Oh, no carrier battles again

[pasternakski]

Mr.Frag, I have nothing but respect for you and your numbers. UV played as a numbers game without early combat very often comes out the way your analysis suggests.

I, however, am a gameplayer who fancies himself a difference maker. I am Admiral Torrey, not Admiral Broderick. Further, I have yet to be put in the position of being confronted by 11 Japanese CV/CVLs. My play in the early campaign, perhaps aided by luck, has always visited some attrition on the sons of the heathen gods of old Japan - human or artificial intelligence.

As Marion Morrison once said, "tell your statistics to shut up" (a quote borrowed by Jim Bouton).

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
pasternakski,

here are the EXACT numbers since you seem to have issues with my simple math.

USA:

Lexington = 36, 36, 15
Yorktown = 36, 36, 15
Enterprise = 36, 36, 15
Hornet = 36, 36, 15
Saratoga = 36, 36, 15
Wasp = 30, 36, 10

6 CVs = 210F, 216D, 85T

Japan:

Akagi = 24, 24, 24
Kaga = 27, 27, 27
Hiryu = 21, 21, 21
Soryu = 21, 21, 21
Shokaku = 24, 24, 24
Zuikaku = 24, 24, 24
Junyo = 17, 17, 17
Hiyo = 17, 17, 17
Ryujo = 22, 0, 14
Shoho = 18, 0, 12
Zuiho = 18, 0, 12

11 CV/CVL = 233F, 175D, 213T

So, we come once again back to simple math:

USA can place EXACTLY 216 Dive Bombers and 85 Torpedo Bombers against 11 Targets.

Japan can place EXACTLY 175 Dive Bombers and 213 Torpedo Bombers against 6 Targets.

The 210 USA Fighters cancel out the 233 Japan Fighters. USA AA advantage will negate the extra planes Japan has, bringing us right back to EXACTLY what I posted, 300 planes on target by each side. Want some more math lessons?

Now, as I stated, torpedoes are more effective at sinking ships the bombs for obvious reasons. This is somewhat mitigated by the USA use of larger bombs, but as you can see from the EXACT numbers of planes, Japan has a MUCH better chance of sticking multiple torpedoes into your CV then you have of sticking bombs through the deck all the way down to the waterline to cause the same desired goal of letting the water in

When you couple this with the higher number of planes concentrated on the target CV due to the USA having less CV's to target, you come to see exactly why UV playes the way it does and start thinking that it is a really good thing that Midway happened, putting all those Torpedo Bombers out of the picture.

It is not until the arrival of the true Fleet CV's that the USA in is a position to flaunt it's fleet at Japan when playing the non-Midway scenarios. It is rather silly to debate the facts as they clearly exist within the game. All you have to do is hit you I key and count for yourself. Scenario 17/19 are exactly the same in this respect except for some additional skilled pilots and a quicker replacement rate on Japan's side. It does not in any way change the above numbers.

The question seems to be:
Does it reflect reality?

[Mr.Frag]

The question seems to be:
Does it reflect reality?

Reality or History?

History is USA CV's sunk due to silly deployments. History is Midway.

Now, if you alter History as we do with scenario 17/19 in UV, the CV's perform exactly as they would have had they been available in our theater of war.

The problem is that most folks seem to be quite shocked when our altered reality turns out the way it does. Prior to the introduction of the Essex class of CV's and F6F/F1U aircraft, CV battles favour the Japan player. This is our altered reality simply because Japan HAS the CV's available. Some folks seem to have a tough time dealing with the fact that Japan has such power early on and fault the game engine as unrealistic. It is not the game engine to blame. It is simply the altered reality at play. The engine does a very nice job given the fact that Japan has these assets and does not unrealistically give the USA magic aircraft that shoot down 20+ aircraft each as was happening in the 2.20 patch level where 2 USA CV's could stand against 5 Japan CV's and take no hits. That as I am sure most of you will agree was extremely unrealistic. It takes time to unlearn bad behavour, which has prior to 2.30 been pretty much rewarded by USA CV actions.

Remember, the USA LOST CV's, a fair number of them! And that is Historical Reality even with Japan loosing most of their skilled pilots and CV's at Midway

Facing off against the full might of Japan (untouched by Midway) is something that the USA was not ready for. Yes, no one is going to debate that Japan was a lost cause, but the area covered by UV specifically is very sensitive to CV power projection, so the difference of 1 or 2 CVs in theater can be very dramatic.

It will be very interesting with WitP to see just how dramatic this is going to play out when we have full control to control our fate. I'm chomping at the bit for it :p

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
Reality or History?

History is USA CV's sunk due to silly deployments. History is Midway.

Now, if you alter History as we do with scenario 17/19 in UV, the CV's perform exactly as they would have had they been available in our theater of war.

The problem is that most folks seem to be quite shocked when our altered reality turns out the way it does. Prior to the introduction of the Essex class of CV's and F6F/F1U aircraft, CV battles favour the Japan player. This is our altered reality simply because Japan HAS the CV's available. Some folks seem to have a tough time dealing with the fact that Japan has such power early on and fault the game engine as unrealistic. It is not the game engine to blame. It is simply the altered reality at play. The engine does a very nice job given the fact that Japan has these assets and does not unrealistically give the USA magic aircraft that shoot down 20+ aircraft each as was happening in the 2.20 patch level where 2 USA CV's could stand against 5 Japan CV's and take no hits. That as I am sure most of you will agree was extremely unrealistic. It takes time to unlearn bad behavour, which has prior to 2.30 been pretty much rewarded by USA CV actions.

Remember, the USA LOST CV's, a fair number of them! And that is Historical Reality even with Japan loosing most of their skilled pilots and CV's at Midway

Facing off against the full might of Japan (untouched by Midway) is something that the USA was not ready for. Yes, no one is going to debate that Japan was a lost cause, but the area covered by UV specifically is very sensitive to CV power projection, so the difference of 1 or 2 CVs in theater can be very dramatic.

It will be very interesting with WitP to see just how dramatic this is going to play out when we have full control to control our fate. I'm chomping at the bit for it :p

If it reflects reality, then I say that is good. Period.

[afenelon]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
Reality or History?

History is USA CV's sunk due to silly deployments. History is Midway.

Now, if you alter History as we do with scenario 17/19 in UV, the CV's perform exactly as they would have had they been available in our theater of war.

The problem is that most folks seem to be quite shocked when our altered reality turns out the way it does. Prior to the introduction of the Essex class of CV's and F6F/F1U aircraft, CV battles favour the Japan player. This is our altered reality simply because Japan HAS the CV's available. Some folks seem to have a tough time dealing with the fact that Japan has such power early on and fault the game engine as unrealistic. It is not the game engine to blame. It is simply the altered reality at play. The engine does a very nice job given the fact that Japan has these assets and does not unrealistically give the USA magic aircraft that shoot down 20+ aircraft each as was happening in the 2.20 patch level where 2 USA CV's could stand against 5 Japan CV's and take no hits. That as I am sure most of you will agree was extremely unrealistic. It takes time to unlearn bad behavour, which has prior to 2.30 been pretty much rewarded by USA CV actions.

Remember, the USA LOST CV's, a fair number of them! And that is Historical Reality even with Japan loosing most of their skilled pilots and CV's at Midway

Facing off against the full might of Japan (untouched by Midway) is something that the USA was not ready for. Yes, no one is going to debate that Japan was a lost cause, but the area covered by UV specifically is very sensitive to CV power projection, so the difference of 1 or 2 CVs in theater can be very dramatic.

It will be very interesting with WitP to see just how dramatic this is going to play out when we have full control to control our fate. I'm chomping at the bit for it :p

-You are right in many aspects. It is true that IJN had the upper hand in CV´s until late 1942. It is also right to say that the USA would had serious trouble if Midway didn´t happen. I agree with you that v2.10-v2.11 was biased towards IJN (althought almost all of you disagreed from me when I posted this by the first time-and I started two threads on this topic). However, it must be considered that, under the current engine, the US carriers are usually failing even to launch counterattacks against IJN carriers, while the decreased US CAP effectiveness usually results in lots of US carriers being sunk in each CV battle. Consider this, in 4 CV battles I had under v2.30, I had 9-10 USA CV´s sunk, versus no IJN CV damaged. In two of those 4 battles the USN wasn´t outnumbered (#3 and #4). Now, let´s compare it with history. In three CV vs CV battles (excluding Midway), the results were as following
1-IJN: 2CVL´s sunk plus 2CV´s damaged (Shokaku 2 times)
2-USN: 2CV´s sunk plus 3 CV´s damaged (Yorktown plus Enterprise 2 times)
Of course, none of those battles had Super CV TF´s....which makes that discussion somewhat sterile. It´s possible that super CV TF´s allowed the USN (and IJN?) to do better with large CAP´s. It would be difficult to penetrate large defensive formations. On the other hand, a Super CV TF also implies in better escort for bombers. Also you must consider that Japanese bombers were REALLY very fragile and they took heavy losses even withouth facing massive US CAP´s (in 1942 the USA never had more than 2 CV´s in a TF). From my point, the best model of CV to CV combat was still in v1.4 (althought it probably resulted in less planes being shot down....but it resulted in damage to carriers from both sides and usually even the winner of a CV confrontation was unable to pursue the loser)

[dpstafford]

I have been arguing for some time with one of the UV play-testers, who is also one of my PBEM opponents, that air-to-air combat is "broken" in 2.3. By increasing the effects of fatigue in the model, that CAP (which is always tired, even at 50% coverage), that air combat has become too bloodless. Even more so than in versions 1.x. The fatigue factor is causing NOT a higher loss rate on the more fatigued side, but an over all decrease in air combat kills, due presumably to failed moral checks, or whatever. I haven't been able to convince anyone.

Have I come to the right thread to make this case?

[afenelon]

Originally posted by dpstafford
I have been arguing for some time with one of the UV play-testers, who is also one of my PBEM opponents, that air-to-air combat is "broken" in 2.3. By increasing the effects of fatigue in the model, that CAP (which is always tired, even at 50% coverage), that air combat has become too bloodless. Even more so than in versions 1.x. The fatigue factor is causing NOT a higher loss rate on the more fatigued side, but an over all decrease in air combat kills, due presumably to failed moral checks, or whatever. I haven't been able to convince anyone.

Have I come to the right thread to make this case?

-Well, I agree 100% with you. But I should also add that US CV based bombers are EXTREMELY cautious towards attacking IJN CV´s and this further distorts the results of carrier battles....

[afenelon]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by afenelon
-Well, I agree 100% with you. But I should also add that US CV based bombers are EXTREMELY cautious towards attacking IJN CV´s and this further distorts the results of carrier battles.... At least v1.x allowed both sides to attack and to score hits. Due to this, results of CV battles were usually more realistic because the winner wasn´t able to pursue the loser, scoring an overhelming victory.

[mapr]

I also feel that fatigue(and moral decreases) level increases too easily too high or atleast have too much effect in 2.30(and earlier versions too) . Would be understandable to me if pilots would be running engines using muscle power and not sleeping at all...

One days action of sinking couple DD's at full(there is no other kind with AI) strike increases fatigue 20 points. If you expect your opponent to have rested crews there is no going forward.

After second day of such activity you have 30+ fatigue and then it is time run for a rest unless you are sure that enemy have similar fatigue levels.

If your pilots have to fly combat mission three days in a row and having same time 50% CAP they become next to useless, even if those combat missions does not include air to air combats. Even if targets are lightweigh without heavy AA.

Did pilots sleep/rest at all if they had mission at current day? I could understand problems at third day if you have not slept at all for two days. But if they slept even for some hours in in a day they should stay capable of flying effectively for several days in row. Which is impossible right now.



Some questions to demonstrate you all my ignorance:

How physically straining it was to fly WW II planes?
How straining it was serve in CV if having to fight every day? Any differences between CV&LBA?

Or were pilots fysically totally untrained and so unable to recover from previous days burdens? How could they stay in bad shape if flying planes was that hard?

I'd love hear if someone could tell what it was like to serve in CV or LBA... Describing daily routines, or if pilots themselves thought or noticed that their fellow pilots were no good after several combat missions in during several days. Were they so badly fatigued that several hours rest would not restore effectivity?
What pilots did at nights if there was fighting expected? Having parties? Appreciate anything that would help to estimate if fatigue is properly simulated. I just feel that it is not...

[Mr.Frag]

There are very few examples I can find of CAP being flown. CV's went out, flew a small percentage of seach planes (maybe accounting for 5% fatigue) then flew a massive raid against the detected target, throwing everything they had, including rearming the search planes to be part of the strike.

Where this idea of taking 50+% of the fighters and deploying them as CAP instead as escort for the raid came from, I don't know. This tactic did not seem to come into play until much later in the war, after UV's time period, with the much larger fleet carriers.

Maintaining 50% of your fighters airborne over your task force (which translates to 100% of your fighters as there are two phases) means that 100% of your planes will be flying each day, with repairs and such only being done at night by the tired maint crews. Add the fact that the fighters are only a 3rd of the planes that must be kept flying and you quickly see just how silly it is to expect to be able to sustain that level of operations.

The CV's simply did not carry enough fuel/bullets/bombs for round the clock operations. The planes during that time period did not have any labour saving devices to keep the pilot rested, he had to physically fly the plane, do the navigation, etc, all by himself.

[afenelon]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mapr
I also feel that fatigue(and moral decreases) level increases too easily too high or atleast have too much effect in 2.30(and earlier versions too) . Would be understandable to me if pilots would be running engines using muscle power and not sleeping at all...

One days action of sinking couple DD's at full(there is no other kind with AI) strike increases fatigue 20 points. If you expect your opponent to have rested crews there is no going forward.

After second day of such activity you have 30+ fatigue and then it is time run for a rest unless you are sure that enemy have similar fatigue levels.

If your pilots have to fly combat mission three days in a row and having same time 50% CAP they become next to useless, even if those combat missions does not include air to air combats. Even if targets are lightweigh without heavy AA.

-I think you´re right, and we have been both victimized and benefited by that overvaluation of fatigue (this is quite frustating, you being the winner or the loser). It´s unbelievable to see that something like 10 more fatigue points imply that F4F´s simply run from battle (as in our 2nd battle), and Vals and Kates are unable to score a single hit (as happened in our first battle). The BIG effect of fatigue were already evident in v2.11-2.2 and became really crazy in v2.3 I´ve been playing as IJN vs the computer and I´m amazed how F4F pilots (both CV and land based) are fighting like rabbits......My suggestions:
1-Decrease a lot the effect of fatigue (at least in the first air combat phase) both for fighters and bombers
2-Give CAP a penalty (80% of the assigned planes can fly CAP at the same time) to force people to avoid 90% CAP
3-Keep a reasonable to high´performance of CAP (bombers really MUST be shot down in large numbers, mainly in the first waves-I really like to see those poor guys going down)
4-Improve the performance of surviving bombers. Air battles must be bloody, but bombers able to attack should have a better chance of hitting their targets, at least if their experience is better than 70
5-Most battles must end with a marginal victory, and with the winner unable to pursue the loser (again Midway is an exception, but in SP Front, both sides had LBA recon, so a replay of Midway in this front would be unlikely-there was no surprise in SP Carrier battles)
6-Coordination penalty, please, it´s unrealistic to have a commander being able to launch fully coordinated attacks (and placing high levels of CAP) in super TF´s of 8-10 Carriers. This was possible in 1944, not in 1942 (I don´t know how much CV´s the USN used in the same TF in 1942)
Well, this dicussion is interesting, but my HD is heavily damaged and will be replaced with another. Until then, I can´t go on with this topic.

[denisonh]

Here is a question.

What was the normal pattern of CAP flown by 1942-43 era carriers?

My guess is that it was not 60% of all fighters all the time. If we know the historical reference for how CAP was employed, it might give us a better idea on how fatigue should be modeled to reflect reality.

I would venture that it was directly proportional to the relative threat.

So having 20-30% CAP may be a standard when not expecting contact, with increased CAP for anticipation of contact.

Even then, a higher CAP percentage might not cause that much fatigue, as you would have a certain amount of fighters at the ready on deck, with radar being used to lauch additional CAP in response to an attack.

I would like to hear from somebody read in on this, as it is very relavant to this discussion.

[afenelon]

Originally posted by denisonh
Here is a question.

What was the normal pattern of CAP flown by 1942-43 era carriers?

My guess is that it was not 60% of all fighters all the time. If we know the historical reference for how CAP was employed, it might give us a better idea on how fatigue should be modeled to reflect reality.

I would venture that it was directly proportional to the relative threat.

So having 20-30% CAP may be a standard when not expecting contact, with increased CAP for anticipation of contact.

Even then, a higher CAP percentage might not cause that much fatigue, as you would have a certain amount of fighters at the ready on deck, with radar being used to lauch additional CAP in response to an attack.

I would like to hear from somebody read in on this, as it is very relavant to this discussion.

-Agree with you. I also have the impression that "historical" CAP was around 50-60%. And you are right on fatigue (althought IJN didn´t have radar in early 1942-maybe they should keep more planes flying?)
-Last message before the death of m HD....

[Mr.Frag]

Since Midway is really the only major CV battle that occured in UV's timeframe, I'll ask again, what CAP was there flying over the CV's? This was the biggest CV battle in the history books.

Past that loss, CV airpower no longer existed os it is probably the only battle we can draw any numbers from as to historical use...

[denisonh]

Mr Frag, the battle of Santa Cruz may also be relevant as to the use of CAP as well.

[crsutton]

Originally posted by mapr
I also feel that fatigue(and moral decreases) level increases too easily too high or atleast have too much effect in 2.30(and earlier versions too) . Would be understandable to me if pilots would be running engines using muscle power and not sleeping at all...

One days action of sinking couple DD's at full(there is no other kind with AI) strike increases fatigue 20 points. If you expect your opponent to have rested crews there is no going forward.

After second day of such activity you have 30+ fatigue and then it is time run for a rest unless you are sure that enemy have similar fatigue levels.

If your pilots have to fly combat mission three days in a row and having same time 50% CAP they become next to useless, even if those combat missions does not include air to air combats. Even if targets are lightweigh without heavy AA.

Did pilots sleep/rest at all if they had mission at current day? I could understand problems at third day if you have not slept at all for two days. But if they slept even for some hours in in a day they should stay capable of flying effectively for several days in row. Which is impossible right now.



Some questions to demonstrate you all my ignorance:

How physically straining it was to fly WW II planes?
How straining it was serve in CV if having to fight every day? Any differences between CV&LBA?

Or were pilots fysically totally untrained and so unable to recover from previous days burdens? How could they stay in bad shape if flying planes was that hard?

I'd love hear if someone could tell what it was like to serve in CV or LBA... Describing daily routines, or if pilots themselves thought or noticed that their fellow pilots were no good after several combat missions in during several days. Were they so badly fatigued that several hours rest would not restore effectivity?
What pilots did at nights if there was fighting expected? Having parties? Appreciate anything that would help to estimate if fatigue is properly simulated. I just feel that it is not...

[crsutton]

This is my reply to the previous quote.

Flying aircraft in the Pacific or in any theater of WWII was extremely draining under all conditions. Fighter craft had no autopilots so the pilots had to be alert at all times on at all times. WWII fighters were "hot", high performance planes that required detailed attention all the time. The biggest drain on pilots was the adrenaline rush from the fear and excitment of actual combat. One tight engagement or bombing run could physically exhaust a pilot. Two or three days of actual combat (remember most missions did not necessarily have much in the way of combat for fighter pilots) could break a pilot down. Navy pilots generally had it better as carriers had first rate medical facilities and excellent food. Most forward land based air pilots had not only to deal with combat but with disease and very rudimentary diets. This in itself would contribute heavily to fatigue. Somtimes the situation would dictate that pilots with milder forms of malaria or dystentery would have to go up. This is especially true of Japanese land based pilots who had very little access to proper medical facilities and very poor diets when compared to Allied pilots.

[afenelon]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
Since Midway is really the only major CV battle that occured in UV's timeframe, I'll ask again, what CAP was there flying over the CV's? This was the biggest CV battle in the history books.

Past that loss, CV airpower no longer existed os it is probably the only battle we can draw any numbers from as to historical use...

-I don´t know what are the numbers, but IJN CAP (+flak) simply devastated the US attackers (the US lost 35/41 TBD´s, 8/16 Land based SBD´s, 2/4 B-26´s, 5/6 TBF´s, 2/12 SB2U´s, for a total of 52 bombers which dared to attack IJN carriers). Most of those losses were due to fighters. Was this the result of a 30% CAP? And the US CAP of Yorktown (+flak) shot down more than 50% of bombers in both waves from Hiryu. If the US CAP was 30%, they would have 6-9 fighters flying. Very good results, aren´t them? So I would say US CAP were more than 30% too....Or maybe we could agree that flak is so effective that no CAP is needed?

[afenelon]

Originally posted by denisonh
Mr Frag, the battle of Santa Cruz may also be relevant as to the use of CAP as well.

-And what about Coral Sea and East Salomons?

[afenelon]

Here is data from CAP at Midway. This points to something close to 40-50% of CAP. Must consider that the% CAP can be changed during a combat and not all fighters are able to fly at the same time

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/8384/midway.html


As the planes of VB-3, VS-6 and VB-6 headed home, they left behind them three Japanese carriers afire, beyond hope. Akagi, Kaga and Soryu, all three the prides of Japanese navy, Pearl Harbor veterans were reduced to burning wrecks in only three minutes! But the fourth Japanese carrier, the Hiryu was not damaged. Her planes were ready, and at 1054 the first plane took off. The strike consisted of 18 dive bombers and 6 Zeros. There were no torpedo bombers, because there was no time to put torpedoes on the planes that returned from Midway strike. This small force found the American carriers by following American planes that were returning home.

Escort=30%

The cruisers Astoria and Portland stood off to starboard, in between the Yorktown and incoming intruders. Yorktown turned southeast, showing her stern to the attackers, and crancked up her speed from 25 to 30.5 knots. Fuel lines were drained and filled with carbon dioxide. All guns were manned, pointing west where the attack was going to come from. Combat Air Patrol (CAP) of 12 Wildcats was vectored to intercept the bogeys.

Yorktown CAP=40-50% (Yorktown had 25-27 fighters, not 36 in Midway)


In the meantime, Hiryu prepared another strike consisting of 10 torpedo planes and 6 fighters. Only 6 planes from the first strike survived. They radioed that the enemy carrier is burning and that there are two more carriers present. The second strike was sent at 1245. While Hiryu was trying to turn the tide of the battle, Akagi, Kaga and Soryu were losing their battle for life, flooding, and fires raging.

Escort=30% (plus 30% of first strike=60%?).


Btw: My HD was ressurected....in only 6 hours (clonning is great...)