Matrix Games Forums

The whole idea is to test whether giving up AC capacity for armored decks is worth it. So adding Brit carriers to equalize air strength invalidates the test. Although it is interesting to see the results especially considering that the Brits are using only Torpedo AC and not DB.

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso



This is true, but the US carriers have a higher AC capacity than the IJN, no? Don't recall the actual plane counts, but it was something close to parity (esp. if you throw in the Midway aircraft). The IJN did have a couple of smaller carriers with the main force/Yamato/Yamamoto that didn't get into the fight.

Of course, you can decide to game it anyway you like. If you want to have a/c parity like the actual battle, maybe you should kick in a couple of more British CVs. Or put aircraft on Wake and have the IJN attack Wake first turn (as per the actual Midway battle).

ORIGINAL: Skyros

The whole idea is to test whether giving up AC capacity for armored decks is worth it. So adding Brit carriers to equalize air strength invalidates the test. Although it is interesting to see the results especially considering that the Brits are using only Torpedo AC and not DB.

*nod* I actually have thought for some time that the British carriers have had an unfairly poor rep - look at the bets before the results were posted, a sound thrashing for the British was expected.

I think expecting the British carriers to take on a superior number of Jap ones is unreasonable, I'm not arguing that they will be able to manage that. But I think that this has highlighted that, in certain conditions, the British carriers really are capable of fighting Japanese ones one on one and expect to inflict damage at a reasonable loss to their own, and that the outcome is not quite as clearcut as has been made out.

Admittedly Seafires were pretty key.

Thanks for making the effort EUB, your replay put recognizable facts for people to digest. Have you run it a number of times to see what other results may occur? That way we would know if this was an outlier result or more of an average result.

ORIGINAL: Skyros

Thanks for making the effort EUB, your replay put recognizable facts for people to digest. Have you run it a number of times to see what other results may occur? That way we would know if this was an outlier result or more of an average result.

I tried it several times, always pretty similar results. I have a save position two days prior to the engagement I was using, so its definitely freshly calculated combat results.

Andy Mac made a good point too, I didn't realise that the British ripped through their AA ammo so fast. That might be the reason for the Day 2 slaughter which always seemed to happen, even more so than the loss of the air wings.

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

But I think that this has highlighted that, in certain conditions, the British carriers really are capable of fighting Japanese ones one on one and expect to inflict damage at a reasonable loss to their own, and that the outcome is not quite as clearcut as has been made out.

I agree. And the battle had a clearly different character than IJN vs USN.

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I think expecting the British carriers to take on a superior number of Jap ones is unreasonable, I'm not arguing that they will be able to manage that.

I was just commenting on making an apples to apples comparison. 4 IJN vs 4 RN compares to 4 IJN vs 4 USN - in that situation the USN would have an advantage in planes instead of parity (as at Midway, with 4 IJN vs 3 USN).

I recently sent 2 British CVs plus Hermes out to fight Japanese LBA in a successful attempt to re-open the airfield at Akyab. The British CVs did pretty well and the Fulmars performed above my (admittedly low) expectation.

I don't look to the RN to win the war, but I am increasingly conviced of its value especially in the earlier part of the game.