State of the Air War in AE

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Jaroen

... Agreeing with Alfred, and with TheElf, on those mega battle issues that leaves me with asking about those other perceived air combat 'irritations'. Would there be any? Is that AAA efficiency one ...

The concern you expressed in post #89 regarding ship AAA has already been addressed in the DaBabes family of mods. That tweaking will not emigrate to the official scenarios for the reason I stated in my earlier post, and also elaborated further by pompack. The reason that on one is prepared to do the work. It is much easier to complain.

I have said this recently but I will say it again. The AE development team no longer exists. It was dispersed a couple of years ago. There is no official AE product development work scheduled and none will be forthcoming. The last sanctioned official work on AE was the recent huge patch and michaelm was the only person who worked on that exercise. If there are some new bugs introduced by that patch and fixing them is not too time consuming, I would not be surprised if michaelm volunteered to provide a fix. However I would be very surprised if there were any other future development work authorised.

What this thread demonstrates is that theElf is prepared, essentially off his own back and perhaps with some support from michaelm, to consider whether some elements are not WAD and if bringing them up to the design standards the AE team agreed upon many years ago is feasible, address them. This however is essentially a labour of love.

The only ongoing AE development work is unofficial and carried out primarily by the team which produces the DaBabes family of mods. Many of that team were AE developers. Amongst the significant changes they have incorporated into their mods are changes to ship AAA, specifically the problem of DP guns. They were able to do this work because michaelm provided a special exe hook to allow separation of the 5/38 DP guns into having different data when used as naval guns compared to when they are used for flak purposes. With the hook, the DaBabes team then recalculated all the data after revisiting the balistic qualities of the relevant guns. Without the hook the Allied DP guns flak effectiveness is greatly reduced and that is a legacy issue.

It is my understanding but I stand to be corrected, that the hook has also been provided for the official scenarios, or at least could be relatively easily provided. What is missing is the total lack of interest from people to do all the detailed recalculations. No one has a right to expect the DaBabes team to do the work, as a labour of love, for the official scenarios. Their focus very understandably is on their own mods.


Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

... The 300 pass rule seems to exist alright. You can work around it, sure. You can split your CVs up so your CAP does not exceed 300 fighters (which is admittedly a pretty damn big bunch of CVs, so it's probably not that onerous... unless near land bases, which still might not be that onerous I suppose given the historic role of CVs). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that if the code will only count the first 300 fighters, that having 500 is wasting your time...

Again you refer to a 300 CAP fighter limit. People who don't pay close attention or for whom English is a second language may not realise that you are totally wrong.

1. There is a 200 flight pass limit, which michaelm especially upped to 300 for the benefit of rader-GreyJoy.

2. Each flight can comprise up to 8 planes.

This means that excluding the special exe provided to rader-GreyJoy, the theoretical maximum number of CAP fighters who might participate in combat is 1600 aircraft.

Not all flights will necessarily engage in combat. There are several factors for this, such as not arriving in time etc. Nonetheless, under the existing main code, it is only the number above 1600 which would be quite redundant.

Alfred

[JeffroK]

A general self aggrandisement society. keep going and you will decide there is nothing needs fixing. The customers must be wrong!

If the efforts of the devs was so good, why has michaelm spent so much of his time and effort fixing the damn thing!, he indeed needs payment for the work being done by those who are getting some income from sales.

Why do we have mods which seek to correct amazing errors like the inability of AAA to perform as in real life. Dababes works OK, why isnt this official and why wasnt it in the vanilla release?

As a recreation of history, many of your arguements are correct. I dont think the counter arguements are saying no bombers should get through, but examples of 100% of the bombers getting through is flawed, all CAP being held off by inferior escorts is also wrong.

But we keep being told "Its only a game"
As such, GJ & rader have gamed themselves into a corner that the game cant handle.
They probably both deserve it.
But the game should be able to handle the circumstance it allows to build up, through the postings you see glimmers of ideas which could help, aircraft service levels, AAA, aircraft numbers must equal AV pts available.
I would suggest the number of passes is to give every interceptor 2 (maybe it should be 3 or 4) passes, this allows an overwhelming CAP to overwhelm an escort then remaining passes can be used against the bombers.

On the continual line on dispersal, basically the AFB has 4 lines of approach, from the north and a narrow push through Hokkaido, a narrow thrust via Iwo Jima and the Volcano Islands, a narrow thrust through Okinawa and the Ryukyu's. a broader thrust through China. They may be able to combine 2 of these, IRL it was Iwo & Okinawa, it still forces large numbers of aircraft and shipping into small area of the map, makes both attacker and defender overstack and commit large numbers to raids. Its easy for some to say deploy B29s in depth, where??

The assumption that all players are going to be historically bent and play only within the games limitations is soft, once put in a competition most are going to find every trick/tactic they can to get an advantage. They are also approaching the late game where numbers get bigger and things were clearly not tested to breaking strain.

I'll also reiterate that this will be the last Matrix offering I'll buy, their approach of putting out a good game, largely developed by poorly compensated "volunteers" and not supporting it fully has become a pain. The only exception with be Panther Games who are a stand alone company.

[witpqs]

You seem to imply that the development team for AE made quite the cash horde. Would you share with us how much? [8|]

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Alfred
Again you refer to a 300 CAP fighter limit. People who don't pay close attention or for whom English is a second language may not realise that you are totally wrong.

1. There is a 200 flight pass limit, which michaelm especially upped to 300 for the benefit of rader-GreyJoy.

2. Each flight can comprise up to 8 planes.

This means that excluding the special exe provided to rader-GreyJoy, the theoretical maximum number of CAP fighters who might participate in combat is 1600 aircraft.

Not all flights will necessarily engage in combat. There are several factors for this, such as not arriving in time etc. Nonetheless, under the existing main code, it is only the number above 1600 which would be quite redundant.

Alfred

Eventually they stop engaging. The question that matters is, does it happen in game, or is it purely a theoretical limit which you will never reach due to its large number.

If it was a purely theoretical limit, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, because everything would be fine. But based on some tests and some bitter experience it appears that it will be encountered in game. Therefore the precise number is irrelevant, it's still going to be an issue.

If it turns up at all, really, it is a potential issue. Something else the player needs to know about the inner workings of the code.

The ablative armour exacerbates it, though obviously using fighters as cannon fodder has its own issues, which you yourself have pointed out. That said, thats kinda what I was saying - it's merely an admission of defeat as far as the system goes and pointing out mitigating factors.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Alfred

TheElf,

Please, please, oh please do not fall for the old conjuring trick being presented with the aim of pressuring you into changing things when there is no sound fundamental good reason to do so. Too often in the past code has been changed to accommodate poor players who complain when their lack of skill/understanding is exposed. To put up now the detailed reasons for my plea would be too time consuming but here are a few briefly presented reasons.[...]


(a) Attrition of the Japanese forces is cited as the correct approach. This is wrong because attrition is a very dumb military strategy. Ask Haig, Joffre and Falkenhayn. What advocates of attrition really should be iterating is that degradation of the enemy force structure, plus misdirection of the enemy military assets, plus pinning enemy forces elsewhere is required before a direct approach to the Home Islands can be undertaken with any reasonable comfort level. None of these elements has anything to do with attrition. In fact given the basic game design, compounded by playing the ahistorical scenario 2, attrition particularly of air assets is to the benefit of Japan.[...]

I very much agree with your post, Alfred. Except for the italic part.

Attrition is dumb, no doubt about it. But sometimes I am embarrassed to say, I agree with Wikipedia:

Military theorists and strategists like Sun Tzu have viewed attrition warfare as something to be avoided. In the sense that attrition warfare represents an attempt to grind down an opponent through superior numbers, it represents the opposite of the usual principles of war, where one attempts to achieve decisive victories through maneuver, concentration of force, surprise, and the like.

On the other hand, a side which perceives itself to be at a marked disadvantage in maneuver warfare or unit tactics may deliberately seek out attrition warfare to neutralize its opponent's advantages. If the sides are nearly evenly matched, the outcome of a war of attrition is likely to be a Pyrrhic victory.

The difference between war of attrition and other forms of war is somewhat artificial, since war always contains an element of attrition. However, one can be said to pursue a strategy of attrition when one makes it the main goal to cause gradual attrition to the opponent eventually amounting to unacceptable or unsustainable levels for the opponent while limiting your own gradual losses to acceptable and sustainable levels. This should be seen as opposed to other main goals such as the conquest of some resource or territory or an attempt to cause the enemy great losses in a single stroke (e.g. by encirclement and capture).

Historically, attritional methods are tried when other methods have failed or are obviously not feasible. Typically, when attritional methods have worn down the enemy sufficiently to make other methods feasible, attritional methods are abandoned in favor of other strategies.

Attritional methods are in themselves usually sufficient to cause a nation to give up a non-vital ambition, but other methods are generally necessary to achieve unconditional surrender.

Obviousely, a war of attrition is to be avoided if other methods of warfare are a feasible option.
It is also to be avoided if it means investing a lot of assets in an area with an equally strong enemy force with the ability to counter or reverse the attritiing situation.

But in context of using attrition to thin out, spread out, and wear down enemy forces to make other means of attack an option (which is basically the context under which
this discussion takes place: "A2A is borked, because I cannot attack a, b and c without getting my a** spanked" [;)]), it is a valuable tool. If you apply mission governed
attrition warfare, and combine it with short to medium term goals, it is in fact exactly part of what you describe as "None of these elements has anything to do with attrition".

Considering our - on first glance - clearly different opinions I wonder if we just have slight differences when using the word attrition in the current context.
From my POV every element of warfare contains elements of attrition. If you use this factor to your advantage, I would call it
"attrition warfare". I don´t see the benefit of neglecting this element of war, it does not prevent or exclude other strategical
elements.

Yes there is a misunderstanding about the word.[;)]

The Wiki excerpt you quote is not a good exposition of attrition strategy.

There is a huge difference between attrition and an attrition strategy. The former is inherent in all warfare from time immemorial, the latter is a concept which has only been developed in the industrial era and as a strategy was very much born and died on the Western Front (with some post facto rationalisation provided by Cadorna to explain his uncreative 11 battles of the Isonzo) of World War I.

Prior to the creation of the mass conscript European armies, made possible by the industrialisation of the late C19th, by far the biggest cause of attrition was sickness and desertion. The reason why famous military theorists did not advocate a strategy of attrition was because it was not a practical strategy to pursue.

An attrition strategy, as envisaged and implemented by the Western Front leaders (again honourable mention to Cadorna too) was that both sides would incur mutual losses. Early twentieth century military technology is not that of today. Then in order to inflict casualties on the enemy you had to expose yourself to receiving casualties too whereas today it is possible to inflict casualties from a standoff position and not expose oneself to similar treatment (excellent examples being NATO's actions in Bosnia and Libya). Note that the WWI Entente advocates for an attrition strategy did so in the absence of developing an actual war winning strategy and were quite prepared to tolerate suffering more casualties than the enemy.

When you employ the word "attrition", you describe actions whose intent is not attrition (a mutual process) but degradation of enemy force structure and pinning of the enemy forces elsewhere, away from the critical front (aided by misdirecting the enemy). The aim of all good generals down the ages has been to defeat the enemy forces, not to ruin their own army in the process.

Alfred

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: JeffK
A general self aggrandisement society. keep going and you will decide there is nothing needs fixing. The customers must be wrong!

A lot has been fixed, in patches official and unofficial and in mods, and the issues being raised here are pretty minor edge cases which the vast majority of players probably won't even see as few games reach '44 or '45.

There are workarounds, and the edge cases we're talking about aren't all that historical anyway.

I consider these things to be unpleasant minefields that the gamer must tread warily around. Once you know they are there you can take steps to avoid them. In an ideal world they would be fixed, this thread implies maybe they would be. Maybe not. The world is not ideal.

But the game is still worth playing for all that. [:D]

[vettim89]

Much appreciate so many of the good comments being made here. I am not the whining type; so, I may go,"Huh?" at a particular combat result but would never cry foul. The game engine has its limitations, I accept them. That said, sometimes I wonder about the air intercept routines.

As an example, I had a combat over Chittagong a while back. I need to go back and get the exact numbers but it was something like this

Japan's Force

60 G3M/G4M
25 A6M2
25 Ki-43 (not sure of the exact modal)

Allied CAP

75 P-40E
25 P-38E
32 Hurricane IIb

All fighters set at 40% CAP stacked between 15k and 25 k. Level 6 AB with multiple BF with Radars. Too RN TF in hex with multiple BBs, CAs, and CLs all with updated radar. By the time the ATA routine ended I had over 100 a/c on the scene

So 130+ fighters meet a raid escorted by less than half their number. Now, I would expect some leakers but instead NONE of the CAP made it through to the Netties! So the Japanese fighters were able to fully occupy more than two and a half times their number. My point being that this type of action occurs even in smaller battles not just ones involving 2000 aircraft. Now this is a big code change but it seems to me that it should be more like the Surface Combat action where we see "such and such a ship attempts to screen unloading ships". The ATA code seems to look at all air battles as one large "furball" instead of many smaller battles occuring within the hex. The Escorts act as one large lump of fighters that are able to engage all comers while the interceptors arrive piecemeal and are "screened" by the escorts one by one. Yes, Escorts could and did occupy numbers greater than there own but there was a limit. Not only that but as more and more interceptors arrive on the scene, the escorts would become more and more dispersed and increasingly less effective. Never mind the fact that Japanese radios were of poor quality and that they largely relied on hand signals at least early in the war.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Much appreciate so many of the good comments being made here. I am not the whining type; so, I may go,"Huh?" at a particular combat result but would never cry foul. The game engine has its limitations, I accept them. That said, sometimes I wonder about the air intercept routines.

As an example, I had a combat over Chittagong a while back. I need to go back and get the exact numbers but it was something like this

Japan's Force

60 G3M/G4M
25 A6M2
25 Ki-43 (not sure of the exact modal)

Allied CAP

75 P-40E
25 P-38E
32 Hurricane IIb

All fighters set at 40% CAP stacked between 15k and 25 k. Level 6 AB with multiple BF with Radars. Too RN TF in hex with multiple BBs, CAs, and CLs all with updated radar. By the time the ATA routine ended I had over 100 a/c on the scene

So 130+ fighters meet a raid escorted by less than half their number. Now, I would expect some leakers but instead NONE of the CAP made it through to the Netties! So the Japanese fighters were able to fully occupy more than two and a half times their number. My point being that this type of action occurs even in smaller battles not just ones involving 2000 aircraft. Now this is a big code change but it seems to me that it should be more like the Surface Combat action where we see "such and such a ship attempts to screen unloading ships". The ATA code seems to look at all air battles as one large "furball" instead of many smaller battles occuring within the hex. The Escorts act as one large lump of fighters that are able to engage all comers while the interceptors arrive piecemeal and are "screened" by the escorts one by one. Yes, Escorts could and did occupy numbers greater than there own but there was a limit. Not only that but as more and more interceptors arrive on the scene, the escorts would become more and more dispersed and increasingly less effective. Never mind the fact that Japanese radios were of poor quality and that they largely relied on hand signals at least early in the war.

It's pretty hard to say anything from one data point, unfortunately. I kinda expect oddities, thats great. My heart does sink a little when I hear about CAP which as a mathematical certainty won't engage, though.

[Commander Stormwolf]

fighters were able to fully occupy more than two and a half times their number. My point being that this type of action occurs even in smaller battles not just ones involving 2000 aircraft. Now this is a big code change but it seems to me that it should be more like the Surface

it happened at eastern solomons - 15 zeroes occupy 50+ wildcats..
it's what the zero was good at... forcing the CAP to dive and escape, leaving the strike package in tact

worked well until the hellcat was introduced

[SuluSea]

It looks like I'm in the minority but I find the air combat routine and modelling both brilliant and facsinating.
 
Great post Alfred, usually my attention span doesn't allow me to finish reading long post such as yours but you've written another classic.. [:)][:)]
 
 

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

It looks like I'm in the minority but I find the air combat routine and modelling both brilliant and facsinating.

Great post Alfred, usually my attention span doesn't allow me to finish reading long post such as yours but you've written another classic.. [:)][:)]

For the most part I agree with you, SS. One point I think could be made is that with AE, the results are much more unpredictable. In WITP, the Late Game USN could move it's "Death Star" anywhere it wanted with impunity. You cannot be so sure of it in AE. I do like like that.

Also, I was not necessarily griping about my air battle. I was merely showing a dat point I had seen. As I said, you need to understand what the game engine will do and plan accordingly.

To be the contrarian, if I looked at my result and said, "Wow, 130 fighters is not enough. I better put 200 there to assure safety." My oppnent then says, "Wow, he has 200 fighters in that hex. Its must be really important. I better move 200 fighters of my own into range". This can result in the invariable overconcentration of forces into a few hexes on the map which I beleive the AE Team was trying to get away from in the first place. Beofre you know it, we look like a bunch of five year olds playing soccer.

(Some of you will get that last comment)

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Alfred
When you employ the word "attrition", you describe actions whose intent is not attrition (a mutual process) but degradation of enemy force structure and pinning of the enemy forces elsewhere, away from the critical front (aided by misdirecting the enemy). The aim of all good generals down the ages has been to defeat the enemy forces, not to ruin their own army in the process.

Alfred

Ah, to be a WWI afficionado! [:)]

If I have been using "attrit" incorrectly re Greyjoy's game, apologies. In my usage I mean to degrade the Japanese ability to wage war so that there is no other choice but surrender.

Especially in a Scen 2 game my experience has been that one cannot completely ground the air forces. The lack of need for POL to fly coupled with the limited Allied replacement pools makes it very difficult to degrade them directly using A2A and airbase strikes. The best (only?) way I've discovered is to indirectly push them over by going after the "HI bank" by going after the fuel supply. It's a third-order attack on air power, but it works if one is very patient and methodical. Shooting down older models of Japanese planes in backwater theaters helps, but to really ground the Japanese and make it safe to do widespread strat bombing of the HI one must get at HI.

First, don't let the Japanese build a multi-million point bank by letting them camp in India for a couple of years. And also begin to go after fuel early. The loss of 200 Allied subs is not too high a price to pay if you can stop the POL from getting to Japan. Kill the fuel, kill the HI, kill aircraft replacement production (and at extremes make it impossible to pay the Japanese pilot "tax" every month.)

[witpqs]

What he said! [:D]

Mutual attrition = usually bad.

Greatly lopsided attrition of the enemy = usually good.

It's sort of like the congressman said: "Compromise with him?! Let him compromise with me!" [:D]

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Alfred
When you employ the word "attrition", you describe actions whose intent is not attrition (a mutual process) but degradation of enemy force structure and pinning of the enemy forces elsewhere, away from the critical front (aided by misdirecting the enemy). The aim of all good generals down the ages has been to defeat the enemy forces, not to ruin their own army in the process.

Alfred

Ah, to be a WWI afficionado! [:)] ...

Hmm, why is it I feel I'm being sent a subtle hint I should decamp off to another Matrix forum and terrorise the those denizens.[8|] Oh well there I could compare monthly our Peak Performance Indicators in attrition strategy. After all no finer demonstration of attrition strategy can be found than Verdun.

Alfred

[gradenko2k]

Let's not get tied down in semantics, here. WW1 attrition was when both sides tried to run each other out of men first. The attrition being referred to in the context of WW2 in the Pacific is one-sided, wherein Japan's forces were attritted at little (relative) cost to the Western Allies.

[jwilkerson]

In the old days [:)] of board games - if the players found the rules to be "broken" in some aspect - they could make a house rule and continue on.

In the days of computer games - it would be great if all games were PERFECT - but that will never happen - and if it did - no one would play them - because they would be too realistic!

Let's call the problem "loop holes" as a general characterization. Simulations will always have shortcommings - they are not - by definintion reality - they are something less. Hence, in a conflict simulation with multiple sides there will always be shortcommings (loopholes) which can be exlpoited.

If we find these - we can make house rules against them.

That is what I do.

The set of necessary house rules for a given game is initially limited by the experience of the players - what have they experienced that needs to be controlled. During the game new situations may arise. Compatible playing partners can agree to prohibit undesired activities.

As much as we would love to close ALL loopholes with the rules (the code) - it cannot be done.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: TheElf
As far as other weaknesses, I've already acknowledged one, and that is the Ablative armor Escorts we've mentioned. But this is a tricky fix, as I have already stated, because when you look at attacker Vs Defender the ATTACKER has the Sweep in his bag of tricks. If we neuter CAP vs Escorts we risk imbalancing CAP against an attacker who uses sweep...does this make sense? not sure I am explaining this clearly...been a long day.

You are perfectly clear. And I agree that this presents a potential sideffect of any manipulation of the attack priorities.

Sweep vs. CAP hangs in delicate, but IMHO well understood, balance. If the triggers for engaging fighters are modified to vector more planes
against bombers, and these triggers are same for attack decisions against sweeps, this could tilt the balance very much in the attacker´s
favor...basically the exact opposite effect of what we want to achieve.

I am with you and Alfred, the implementation of a BTR style of target selection is intriguing, but if I understand the context of this discussion correctly
this is out of scope?

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

I think what is being lost here is that, while they have successfully explored the frontier of lunacy in terms of over stacking and uncovered the limits of computer processing power vis a vis AE, GJ and Rader did so by cramming an unrealistic number of aircraft into a relatively small space. In all likelihood, and I am guessing it sounds like they overcame all the little controls we put in place to break up Uber Air Battles in a unique set of circumstances that existed in their game.

What you are all advocating is hard coding essentially. We are talking about rewriting code for the game to accommodate gameplay that is aberrant. I admit that there are situations where large numbers of A/C come together regardless of how you play, and that others have begun to experience the same effects, but should we as developers risk making a change that could have 2nd and 3rd order effects on the rest of those that haven't seen this sort of thing in their game?

Development/support of this product is essentially over save for Michaelm's gracious charity. I can't just go in with a scalpel and start monkeying around with the code. Do I have ideas? yes. But it isn't my call.

Until something changes you all as players have to understand the limitations and try to live within them. That is the only way.

unfortunately this is it exactly. I said that probably a dozen of times in GJ's AAR, we just have to live with the fact that there is a limitation and IMO every PBEM reaches the point some time in 44 when there are just far too many aircraft around. From that point on, using a carrier fleet (independent of the side) near more than 3 overlapping airfields is suicide. Means, coming close to Japan is nothing you should do with your carriers. No matter how inexperienced one starts, I think when he has goine through 4 years in game he has enough experience to be able to mass 3000 airacft for the one decisive blow to sink two or three dozen carriers. Probably not even that many aircraft needed to do that.

I know ppl think that I am thinking the airmodel is totally BS, which isn't what I say btw. It is quite ok (and far better than WITP) from 41 to mid 44 IMO, later it gets problematic (if there would be a severe penalty for flying aircraft in the stratosphere it would be great)Why? Just because there are so many more aircraft involved and no matter how experienced/inexperienced one is there will always be enough aircraft for the one desicive attack. To be honest, there will be enough aircraft for more than that one strike in at least 4 out of 5 times. So what to do? I know what I am going to do, no matter what side I am playing. Not moving my carriers into an area where I end up in range of 4+ operational enemy airfields that can send out more than 500 aircraft in a single day.

btw, I think this is a very good thread so far. +1

when the consensus is that you should not end up with your carriers in range of 1000 enemy aircaft because those would be able to wipe out a good portion of your carrier fleet then this doesn't mean I can say I find it all that great because I think the so called Allied carrier Death Star late war should be able to deal with 1000 enemy aircraft. Not saying a 1000 aircraft strike but 1000 aircraft attacking your Death Star in several waves. In my game vs. Rainer79 I have massed fleet carriers and CVE to bring roughly 1500-1600+ Corsairs/Hellcats and thought I could at least be strong enough stay one day, the result were a dozen CVE sunk though. My experience never showed an advantage for the carriers to be split in different hexes, this is more like a way to lose one of those TFs for sure. Why? Because even if the enemy gets some raids into different hexes, the BIG one still goes into ONE hex. One big strike, one big loss in carriers. The biggest advantage of not splitting them into different hexes is to provide a lot of targets for the attacking bombers and not 6 fat targets that all bombers aim at. Vanilla flak is also an issue here, that should not be left out to be honest. Dababes has dealt with this, which is great IMO, same as dealing with the super E, but that's not the topic of this thread.

In the end, just don't move your carriers into harms way, even if you think it could be done real life. Not saying I want to stop raids, but do some damage to the bombers at least as I just can't see a reason why 200 green fighters should be able to keep 400 elite fighters on Cap from attacking the bombers. I choose those numbers because I think these would still be doable in real life, even if it sounds a lot. If you've got something like three dozen carriers, this would mean roughly one third of the fighters being able to attack. And 200 fighters on escorts should be doable as well.

How many IJ aircraft where involved in the Mariana's Turkey Shoot? 8 or 900? It wasn't really a disaster for the Allied and there were by far not as many carriers involved as a PBEM usually sees, probably not even halve of what I had in late 44. I am sure there were never 500 CAP fighters airborne at the same time, I am sure there were never those strikes we are able to do in the game (coordination penalties don't help anymore when you've got thousands of aicraft) and I am also sure flak was a real issue for the Japanese at that time.

[EUBanana]

You can probably live with it in most games, assuming strategic bombing and cutting off the oil really does work (I note I've never seen Japan economically collapse due to lack of oil in an AAR before so I'm kinda curious if even that is possible to be honest! [:D]).

Greyjoy is essentially trying to invade Japan with zero strategic preparation, so it's going to be a hard slog for him. However, not only that (which might well lead to his defeat in its own right), but it looks like the game engine simply can't model it.