Edited:Since posting this I've done some testing of the "Sweep" mission and found that fighters do scramble at the target base approximately 50% of the time. I've edited the post accordingly.
In a PBEM I'm playing as Allies there have been a few tactics my opponent has tried on me that has netted him enormous Allied LBA casualties.
Firstly:
The sweep mission appears to be broken in that if the target base has radar, there is no scrambling of extra fighters approximately 50% of the time.
For example in a fighter sweep from PM to Cooktown(radar equipped) of 24 A6M2's against a fighter squad of 24 Kittyhawks on 20% CAP, the combat will be 24 A6M2's versus 4 Kittyhawks.
The net result is the decapitation of the best pilots in the squad defending the target base (as generally the best pilots fly the missions if they aren't too tired).
If the attacking player targets many different bases with this tactic the defending player will quickly find his fighter squads devoid of skilled pilots.
Secondly:
An opponent's land based aircraft can be totally shredded by moving one's CV's close to an opponent's bases if the CV's are accompanied by a surface taskforce.
For some reason, the LBA never target the CV's but will instead target the accompanying surface taskforce.
They fly through large amounts of CAP to do this.
It's as if they recognize the CAP above the CV's but do not see the CAP above the surface taskforce.
My PBEM opponent has destroyed hundreds of my LBA with this beauty.
I don't know why I bother posting this stuff anymore...feel like an alpha tester for WITP. God knows when this stuff is going to get fixed.
A couple of surefire ways to smash opponents LBA
Moderator: Tankerace
A couple of surefire ways to smash opponents LBA
Never give up, never surrender
Hi all,
having radar in allied base helped to raise more fighters to CAP when enemy
arrived.
I think I remember exactly that people said that number of aircraft on CAP was
almost always exactly or very close to set CAP percentage.
Can someone please confirm or deny this?
Combat" TF together with "Surface Combat" TF why did you order your aircraft
to "Naval Attack" after all?
If you knew that they would go into fight against the odds (and probably not
escorted) you should have, IMHO, never send them to action in first place.
The one of the basic premises of war is never to attack against overwhelming
odds unless you are really really pressured to do so (and this kind of your
enemy bait is, IMHO, not worth for that kind of reaction from your side)...
Leo "Apollo11"
I think this was discussed before and that no actual conclusion was found thatMike_B20 wrote: In a PBEM I'm playing as Allies there have been a few tactics my opponent has tried on me that has netted him enormous Allied LBA casualties.
Firstly:
The sweep mission appears to be broken in that if the target base has radar, there is no scrambling of extra fighters, as against a bomber strike.
For example in a fighter sweep from PM to Cooktown(radar equipped) of 24 A6M2's against a fighter squad of 24 Kittyhawks on 20% CAP, the combat will be 24 A6M2's versus
4 Kittyhawks.
The net result is the decapitation of the best pilots in the squad defending the target base (as generally the best pilots fly the missions if they aren't too tired).
If the attacking player targets many different bases with this tactic the defending player will quickly find his fighter squads devoid of skilled pilots.
having radar in allied base helped to raise more fighters to CAP when enemy
arrived.
I think I remember exactly that people said that number of aircraft on CAP was
almost always exactly or very close to set CAP percentage.
Can someone please confirm or deny this?
If you saw (through "Naval Search") that enemy is bringing his CVs in "AirSecondly:
An opponent's land based aircraft can be totally shredded by moving one's CV's close to an opponent's bases if the CV's are accompanied by a surface taskforce.
For some reason, the LBA never target the CV's but will instead target the accompanying surface taskforce.
They fly through large amounts of CAP to do this.
It's as if they recognize the CAP above the CV's but do not see the CAP above the surface taskforce.
My PBEM opponent has destroyed hundreds of my LBA with this beauty.
I don't know why I bother posting this stuff anymore...feel like an alpha tester for WITP. God knows when this stuff is going to get fixed.
Combat" TF together with "Surface Combat" TF why did you order your aircraft
to "Naval Attack" after all?
If you knew that they would go into fight against the odds (and probably not
escorted) you should have, IMHO, never send them to action in first place.
The one of the basic premises of war is never to attack against overwhelming
odds unless you are really really pressured to do so (and this kind of your
enemy bait is, IMHO, not worth for that kind of reaction from your side)...
Leo "Apollo11"
Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!
A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
Apollo11 wrote:Hi all,
I think this was discussed before and that no actual conclusion was found that
having radar in allied base helped to raise more fighters to CAP when enemy
arrived.
I think I remember exactly that people said that number of aircraft on CAP was
almost always exactly or very close to set CAP percentage.
Can someone please confirm or deny this?
"
Yes, I can confirm that having radar at a base scrambles most of the fighters at the base in the event of an enemy bomber attack...try a test yourself
I am not posting in the hope of being enlightened on strategy but to point out exploitable bugs in the system.Apollo11 wrote: If you saw (through "Naval Search") that enemy is bringing his CVs in "Air
Combat" TF together with "Surface Combat" TF why did you order your aircraft
to "Naval Attack" after all?
If you knew that they would go into fight against the odds (and probably not
escorted) you should have, IMHO, never send them to action in first place.
The one of the basic premises of war is never to attack against overwhelming
odds unless you are really really pressured to do so (and this kind of your
enemy bait is, IMHO, not worth for that kind of reaction from your side)...
Leo "Apollo11"
I never said that I scouted the enemy surface taskforce accompanying the CV's before the LBA strikes.
I noticed after the LBA strikes.
It has happened about four times so far and it has cost over 200 aircraft.
Man...all these bugs and nobody has picked this stuff up yet!!!?
Geez, were the alpha/beta testers blind?
Never give up, never surrender
Hi all,
mistake.
You held your LBA (as you said - hundreds of them) on "Naval Attack" without
knowing what they would attack.
Again, sorry, but this is serious lack of recon info on your side...
Leo "Apollo11"
P.S.
Please note that even if you only saw enemy CV TF the LBA
is wrong weapon to engage it (especially if out of fighter range)...
I am sorry but I see this not as exploit of bug but as your strategic/tacticalMike_B20 wrote: Well, excuse me Apollo11, but that reply is pretty silly.
I am not posting in the hope of being enlightened on strategy but to point out exploitable bugs in the system.
I never said that I scouted the enemy surface taskforce accompanying the CV's before the LBA strikes.
I noticed after the LBA strikes.
It has happened about four times so far and it has cost over 200 aircraft.
Man...all these bugs and nobody has picked this stuff up yet!!!?
Geez, were the alpha/beta testers blind?
mistake.
You held your LBA (as you said - hundreds of them) on "Naval Attack" without
knowing what they would attack.
Again, sorry, but this is serious lack of recon info on your side...
Leo "Apollo11"
P.S.
Please note that even if you only saw enemy CV TF the LBA
is wrong weapon to engage it (especially if out of fighter range)...
Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!
A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
Apollo11, this post has absolutely nothing to do with recon.
For arguments sake, let's say my opponent had no surface taskforce until it was created on the turn in question from the CV escorts.
How could anyone forsee something that had not yet come into existence?
Are you suggesting that LBA should never be placed on 'Naval Attack' unless one is absolutely certain about what they will attack?...given that with turn length of one day a possible target can move into range of a base from somewhere outside of effective scout range at any time.
In such circumstances, that target would have accomplished it's mission, whether it be bombardment or a base sweep and be half way home the next turn and the LBA would never have a chance.
Are you suggesting that it is perfectly valid for LBA to refrain from attacking a CV taskforce because of heavy CAP and at the same time it is perfectly reasonable for that same LBA to target a surface taskforce in the same hex as the CV's?
Nothing about that situation strikes you as strange?
I'm posting a bug that can be readily exploted by anyone playing UV.
Apollo11, please do not post if you have nothing more intelligent to say than my scouting is poor.
For arguments sake, let's say my opponent had no surface taskforce until it was created on the turn in question from the CV escorts.
How could anyone forsee something that had not yet come into existence?
Are you suggesting that LBA should never be placed on 'Naval Attack' unless one is absolutely certain about what they will attack?...given that with turn length of one day a possible target can move into range of a base from somewhere outside of effective scout range at any time.
In such circumstances, that target would have accomplished it's mission, whether it be bombardment or a base sweep and be half way home the next turn and the LBA would never have a chance.
Are you suggesting that it is perfectly valid for LBA to refrain from attacking a CV taskforce because of heavy CAP and at the same time it is perfectly reasonable for that same LBA to target a surface taskforce in the same hex as the CV's?
Nothing about that situation strikes you as strange?
I'm posting a bug that can be readily exploted by anyone playing UV.
Apollo11, please do not post if you have nothing more intelligent to say than my scouting is poor.
Never give up, never surrender
Hi all,
You have every right to post here but once you post - us (other forum members)
have our own right to comment on what you wrote.
I wrote my comment and this is my right whether you agree with what I wrote or
not.
Also, please, do not insult or order me what to do since I did not do that in
any of my replies here. Instead of using words like "silly" try to behave
politely!
Once again, IMHO, the LBA is very poor in attacking CV TFs and this is
historically and UV game valid (I don't remember of reading about any really
successful LBA attack on CV TFs in historic UV timeframe 1942/1943).
Therefore whenever I see enemy CV TF I refrain from using my LBA for "Naval
Attack" unless I know for sure that my friendly fighter escort is strong
enough to overcome enemy CAP and in range.
Again, this is not ahistorical at all - it's just being careful and good PBEM
playing.
Same applies to "Naval Attack" order given to LBA that many players do all the
time expecting the best from automatic AI targeting routine.
Giving your squadrons orders like that, whether playing as Allies or Japanese
in PBEM is road to disaster (much more so for Japanese with extreme long range
Betty/Nell).
Playing as Japanese I, for example, learned the hard way of how and when to
use "Naval Attack" and ever since I learned those harsh lessons I never again
got burned that way (whether I play UV PBEMs as Japanese or Allies).
BTW, there is one nice English saying/proverb:
"Once bitten - twice shy"
If you had your bad day with your PBEM opponent the first time he did this to
you then you should have been even more extra careful and not allow him the
second chance...
Leo "Apollo11"
This is free world and free forum.Mike_B20 wrote: Apollo11, this post has absolutely nothing to do with recon.
For arguments sake, let's say my opponent had no surface taskforce until it
was created on the turn in question from the CV escorts.
How could anyone forsee something that had not yet come into existence?
Are you suggesting that LBA should never be placed on 'Naval Attack' unless
one is absolutely certain about what they will attack?...given that with turn
length of one day a possible target can move into range of a base from
somewhere outside of effective scout range at any time.
In such circumstances, that target would have accomplished it's mission,
whether it be bombardment or a base sweep and be half way home the next turn
and the LBA would never have a chance.
Are you suggesting that it is perfectly valid for LBA to refrain from
attacking a CV taskforce because of heavy CAP and at the same time it is
perfectly reasonable for that same LBA to target a surface taskforce in the
same hex as the CV's?
Nothing about that situation strikes you as strange?
I'm posting a bug that can be readily exploted by anyone playing UV.
Apollo11, please do not post if you have nothing more intelligent to say than
my scouting is poor.
You have every right to post here but once you post - us (other forum members)
have our own right to comment on what you wrote.
I wrote my comment and this is my right whether you agree with what I wrote or
not.
Also, please, do not insult or order me what to do since I did not do that in
any of my replies here. Instead of using words like "silly" try to behave
politely!
Once again, IMHO, the LBA is very poor in attacking CV TFs and this is
historically and UV game valid (I don't remember of reading about any really
successful LBA attack on CV TFs in historic UV timeframe 1942/1943).
Therefore whenever I see enemy CV TF I refrain from using my LBA for "Naval
Attack" unless I know for sure that my friendly fighter escort is strong
enough to overcome enemy CAP and in range.
Again, this is not ahistorical at all - it's just being careful and good PBEM
playing.
Same applies to "Naval Attack" order given to LBA that many players do all the
time expecting the best from automatic AI targeting routine.
Giving your squadrons orders like that, whether playing as Allies or Japanese
in PBEM is road to disaster (much more so for Japanese with extreme long range
Betty/Nell).
Playing as Japanese I, for example, learned the hard way of how and when to
use "Naval Attack" and ever since I learned those harsh lessons I never again
got burned that way (whether I play UV PBEMs as Japanese or Allies).
BTW, there is one nice English saying/proverb:
"Once bitten - twice shy"
If you had your bad day with your PBEM opponent the first time he did this to
you then you should have been even more extra careful and not allow him the
second chance...
Leo "Apollo11"
Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!
A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
Hi all,
Well.. thank you again for nice and polite language...
The repeated insults above really show you in great light.
You have now have the honour of being the very first entry in my ignore list.
Goodbye.
Leo "Apollo11"
Well.. thank you again for nice and polite language...
The repeated insults above really show you in great light.
You have now have the honour of being the very first entry in my ignore list.
Goodbye.
Leo "Apollo11"
Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!
A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
Apollo11 wrote:Hi all,
Well.. thank you again for nice and polite language...
The repeated insults above really show you in great light.
You have now have the honour of being the very first entry in my ignore list.
Goodbye.
Leo "Apollo11"
I took offense to your suggestion that my posting about a genuine bug is merely the result of "inadequate scouting and besides you should never have had your aircraft on naval attack in the first place.".
Then you follow it up with remarks about how I was tactically/strategically in error.
How on earth could you make such remarks, given you have zip knowledge of the situation?
Whether my scouting was poor or not and whether I should have had my aircraft on "Naval Attack" missions is absolutely irrelevant to the core issue of the bug posted.
Never give up, never surrender
Put it in perspective
Mike,
I must say I agree with you. Naval targeting - it seems to me - is still "buggy". Maybe due to the fact that the designers wanted to limit players involvement in target selection. As far as I understand the situation, it has repeatedly been fixed by Matrix but many people including myself feel it is still an issue.
I had a very worthwile PBEM game completely destroyed just because my naval aviators (IJN June 42) ignored an enemy carrier TF 5 hexes away and went after a DD TF at a 9 hex distance two days in a row until all my carriers had been sunk.
I really thought about giving up the game altogther, but since it has never happened again...
What Apollo suggests is just how most people (including programmers and IT consultants for that matter) treat programming bugs in general: they find a "workaround", then start to pretend the bug is O.K. and behave towards those who keep on complaining like: "Hey, wrong tactic!".
Keep your cool. Some months ago I bought "Hearts of Iron", played it a few times and found it so completly flawed that I never touched it since. At least Matrix has been doing a much bigger effort.
My 2 cents.
Chris
I must say I agree with you. Naval targeting - it seems to me - is still "buggy". Maybe due to the fact that the designers wanted to limit players involvement in target selection. As far as I understand the situation, it has repeatedly been fixed by Matrix but many people including myself feel it is still an issue.
I had a very worthwile PBEM game completely destroyed just because my naval aviators (IJN June 42) ignored an enemy carrier TF 5 hexes away and went after a DD TF at a 9 hex distance two days in a row until all my carriers had been sunk.
I really thought about giving up the game altogther, but since it has never happened again...
What Apollo suggests is just how most people (including programmers and IT consultants for that matter) treat programming bugs in general: they find a "workaround", then start to pretend the bug is O.K. and behave towards those who keep on complaining like: "Hey, wrong tactic!".
Keep your cool. Some months ago I bought "Hearts of Iron", played it a few times and found it so completly flawed that I never touched it since. At least Matrix has been doing a much bigger effort.
My 2 cents.
Chris
-
LargeSlowTarget
- Posts: 4976
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Mike_B20 wrote: Secondly:
An opponent's land based aircraft can be totally shredded by moving one's CV's close to an opponent's bases if the CV's are accompanied by a surface taskforce.
For some reason, the LBA never target the CV's but will instead target the accompanying surface taskforce.
They fly through large amounts of CAP to do this.
It's as if they recognize the CAP above the CV's but do not see the CAP above the surface taskforce.
My PBEM opponent has destroyed hundreds of my LBA with this beauty.
In my experience, LBA does attack accompanying surface TFs quite often, but not exclusively. Sometimes they go for the CVs. I have not taken notes on how many times LBA attacks surface or CV TF, so I cannot provide statistics. But the point is that LBA attack on CVs accompanied by surface TF can happen. Maybe Mike_B20 just had a streak of bad luck?
