Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

[rader]

Very helpful, thanks all! [:)]

[PaxMondo]

Rader: Alfred did a writeup on this a couple of years back. well worth reading. The answers above are correct, but not entirely accurate. Alfred's detail is worth reading for a complete understanding. Like many things in this game, the models used to simulate AA in the game are not simplistic linear models, but rather more sophisticated to better model the reality.

My last game against my son in Scen 4, I did ground/naval bombing almost every day non-stop shuttling between 2 groups in Rabaul. So in 6 months, I lost only 42 to flak (27 ops). I sank 27 ships via torpedo, a few more to bombs, in addition to ground bombardments for months. My son hated my 2E bombers ....

[rader]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Rader: Alfred did a writeup on this a couple of years back. well worth reading. The answers above are correct, but not entirely accurate. Alfred's detail is worth reading for a complete understanding. Like many things in this game, the models used to simulate AA in the game are not simplistic linear models, but rather more sophisticated to better model the reality.

My last game against my son in Scen 4, I did ground/naval bombing almost every day non-stop shuttling between 2 groups in Rabaul. So in 6 months, I lost only 42 to flak (27 ops). I sank 27 ships via torpedo, a few more to bombs, in addition to ground bombardments for months. My son hated my 2E bombers ....

What did you do to reduce Flak losses? Altitude settings/plane numbers/something else?

[PaxMondo]

When you read Alfred's writeup altitude matters, there are "holes" in every AA gun's trajectory pattern. has to do with the mechanics of the guns, the ballistics of shells used, and the fusing. These also change during the war for the allies (hardcoded) representing advances implemented during the war (similar to the sonar advances). You find these holes and you can bomb below the max altitude of a gun with less loss, non-zero though in most cases. The trade-off of course is bombing effectiveness: lower altitudes are always more effective.

Knowing this, you can also flip it around and improve your defense by minimizing the holes in your defensive flak at key bases. Obviously the allies have far more ability to do so than the IJ, mainly as they have far more units with the capability. But, even as IJ I was able to make things "hot" for my son at key bases. Please note: this is my younger son (11) who has the elegance of a 10 lb hammer, not an experienced opponent (yet).

I believe that herb, master of everything air in this game, has been using this all along to his benefit. He never mentioned it (that I recall) specifically, but the effectiveness of his bombing runs and general low losses tells me that he must have incorporated this into his overall air tactic manual.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

. . . You find these holes and you can bomb below the max altitude of a gun with less loss, non-zero though in most cases . . .

Do you mean ". . . You find these holes and you can bomb below the minimum altitude of a gun with less loss, non-zero though in most cases . . . "

So you can find the sweet spot in the ranges between the 20/25mm AAA and the larger guns by bombing between the maximum altitude of the 20/25mm AAA and the minimum effective altitude of the larger guns?

[Dili]

Flak gap.

[rader]

May 3, 1943.

I did a bad thing. Set a fleet to scout out in front of Rabaul to draw some Allied bombers over it and set a LRCAP trap over the fleet. Managed to slaughter over 40 Allied bombers.

I know this sort of thing happened occasionally during the war (at least the Allies did it with their carriers around Formosa) and I think it's ok and my opponent sometimes does this sort of thing too so I think it's ok now and then... or too gamey?

Keep in mind this is an air war where my opponent frequently sweeps right next to my bases (without sweeping the bases themselves) to lure small elements of my leeky CAP to its death, which I think is a fairly similar thing.

EDIT: Note that he definitely hasn't complained about it and probably won't but just soliciting opinions anyway.

[RangerJoe]

If he does not escort his bombers, then he deserves that.

Just be careful of an invasion at Hokkaido![;)]

[rader]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Just be careful of an invasion at Hokkaido![;)]

I am aware of the possibility (and had it happen to me with Greyjoy) but why do you say that specifically here?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: rader

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Just be careful of an invasion at Hokkaido![;)]

I am aware of the possibility (and had it happen to me with Greyjoy) but why do you say that specifically here?

His AAR got me interested in this game. No other reason than that. But where are his fighters if not with his bombers?[&:]

[rader]

But where are his fighters if not with his bombers?[&:]

Well, there are over 500 Allied fighters in India plus over 300 I know of in SoPac, so that's ~800. And there seem to be tons of US troops in India because he (correctly) guessed I was planning to invade there after toppling China. And there are some US land units in Australia for sure.

But I do agree that there are a lot of US forces unaccounted for, which is why I am very concerned about a sudden dash into Hokkaido, the Kuriles, or even Honshu. On the other hand, they could be mostly in India in which case he might try an amphibious invasion of the Burma coast, Andamans, or Sumatra. Or might come from Australia through Arafura, or across to the Bonins/Marianas. Tough to tell which way he might go.

I don't think he's driving very hard toward Rabaul, so that's just a pinning operation and he'll probably eventually just try to isolate Rabaul. But holding him there suits my purposes for now, so I guess I will just sit tight while trying not to overcommit there. It's kind of like having a wolf by the ears. I don't like it but can't let go.

[rader]

How many operational land-based fighters should the Allies have in front line units in May 1943?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: rader

How many operational land-based fighters should the Allies have in front line units in May 1943?

I don't know since the computer always gives up before then. [:D]

But there is a way to supersize some RAF land based air squadrons.[:-]

[tolsdorff]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


I don't know since the computer always gives up before then. [:D]

But there is a way to supersize some RAF land based air squadrons.[:-]

gamey tactics against a computer are for the kindergarten, if that is your thing.

Rader is a bit more up in capability and talent

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: tolsdorff

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


I don't know since the computer always gives up before then. [:D]

But there is a way to supersize some RAF land based air squadrons.[:-]

gamey tactics against a computer are for the kindergarten, if that is your thing.

Rader is a bit more up in capability and talent

I am not stating that I do it against the AI but in a game with no HR against it, I am sure that the Japanese will supersize some if not all of their air units even if it is just for training purposes. But if you are playing against a human who does so, then you can do so as well although the RAF is much more limited in the number of airplanes received.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: rader

How many operational land-based fighters should the Allies have in front line units in May 1943?

The answer will depend upon what the losses have been to date. PDU On in this game, correct? Post the losses and I will see if I can calc it out for you.

[rader]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: rader

How many operational land-based fighters should the Allies have in front line units in May 1943?

The answer will depend upon what the losses have been to date. PDU On in this game, correct? Post the losses and I will see if I can calc it out for you.

PUD on. Here's the Allied fighter losses so far, but wouldn't it be easier to calculate from the air groups? We've both been fairly conservative so I doubt he's running low on fighter pools.

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: rader

How many operational land-based fighters should the Allies have in front line units in May 1943?

The answer will depend upon what the losses have been to date. PDU On in this game, correct? Post the losses and I will see if I can calc it out for you.

Maybe you can teach the man to fish instead of giving him a fish? [:)]
Info about monthly production levels is there in the scenario, as well as reinforcement queue of the air groups. I suppose Tracker accumulates all this too. I don't think it is gamey to look into the scenario start to see all this data as the opposite side. A seasoned player would have gone through each side OOB multiple times anyway. Minus the accumulated losses, which are subject to FOW but the deviation from truth is not critical in this case.

ORIGINAL: rader
PUD on. Here's the Allied fighter losses so far, but wouldn't it be easier to calculate from the air groups? We've both been fairly conservative so I doubt he's running low on fighter pools.

It would still come to the numbers of the most modern fighters in the pools. With PDU on you opponent would probably want the best models flying on the frontlines, not sitting in reserves

[rader]

And here's the Japanese fighter losses for comparison. They're higher but I do think compared to most games I'm making a serious effort to fight over my own territory so my pilot losses have been comparatively light.

[rader]

May the fourth be with you!

In Burma, the lightnings decided to sweep Prome today and met some Georges. Losses were close to equal but Allied pilot losses should be higher since this was above a Japanese airfield.