Matrix Games Forums

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?

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

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

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?

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.

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...

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...

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