Kabota 83
24. I Yamazaki 82
25. D. Fukomor 82
26. M. Hori 81
27. V. Minami 80

75th RAAF Squadron Morale 54 15k 16xP-40E
01. P. Turnbull 90*
02. J. Jackson 85
03. L. Jackson 83
04. R. Woodroffe 61
05. G. Murray 60
06. M. Thompson 59
07. F. Fisher 59
08. R Downey 57
09.. S. Astin 57
10. N. Astin 56 (61) 1 kill
11. L. Hackett 56
12. R. Livingston 56 KIA
13. T. Gilmour 54
14. U. Caldwell 53
15. P. Peirse 53
16. O. Plamer 53

8th FG Morale 53 10k
49th FG Morale 52 16k

8th FG Pilots with Kills
K. Pool 84 1 kill
J. Myers 84 1 kill

49th FG pilots with kills
unknown 1 kill

The IJN has 24 pilots with avg rating of 60 in pool
The US Army has 795 pilots with avg rating of 55 in pool
The RAAF has 405 pilots with avg rating of 55 in pool

If your pool is empty and you need a pilot you still get one. Avg rating 10

[TIMJOT]

(quote) Tristanjohn
-------------------------------
There may or may not be a case for whatever "morale" rating is assigned. What is important to note is that USN morale ratings are universally lower than Japanese morale ratings and this is both (part of) the problem and indicative of where the design bias of this game certainly lies. As far as "fatigue" goes, sailing around the world in a virtual floating city like Enterprise wolfing down Navy chow fatigues n-o-b-o-d-y. If American pilots were seasick I haven't read of this, and they sure as hell were less mosquito-bitten then their rice-ration-consuming Japanese counterparts at Rabaul heading into this battle.
-------------------------------


I wasnt really trying to make the case for lower USN morale, as I agreed that its too low at the start of this scenerio. However I see it not as a game design issue but simply a scenerio design issue. Something that can be easily fixed within the system. Its also the type game play issue that Matrix has been more than willing to consider in the past if advocated intelligently with supporting facts. To me in this particular case its a just an aestetic issue, Since its easy to get the morale up to the high 80s and 90s well before anyone could possibly engage the enemy.

Regarding fatigue, the fact is it wasnt the pleasure cruise you described. They still had to fly CAP, ASW patrols, Search partrols, and in this particular case they (pilots) while in transit, practiced and trained rigorelessly for "Watch Tower". We are talking about only 12-14% fatigue afterall and again it can easily be brought down to zero before one could possibly encounter the enemy.




(quote)
-------------------------------
It is not sufficient to have these American pilots stand down for a mere two days while the transports load in Segond Channel. The American Wildcat pilots come onto the board with morale in the low 60s (60, 62, 63) and they need to rest (and I mean do nothing at all) right up to 9 August when the attacks go in. If they are not so rested they quickly become useless for CAP duty long before the last transport weighs out of Lunga Roads.
-------------------------------



I have started this scenerio many times and it generally takes me 3 days to fully load my transports. I then set my CV TFs to follow along with my Transport TF, which takes another couple of days before they are within striking distance of Lunga/Tuligi. By then morale is in the high 80s to low 90s and fatigue 0 to near zero. Once at lunga, I rotate my 3 ftr sqadrons, 1 LRCAP over Transports, 1 CAP over CVs, 1 resting.



(quote)
-----------------------------
Meanwhile, at Rabaul the A6M2 pilots have a morale rating of 87 (they must like those mosquitoes) with their bomber mates happily slopping down whatever's in their rice bowls to the merry little tune of 91, 90, 90, 82.
-----------------------------


I really have no problem with the morale being high. Keeping in mind that F1/F2 Tinians were still basically undefeated at this point in time and they still believed ther a/c and training to be superior. I do agree however their fatigue should start out higher.





(quote)
------------------------
Well as a matter of fact it is a "game breaker" for the reason it is simplistic and thus not a method to be trusted on its face. You get out of models what you put into them.
-----------------------


IMO, I do not consider it a game breaker because its rather easy to rectify. If there were no way to lower fatigue or increase morale than it might be a game breaker.



.
(quote)
-----------------------------
How about the naval model? Japanese ships (there are no crews so there is no fatigue or morale modifier in play--a mistake I believe but we'll let that slide for the moment) start the game with higher experience ratings, as a general rule, for both day and night operations. Again, the only way to bump up these ratings (multipliers) is to use one's ships in battle. (To an extent it's possible to increment these numbers upward by availing oneself of "shakedown" cruises but in reality that's just silly and would take forever anyway.)
--------------------------------


Actually I believe crews are modeled as part of a ships systems. Fatigue is modeled as ancillary system damaged. Not sure about morale but I believe it is tied in with the leadership rateings. I dont think japanese ships have accross the board higher daylight experience rateing. I do believe they may have higher all around night experence rateing but I have never checked every ships to be sure. Not that it matters since USN radar generally negates any advantage.


BTW, "Lowell Thomas" was meant as a joke. A tongue and cheek reply, that implies you must be ancient.

[mogami]

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/19/42

Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 51
G4M1 Betty x 50

Allied aircraft
P-40E Kittyhawk x 36

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 5 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 7 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 5 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Kittyhawk x 5 destroyed
P-40E Kittyhawk x 1 damaged

FO J. Mankin of 49th FG is credited with kill number 3

Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 4

Attacking Level Bombers:
6 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet
15 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet
14 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4xA6M2 destroyed in a2a
6xG4M1 destroyed in a2a
1xG4M1 destroyed by flak
2xG4M1 lost Ops
4xP40E destroyed in a2a
1xP40E lost ops

Bomber Group #1 fell from 99 morale to 54 #2 from 99 to 72


F1/Tainan Daitai Avg Exp 85 Morale 93 Fatigue 1 26xA6M2 10k
01. H. Nishizawa 97
02. S. Sakai 97
03. K. Uto 94
04. Y. Kozono 94 KIA
05. M. Shimakawa 94
06. S. Iduhara 93
07. M. Endo 92
08. R. Kasai 92 1 kill
09. S. Ushara 91
10. C. Isozaki 90
11. T. Ono 89
12. K. Nagahama 89
13. S. Kudo 87
14. T. Takatska 86
15. Y. Oki 86 (2 kills)
16. W. Handa 85
17. K. Yasui 85 (1 kill)
18. M. Matsuba 84
19. S. Yamishita 83 1 kill
20. O. Fujiwara 83
21. Y. Nakaya 81
22. L. Matsunaga 81 (1 kill)KIA
23. N. Ogawa 80 (1 kill) KIA
24. I. Tukuda 65 KIA
25. E. Nojima 62
26. H. Araki 60
27. K. Takagi 57 (new pilot arrived after mission flown)


F2/Tainan Daitai Avg Exp 86 Morale 67 Fatigue 1 27xA6M2 11k
01. T. Ota 99
02. T. Nakajima 96
03. S. Kawai 96
04. J. Sassi 96
05. S. Ishui 96
06. T. Honda 95
07. W. Kanno 90
08. G. Miyazaki 89
09. J. Matsumara 87
10. D. Fujimatsu 87 1 kill
11. N. Yamakawa 87
12. A. Ohara 87
13. I. Sagara 86
14. C. Kumagaya 86
15. B. Ihura 86
16. K. Yoshimura 84 (1 kill)
17. G. Kanako 84 (1 kill)
18. F. Matsuhara 84
19. S. Matsuki 83
20. N. Tobushigo 83
21. E. Kukmoto 83
22. H. Kabota 83
23. I Yamazaki 82
24. D. Fukomori 82 1 kill
25. M. Hori 81
26. V. Minami 80
27. G. Takagi 65

75th RAAF Squadron
Morale 63 Fatigue 0 Alt11k 16xP40E (after action morale 56(-7) fatigue 3)
01. P. Turnbull 90
02. J. Jackson 85
03. L. Jackson 83
04. R. Woodroffe 61
05. N. Astin 61 (1 kill)KIA
06. G. Murray 60
07. M. Thompson 59
08. F. Fisher 59
09. R Downey 57
10. S. Astin 57
11. L. Hackett 57
12. N.Doyle 55
13. T. Gilmour 54
14. U. Caldwell 53
15. P. Peirse 53
16. O. Palmer 53

8th FG Morale 51 10k 50xP39D (did not fly) (My mistake)
49th FG Morale 56 15k 49xP40E (after action morale 57(+1) Fatigue 1)

8th FG Pilots with Kills
K. Pool 84 (1 kill)
J. Myers 84 (1 kill)

49th FG pilots with kills
unknown (1 kill)
J. Mankin 85 3 kills
R. Howard 86 2 kills
W. Day 84 1 kill
F. Nichols 84 1 kill
G. Fanning 88 1 kill
R. Wire 84 1 kill
unknown 1 kill


first time I noticed a groups morale can go up as a result of combat. Major Bong is missing from roster of 49th FG (replaced by Maj J. Bonner another good officer) Now I think he might have been shot down.

The 8th FG had a 40/40 Maj in Command. The max size of the group is 72 aircraft. Current size 50. I divided the group forming 3 max size 24 groups (the UV size) Each group now has a decent Maj in command so this Groups morale is now climbing.

The Japanese have recieved a Oscar Group I located it to Lae to put it in range. I'm playing the campaign as I would if I was in command of either side in a PBEM (only I'm not forming TF's or moving to bases. I'm just fighting the airwar between Port Moresby and Rabaul (and now Lae)
Of course moving to Lunga would change everything. But I'm only testing fighters. (bombers are used only to see impact of escorting or intercepting)