Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
My relationship with Murphy means that the ones that are seriously underproduced are the all important recon and search aircraft...

My relationship with Murphy seems to be : I thought was was doubly careful selecting which air groups to upgrade and which not to upgrade....and one tiny mistake in those orders always bites me in the arse [8D]

It seems to me that through 3 full games (and scenarios played) - every time I have CVs sitting a Pearl 'ripe for F5F upgrades' - just waiting in anticipation of a major mission - the AI mysteriously identifies "that one random" VRF group down in Canton Island (or some other back water base behind the current lines) to upgrade immediately on turn end. I parked them there months ago in support of Carrier forces working the SP needing a safe harbor to replenish and the AI never fails to immediately upgrade this first even if those VRFs were at full strength [:D]

Been burned by that random "maybe we'll decide not to produce anything today" effect as well.

The Americans have one squadron that can upgrade to the F4F3P recon aircraft.
The squadron has a size of 12 planes and a withdrawal date so there have to be 12 planes in the pool to implement the upgrade.
The scenario provides only one month of production of F4F3Ps at a rate of 12 planes per month.

One game I only received 11 planes that month and was NEVER able to use those air frames.

Pointed out on the forum that the scenario designer should have designed in a little fluff, say 13-14 per month, so in the odd game where you get burned by the randomizer you don't completely lose the use of the air frame type.

Turn off group upgrades. Control them manually....GP

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Been burned by that random "maybe we'll decide not to produce anything today" effect as well.

The Americans have one squadron that can upgrade to the F4F3P recon aircraft.
The squadron has a size of 12 planes and a withdrawal date so there have to be 12 planes in the pool to implement the upgrade.
The scenario provides only one month of production of F4F3Ps at a rate of 12 planes per month.

One game I only received 11 planes that month and was NEVER able to use those air frames.

Pointed out on the forum that the scenario designer should have designed in a little fluff, say 13-14 per month, so in the odd game where you get burned by the randomizer you don't completely lose the use of the air frame type.

For me in my present game it is the F4F-7. I only had 10 produced so neither squadron with F4F-3P aircraft can upgrade to the F4F-7. In a previous game it was the Aussie recon squadron that was never able to upgrade due to insufficient numbers of the next upgrade aircraft in the queue - and ended up with no aircraft whatsoever. Ever since then, I have insisted on PDU on. If the production algorithm is going to screw me out of an aircraft type I at least want to be able to upgrade to something else (somewhere down the line).

This can be fixed in the editor. Then it won't be a problem....GP

Sure it can, but not all prospective players are willing to play an edited scenario. I accept the fact that in two games running my Aussie recon squadron received zero F4 Lightning photo recon planes, but at least in this second game they will be able to upgrade to the Mosquito photo recon aircraft later in the war.

Endurance and Durability
What do these meanings on planes? What do they give and how to apply them?

ORIGINAL: Edward75
Endurance and Durability
What do these meanings on planes? What do they give and how to apply them?

Endurance is usually correlated with range and max time airborne. Important for observation missions like ASW/Search etc I guess.
Durability is airframe toughness against incoming damage. Hitpoints would be a close analogy. Bombers against AA, fighters against bomber fire, generally withstanding punishment e.t.c

One thing about endurance that makes it important: if you are sending LRCAP to cover something, endurance is what affects staying on station. If you send the LRCAP to its maximum normal range, it will have little time to loiter and protect whatever it was supposed to. If you send it less than normal range you get some time for the aircraft to loiter.

One thing about endurance that makes it important: if you are sending LRCAP to cover something, endurance is what affects staying on station.

Is it possible to calculate and envisage this, any way?

ORIGINAL: Edward75

One thing about endurance that makes it important: if you are sending LRCAP to cover something, endurance is what affects staying on station.

Is it possible to calculate and envisage this, any way?

Take a step back so you can see the forest.

You're far too focused on the trees.

One of the hallmarks of all Gary Grigsby games is the high degree of variability built into every interaction.

This makes it impossible to calculate exact outcomes and was done purposely.

This is a big part of what makes this game so appealing.

You will never be able to calculate exactly how much more effective a given fighter with higher endurance than another will perform. Following the rule of thumb that a fighter with higher endurance will perform better is all the 'guidance' a commander needs, or should need.

That is the problem! It is impossible to foresee or calculate anything. You never know if an escort will fly with your bombers. You never know Will your scouts detect enemy ships.
Each turn is like a game of "Russian roulette". I Houpe you know the meaning of this expression!)

ORIGINAL: Edward75

That is the problem! It is impossible to foresee or calculate anything. You never know if an escort will fly with your bombers. You never know Will your scouts detect enemy ships.
Each turn is like a game of "Russian roulette". I Houpe you know the meaning of this expression!)

Yes indeed I do. That IS what makes this game so great.

As a theater commander SHOULD you be able to know exactly how many planes in a given squadron or how many squadrons in a group will fly a given mission?

Allowing the player to set parameters and issue orders while leaving the tactical implementation of the orders to the tactical AI is again what makes the game great.

Sounds to me like you would be happier playing a tactical game not a strategic/operational one.

ORIGINAL: Edward75
That is the problem! It is impossible to foresee or calculate anything. You never know if an escort will fly with your bombers. You never know Will your scouts detect enemy ships.
Each turn is like a game of "Russian roulette". I Houpe you know the meaning of this expression!)

That's what war looks like. Individual stuff is somewhat random and you are never safe from things going fubar. Yet, on the strategic scale the law of large numbers works, and good commandeering plus tech/numerical advantage would win you the war despite some unfortunate battles along the way

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Edward75

One thing about endurance that makes it important: if you are sending LRCAP to cover something, endurance is what affects staying on station.

Is it possible to calculate and envisage this, any way?

Take a step back so you can see the forest.

You're far too focused on the trees.

One of the hallmarks of all Gary Grigsby games is the high degree of variability built into every interaction.

This makes it impossible to calculate exact outcomes and was done purposely.

This is a big part of what makes this game so appealing.

You will never be able to calculate exactly how much more effective a given fighter with higher endurance than another will perform. Following the rule of thumb that a fighter with higher endurance will perform better is all the 'guidance' a commander needs, or should need.

+1

Another +1, If you want a guarantee, buy a toaster.

Okay, so I figure for this next question a reply of "figure it out for yourself" would probably be fair...

But I'm planning an invasion of the Marshall Islands...it is my first amphibious attack, and i'm prepping for 3 islands in one go. The concern i have is that there are a bunch of small airfields--if they are capable of launching torpedo bombers then this could be a very sad invasion (i'm not looking for hints on this part, i think i should be surprised here).

I have two questions:

1) isn't there a bombardment bonus for attacking atolls? I thought I read this somewhere, but it isn't in the manual.

2) what kind of guns is the minimum to hope to close an airfield? Does a CA, a CL, and a couple DDs have any hope on a level 4 airfield?

The second question is kind of the crux of the issue...I probably don't have the firepower to close everything in the area but i want to hit as much as possible. In real life, I think a CA, CL, and 2 DDs could close a small airfield on an atoll, but i'm not sure how this is modeled in the game.

ORIGINAL: brian800000

Okay, so I figure for this next question a reply of "figure it out for yourself" would probably be fair...

But I'm planning an invasion of the Marshall Islands...it is my first amphibious attack, and i'm prepping for 3 islands in one go. The concern i have is that there are a bunch of small airfields--if they are capable of launching torpedo bombers then this could be a very sad invasion (i'm not looking for hints on this part, i think i should be surprised here).

I have two questions:

1) isn't there a bombardment bonus for attacking atolls? I thought I read this somewhere, but it isn't in the manual.

2) what kind of guns is the minimum to hope to close an airfield? Does a CA, a CL, and a couple DDs have any hope on a level 4 airfield?

The second question is kind of the crux of the issue...I probably don't have the firepower to close everything in the area but i want to hit as much as possible. In real life, I think a CA, CL, and 2 DDs could close a small airfield on an atoll, but i'm not sure how this is modeled in the game.

You are being very ambitious - launching against 3 islands simultaneously [8D]

Your questions are somewhat self evident. If you lack sufficient Carrier / CVE Air CAP to protect all 3 "at once" invasions - then perhaps you should reconsider ?

To your specific questions:

1) BB / CA / CL / DD will all have some effect on Airfield depending upon 'range for bombardment' you set on the TF screen. The shorter the range you set - the more likely all guns will fire including AA for example. The closer the range you set - the more likely your ships can also be damaged by coastal Artillery for example ( if there is such a unit on the island you bombard).

It is not so much a 'bonus' you are seeking.

What you are seeking is sufficient Naval bombardment to not only damage the air strip and airbase supplies - but also outright destroy and damage a number of Airframes. Perhaps with the variables at play - you will be fortunate enough to 'bring down the air strike capability' for a turn or 2 or 3 ...

Answer - "bring enough" to do the job if you are worried about counter strikes. Further Nimitz (having learned from Tarawa) bombarded Roi and other islands for 'multiple days' - NOT just once [:D]

Many of the rookie gamers (myself included previously) see the wonderful results but over estimate the damage. Use history as your guide. Look up Wikipedia - and see "how much" Nimitz brought to the party [;)]

2) See above - bring enough

If you lack BB assets - then certainly you need CA / CL (a number) in the mix. DD will effect some damage as per your range settings - but the answer is "bring enough"

My question for you is do you have enough AK's and AP's? You don't want to use xAP's and xAK's as they unload to slow for atolls....GP

Oh, and what is the date?....GP