#### OFFICIAL ADMIRAL's EDITION AAR ####

[PeteG662]

Elf,
 
It appears the P-39s and P-400s did fairly well considering their performance restriction at altitude. How different is this from WitP stock where I believe it was stated that 10'K was the break point? Does AE take this into account more or less than stock WitP?
 
Thanks,
Pete

[pad152]

Why are there withdraw dates for Japanese Airgroups?

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

Elf,

It appears the P-39s and P-400s did fairly well considering their performance restriction at altitude. How different is this from WitP stock where I believe it was stated that 10'K was the break point? Does AE take this into account more or less than stock WitP?

Thanks,
Pete

Much more. There are four altitude range bands with different mvr modifiers, and a P-39 at its maximum altitude can just about fly straight ahead.

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: pad152

Why are there withdraw dates for Japanese Airgroups?

Because they have to be withdrawn. Plenty of Jap air units were withdrawn historically and reformed under different names.

[pad152]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: pad152

Why are there withdraw dates for Japanese Airgroups?

Because they have to be withdrawn. Plenty of Jap air units were withdrawn historically and reformed under different names.

So the player has no control over this?

[pad152]

Destroyed Air Groups, are they reformed and come back?

Is this true for all sides (US, Brit, AZ, Japan, etc.)?

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: pad152

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: pad152

Why are there withdraw dates for Japanese Airgroups?

Because they have to be withdrawn. Plenty of Jap air units were withdrawn historically and reformed under different names.

So the player has no control over this?

If he wants to pay the PP's for it...

[PeteG662]

Terminus,
 
I understand the altitude bands. In WitP stock in the manual (I think) it talks about 10'K being the "ceiling" for performance based on no supercharger for the engine in the P-39 and P-400. Elf had them flying at 15'K and they seemed to do relatively well at that altitude. In AE was the 10'K changed to a higher level? What else would explain the relatively decent results in combat against the Zeroes?  Just curious here.....
 
Thanks,
Pete

[vonSchnitter]

Hi Gents,

Despite the heavy AAA, I am still undeterred. [:D]

And since the lead chap has a prob understanding my comments, " Von ... I am not clear as to the meaning of most of your words - though I'll admit there are lots of them. Regardless, one good way to start out on this forum is to listen more and talk less - then maybe you will get the hang of things."

- I will put my concerns into simple questions:

Are Jap CVEs - and some CVLs - restricted in terms of launching aerial torpedo strikes ?
How is the Single CV TV axiom of Witp adressed ?
To explain: If the KB with 6 fleet CVs faces two USN CV TFs in the same hex with one CV each - what is going to happen ?
Right - the KB will most likely concentrate on one TF and take it out - leaving the other to retalliate - most likely hitting a number of IJN CVs.

Under these conditions, the "coordination" bonus of the IJN - according to the manual - is turned against the KB - unless the KB is split up. Which is hardly sustainable for the IJN considering the number of bottoms available.

There is no question the USN used single CV TFs. The problem is using more than one TF in one hex - enjoing mutual support - which did not work early on.

The last thing: Does AE adress the change of doctrine in strike composition as in practise by the USN ?
The USN doctrine negated the need of fighters to go with a strike well to the end of 42 - in stark contrast of the IJN.

Just to make sure you get my drift:

My question is: Has the IJN to face a somewhat arbitrary mixture of early war practices and late war (44+) abilities of the USN or not.
If that is the case, fine by me. Even if a question like this may take down the "merits" of AE and the people behind it by a couple of "Pegs" - since having no adequate answer to the basic issues of Carrier warfare does not help much.

A lot of technicallities is nice, sure.

Now hack away.
Cheers

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

Elf,

It appears the P-39s and P-400s did fairly well considering their performance restriction at altitude. How different is this from WitP stock where I believe it was stated that 10'K was the break point? Does AE take this into account more or less than stock WitP?

Thanks,
Pete

Yes, Pete they did perform fairly well, but we can draw some conclusions based on the facts of the engagements.

In there first actions the P-39s and P-400s benefit from effective radar support and the fact that the Zeroes they face are on Escort. Not that being on Escort is the reason the Zeroes suffered though it certainly contributed.

Here's why. The Rikko units are raiding at 16k', and by virtue of this the Zeroes are actually not far from the Airacobra's optimum performance band. Additionally this forces the Escort to fly at altitudes that give the CAP an advantage. When Radar detection checks are made and passed the CAP climbs to an altitude that would be considered optimal for interception. They get to do this for the entire time the raid plods along from 1st detection. More often than not, plenty of time to be in a good position.

If you go back and look at some of the "Aftershocks" post, you'll note one engagement where 3 P-400s are downed for no loss to the Shoho Zekes. Here the P-400 is at the disadvantage, with no Radar support and little warning of the Zeroes in a superior position.

Historically the Iron Dog suffered from a bad rap. Don't get me wrong, it was a dog but it DID have some advantages. Some pilots though it a hair better than the P-40, and it was faster and more capable against the Zero at lower Altitudes (<15k') than it was higher. That doesn't mean that if it had and altitude advantage that it couldn't make use of it. It could, as long as they didn't stick around to see what happened after they made their attacks.

They also made their "bad" name when the USAAC was still learning the hard lessons about the Zero that so benefited the P-38, P-47, and P-51 later in the war.

They were bad, but they still held the line and did their share of damage...

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: pad152

ORIGINAL: Terminus




Because they have to be withdrawn. Plenty of Jap air units were withdrawn historically and reformed under different names.

So the player has no control over this?

If he wants to pay the PP's for it...

Sneaky. [:-] If the unit withdraws, what becomes of the planes and pilots?

[vonSchnitter]

Oh,
in case you chaps choose to ignore my questions - which is fine by me in fact. And speaks volumes ..

I manged to sink three R-Class RN BBs plus Hermes - heavy damage - off the Andamans with my 2 IJN CVEs for the most part in early 42 in a RIP CHS PBM.

Pretty please. Can I manage the same in AE ?

Cheers

[PeteG662]

Elf,
&nbsp;
Thanks. So the altitude that the P-39 and P-400&nbsp;were optimal at moved from the original 10K in WitP to about 15K now in AE? I understand that there is now a band in AE versus&nbsp;an altitude in WitP.
&nbsp;
Thanks,
Pete

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

- I will put my concerns into simple questions:

Are Jap CVEs - and some CVLs - restricted in terms of launching aerial torpedo strikes ?

Not at the time the build being featured in the AAR was used. We are aware of the issue and have to sort out the specifics. It may be a patch issue, as this was the way things were in stock and was not a priority for AE 1.0. Several hard decisions had to be made, and continue to be made. If you get my drift.

How is the Single CV TV axiom of Witp adressed ?
To explain: If the KB with 6 fleet CVs faces two USN CV TFs in the same hex with one CV each - what is going to happen ?
Right - the KB will most likely concentrate on one TF and take it out - leaving the other to retalliate - most likely hitting a number of IJN CVs.

For us to completely remove this "axiom", we'd have to have evidence that the axiom was incorrect. As in, it never happened. Which it did, at Santa Cruz. Anyway, I get the impression you think this is a hard-coded feature. It isn't.

The last thing: Does AE adress the change of doctrine in strike composition as in practise by the USN ?
The USN doctrine negated the need of fighters to go with a strike well to the end of 42 - in stark contrast of the IJN.

Doctrine and reality are two different things. Most WWII pre-war doctrine was just that. Pre-war. You are correct to say that USN doctrine did not guarantee nor require F4Fs to Escort strikes. In reality they did. In some cases not very well. In AE they can fail coordination checks as easily as any other raid.

Just to make sure you get my drift:

I get your drift, and I am also getting the language barrier. I'll do my best to answer your questions.

My question is: Has the IJN to face a somewhat arbitrary mixture of early war practices and late war (44+) abilities of the USN or not.

Yes and No. This is another facet of the game that needs more attention, but is more due to broader changes that took priority. We focused mainly on things that would have positive effects across the widest area of the game.

What we do have now are upgradable CV Airwing configurations based on date. In other words, when a date passes that marks a change in VF size from 18 to 27 or 36 planes the player can select that configuration and fill out his squadron appropriately. There were several great ideas that had to be omitted due to scope limitations.

If that is the case, fine by me. Even if a question like this may take down the "merits" of AE and the people behind it by a couple of "Pegs" - since having no adequate answer to the basic issues of Carrier warfare does not help much.

Again, I'm fully aware of a possible language barrier, but it's comments like this that do not win friends and influence people...just a word to the wise.

I happen to think the AE team has done some amazing work. There are a lot of smart former players who have put a lot of time and energy into this project for exactly zero reward to this point. Over 2 yrs in some cases.

You said something in one of your previous posts that bears a response..."get it right the 1st time". Well, for those of us on the AE team this IS the 1st time. None of us were involved in the original WitP. We were sitting where you are now, twiddling our thumbs in high anticipation as imminent customers.

[cantona2]

touche Elf, touche

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

Elf,

Thanks. So the altitude that the P-39 and P-400 were optimal at moved from the original 10K in WitP to about 15K now in AE? I understand that there is now a band in AE versus an altitude in WitP.

Thanks,
Pete

Correct, but it wasn't just moved. Altitude-based Air Combat is a feature of the game where as before there were just a few hard coded bonuses and penalties for a few A/C.

The Zero bonus and the P-39 penalty...

Those are gone and now we have the 5 altitude bands with which to attempt to replicate the dynamics of Air Combat across all altitudes and performance envelopes. Obviously there could be a MUCH more complex simulation of this, but for this type of game there is a point of diminishing returns.

[PeteG662]

Thanks. Understood. It will be interesting.
&nbsp;
Pete

[TheElf]

The USN is scattered between 4 AFs in the South Pacific. Some units are likely to be whole enough to rebuild on map. Here is the disposition.



The violence of the destruction of CARDIV 5 left little opportunity for the two Elite Airgroups to escape. As is typical the main unit always goes down with the ship, thus the higher number of AirGroups lost. We'll see if this plays out when Yorktown slips under...

The Zuikaku Zeroes will likely be disbanded into the Tainan Ku S-2 at Rabaul.


The state of the three remaining CVs:



As you can see the Lexington is in pretty good condition for a ship reported to have taken 6 Torpedoes. Coincidentally the same number Yorktown took. I intend to see if Yorktown can be saved. Already 3 Float Damage point have been added...


Rock Stars or Goat? The Shoho Air Group reported 4 of the 6 Torpedo hits on Lexington...

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: cantona2

Write off's

Is there a difference in game terms?

As write offs accumulate they actually may add Aircraft BACK to the unit or increase repair rates. This simulates Mechanics cobbling several Aircraft together or stripping parts from hulks as required to keep the runners on line.

[vonSchnitter]

Thanks TheElf,

language barriers or not. I sincerely appriciate your response. Excuse my spelling.
Believe it or not - I have been a part of volunteer development groups before. And the pet peeves everyone has ..
And because of that, some "applauding noise" from the fences - touche or not - is well...
So much for making friends or influencing things.

Apart from the CVE/CVL issue - some rumors exist about RHS managing notwithstanding - I cannot confirm.

There is the big question of mutual support of multiple TFs in a single hex. Plus some sort of target "fixation". (like BBs as bomb magnets). The "death star" from UV.
If AE is not adressing the issues - fine by me. State it. It is not a statement of failure but of accomplishment in other areas.

I hope you do not mind, if I utter my expectation, that AE would address the singlehex/multiple TF issue with a very high priority. Because we are talking a naval asset based war ?

And yes, I am a bystander.
Cheers