Matrix Games Forums

Drongo wrote:Are you entirely relying on Morison's account for this? More recent authors like Frank, Hammel, Lundstrom and others have had greater access to Japanese sources as well as a more detailed examination of what happened from the allied side (this is not a criticism of what Morison achieved).

Their work may be more appropriate as a basis for conclusions on what happened in the air that day and why and what should therefore be expected to happen in UV.

Yeah yeah, newer is always better. I've heard the same stuff with regards to the work of David Chandler, and it hardly ever holds water.

Morison's work is the one best single source to go to for an overall understanding of what went down on the USN side of the line, and a pretty fair gauge of what was going on behind the scenes (and sometimes Morison takes a good stab at "why") with the Japanese. After one's familiar with Morison's work then sure, by all means take up more reading and get the opinions of others. And in some cases those opinions might be more "accurate' than Morison's. But not often. Morison was a disciplined pro with a conscientious staff to help him and a Presidential fiat to open all doors before him. As a rule, Morison's statements, his conclusions, hold up very well to the scrutiny of time.

For the purpose we have before us here I've said nothing which ought to raise an eyebrow. Just looking at this simulatiuon with the broadest possible overview indicates it's off in some areas by quite a bit. It would be preposterous to try to hang my "misunderstanding" of the UV model on the work of Morsion.

For that matter, if it's "names" that are important to you than I'm not interested. What would be the use of using the Internet as a resource tool? Information one finds there comes from all over the place, much of "verifiable" but often enough without a "name" attached to it that might impress anyone.

But I'll leave it there. If it's come to the point where Morison is no longer used as a ready source for the USN's history in WWII then no wonder the model's so far off.

I'll add this: the ship data, just for example, doesn't jive with Conway's in many respects, either. But then no doubt Conway's is old hat, too.

Having said all of the above, no, Drongo, I don't just read Morison, but again, as a ready reference to cite in passing he rarely can be beat. When he was in error he was nowhere near as far off as the UV model, and you could put that in the bank.

Mogami wrote:Replacment pilots for UV are an abstract of National training. 240,000 Japanese entered pilot training before and during WW2 24,000 finished the course. 19,000 died while training (or towards the end students still in training flew Kamikaze missions) The remaining pilots that flew Japanese aircraft did not finish "school" (prewar pilot training required 3 years)(of this 240,000 those that did not qualify a pilots went into ground crew or non pilot aircrew) The most common experiance for a new pilot was 30 hours before entering combat. (This was a result of a delay in beginning the training of new pilots early in war and shortages of av gas begining in 43) There were few "good" pilots in the Japanese training pipeline in the UV period. The replacment ratings are not a result of trying to balance the game but what is thought to be acurate.

I don't argue any of that. Please stick to the point.

A good number of P-38's used in UV are flown by pilots that begin game flying P-39's. If the player does not maintain the P-39 groups he will have poor performing P-38 groups. There is no sudden or mysterious change from Super Japanese to Super Allied pilots. If a player (no matter which side) throws his pilots away he will eventually have poorer pilots. If he takes care of them he will see them improve.

That makes sense at least.

I notice that pilots seem to train up more slowly than ships' crews and the hit isn’t always consistent. For example, pilot experience in a FS doesn’t always jump much after a dogfight or two, sometimes fatigue will kick in big time, other times there’s hardly a hit at all, meanwhile fatigue spikes up quite rapidly for crews flying CAP as a rule, though for some reason other FS flying CAP don’t fatigue much at all. Also, a setting for CAP duty at night doesn’t seem to fatigue pilots very much.

Fatigue accumulated for milk runs is a joke. It strikes me as entirely too high and varies a lot from one crew to the next flying the same model of airplane to and from the same airbases. All these versions of corrections to the simulation and that’s still in there? Or do we speak to a “correction” of something post release perceived to have been even worse before?

Meanwhile, navy crews have no fatigue level at all, and experience for ships’ crews in a TF on a bombardment mission, assuming it meets some kind of surface resistance at the DH, will jump from, say, a night experience rating of 40 to 60 or even close to 70 (I believe the highest I've seen is 80 on the nose). So, going into the bombardment mission a ship might be 72/38 (day/night), afterward (assuming a battle) 72/68. That's common.

I don’t see a similar jump for SC crews after tussling with a sub in the harbor, or for CV crews after an air battle.

Frankly, I see little rhyme or reason to how fatigue and experience is handled. There must be a whale of a randomization scheme at work inside there to arrive at some of the results I’ve noticed.

Mostly, though, I notice there is seemingly no distinction drawn in UV between the fatigue a pilot accumulates on a milk run versus that accumulated in combat. Indeed, long milk runs often result in much higher fatigue than any number of rounds of combat. To put a finer point on this, there’s no distinction for winning or losing a combat in terms of morale as far as I can see—seems to be wedded directly to fatigue, but that’s it.

Tell me, Mogami, how does any of that make good sense? Has it always been that way, or is this yet another detail players have asked to be changed on the boards over time? (It's silly either way, I'm just curious.)

Point is, the system doesn't really reflect war dynamics. Ever been to war? Isn’t there a difference between fatigue in the field and fatigue running around the drill field? There are way too many broad assumptions being made in this model and then applied universally, with consistency not always easy to find from one area of the model to the next.

Can you see that?

The allied player can lose enough pilots to where his replacements are poor quaility. (And the Japanese player can always recieve good replacements provided he does not lose too many)
Nothing is designed for "Balance" Poor players will always have poor results. Good players will have good results. But you have to understand certain measures must be maintained to achieve this.

All I hear is that "you must learn how to play this game," which is a far cry from "this simulation is accurate." You ignore my arguments mainly and talk about other things entirely.

My argument is: UV is not an accurate simulation. It gives too many wholly unrealistic results. Fun game? I think so, at least I’ve enjoyed my time with it thus far. But it's a weak model of its subject.

It might be fair argument to come back to me with: well, it isn't easy to get this stuff right, and with that I'd probably agree, though I think Gary could do better if he (and the people helping him) was of a mind.

Tristanjohn wrote: All I hear is that "you must learn how to play this game," which is a far cry from "this simulation is accurate." You ignore my arguments mainly and talk about other things entirely.

So how does one make a sound judgement on the value of the game's historicity without knowing how to play it?

Mogami wrote:To Midway or not Midway

In my opinion Allies who wish for a Midway scenario should play the scenario that begins in Aug 42. Asking for a May start and Midway is really taking advantage of the Japanese player.

If in May you know Midway will occur you can begin setting up Watchtower. Also you can fight Coral Sea aggressivly. (If you sink or damage Shokaku or Zuikaku or both you have the campaign won If you lose it only slows you down a bit.)

I understand why players ask for this and that. If the company didn't provide these scenarios players would dream them up withy the provided editor. All well and good . . . as far as it goes.

But I'm not here to discuss that. Why do you keep bringing this stuff up?

Tristanjohn, I've just read through the post and I'm not clear on where you feel the UV engine deviates from history...you point out that Japanese air power is too strong, but could you give an example of how you see that manifesting itself in the game?
I think the reason the people point out that certain scenarios, such as the Guadalcanal/Midway happens scenario, is that if you play those you will see the balance much more in favor of the Allies at the beginning because the Japanese will not have accelerated reinforcements, higher replacement rates, etc. To take one of the hypothetical scenarios such as 17 or 19 and compare them to history is going to naturally give you abstracted results due to the nature of the scenario and it's intent to offer playability of historical accuracy.

If, on the other hand, you pointed out that Zeros were dominating Wildcats much more strongly than they should have, and showed us some examples...that sort of thing would help clarify what you think is unbalanced. I've been on these forums since UV was in it's beta stage of development and I've heard people argue one side or the other is unbalanced since the game has been released. Often it is a result of the players doing things their historic counterparts wouldn't have done, altered OOBs, or other player created factors. I've played Japan and the US, vs the AI and PBEM, and I personally dont see the Japanese as being overpowered unless it is a no-Midway scenario. Like I said, there is no point in complaining about the historical accuracy of a scenario that is not intended to be historically accurate.

Tristanjohn wrote:Point is, the system doesn't really reflect war dynamics. Ever been to war?.

This has gotten to be a bit shrill for my taste. I have read this thread over and over, and what I mostly see from you is conclusory statements based on what you assert to be, but do not demonstrate as, actual experience with the game.

Many's the time in the early me-against-the-AI going I felt frustrated because of things I thought to be faulty in the "system." Most frequently, I found that further playing (particularly against human opponents) showed me a way of understanding and reacting that was within the bounds of what I would call "simulation of a historical context." Matrix/2by3 have owned up to shortcomings and done their best to improveme and embellish to keep us satisfied. Our suggestions have been welcome and acted on with due deference and professionalism.

It's a game, fer chrissake.

I suggest that you play more, talk less, and cite outside sources not at all. Matrix, after consideration and deference to the ideas of those who buy and play, has given you a historically simulated position to assume and an identifiable command mission to accomplish. Assume it and accomplish it with what you have at hand, both in terms of materiel and situation. If the game disappoints you on those terms, go find a better one. It is far too late now to clamor for revolutionary re-design.

And one more thing. Mogami has shown you courtesy far beyond the call of duty. I respect him as being one of the driving forces behind what has made the UV system great. His time is lavished on our comments and piddling complaints in these forums. He devotes his talents gratis to explication and improvement of an already excellent game system.

Count him as one of my heroes. I hope that you can come to regard him as one of yours. He is deserving (even though I like to verbally twist his teat from time to time).

Count him as one of my heroes. I hope that you can come to regard him as one of yours.

Are you in jest? No, I guess you're not, are you?

Tristanjohn, I've just read through the post and I'm not clear on where you feel the UV engine deviates from history...you point out that Japanese air power is too strong, but could you give an example of how you see that manifesting itself in the game?

Read it again, this time for comprehension.

Brother.

Tristanjohn, I've just read through the post and I'm not clear on where you feel the UV engine deviates from history...you point out that Japanese air power is too strong, but could you give an example of how you see that manifesting itself in the game?

Read it again, this time for comprehension.

Brother.

Tristanjohn, I've just read through the post and I'm not clear on where you feel the UV engine deviates from history...you point out that Japanese air power is too strong, but could you give an example of how you see that manifesting itself in the game?

Read it again, this time for comprehension.

Brother.

If, on the other hand, you pointed out that Zeros were dominating Wildcats much more strongly than they should have, and showed us some examples...that sort of thing would help clarify what you think is unbalanced. I've been on these forums since UV was in it's beta stage of development and I've heard people argue one side or the other is unbalanced since the game has been released. Often it is a result of the players doing things their historic counterparts wouldn't have done, altered OOBs, or other player created factors. I've played Japan and the US, vs the AI and PBEM, and I personally dont see the Japanese as being overpowered unless it is a no-Midway scenario. Like I said, there is no point in complaining about the historical accuracy of a scenario that is not intended to be historically accurate.

Let me try it this way.

I have pointed out examples from play. You either haven't read them or haven't read them carefully enough or something. It could be you just don't have much interest in my message. It happens.

Wildcats versus Zeroes? What kind of score do you get in your games? Is it historical? In my games it has not been.

Moving right along: bottom line is Japanese CV TFs do a lot more damage to USN CV TFs than the reverse. That isn't historical either, though suggested strongly from most everything else I've seen.

There's irony here. In my first PBEM I had a result, against a good and experienced player, that closely matched that of the Coral Sea. I remember telling myself, "Boy, this is great!"

Then I found out, from my PBEM opponent, that he'd screwed up and forgot to put CAP over his carriers, which is why my planes blew right in and recorded a couple or three of bomb hits on Zuikaku.

At the time I do remember wondering, "Boy, that Japanese flak sure is effective today against my dive bombers--they're dropping like flies!"

Well, the result of that battle was both of my carriers sunk, one of his was sunk, but I shrugged and thought, "I can afford that, in fact it's to my advantage in the long run."

Well, that was the last hit of any kind my carriers recorded on one of his carriers. Indeed, the only other hit I got on one of his flattops was from an airfield on Rennel by a P-39 later in the game, and all that did was put one of CVLs just barely enough into the red to keep it from launching planes for a turn or two.

By that time it was a slaughter. Score? Six of my carriers had been sunk, only one of his (poor Zuikaku), and that only due to a silly mistake on my opponent's part.

Since then I've engaged in three other games, and I've learned (painfully and oh so slowly--must be a slow learner) not to engage Japanese carriers in anything like an even fight with my USN stuff. Because it's suicide.

Now maybe none of that bothers you, maybe all of that sounds perfectly plausible based on your familiarity with World War II history in the Pacific. Speaking only for myself, that bothers me a lot and for what it's worth isn't even remotely close to what actually happened in the Pacific. It is, in a word, unrealistic.

Be that as it may, please go back and try to read what I've taken great trouble to write clearly for better meaning. You might learn something, but I don't know. If not, no biggie. For like the man says, "It's only a game for chrissakes."

And you know, he's probably right at that. It sure isn't a convincing simulation.

bilbow wrote:So how does one make a sound judgement on the value of the game's historicity without knowing how to play it?

I think I do know how to play the game. But that wasn't what I was driving at.

From what I gather many players approach this game as just that, a game. I, on the other hand, approach it as a simulation. So, while it's possible to get very good at playing the game and win a lot of games and . . . you know, become the top Tanaka wannabe on the Matrix boards . . . that doesn't mean that this game is an accurate simulation of its subject.

Tristanjohn,

Your post is too long for me to reply directly in detail. So I decided to take up your challenge and run a few test to demonstrate my point instead. I will however try to go back and answer some of your more direct questions as best I can.

Now I know you do not hold these AAR's in high regard, but I assure you I did NOT edit it and really cant imagine to what purpose anyone would do so. You can take it for what you like.


The Scenerio is the historical #7 "The Turning Tide" (Aug.1 to Dec.31 42)
AI set on "Historical"
Ship commitment at 100%

Situation: Japanese counterstrike of the landing at Lunga useing "HISTORICAL" OOB.



AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/08/42

Weather: Partly Cloudy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 38,37


Allied aircraft
SBD Dauntless x 59
TBF Avenger x 12


no losses

Japanese Ships
CA Kinugasa, Bomb hits 7, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 38,37


Allied aircraft
SBD Dauntless x 30
TBF Avenger x 10


no losses

Japanese Ships
CA Kinugasa, on fire, heavy damage


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 17
G4M1 Betty x 12

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 16

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 damaged

PO2 R.Nakajima of F1/Tainan Daitai is credited with kill number 2

Allied Ships
APD McKean
AP President Hayes

Attacking Level Bombers:
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 3

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty x 1 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 2 damaged


Allied Ships
CLAA San Juan

Attacking Level Bombers:
2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 38,37


Allied aircraft
SBD Dauntless x 83
TBF Avenger x 22


no losses

Japanese Ships
CA Kinugasa, on fire, heavy damage


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 23
G4M1 Betty x 7

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 6 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 damaged

ENS T.Townsend of VF-71 is credited with kill number 2

Allied Ships
DMS Trevor
AP Zeilin, Torpedo hits 1, on fire


Allied ground losses:
Men lost 11

Attacking Level Bombers:
1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I want to stress that I used the HISTORICAL oob and settings.

I have to tell you I ran this test 4 times and never got more than 3 ships hit and never got more than 1 ship sunk. Where are the super zeros sweeping the skies? Where a the uber Bettys laying waste to TFs?

I am not saying that if I ran this test 1000 or even 100 times that I wouldnt get any unhistorical skewd results, but I do not feel getting occassional unhistorical results is any indication of a broken system.

Please, I invite anyone else to duplicate this test. I did noting special. Simply loaded up the historical invasion force and sent it to Lunga. I kept all the TFs in there historical groupings and provided LRCAP from single CV well rested high morale airgroup to approximate the actual historical CAP over the invasion force on Aug 8, 1942.

TIMJOT wrote:Tristanjohn,

Your post is too long for me to reply directly in detail. So I decided to take up your challenge and run a few test to demonstrate my point instead. I will however try to go back and answer some of your more direct questions as best I can.

Now I know you do not hold these AAR's in high regard, but I assure you I did NOT edit it and really cant imagine to what purpose anyone would do so. You can take it for what you like.

Thanks for the effort, TIMJOT. Appreciate it. You're good people in my book.

I wouldn't accuse anyone of doctoring stuff. I'm not here to castigate anyone, just get at the core of the model.

As for the result: the one item which jumped out at me was the torpedo hit on that IJN CA. I haven't mentioned it thus far, but I've also seen during the course of my play entirely too many USN torpedoes delivered by planes hit Japanese hulls. More than one or two would be "too many" by my book and I've seen plenty more than one or two. Just curious, have you also seen this?

I'd have to know what sort of test flak those Japanese planes ran into. The AAR indicates, for example, that CLAA San Juan was on the scene. But that ship was part of TG 62.4 (Yoke) and would have been over (probably) on the Tulagi side of the channel. How much flak support it might have given to the TF in Lunga Roads is unknown by me (maybe you have a source for that handy). It must have gotten up some flak, but how much? How effective was it?

You can see what I'm driving at. Yes?

I'll try to work up another test of the same Lunga scenario and see what results I get this time.

Meanwhile, keep the faith.

Tristanjohn wrote:Ito play Japan.


Moving right along: what's your point re whether or not I play the Japanese side or not? That somehow I don't "get it" or can't "see" what's actually going on in the system?
[more]

All I meant was that some of your statements regarding Japanese greatly enhanced superiority vis a vis the aircombat model sound as if one might be relying on FOW impaired combat reports to form conclusions.

Mogami wrote:Thats why player like the non Midway scenarios. They don't want the 600 turns being decided by an off map event. The Japanese are in vastly different situations in May 42 and Aug 42. An Allied player in May 42 knowing Midway is going to occur has a huge advantage over the Japanese player. (The Japanese player still has all their problems only without any hope of being able to alter the course. He wi never have sufficent force and he certainly does not have justifaction for commencing offensive operations.)

As for off-map events: these scenarios seem to imagine that the Japanese and Americans can afford to commit all of their CV resources to the South Pacific. The result is a completely ahistoric setting where the small map can hardly accommodate the assets in theater.

In real life, Midway (bungled, by the way, and not a good plan even on paper to begin with--typically Japanese for this period, though) was thought to be a logical extension of Japanese pre-war goals. Japan wanted to keep America as far from Indo-China as possible, and if it could be isolated from Australia/New Zealand as well so much the better. Also, the Japanese were always looking to whip the Americans in a gigantic battle at sea, with the thought there falling neatly in line with the overall war aim, of course.

So Midway was on the cards. If it hadn't been Midway than Yamamoto would have schemed something else. He always wanted to defeat the USN in a large (and hopefully conclusive) battle, for he knew it wouldn't take America long to gear up for war on a scale that the idiots in the Japanese Army couldn't (or didn't want to) conceive.

And that's as far as I care to take Midway. The Japanese were beaten at their own game and at a time and setting of their own choosing. Not just "beaten," but crushed. I don't know more than the next fellow, but I'd guess if it hadn't happened at Midway it would have happened somewhere else. A couple of carriers would have likely been squandered on another "ruse" (Yamamoto reverted to this gambit more than once, and it never worked) and the the grand Japanese designs would have been busted just the same as in actual history. Japan wasn't fighting the Netherlands here any longer, or Australia, it was fighting America, and we had both the resources and the manpower to win that fight. In spades.

The UV simulation doesn't see it that way.

Mogami wrote:The non Midway scenarios place the allied player at no disadvantage. In May they did not know they were going to win Midway. It's up to the player to win a like battle (and he is given the forces to do so.)However unless he does win a Midway he is not entitled to an offensive.

Of course these scenarios put the Allies at a disadvantage. The air system is already tilted in favor of the Japanese, and the more CV assets allocated to them the greater their advantage becomes. Meanwhile, the Allies just sit back in Washington and do nothing very much to reinforce the South Pacific, and there goes Australia and New Zealand, maybe.

Well, it wouldn't be so gloomy if American air assets were modeled historically, but of course they are not. There's no 2:1 kill ration for the Allies in UV so the Japanese can, given careful play, run relatively wild (compared to how they fought in the actual war).

I agree that "Hard Road Ahead" is the best historical scenario. The Japanese are given a lot of work due to their historic neglect at developing the Solomons faster, though it isn't clear to me Japan had the resources to do much more than it did in that regard.

Mogami wrote:I tried to address the pilot issue. The pilots are not the reason the allies lose air battles early. (nor even the aircraft) There are plently of players who as the allies gain air superioty without P-38 or other newer aircraft. There are player who control the air quite early in the game. (or at least do not suffer from super Japanese) Then again there are allied player who never gain control of the air even after they have the newer aircraft. The player who manages his assets well will not have the problems you say are built into the system.

I wish you would stop talking down to me. It's getting old.

Your assumption that I might run my air force into the ground and grossly mismanage my ships and anything else you'd care to mention may or may not be valid. All I know is that this model gives ahistoric results time after time after time.

Example: idiotic AI flies five successive small flights of Bettys (which he's worn out and had shot up after awhile) to Gili Gili. The escort on the first turn is 40 Zeroes, then 35 and so on as losses to flak and CAP mount. Always just a few Bettys, though, say, 3-6 . Five turns in a row.

My CAP is an assortment of of Wildcats (flown off one my carriers to the south) and going on 70 P-400s and P-39s and even some Whirraways in one of the battles if I recall.

My crews are fairly rested (no fatigue above 25, most of them down in single-digit range to begin with; one group, the Wildcats, had the worst, that 25 I mentioned, from its milk run into Gili Gili off its carrier--dumb fatigue rules) with okay to very good morale (70s range on average, my Wildcats were at 99) all set to patrol at 10,000 and 8,000 feet (this because the Bettys are always sent in at 6,000 feet by the AI) and I didn't wish to tax my bad fighters at high altitude but wanted to ensure all were above the bombers.

In port is a transport TF of four or five tankers unloading fuel, so it takes a few turns.

Result? Three out five turns the Bettys score torpedo hits (three hits out of three Bettys one turn!), on one turn they score a lone port hit, the other turn they hit nothing a tall. Each and every turn all of the Bettys are damaged, on one turn a couple are destroyed and like that. In all maybe three Zeroes bite it while a slough of my planes are shot down. (Indeed, I lost in all six Wildcats.) The escorting Zeroes don't stay at 40, though, as that number continues to drop with each successive raid, until it finally hits a nadir of 16 (versus 47 CAP) and still one Betty gets through on that last raid and scores a torpedo hit.

That, in my experience, is typical of what this system offers.

That doesn't make any good sense, Mogami. And it adds up over time, sometimes very fast when the Bettys are "on."

The results from Grigsby's games I've played seem to be "averaged," with maybe some random numbers at work with those experience ratings and such, and then, apparently, some kind of stop to the routines whereby at least a few (a percentage at bottom I'd guess) of the attacking aircraft will "slip through" the CAP and flak net and make their bomb or torpedo runs. As a rule. There are always exceptions.

Yes, it works the same for the Allies in general, but in their case the likely result is no hits at all. I've seen that many times, even after thirty or forty dive bombers have "slipped through" Japanese CAP and flak.

You tell me: how is it likely that some 30 or 40 USN Dauntless pilots should attack a Japanese CV TF (I'm talking about the ones who actually slip by the CAP) and score no hits? Why is it that American planes take more casualties to Japanese flak than Japanese planes take to USN flak? Was Japanese flak better? Were Japanese planes better built? Because that's what's happening in the game.

Give the same numbers at work on attack with Japanese pilots and planes and the result on USN CVs will likely be devastating. Within my experience, always. You seem to be playing a different game.

Yet you tell me there are no problems with this system. None whatsoever. Everything's great, it's dead on accurate.

As for what you see in your PBEM games: no doubt all of your opponents are crackerjack players, and at least one of the forum people idolizes you as I found out recently. Well, one of my PBEM opponents is pretty crackerjack himself in play, and while I admit he doesn't, to my knowledge, idolize you, nevertheless this person by and large sees the same problems I do. He also tells me that complaining on this board won't do a whole lot of good.

Well, I'm here in any event, trying my best. But I have to tell you: so far his counsel's been right on.

Tristanjohn wrote:[cont'd] 2 of 5




I don't think the Japanese Bettys were limited in any manner, shape or form off Lunga Point. They enjoyed plenty of flight space and made their east-west runs (after circling round the north side of Florida Island) as they normally would have. A different approach might have served them better--no attempt was made to employ the "anvil" tactic, thus playing directly into the hands of Turner's countertactic of having his transports react to these runs with simultaneous turns (to keep the course of the ships parallel to the torpedo tracks--that isn't for your edification, TIMJOT, but others who might not understand everything we discuss).

[more]

Limited in that I do not believe they could have employed the anvil and hammer tactic at lunga roads. With the Guadacanal land mass directly south the Bettys were pretty much limited the north attack approach.

I agree Turner personally played a pivotal role. So why would you expect this to reflected regularly in the game. Not all commanders are going to be as talented or prepared.

I would not expect Lunga 8-9/42 results to be repeated at every Betty/Nell vs TF encounter anymore than I would expect a Tassffronga at every night IJN DDs vs USN CA,CL,DD ecounter.

Tristanjohn wrote:Thanks for the effort, TIMJOT. Appreciate it. You're good people in my book.

I wouldn't accuse anyone of doctoring stuff. I'm not here to castigate anyone, just get at the core of the model.

As for the result: the one item which jumped out at me was the torpedo hit on that IJN CA. I haven't mentioned it thus far, but I've also seen during the course of my play entirely too many USN torpedoes delivered by planes hit Japanese hulls. More than one or two would be "too many" by my book and I've seen plenty more than one or two. Just curious, have also seen this?

I'd have to know what sort of test flak those Japanese planes ran into. The AAR indicates, for example, that CLAA San Juan was on the scene. But that ship was part of TG 62.4 (Yoke) and would have been over (probably) on the Tulagi side of the channel. How much flak support it might have given to the TF in Lunga Roads is unknown by me (maybe you have a source for that handy). It must have gotten up some flak, but how much? How effective was it?

You can see what I'm driving at. Yes?

I'll try to work up another test of the same Lunga scenario and see what results I get this time.

Meanwhile, keep the faith.

Well regarding the torp hit on the IJN CA, that was about all there was left of Mikawa's force after being caught by the covering USN TFs on the previous day. I take it that the AI Admiral did not ignore the B-17 sighting report There were actually many torp and bomb hits recorded that day, but didnt really pay attention because I was only interested in seeing what happened to the Lunga landings.

I grouped both the Transport TFs and all the Surface TFs together at Lunga for two reasons. One Since I was attempting to duplicate Lunga Roads on the 8/8, I didnt want the AI to unhistorically split the air attack between Lunga and Tuligi or attack the smaller Tuligi group while ingnoreing the Lunga force altogether. Second I wasnt positive which escort ships were still at Tuligi at the time of the attack. I positioned the CVs due south of GD as close as I could approximate to the historical position

I will try it again with the split TFs or simply drop the Tuligi force out all together.