CV Airstrike Coordination

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

argueing with a person in the right always puts you in the wrong..[X(]
I think that everyone has made their points clear.. does anyone disagree?

Everyone's made their points? The only "point" that's clear to me is that CAP doesn't work realistically. [:D]

Sheeesh. How can stuff so utterly plain be so difficult to grasp?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: freeboy

argueing with a person in the right always puts you in the wrong..[X(]
I think that everyone has made their points clear.. does anyone disagree?

Everyone's made their points? The only "point" that's clear to me is that CAP doesn't work realistically. [:D]

Sheeesh. How can stuff so utterly plain be so difficult to grasp?

Yeah! No shiite!

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Bombur

-I think the IJN would have been allowed to have better coordination than the USA Navy in early war, not for tatical/operational skills, but due to the fact the poor speed and range of the TBD made very difficult to organize a coordinated torpedo/dive bomb attack. In contrast, the overall range and speed of Vals and Kates were pretty similar. The longer range of the A6M compared with the F4F helped something too. With the advant of TBF, the coordination advantage of the IJN should come to an end.

What you say re "speed" is true enough but the fact remains IJN strikes were in the main no more or less coordinated than USN strikes, and you can take that to the bank. What's what is what historically speaking and the records are there to prove it.

[freeboy]

"cap works unrealistically" .. it is after all the best guess of how it should be by the designers.. don't even get started on land combat, major rivers. bridges .. and mio!!!!!!!!

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: freeboy

argueing with a person in the right always puts you in the wrong..[X(]
I think that everyone has made their points clear.. does anyone disagree?

Everyone's made their points? The only "point" that's clear to me is that CAP doesn't work realistically. [:D]

Sheeesh. How can stuff so utterly plain be so difficult to grasp?

Yeah! No shiite!

Hang in there, friend. Maybe one day you'll wake up and find they've just worn down. (Don't hold your breath, though. [:D])

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

"cap works unrealistically" .. it is after all the best guess of how it should be by the designers.. don't even get started on land combat, major rivers. bridges .. and mio!!!!!!!!

You're right, the designers can/could/did design it the way they wanted to--unless, of course, it was just a terrible mistake somehow. [:D] But that begs the question: CAP still doesn't perform at all realistically.

[freeboy]

says you.. my point is that .. if you read my war flow changes synopsis above is that it changes as the war progresses and even in the early months it can be overwhelmed by supperior numbers... if you are complaining about the TOTALS allowed do to cap cv cordination rules.. that is another issue altogether.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

says you.. my point is that .. if you read my war flow changes synopsis above is that it changes as the war progresses and even in the early months it can be overwhelmed by supperior numbers... if you are complaining about the TOTALS allowed do to cap cv cordination rules.. that is another issue altogether.

Not "says me" but says the history.

I guess you're one of those people Ron was referring to when he mentioned "a book." [:D]

[Gem35]

ability to play WitP...$70
cost for secret plans to your pbem oppenent $150
reading your fellow member's gripes and complaints about the game they love....priceless [:D][;)]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

says you.. my point is that .. if you read my war flow changes synopsis above is that it changes as the war progresses and even in the early months it can be overwhelmed by supperior numbers... if you are complaining about the TOTALS allowed do to cap cv cordination rules.. that is another issue altogether.

I'm not talking about "totals" (whatever that means) but a realistic treatment of CAP.

Please, let us look at just one of the limiting variables. Planes only carry so much ammunition. A few seconds worth of machine-gun ammo, and if the plane has a cannon then however many shells it has loaded in that magazine as well. Whatever the particular case re ammunition, when that ammo is expended that's all she wrote for that CAP unit. Then it is obliged to go back to base and reload.

That takes a lot of time. Make that a lot of time. To fly back. To land. To be reloaded. To take off again. To gain altitude again. To join the fray again.

Now unless we're to believe these strikes are coming in hours apart . . . and how could any of this be with, say, the strike originating in Rabaul and hitting PM twice daily [:D] . . . see what I mean?

It's ridiculous. Whether or not (and I'm sure it's true) the Allies get to blast the Japanese similarily later in the war has nothing to do with the central (and only) thesis: CAP is unrealistic as can be.

Call it an abstraction? I'll say!

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Gem35

ability to play WitP...$70
cost for secret plans to your pbem oppenent $150
reading your fellow member's gripes and complaints about the game they love....priceless [:D][;)]

Hear! Hear! [:)]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Gem35

ability to play WitP...$70
cost for secret plans to your pbem oppenent $150
reading your fellow member's gripes and complaints about the game they love....priceless [:D][;)]

Hear! Hear! [:)]

P.S. That's why they call us grognards.

[Bombur]

What you say re "speed" is true enough but the fact remains IJN strikes were in the main no more or less coordinated than USN strikes, and you can take that to the bank. What's what is what historically speaking and the records are there to prove it.

-Trouble is that we actually had few situations to prove your (or my) point. A sample of two CV vs. CV battles is not exactly impressive (because in Eastern Salomons the USA already had Avengers). And in Coral Sea the CV´s were too close, so the range of TBD´s didn´t have too much influence. In Midway the inability of USA to mount a coordinated attack became quote obvious, while the failure of IJN to launch coordinated strikes was largely related to the multiple tasks given to the CV group and the early destruction of their carriers.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Bombur

What you say re "speed" is true enough but the fact remains IJN strikes were in the main no more or less coordinated than USN strikes, and you can take that to the bank. What's what is what historically speaking and the records are there to prove it.

-Trouble is that we actually had few situations to prove your (or my) point. A sample of two CV vs. CV battles is not exactly impressive (because in Eastern Salomons the USA already had Avengers). And in Coral Sea the CV´s were too close, so the range of TBD´s didn´t have too much influence. In Midway the inability of USA to mount a coordinated attack became quote obvious, while the failure of IJN to launch coordinated strikes was largely related to the multiple tasks given to the CV group and the early destruction of their carriers.

God, help me! [:)]

We have the sample(s) that we have. We must work with that/those. What else do we have to go on? Ashes scattered to the wind, tea leaves, somebody's half-baked "intuition"?

This is fact: at no time in World War II did the IJN/IJA demonstrate an overall (consistent) ability to coordinate strikes (be they carrier based or land based) any better than the Allies. Indeed, a good case could be made that if there needed (why does that sound so appropriate to me given that this is one of Gary's Pacific games? [:D]) to be a "coordination bonus" of some kind (or for that matter a CAP bonus--these threads are inter-related, afterall) then it ought to go to the Allies sometime later in the war (say, around 1944).

[Bombur]

We have the sample(s) that we have. We must work with that/those. What else do we have to go on? Ashes scattered to the wind, tea leaves, somebody's half-baked "intuition"?

-The data on range/speed of the TBD, Vals and Kates seem to be a pretty good variable to me.....otherwise, you cannot work with historical examples due to the scarcity of them. Maybe you could add the two other battles to increase the sample and you will see the IJN was able to coordinate strikes three times vs. two for USN. On the other hand, the USN should have a CAP coordination bonus since the beginning since they have radar. Some of variables in WiTP must be "abstracted" due to the lack of historical data. We never had, for instance, a confrontation beween Yamatos and South Dakotas, but it can happen in WiTP, what example will you use in that case?

This is fact: at no time in World War II did the IJN/IJA demonstrate an overall (consistent) ability to coordinate strikes (be they carrier based or land based) any better than the Allies.

-The allies didn´t have land based TBD´s.....

Indeed, a good case could be made that if there needed (why does that sound so appropriate to me given that this is one of Gary's Pacific games? [:D]) to be a "coordination bonus" of some kind (or for that matter a CAP bonus--these threads are inter-related, afterall) then it ought to go to the Allies sometime later in the war (say, around 1944).

-A CAP bonus for late war allies would be quite correct too.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Bombur

We have the sample(s) that we have. We must work with that/those. What else do we have to go on? Ashes scattered to the wind, tea leaves, somebody's half-baked "intuition"?

-The data on range/speed of the TBD, Vals and Kates seem to be a pretty good variable to me.....otherwise, you cannot work with historical examples due to the scarcity of them. Maybe you could add the two other battles to increase the sample and you will see the IJN was able to coordinate strikes three times vs. two for USN. On the other hand, the USN should have a CAP coordination bonus since the beginning since they have radar. Some of variables in WiTP must be "abstracted" due to the lack of historical data. We never had, for instance, a confrontation beween Yamatos and South Dakotas, but it can happen in WiTP, what example will you use in that case?

This is fact: at no time in World War II did the IJN/IJA demonstrate an overall (consistent) ability to coordinate strikes (be they carrier based or land based) any better than the Allies.

-The allies didn´t have land based TBD´s.....

Indeed, a good case could be made that if there needed (why does that sound so appropriate to me given that this is one of Gary's Pacific games? [:D]) to be a "coordination bonus" of some kind (or for that matter a CAP bonus--these threads are inter-related, afterall) then it ought to go to the Allies sometime later in the war (say, around 1944).

-A CAP bonus for late war allies would be quite correct too.

Not "too." [:-] Maybe. Perhaps. Assuming Matrix/2by3 wanted to move on it. The Japanese should get no bonus at all in this regard.

[freeboy]

This is fact: at no time in World War II did the IJN/IJA demonstrate an overall (consistent) ability to coordinate strikes (be they carrier based or land based) any better than the Allies.

OK, let me disagree at Midway the US suffered SEVEAR lack of coordination even though it "lucked" into a succeffful outcome, andthe JAps at Pearl managed 6 carriers worth.. could have doen it again at Midway had they had the same intel capabilities that the allies had... one of the area the game cannot reproduce.. the us reading the JAp maill... rememmber Yammamotto's plane intercepted based on intercepts .. etc... so

You and others..Ron etc.. are crying wolf about a system you say unfairly allows cap to rule.. I disagree.. Cap, against slower planes is Deadly, in any theater of the war...
Cap is even more deadly againt very slow single engine planes that are unescorted.
Cap benifits from radar. Incoming planes have a choice.. fly on or be blasted from the sky... if they manuver.. the formation loses cohesion and the strike is pretty much over ..


So.. while I do understand you see cap as too affective, if players do not use all the cv fighters as cap, and play HISTORICALLY.. sending planes as escorts cap is less affective.
We tend as a group to play VERRY non historically... so if your reasoning was applied I would see almost no carriers of either side lasting very long.. after all... if they where used they wouldn't be able to be defended.. not too historical imo

[jwilkerson]

Frag,

The thread from back in December :CV Strike Composition" went over all this ground. I think in that thread is was shown that the "CV Strike Coordination" rule was invalid as reflected in the historical data { see multiple posts by Spence and Wilkerson } - and we got significant support for that position.

Also the doctrine issue was discussed. And though some continue to state that the USN had no multi-carrier doctrine pre-war ... are these same people aware that Cdr Genda got the idea to operate 4 carriers together from watching a USN news reel showing 4 carrier operating together ? Or that KB only operated 6 CV together for a few weeks, from mid-Nov through mid-Dec .. conducting precisely one training exercise and precisely one mission ( PH Strike ).

As I did then, I'd still argue for equal treatment for carriers operations in 1942 ... the data support that, and Naval Analysis supports that ( Cpt Huges book FLEET TACTICS op cit in the thread in question ).

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I'd say more than bit. 100% rolls for the IJN all 3 times, and losing rolls everytime on the Allies? Also one of the Allied CV TF's had less than 100 AC. It was composed of 2 British CV's, they flew in without their escort. Good officers were in charge.

I'll still call this battle even. It will be 4 for 4. With 2 extra IJN CV's damaged. The other 4 Allied CV's weren't touched.

Sounds like a rather wide spread "problem" in the game in how and when they seed the random number generator.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Bombur

We have the sample(s) that we have. We must work with that/those. What else do we have to go on? Ashes scattered to the wind, tea leaves, somebody's half-baked "intuition"?

-The data on range/speed of the TBD, Vals and Kates seem to be a pretty good variable to me.....otherwise, you cannot work with historical examples due to the scarcity of them. Maybe you could add the two other battles to increase the sample and you will see the IJN was able to coordinate strikes three times vs. two for USN. On the other hand, the USN should have a CAP coordination bonus since the beginning since they have radar. Some of variables in WiTP must be "abstracted" due to the lack of historical data. We never had, for instance, a confrontation beween Yamatos and South Dakotas, but it can happen in WiTP, what example will you use in that case?

This is fact: at no time in World War II did the IJN/IJA demonstrate an overall (consistent) ability to coordinate strikes (be they carrier based or land based) any better than the Allies.

-The allies didn´t have land based TBD´s.....

Indeed, a good case could be made that if there needed (why does that sound so appropriate to me given that this is one of Gary's Pacific games? [:D]) to be a "coordination bonus" of some kind (or for that matter a CAP bonus--these threads are inter-related, afterall) then it ought to go to the Allies sometime later in the war (say, around 1944).

-A CAP bonus for late war allies would be quite correct too.

Not "too." [:-] Maybe. Perhaps. Assuming Matrix/2by3 wanted to move on it. The Japanese should get no bonus at all in this regard.

Expectations on this forum about what will realistically get "fixed" and will not need to be examinded from time to time. This whole thread smacks of a "design level" complaint in how CAP and strike coordination occur. I'd say you have a snowball's chance in hell of something like this ever getting addressed, not matter how correct you may be about it. Remember 2x3 is only three guys or so. A designer, and two programmers. They are all off polishing World At War and working on whatever next is coming down the pike. Maybe ONE of them will visit this game from time to time, and that only to fix actual BUGS, not DESIGN issues. And that probably squashing these leader bugs and fixing the remaining CTD's that folks are experiencing. I seriously doubt they are going to redesign and code and test new combat resolution algorithms, unless their "defect" is simple and obvious.

Bottom line, 99.9% of WitP is as it is. What you have is what you are going to have, forever, so learn to live with it. The game is still immently enjoyable. And that is quite typical of game life cycles. Maybe, once sales finally fall off to a trickle, they will release the source code to third parties ala PACWAR and then the devoted WitP fans can mod and prod and message until their hearts are content.