Thats maybe the point. You played EOS whereas Okami and myself were playing CVO. While the PH strike losses are too high in CVO as well I guess they are compared to EOS overall lighter due to less (efficient) AA. Nut still heavier as with CHS/stock. At least thats my feeling.
EOS is supposed to give Japan more of a chance - it has very little chance - by doing things as it should have done - in a techncial sense.
CVO and BBO are supposed to force you to use historical forces.
EOS starts almost the same as CVO - little new stuff is on line - and lessorns are not learned yet - so destoryes have as few as 1 or 2 guns per side - (light AA guns) - and it matters little if they are .30 cal - .50 cal or 25 mm - one or two is not enough to matter! EEO is more racial - and gives you a whole triple 25 mm per side when the war starts. Still inadequate.
I am wondering if the problem is not that AAA is too effective, but that aircraft durability is not high enough? The potentially over high casualty rates could be coming from the fact that aircraft that would have been damaged in real life are being destroyed in mod. Would a tweak upwards of durability with a proportionate tweak of related A2A values be worth a test?
This *might* be a good answer, but higher durability also means longer down-time to fix damaged units.[:(]
But surely that is better than the loss of precious experienced pilots that would probably have survived?
It is philosophical - and an error of history. Blame Adm Yamamoto in particular and Japanese thinking in general. Yamamoto used to develop IJN aircraft - and he CHOOSE to get range by not using armor. Japanese planes should be "too vulnerable" - and are compared to many Allied planes. Later in the war that changes - and range drops sharply.
Vanella test RHSCVO 7,7895 - no player modifications at all
but I did disable 240 .50 cals and 360 .30 cals in the 24th and 25th divisions - just in case
also the 8 inch CD train was disabled - it is not really manned when the war begins - and it also had
a few .50 cals
This does not look excessive
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/07/41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Singapore [UK] , at 22,51
Allied Ships
BB Nevada, Bomb hits 13, on fire
BB California, Bomb hits 18, on fire, heavy damage
BB Arizona, Bomb hits 9, on fire
BB West Virginia, Bomb hits 8, on fire, heavy damage
BB Oklahoma, Bomb hits 11, on fire
BB Maryland, Bomb hits 11, on fire, heavy damage
BB Tennessee, Bomb hits 10, on fire
BB Pennsylvania, Bomb hits 18, on fire, heavy damage
CL Raleigh, Bomb hits 1
DD Ward, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Farragut, Bomb hits 1
DD Patterson, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AS Pelias, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CL Honolulu, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AR Medusa, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DM Gamble, Bomb hits 1, on fire
Allied ground losses:
32 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
Interesting test el cid, how long would iot take for those divs to regain their AA weaponry?
In case PH gets pounded more than once this might become an issue for these players, but losseswise it looks certainly better than before for the initial strike.
If you gained knowledge through the forum, why not putting it into the AE wiki?
This is a vanella CVO with a special Enterprise TF of 5 ships - set to attack naval units North of Oahu when the war begins (but starting at historical Enterprise TF location)
it ends with a series of attacks on the KB - and before that KB runs in on PH -
again not excessive losses (but remember fighter combat is also involved here)
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/07/41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Singapore [UK] , at 22,51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Aparri/Tuguegarao , at 45,49
Japanese aircraft
Ki-15 II / C5M2 Babs x 1
No Japanese losses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Cebu [Cebu] , at 43,57
Japanese aircraft
A5M4 Claude x 16
B5M/B5N Kate x 18
No Japanese losses
Allied Ships
AP Van Diemen, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AK Dumaguete, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AK Governor Smith, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
Port supply hits 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Pearl Harbor [Oahu] , at 114,72
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zeke x 45
D3A2 Val x 126
B5M/B5N Kate x 126
Allied Ships
BB Pennsylvania, Bomb hits 5, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
BB West Virginia, Bomb hits 11, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CL Honolulu, Bomb hits 1, on fire
BB Nevada, Bomb hits 10, on fire
BB Tennessee, Bomb hits 15, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
BB California, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 2, heavy damage
AR Pyro, Bomb hits 1
BB Arizona, Bomb hits 16, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
AD Whitney, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CA San Francisco, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
BB Maryland, Bomb hits 14, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
BB Oklahoma, Bomb hits 12, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AR Rigel, Bomb hits 1
DD Allen, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Downes, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CL St. Louis, Bomb hits 2
DD Schley, Bomb hits 1, on fire
SS Narwhal, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AS Pelias, Bomb hits 1, on fire
Allied ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Guns lost 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island [USA] , at 85,72
Japanese aircraft
G3M2 Nell x 35
Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 3
No Japanese losses
Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat: 1 destroyed
Runway hits 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on ROCA 39th Field Army , at 47,36
Japanese aircraft
Ki-15 II / C5M2 Babs x 2
Ki-27/A5N2 Nate x 12
Ki-32/30 Mary/Ann x 6
No Japanese losses
Allied ground losses:
8 casualties reported
Aircraft Attacking:
3 x Ki-32/30 Mary/Ann bombing at 15000 feet
3 x Ki-32/30 Mary/Ann bombing at 15000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on ROCA 39th Field Army , at 47,36
Japanese aircraft
Ki-36 Ida x 9
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-36 Ida: 1 destroyed
Allied ground losses:
52 casualties reported
Guns lost 3
Aircraft Attacking:
3 x Ki-32/30 Mary/Ann bombing at 15000 feet
3 x Ki-32/30 Mary/Ann bombing at 15000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Pp Army 3/12th Battalion, at 45,49
Japanese aircraft
Ki-15 II / C5M2 Babs x 2
No Japanese losses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Shanghai [E China] at 52,39
Japanese aircraft
B5M/B5N Kate x 7
No Japanese losses
Allied Ships
PG Peterel, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B5M/B5N Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
4 x B5M/B5N Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wenchow [S China] , at 50,41
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zeke x 33
Ki-48-I Lily x 11
Ki-21-II Sally x 6
Japanese Ships
CV Zuikaku
BB Kirishima, Bomb hits 3, on fire
CV Hiryu, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CV Kaga, Bomb hits 5, on fire
CV Akagi, Bomb hits 2
CV Shokaku
CA Chikuma
BB Hiei
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 114,68
I am wondering if the problem is not that AAA is too effective, but that aircraft durability is not high enough? The potentially over high casualty rates could be coming from the fact that aircraft that would have been damaged in real life are being destroyed in mod. Would a tweak upwards of durability with a proportionate tweak of related A2A values be worth a test?
This is a difficult technical matter. We had to devise a durability system - no proper one was defined - and then "calibrate" it
and we did decide to apply a K (constant) of 2 to the basic algorithm because durability needed to be higher
Durability affects several things - one of them attrition - and we want it low so operational attrition is not too low - as it was - and to some degree remains
It is critical in air combat as well as AA combat
The right value is a compromise - as it is used in more than one way
But I think it is in the correct range - and with respect to attrition - maybe it should be lower - vice higher
Giving all TB/DB and FB pilots a death sentence is a very rough way of dealing with low operational attrition...
It also penalises the Allied player because he cannot replace his experienced pilot losses in the same way that the Japanese player can. I would rather live with too few planes being written off than losing precious pilots when I may not have done otherwise. I am guessing that most players would make the same trade.
To the extent operational losses are too low (it must be so because AE is fixing it)
you HAVE what you wish for - we cannot change it enough - and
once we got it close - we stopped trying.
My tests indicate that the charge of "death sentence" is not reasonable. It appears that AAA does not kill off Allied planes trying to penetrate the Japanese air defenses in 1941 - and that indeed fighters are more of a problem than AAA is. This is as I expected - because there is almost no light AAA in IJN in 1941 to shoot with. Nor are there very many high performance heavy AAA guns yet. Unless you play EEO you will not see many of the latter (EEO puts 100 and 76 mm in production in 1939) - and even in EEO I felt there were no "lessons learned" to justify numbers of even 25 mm (and the Bofors is not yet captured/copied either). So I limited the light AAA upgrade to a single mounting per side on a DD (for example) - instead of the HMG - or even MMG - you get in CVO.
I don't understand why - in the face of testing - you persist in the view there is a problem here: there is not. 5 early US carriers - with horrible air groups - managed to penetrate and deliver bombs on most of the KB. I grant the TBD failed - I set half its planes to search anyway feeling helping find the enemy was more likely to work than trying to penetrate - and the TBD probably should suffer its historical fate (see Torpedo 8).
Now IF you are talking about EOS family later in the war - remember they were designed to make a stronger Japan - that I am an anti-air warfare specialist - and that AAA is the second more powerful change I put in that family (after aircraft revisions). If you are talking about CVO/BBO families, later in the war - that is just history - and AAA became "the primary cause of loss due to enemy action" (which includes also fighter defenses and attacks on our airfields by aircraft or ships or land units). It is a big change from stock - but AAA was close to useless in stock - and indeed I have NOT been able to properly set up air warning (which NEVER was less than two hours in Japan - according to diplomats, prisoners and other witnesses). My AAA is not as effective as it should be in CVO/BBO - and in part the EOS model may be better simulation.
I must repeat this advice: watch your altitude. Horizontal bombers and dive bombers have some influence (total for horizontal, half for dive). Apparently torpedo bombers ignore what you set - if I understand the code as described by programmers - and indeed even sometimes swap bombs for torpedoes (1 in 6 when you attack ships in a port). But altitude settings for fighters acting as fighter bombers - dive bombers - horizontal bombers - all critically affect wether AAA even gets to shoot. If it does not shoot- it cannot hurt you.
I got different results from my test than you is why I persist. You are NOT always right and you rarely admit it when you are occasionally wrong. I love your work and I think you are the most driven and dedicated guy I have ever come across. I have no idea how you manage to fit sleep into the equation because you are always available to field these queries AND do the work of ten men on this mod. I really want everyone to be tempted to make use of this fantastic mod that you have produced. Even having been burned by it three times now, I am going back in for a fourth attempt. Hopefully we'll get a good long term game going and will be able to feed back results to you. You are right on the effectiveness of AAA and that I and others got too used to stock heights. It maybe that in a long term game you are proved right on the DB/TB/FB pilots having as good a chance of survival as IRL. I am open minded and willing to change my viewpoint. Often when you explain your reasoning it does make a lot of sense, but you do not always listen and you do not always explain. Thank you for taking the time to run a few tests. Please could you try to keep an open mind regarding the possibility that as AAA has become more effective and durability has dropped by a range of one third to two thirds depending on the aircraft, there maybe a problem here?
Edit - Sorry Sid I should have made it clear that my experience is of the first two weeks of EOS only (we have always been forced to restart after that so far...).
So here's the story. These are from two seperate games (two of the three restarts we've done). Flak is killing TBs DBs and I assume will kill FBs when they drop down to 2k for their attack runs (if I read the manual correctly).
The 1st image (KATES) was w/Suprise on on our 2nd game. Kates went after shipping and Vals went after the airbase. They started @ 15k (I normally run my vals/kates @ 9k in CHS).
The 2nd image (VALS) was with suprise off with Vals set for Port Atk and Kates set at Naval Atk/Port Atk in our third game. These also came in @ 15k.
It looks to me like AAA is going to be a death sentence for TB, DB, and FB. They have to go thru flak twice. And that last time @ 2k is probably the main killer. From what I can tell, having Suprise on or off doesn't make any difference in the flak losses but it does make a difference in how many allied aircraft can sortie on the 1st turn.
I just wanted to toss out a little visual data to show that GoodBoyLaddie is not tryint to blow smoke up anyone's tail pipe.
I think the AAA is too strong - but I'm not the one doing the mod. I don't think the air losses resemble anything like what was experienced in WW II.
This is intended as feed back from a player - please don't read into this any negative criticism.
v6 WITP editor has been extracted into the WITP folder - I can't seem to figure out how to access the editor (no icon present?) Double clicking on v6 application only installs it. I know that I am missing something here; not sure what. Thanks for the help.
Mac
If you want to read a scenario file in an editor, just start the editor and load the scenario you want to read. Otherwise I don't understand the query.
I got different results from my test than you is why I persist. You are NOT always right and you rarely admit it when you are occasionally wrong. I love your work and I think you are the most driven and dedicated guy I have ever come across. I have no idea how you manage to fit sleep into the equation because you are always available to field these queries AND do the work of ten men on this mod. I really want everyone to be tempted to make use of this fantastic mod that you have produced. Even having been burned by it three times now, I am going back in for a fourth attempt. Hopefully we'll get a good long term game going and will be able to feed back results to you. You are right on the effectiveness of AAA and that I and others got too used to stock heights. It maybe that in a long term game you are proved right on the DB/TB/FB pilots having as good a chance of survival as IRL. I am open minded and willing to change my viewpoint. Often when you explain your reasoning it does make a lot of sense, but you do not always listen and you do not always explain. Thank you for taking the time to run a few tests. Please could you try to keep an open mind regarding the possibility that as AAA has become more effective and durability has dropped by a range of one third to two thirds depending on the aircraft, there maybe a problem here?
Edit - Sorry Sid I should have made it clear that my experience is of the first two weeks of EOS only (we have always been forced to restart after that so far...).
Well - that was my impression - so I ran tests at game start. I poted the results above (partial - therei were more attacks - but PH and Clark were in the posted portions - and that was my standard - because we have such good data for them we know what history says).
I ran a separate test for carriers at sea - turning Halsey's Enterprise TG into a 5 carrier task force - and ordering it into an ideal attack position north of Oahu. Dumb AI does not let KB attack it - but this TF - outnumbered in carriers and in the air - launched round after round of atir stikes - and faced half the fighters of six carriers. Still - every strike penetrated, every strike hit capital ships- and fighters combined with AAA were not up to the challenge - never mind the attackers were F4F3 TBD and SBD 3 - Buffalos and other obsolescent creatures. It is clear - attacks on PH, KB and Clark on the first day of the war do not involve excessive losses for either side.
I got different results from my test than you is why I persist. You are NOT always right and you rarely admit it when you are occasionally wrong. I love your work and I think you are the most driven and dedicated guy I have ever come across. I have no idea how you manage to fit sleep into the equation because you are always available to field these queries AND do the work of ten men on this mod. I really want everyone to be tempted to make use of this fantastic mod that you have produced. Even having been burned by it three times now, I am going back in for a fourth attempt. Hopefully we'll get a good long term game going and will be able to feed back results to you. You are right on the effectiveness of AAA and that I and others got too used to stock heights. It maybe that in a long term game you are proved right on the DB/TB/FB pilots having as good a chance of survival as IRL. I am open minded and willing to change my viewpoint. Often when you explain your reasoning it does make a lot of sense, but you do not always listen and you do not always explain. Thank you for taking the time to run a few tests. Please could you try to keep an open mind regarding the possibility that as AAA has become more effective and durability has dropped by a range of one third to two thirds depending on the aircraft, there maybe a problem here?
Edit - Sorry Sid I should have made it clear that my experience is of the first two weeks of EOS only (we have always been forced to restart after that so far...).
Well - that was my impression - so I ran tests at game start. I poted the results above (partial - therei were more attacks - but PH and Clark were in the posted portions - and that was my standard - because we have such good data for them we know what history says).
I ran a separate test for carriers at sea - turning Halsey's Enterprise TG into a 5 carrier task force - and ordering it into an ideal attack position north of Oahu. Dumb AI does not let KB attack it - but this TF - outnumbered in carriers and in the air - launched round after round of atir stikes - and faced half the fighters of six carriers. Still - every strike penetrated, every strike hit capital ships- and fighters combined with AAA were not up to the challenge - never mind the attackers were F4F3 TBD and SBD 3 - Buffalos and other obsolescent creatures. It is clear - attacks on PH, KB and Clark on the first day of the war do not involve excessive losses for either side.
You seem only to have taken regard of elements of my post. What about the bits now highlighted in red?
So here's the story. These are from two seperate games (two of the three restarts we've done). Flak is killing TBs DBs and I assume will kill FBs when they drop down to 2k for their attack runs (if I read the manual correctly).
The 1st image (KATES) was w/Suprise on on our 2nd game. Kates went after shipping and Vals went after the airbase. They started @ 15k (I normally run my vals/kates @ 9k in CHS).
The 2nd image (VALS) was with suprise off with Vals set for Port Atk and Kates set at Naval Atk/Port Atk in our third game. These also came in @ 15k.
It looks to me like AAA is going to be a death sentence for TB, DB, and FB. They have to go thru flak twice. And that last time @ 2k is probably the main killer. From what I can tell, having Suprise on or off doesn't make any difference in the flak losses but it does make a difference in how many allied aircraft can sortie on the 1st turn.
I just wanted to toss out a little visual data to show that GoodBoyLaddie is not tryint to blow smoke up anyone's tail pipe.
I think the AAA is too strong - but I'm not the one doing the mod. I don't think the air losses resemble anything like what was experienced in WW II.
This is intended as feed back from a player - please don't read into this any negative criticism.
Thanks Mike. I had no illustrations from our tests.
