Page 2 of 3
RE: Should the "Zero" Bonus be retained?
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 4:26 pm
by mdiehl
The results that you report are exceedingly unusual for WitP. I agree that an 800 plane strike against 3CVs not scoring any hits is absurd. But then an 800 plane strike from Japan anywhere on earth in 1942 is of itself absurd. Seems like a real GiGo outcome to me.
RE: Should the "Zero" Bonus be retained?
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:46 pm
by Lanconic
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
The results that you report are exceedingly unusual for WitP. I agree that an 800 plane strike against 3CVs not scoring any hits is absurd. But then an 800 plane strike from Japan anywhere on earth in 1942 is of itself absurd. Seems like a real GiGo outcome to me.
Not at all, I have done it more than once.
As for 800+ plane strike from Rabual.....
So because YOU believe it should not happen, that apparently means it should not happen?
I certainly dont agree with that. In retrospect maybe 800 is too high.
It was 4 full strength Betty squadrons escorted by 5 full strength Zero.
so that would be on the order of 300+
Against a CAP of 108 fighters.
The strike was shredded. I think a couple of CA got damaged. The CV ran back to New Caledonia to get more planes.
I dont recall what the USA player had as his CAP settings.
RE: Should the "Zero" Bonus be retained?
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:30 pm
by Feinder
May I point out that the finger-pointing is moot, when it's already been mentioned that Zero bonus is not in AE?
-F-
RE: Should the "Zero" Bonus be retained?
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 1:27 am
by jwilkerson
Hey - this is a Zero Bonus thread!!!! Moot points matter not!!!
[:D][:D]
RE: Should the "Zero" Bonus be retained?
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:34 am
by BShaftoe
No, I'd say no bonus for Zero.
In any case, I would keep track of how many times a plane has been fight with, and planes that has just come into combat (NEW planes) would have a small bonus, because they're unknown models.
So Zero would have a bonus until allies have fought them a certain number of times, but P38 would have that bonus also, and Ki83, and any plane, no matter nationality.
RE: Should the "Zero" Bonus be retained?
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:54 am
by m10bob
ORIGINAL: BShaftoe
No, I'd say no bonus for Zero.
In any case, I would keep track of how many times a plane has been fight with, and planes that has just come into combat (NEW planes) would have a small bonus, because they're unknown models.
So Zero would have a bonus until allies have fought them a certain number of times, but P38 would have that bonus also, and Ki83, and any plane, no matter nationality.
Ya mean there is still hope for my Westland Lysander!!!????[:'(]
RE: Should the "Zero" Bonus be retained?
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:13 am
by BShaftoe
ORIGINAL: m10bob
Ya mean there is still hope for my Westland Lysander!!!????[:'(]
If a combat-able Lysander is made by allies, yes, there is.
But I was talking mainly of fighters, fighter-bombers, and night fighters, and combat between them.
RE: Should the "Zero" Bonus be retained?
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:05 pm
by mdiehl
Not at all, I have done it more than once.
Perhaps I was unclear. In the real world it is not plausible under any set of circumstances that by any time prior to mid-1943, Japan could have built enough airstrips and facilities at or Rabaul to house that many aircraft, and anywhere in the world in which Japan could have put that many aircraft in close proximity they could never have coordinated an 800 plane strike at any time during the war without the operational and logistical expertise and assistance of USAAF 8th AF HQ or RAF Bomber Command.
So because YOU believe it should not happen, that apparently means it should not happen?
Yes. Exactly so. I know enough about Japanese logistical capability to be absolutely dead on dollar-to-a-dougnut 100% certain that even had they wanted to, even had they planned to, Japan could not have built up facilities at Rabaul to service and house that many a.c. at the edge of the empire, much less keep a logistical pipeline of sufficient diameter flowing to sustain the operations and personnel. I suspect they could have built a base to house that many a.c. by 1944 had they canceled all of the other logistical facilities expansion goals at the edge of the defensive perimeter. Otherwise I can't seem em doing it. And under no circumstances can I envision them launching a coordinated 800 plane strike during the war, although a coordinated 300 plane strike seems reasonable after fall 1943.
RE: Should the "Zero" Bonus be retained?
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:07 pm
by Buck Beach
ORIGINAL: Lanconic
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
The results that you report are exceedingly unusual for WitP. I agree that an 800 plane strike against 3CVs not scoring any hits is absurd. But then an 800 plane strike from Japan anywhere on earth in 1942 is of itself absurd. Seems like a real GiGo outcome to me.
Not at all, I have done it more than once.
As for 800+ plane strike from Rabual.....
So because YOU believe it should not happen, that apparently means it should not happen?
I certainly dont agree with that. In retrospect maybe 800 is too high.
It was 4 full strength Betty squadrons escorted by 5 full strength Zero.
so that would be on the order of 300+
Against a CAP of 108 fighters.
The strike was shredded. I think a couple of CA got damaged. The CV ran back to New Caledonia to get more planes.
I dont recall what the USA player had as his CAP settings.
Wow, you with your 18 posts arguing a game point with Mdiehl with his years of experience and almost 5100 posts. Now just who do you think has more credibility?[8|]
RE: Should the "Zero" Bonus be retained?
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:23 pm
by Buck Beach
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Not at all, I have done it more than once.
Perhaps I was unclear. In the real world it is not plausible under any set of circumstances that by any time prior to mid-1943, Japan could have built enough airstrips and facilities at or Rabaul to house that many aircraft, and anywhere in the world in which Japan could have put that many aircraft in close proximity they could never have coordinated an 800 plane strike at any time during the war without the operational and logistical expertise and assistance of USAAF 8th AF HQ or RAF Bomber Command.
So because YOU believe it should not happen, that apparently means it should not happen?
Yes. Exactly so. I know enough about Japanese logistical capability to be absolutely dead on dollar-to-a-dougnut 100% certain that even had they wanted to, even had they planned to, Japan could not have built up facilities at Rabaul to service and house that many a.c. at the edge of the empire, much less keep a logistical pipeline of sufficient diameter flowing to sustain the operations and personnel. I suspect they could have built a base to house that many a.c. by 1944 had they canceled all of the other logistical facilities expansion goals at the edge of the defensive perimeter. Otherwise I can't seem em doing it. And under no circumstances can I envision them launching a coordinated 800 plane strike during the war, although a coordinated 300 plane strike seems reasonable after fall 1943.
My dad, who was at one of the airfields at Port Morseby for over two years from July 1942 said massive air raids like those permitted by this game didn't happen there. He passed away some time back so I can't resurface the issue with him.
RE: Should the "Zero" Bonus be retained?
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:54 pm
by Lanconic
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Not at all, I have done it more than once.
Perhaps I was unclear. In the real world it is not plausible under any set of circumstances that by any time prior to mid-1943, Japan could have built enough airstrips and facilities at or Rabaul to house that many aircraft, and anywhere in the world in which Japan could have put that many aircraft in close proximity they could never have coordinated an 800 plane strike at any time during the war without the operational and logistical expertise and assistance of USAAF 8th AF HQ or RAF Bomber Command.
So because YOU believe it should not happen, that apparently means it should not happen?
Yes. Exactly so. I know enough about Japanese logistical capability to be absolutely dead on dollar-to-a-dougnut 100% certain that even had they wanted to, even had they planned to, Japan could not have built up facilities at Rabaul to service and house that many a.c. at the edge of the empire, much less keep a logistical pipeline of sufficient diameter flowing to sustain the operations and personnel. I suspect they could have built a base to house that many a.c. by 1944 had they canceled all of the other logistical facilities expansion goals at the edge of the defensive perimeter. Otherwise I can't seem em doing it. And under no circumstances can I envision them launching a coordinated 800 plane strike during the war, although a coordinated 300 plane strike seems reasonable after fall 1943.
Then what you are doing, in my opinion, is a blatant attempt to influence the AE design.
And I very much hope that you are ignored.
Just because you have an opinion, doesnt make it right.
RE: Should the "Zero" Bonus be retained?
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:58 pm
by Lanconic
ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
ORIGINAL: Lanconic
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
The results that you report are exceedingly unusual for WitP. I agree that an 800 plane strike against 3CVs not scoring any hits is absurd. But then an 800 plane strike from Japan anywhere on earth in 1942 is of itself absurd. Seems like a real GiGo outcome to me.
Not at all, I have done it more than once.
As for 800+ plane strike from Rabual.....
So because YOU believe it should not happen, that apparently means it should not happen?
I certainly dont agree with that. In retrospect maybe 800 is too high.
It was 4 full strength Betty squadrons escorted by 5 full strength Zero.
so that would be on the order of 300+
Against a CAP of 108 fighters.
The strike was shredded. I think a couple of CA got damaged. The CV ran back to New Caledonia to get more planes.
I dont recall what the USA player had as his CAP settings.
Wow, you with your 18 posts arguing a game point with Mdiehl with his years of experience and almost 5100 posts. Now just who do you think has more credibility?[8|]
Anyone who has actually played the game would have more credibility.
Mdiehl likes to present himself as an expert. He isnt.
He parses data quite well, yes indeed. What a pity that parsing data doesnt make you correct. It simply makes you SOUND correct.
As for who I am, I would hope that my arguments stood upon their own merits, rather than on some post count =)
If that is all that impresses you =)
You never know who you are actually reading.
RE: Should the "Zero" Bonus be retained?
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:19 pm
by mdiehl
It IS you it IS you! [:D][:'(]
Don't worry, I won't reveal your secret identity!
Then what you are doing, in my opinion, is a blatant attempt to influence the AE design.
No doubt about it.
RE: Should the "Zero" Bonus be retained?
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:09 pm
by TheElf
A "large" raid by the Japanese prior to 'Operation I-Go' in the New Guinea, Rabaul, Cactus triangle would be anything they could muster above a full strength Rikko Datai, excluding CV raids of course.
Later in '43 a "large" mission was planned for 12th April 1943 as part of 'Operation I-Go'.
"G4M1 units would be used only on two occasions as part of I-GO. The first was the 12th April 1943 attack against Port Moresby, led by the Commander of the 751st Kokutai, Masaichi Suzuki. Leading a combined force of seventeen G4M1s from the 751st and twenty-seven from the 705th Kokuta. "
The real sting in the formation's tail was 131 Zero fighters which escorted the formation from Rabaul. The escorts were comprised of carrier Zeros flying from Rabaul for the Operation. Among them were 23 Zeros from Zuikaku, 14 Zeros from Zuihô.
However I do not count the escort as part of the strength of the raid. 1 Betty Escorted by 299 Zekes mkaes not a 300 plane raid.
RE: Should the "Zero" Bonus be retained?
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:01 pm
by jwilkerson
Alright - alright - we're getting a bit too consistently "over the line" in terms of making things personal. Can we switch back to "issues" not people? Issues being either events during WWII in the PTO or items related to play of the WITP game.
Thx.
RE: Should the "Zero" Bonus be retained?
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:07 pm
by m10bob
RE: Should the "Zero" Bonus be retained?
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:49 am
by Heeward
Please back on topic - Should the "Zero Bonus" be retained. I will except general statements, but facts supported by source documentation is better.
Per Doomed at the Start: American Pursuit Pilots in the Philippines, 1941-1942, (from recollection) 70% of the US pursuit pilots had graduated from flight school in June of 1941 or latter. I expect the Pilots for the Common Wealth are in about the same.
Now lets say you graduate from flight school July 15, receive 1 month furlough - August 15, two weeks travel via train to west coast, October 1st, wait for a ship to Philippines, two weeks - say October 15, Then two - three week transit to Manila - November 1st - That would leave only 1 month or so with their assigned unit acclimatizing and training with the new aircraft.
Hmm maybe low experience. Maybe the wrong training – maneuver vs. energy combat.
I think we can all agree that Japan also concentrated aircraft and generally out numbered the opponents in the early part of the war.
Now lets move to the battle of Coral Sea May 1942.
In 133 sorties by navy fighters, which intercepted enemy aircraft, they engaged 37 bombers and 141 fighters. This resulted in the destruction of 24 bombers and 42 fighters, while suffering 21 F4F’s damaged and 21 destroyed. Clearly here the A6M2 was ineffective.
Source Naval Combat Statistics OP NAV P23V-No A129 June 1946.
As AE is supposed to be a simulation how will this be modeled?
RE: Should the "Zero" Bonus be retained?
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:01 pm
by Charbroiled
ORIGINAL: Heeward
...August 15, two weeks travel via train to west coast, October 1st,
I wasn't aware that there was no month of September in 1941.
[:D]
RE: Should the "Zero" Bonus be retained?
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:35 pm
by Nomad
ORIGINAL: Charbroiled
ORIGINAL: Heeward
...August 15, two weeks travel via train to west coast, October 1st,
I wasn't aware that there was no month of September in 1941.
[:D]
It was an odd year. [:'(][8|][X(]
RE: Should the "Zero" Bonus be retained?
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:11 pm
by Heeward
Didn't you know 1941 was a stumble year - where september is skipped...... lol
