Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

Pry--

I'm a detail freak myself, but I wonder, in most cases, how much more control are you really gaining by modeling individual squadrons, than you could have by simply dividing groups? I haven't had a chance to look at your scenarios yet (I will after finals are over), but this was a question that occurred to me.

ORIGINAL: pry

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

Pry--

I'm a detail freak myself, but I wonder, in most cases, how much more control are you really gaining by modeling individual squadrons, than you could have by simply dividing groups? I haven't had a chance to look at your scenarios yet (I will after finals are over), but this was a question that occurred to me.

And a good question at that, let me explain my thinking on this.. in the stock game we are VERY limited as to how many groups can be broken down due to the way the stock data base is laid out, you have less splits available after 1.5 the you had in 1.4, one side can hogg them all and you are out of luck.

Second, my thinking went along these lines and it happens to be the way I tested these so far, I generally leave 1/3rd on combat ops, 1/3rd resting and the last 1/3rd refitting and training. Right off the bat players will not be flying as many aircraft each turn so Op losses will decrease also due to a bad roll of the dice you will no longer lose whole groups in one engagement that can and does cripple you in a stock game so by adding more squadrons you will fly them less, this should allow the Japanese player to preserve their airforce in fighting shape longer than can possiby be done in the stock scenarios, (The Japanese airforce should start showing signs of degrading in 8-9/42 not 1/42 as happens now) this tends to protract operations and further slow things down.

The US bombed Rabaul for nearly two years to subdue that base, with 64 plane groups you can put it totally out of action in one turn... and keep it closed the big groups have too much firepower for me... you can do the same thing by massing smaller groups but the effect is spread out as each group makes it own roll.

Another plus is that it allows better dispersal of forces and does not over load the 30 AV support base forces by simply dumping a 64 or 72 plane group in a 30 AV support base and losing half of them to damage right away.

ORIGINAL: Banquet

Edit.. Pry, I have squadrons of P-38F's appearing on 9th Dec 41. Is that correct? I didn't think they went into production until early 42..

ORIGINAL: pry

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

Pry--

I'm a detail freak myself, but I wonder, in most cases, how much more control are you really gaining by modeling individual squadrons, than you could have by simply dividing groups? I haven't had a chance to look at your scenarios yet (I will after finals are over), but this was a question that occurred to me.

And a good question at that, let me explain my thinking on this.. in the stock game we are VERY limited as to how many groups can be broken down due to the way the stock data base is laid out, you have less splits available after 1.5 the you had in 1.4, one side can hogg them all and you are out of luck.

Second, my thinking went along these lines and it happens to be the way I tested these so far, I generally leave 1/3rd on combat ops, 1/3rd resting and the last 1/3rd refitting and training. Right off the bat players will not be flying as many aircraft each turn so Op losses will decrease also due to a bad roll of the dice you will no longer lose whole groups in one engagement that can and does cripple you in a stock game so by adding more squadrons you will fly them less, this should allow the Japanese player to preserve their airforce in fighting shape longer than can possiby be done in the stock scenarios, (The Japanese airforce should start showing signs of degrading in 8-9/42 not 1/42 as happens now) this tends to protract operations and further slow things down.

The US bombed Rabaul for nearly two years to subdue that base, with 64 plane groups you can put it totally out of action in one turn... and keep it closed the big groups have too much firepower for me... you can do the same thing by massing smaller groups but the effect is spread out as each group makes it own roll.

Another plus is that it allows better dispersal of forces and does not over load the 30 AV support base forces by simply dumping a 64 or 72 plane group in a 30 AV support base and losing half of them to damage right away.

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Pry, I tried installing this, and one file already was in my SCEN directory. It's wpa030.dat. I was kinda nervous about overwriting it, so I didn't copy it for the time being. What's up with this?

ORIGINAL: pry

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

Pry--

I'm a detail freak myself, but I wonder, in most cases, how much more control are you really gaining by modeling individual squadrons, than you could have by simply dividing groups? I haven't had a chance to look at your scenarios yet (I will after finals are over), but this was a question that occurred to me.

And a good question at that, let me explain my thinking on this.. in the stock game we are VERY limited as to how many groups can be broken down due to the way the stock data base is laid out, you have less splits available after 1.5 the you had in 1.4, one side can hogg them all and you are out of luck.

Second, my thinking went along these lines and it happens to be the way I tested these so far, I generally leave 1/3rd on combat ops, 1/3rd resting and the last 1/3rd refitting and training. Right off the bat players will not be flying as many aircraft each turn so Op losses will decrease also due to a bad roll of the dice you will no longer lose whole groups in one engagement that can and does cripple you in a stock game so by adding more squadrons you will fly them less, this should allow the Japanese player to preserve their airforce in fighting shape longer than can possiby be done in the stock scenarios, (The Japanese airforce should start showing signs of degrading in 8-9/42 not 1/42 as happens now) this tends to protract operations and further slow things down.

The US bombed Rabaul for nearly two years to subdue that base, with 64 plane groups you can put it totally out of action in one turn... and keep it closed the big groups have too much firepower for me... you can do the same thing by massing smaller groups but the effect is spread out as each group makes it own roll.

Another plus is that it allows better dispersal of forces and does not over load the 30 AV support base forces by simply dumping a 64 or 72 plane group in a 30 AV support base and losing half of them to damage right away.

ORIGINAL: pry

ORIGINAL: Banquet

Edit.. Pry, I have squadrons of P-38F's appearing on 9th Dec 41. Is that correct? I didn't think they went into production until early 42..

The scenario F version is actually a combination of all C, D, E and F versions produced I just called them all F versions to simplify things

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


It would be better still if squadrons themselves could be broken up, say, for fighters on CVs and recon squadrons. In that manner players would gain more practical operational control of at least some of their CV air assets. Fighters still wouldn't be able to perform ASW patrol, but that can't be helped now. They would now be able to be assigned more realistically to other duties, however, such as some planes of a fighter squadron assigned to CAP while others fly escort or sweep. For patrol squadrons, this change would allow players to assign part of a squadron to day search and another to night naval attack or whatever. That would give players more useful control in the game, so call it good detail. Better yet if CV bomber squadrons could also be split up.

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


It would be better still if squadrons themselves could be broken up, say, for fighters on CVs and recon squadrons. In that manner players would gain more practical operational control of at least some of their CV air assets. Fighters still wouldn't be able to perform ASW patrol, but that can't be helped now. They would now be able to be assigned more realistically to other duties, however, such as some planes of a fighter squadron assigned to CAP while others fly escort or sweep. For patrol squadrons, this change would allow players to assign part of a squadron to day search and another to night naval attack or whatever. That would give players more useful control in the game, so call it good detail. Better yet if CV bomber squadrons could also be split up.

Good idea, but isn't there a limit of five air units per CV?

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


It would be better still if squadrons themselves could be broken up, say, for fighters on CVs and recon squadrons. In that manner players would gain more practical operational control of at least some of their CV air assets. Fighters still wouldn't be able to perform ASW patrol, but that can't be helped now. They would now be able to be assigned more realistically to other duties, however, such as some planes of a fighter squadron assigned to CAP while others fly escort or sweep. For patrol squadrons, this change would allow players to assign part of a squadron to day search and another to night naval attack or whatever. That would give players more useful control in the game, so call it good detail. Better yet if CV bomber squadrons could also be split up.

Good idea, but isn't there a limit of five air units per CV?

Should it be the case that CVs can only have five air entities, though, then why couldn't a fighter squadron be divided up into three "sections"? That would give five, wouldn't it?

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX




Good idea, but isn't there a limit of five air units per CV?

Should it be the case that CVs can only have five air entities, though, then why couldn't a fighter squadron be divided up into three "sections"? That would give five, wouldn't it?

It depends on the rest of the air group. For British carriers, which frequently only carried two types, that might work (plus allow splitting of the torpedo squadron into two groups). For US early-war CVs, it would require merging the VB and VS squadrons into one large squadron, reducing bombing flexibility. Another issue; I think CVs need to have one squadron slot free in case they need to take aboard "orphans" from another carrier.

Can someone more knowledgeable please comment on this?

ORIGINAL: Banquet

So far I'm up to 18th Dec as US/Allies. The reduced capacity of transports seems to be working out well. I'm no expert on the oob for starting AK's, TK's, etc in this scenario compared to the original (I understand there are more transports) but even with the reduced load I'm finding I have enough vessels to supply my forces so far

I've noticed there has been no Japanese attempt to invade Wake, or rabaul as yet (can't remember when that started in the original scenario, but got a feeling I'd have got a sniff of it by now) Also, the invasion of Malaya, Borneo and the Philippines is going at a slower pace than normal against the AI.

An interesting game! I've played the first 2 months of the standard scenario so many times.. it's really refreshing to get a different feel to the early stages. I'm really enjoying it. Others that know a lot more than me about the whole PTO will no doubt have more meaningful comment [:)]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX


It depends on the rest of the air group. For British carriers, which frequently only carried two types, that might work (plus allow splitting of the torpedo squadron into two groups). For US early-war CVs, it would require merging the VB and VS squadrons into one large squadron, reducing bombing flexibility. Another issue; I think CVs need to have one squadron slot free in case they need to take aboard "orphans" from another carrier.

Can someone more knowledgeable please comment on this?

No it wouldn't. You start with three squadrons. Divide one squadron (fighters) into three sections and now you have five
groups of planes: three fighter "sections" and two bomber squadrons.

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Pry: I fired up scenario 32, and I'm enjoying it so far. I actually really like the small aircraft squadrons! A few questions and comments:

1. I see a whole bunch of Ki-44-IIb Tojos; e.g., at Canton, all over the place. These don't arrive til August 42, do they?

2. The scenario notes say no orders have been prepared, but I did find one TF formed up: the replenishment TF with KB. I assume that's as designed.

3. I am a bit surprised to see almost nothing garrisoning Hanoi or Haiphong. I gather you've already considered this.

4. By the same token, three divisions in Canton; didn't one of those participate in the Malaya operation historically? There are no transports at Canton to carry them away if so.

5. I love having 25 trained IJN pilots a month!

6. To my surprise, I also really like the division of aircraft into chutai. I thought it might be overwhelming, but it's not that big a deal, and there are big upsides. I'm one of those players who's always dividing air squadrons anyway, so this gives me what I want -- without costing me a "divided" slot. This might also lessen the danger of database errors caused by dividing squadrons, right? Is there room for all these new air units you've created? Do we still get a total of 18 slots for further division of stuff -- like ground units?

7. This may be more a comment about the stock game. I note that ground units do have marching orders already set. Invariably, regardless of what direction they're going, they say they're headed "East." Should the player change these orders? Here's one example:

I'm glad I could help with all those Tojos. There are a bunch of 'em. Again, this is scenario 32; I dunno if the others have the same problem