Page 2 of 2
Re: Should this be a house rule? Hardest thing I faced in PBEM.
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:22 am
by DesertWolf101
Couple of misconceptions here:
1) The maximum carrier strike range for Japan is 8, not 9
2) The maximum carrier strike range for the Allies is 7
3) The one hex difference between 8 and 7 is very difficult to accurately gauge given A) Lack of insight into enemy movement decisions and B) Carriers reacting to target
4) Kates flying at range 8 will fly at extended range and will not be able to carry torpedoes
5) There are limited torpedos aboard each CV and dive bombers are much more accurate in bombing relative to level bombing
Bottom line: It is not true that benching Val squadrons for an all Kate setup is necessarily the best path forward.
Re: Should this be a house rule? Hardest thing I faced in PBEM.
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 4:06 pm
by Tanaka
JanSako wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2023 8:58 pm
Vals are totally useful, I usually get much better hit rate with Vals than Kates which have a helluva time hitting DD's & other nimble ships, with torps or bombs.
The 250kg bomb on a Val is good enough for anything but BBs or Brit CVs.
My suggestion earlier was to unload the Val squadrons & resize the Zero & Kate's to say 60/40 or 50/50 carrier capacity & then conduct long range strikes where they have a less chance of retaliating. A good Allied player will have an aggressive TF commander, not sure they can react to a distance of 3 to reach with Air cover. If they react to just reach with unescorted DB's or TB's, your Zeros should eat them & ask for more.
Once the DS gets too big, you can try night attacks where they have a 0 chance of retaliating:
1. Start at 13 hexes away from the enemy base or known TF position - just outside effective Cat search range (unless they have many). You can keep a 100% day CAP in case of any surprises.
2. Set your CV's to go home, or wherever with a waypoint being your 'strike distance' of 9. Put up lots of night search and/or Recon, depending on the target.
3. They will make a night run of 4 hexes, then a night NAV or port attack - low level so you have a chance to hit something
4. In the next day phase they will do another 4 hexes away from the target. If you are lucky, they will go from undetected to undetected again.
The likelyhood or a critical success is not great, but 100% moonlight helps & the risk is low enough so if there is nothing else for you to attack, you can go places where you would not be able to during the day.
Gotcha thanks!
Re: Should this be a house rule? Hardest thing I faced in PBEM.
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 4:06 pm
by Tanaka
DesertWolf101 wrote: Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:22 am
Couple of misconceptions here:
1) The maximum carrier strike range for Japan is 8, not 9
2) The maximum carrier strike range for the Allies is 7
3) The one hex difference between 8 and 7 is very difficult to accurately gauge given A) Lack of insight into enemy movement decisions and B) Carriers reacting to target
4) Kates flying at range 8 will fly at extended range and will not be able to carry torpedoes
5) There are limited torpedos aboard each CV and dive bombers are much more accurate in bombing relative to level bombing
Bottom line: It is not true that benching Val squadrons for an all Kate setup is necessarily the best path forward.
All very good points! Thanks!
Re: Should this be a house rule? Hardest thing I faced in PBEM.
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 4:45 pm
by JanSako
DesertWolf101 wrote: Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:22 am
Couple of misconceptions here:
1) The maximum carrier strike range for Japan is 8, not 9
2) The maximum carrier strike range for the Allies is 7
3) The one hex difference between 8 and 7 is very difficult to accurately gauge given A) Lack of insight into enemy movement decisions and B) Carriers reacting to target
4) Kates flying at range 8 will fly at extended range and will not be able to carry torpedoes
5) There are limited torpedos aboard each CV and dive bombers are much more accurate in bombing relative to level bombing
Bottom line: It is not true that benching Val squadrons for an all Kate setup is necessarily the best path forward.
I play only Bottlenecks for quite a long time where Kates fly to 9 with bombs.
Apologies for confusing people if stock is only 8.
- 2023-06-18_9-35-57.png (345.85 KiB) Viewed 384 times
In this scen, F4F4's go 6 max, but SBD-3 & 4 Dauntlesses go up to 8 on extended.
The idea was to attack the DS or any other target where day losses would be prohibitive, with relative low risk & at least a chance of success. I mean if IJN carrier force gets diminished or it is late '43 & a proper Deathstar shows up, what else R U gonna do?
Definitely agreed that keeping Vals is important unless you need to address some specific tactical scenario.
Re: Should this be a house rule? Hardest thing I faced in PBEM.
Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2023 9:19 am
by SuluSea
The allies are going to kick your behind with all the toys they get later but some just can't resist going off the rails ahistorical given the political realities. That is fine if it's a non historical game. I remember Alfred once stated a player asks for house rules to use them to his advantage. I can remember playing someone who sought an 'historical game' then proceeded to skip bomb with P40s in the opening week, had little 1 point tf scattered all over southeast Asia and would use shore bombardment on non base hexes against troops marching down the Malay peninsula on the way to Singapore to go along with other things if memory serves me right. It was a huge turn off and time waste. The best thing you can do is find someone like minded and honest about how they'd like to proceed.
Re: Should this be a house rule? Hardest thing I faced in PBEM.
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:36 pm
by Sardaukar
Thing related is, relations between IJA and IJN were not only branch rivalry, they were outright dysfunctional.
Shattered Sword explains it very well.
One example is that landing forces for Midway operation both went in their own transports, since IJN and IJA troops refused to embark other's ships...