Hordes of Tonys

[Charles2222]

Just a quick question. So many people have talked about the quickest way to gaining experience is to bomb Gilligan's Island sort of thing, but coming with IJ thinking in mind I pose this question. Since supply and fuel are such a big thing for IJ, is it possible that in the long haul that IJ is better off with planes -not- attacking cut off islands and instead just going through ordinary flight training? Afterall, doesn't dropping all those bombs suck up more supply than just flying about?

[jwilkerson]

Pilot training is one of the most important activities for the Japanese. Japanese replacement pilots come in with exp rating of roughly 25-35 ...

Now 2/4 eng bombers and transports can train up into the 70s and even the 80s ( I haven't waited long enough to see if they will go into the 90s ) by just sitting on a rear area airbase and taking off and landing on that airbase carrying cargo ( flying the "supply" mission ).

However, fighters, single engine bombers and recon planes aren't smart enough to play that trick. These planes can sit on the training mission and get up to the low 50s .. but then they stop.

To get the recon planes to go farther - you must fly the recon mission - then they will increase very slowly - of course this is real critical because they can't fight - this really just increases their survivability and ability to keep flying with less rest.

But fighters and carrier bombers are the bit bottlenecks ... they have to fly combat missions ... with ground bombing somehow seeming to be the most effective in training them up. Using the ground attack mission you can get up into the low 60s pretty quickly .. then things slow down .. .though if you stick with it .. you can get them up into the 70s and even the 80s ... but you have to fly the ground mission to get there ( while minimizing losses ) ...

So I'd say the Japanese have no choice if they want any chance of having air units with 70-80 exp ... and without this exp you will die in droves ... especially when facing allied fighters ... Allies once they gain air superiority near the front - can train up all over the map - and have their aircraft hitting your troops with the ground mission pretty much everywhere ... this means they will almost always be 80-90 exp when they go on an offensive ( over your airbases ) mission ... and if you as Japanese have 50-60 exp .. you will die quickly and accomplish nothing.

If someone has a different experience - speak up - but my PBEMs that have gotten into mid-43 - follow the above ...

[Brady]

rtrapasso-From waht I recall, their were non listed for the central pacific in my figures, and they did include all P-38's available for the Pacific, including those in Alaska, and the 600% was for all planes available at a given date which I posted before inthat long thread. The figure is corect as I pointed out in the other thread, though my spelling erros are hard to wade through I konw it is their.

The thread on the Cannons and MG was left by me because those particapating in it beyond a certain point proved largely incabale of learning anything new, which is at this point a given I am afraid for some folks on this board, but it is mute if thier happy, I am not hear to tell them their is no god.

....................

Mike Scholl-Has a goodd point, many aircraft are available at very unrealistic levals, this from what I gather is intended, because the designers felt the players would consume them since they would play more argeasively then the combatants fought..It was done for gameplay, like several other aspects of WiTP>

.............

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: DDLAfan

Bottom line, this is a SIMULATION, and not a historical recreation of the pacific war. Plus, I am playing a side that has virtually no chance for victory in this game. I’m going to do what I can to win, just as my opponent is and has been doing.

THIS DRIVES ME NUTS! Just what is it that you think is SUPPOSED to be "simulated" by this SIMULATION? Could it perhaps be the "Historical Pacific War? That's what a "simulation" game is supposed to recreate as closely as possible. As in providing (as closely as can be ascertained) the actual historicic units and equipment in the correct numbers at the correct time. Instead of just tossing piles of stuff in at random.

Your "defense/explanation" is in truth a TOTAL CONDEMNATION of the game as unforgivably inaccurate. But instead of all screaming in unison for the designer's to FIX this mess, most of us are defending our little "pet pieces" of nonsense while attacking everyone else's. No wonder the term "FanBoy" keeps popping up on this forum? Are we all so completely wrapped up in "winning" with our favorite side that we can't come together and pillary the real villians---the clowns that put this garbage into a game while claiming to be producing a "simulation".

[Gen.Hoepner]

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

Another uber Allied 4E attack from a range of 10-hex:

Day Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 67,101

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 8
A6M3a Zero x 29

Allied aircraft
PB4Y Liberator x 14
B-24D Liberator x 33

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 damaged
A6M3a Zero: 3 destroyed, 7 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
PB4Y Liberator: 5 destroyed, 4 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 5 destroyed, 23 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo, Bomb hits 10, on fire
BB Yamato, Bomb hits 10, on fire

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x PB4Y Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 6000 feet

But this is during the day....
It's more acceptable i think....at least here you can do something ( place some more CAP or whatever).....but when these strikes come at night you're just simply hopeless!


Take a look at this one

Night Air attack on Daly Waters , at 35,90

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 35
LB-30 Liberator x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 6 destroyed
Ki-46-II Dinah: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 2 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
29 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Airbase hits 5
Runway hits 11

actually there were 14 planes destroyed on the ground...out of 120 present....a quite high % for a level 4 AF, don't you think so?!
I have hundreds of these reports...always the same old story. From 10 to 25 planes left of the ground each night....and without any chance of doing anything different from a bold retreat....

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Your "defense/explanation" is in truth a TOTAL CONDEMNATION of the game as unforgivably inaccurate. But instead of all screaming in unison for the designer's to FIX this mess, most of us are defending our little "pet pieces" of nonsense while attacking everyone else's. No wonder the term "FanBoy" keeps popping up on this forum? Are we all so completely wrapped up in "winning" with our favorite side that we can't come together and pillary the real villians---the clowns that put this garbage into a game while claiming to be producing a "simulation".

Admittedly several aspects of the game are inaccurate, but how historical do you want it? I mean, historically Japan never stood a chance. Everybody knew it. So if you model that to the last detail, who is going to want to play Japan? Admittedly there are features of the game I don't like, but considering that from Turn one of the grand campaign most of the "historical circumstances" either materialize different'y, or never come to pass.

THIS DRIVES ME NUTS! Just what is it that you think is SUPPOSED to be "simulated" by this SIMULATION? Could it perhaps be the "Historical Pacific War? That's what a "simulation" game is supposed to recreate as closely as possible. As in providing (as closely as can be ascertained) the actual historicic units and equipment in the correct numbers at the correct time. Instead of just tossing piles of stuff in at random.

I look at this from how I have modeled WPO. In reality, there were some 60 DT-1 and DT-2 torpedo planes built. However, that won't do for wartime, so I allow more to be built. Now, lets start from turn 1 of WitP. From that turn, the war is different, yes? So, while the units are mostly there true to history, your problem is with the amount of equipment produced. Now, If the war proceedes different to history, why can't production?

In real life, Japan didn't take Midway or Pearl Harbor. Now, in WitP they can. If in history they had taken Midway or PH, don't you think that would have a bearing on how much equipment and materiel, and how fast it was produced? I'm all for modelling it down to the last plane and Medium Tank M4 produced, but to do that we'd have to represent everything else historically, and force Japan to do this, force them to attack here, etc.

The way I look at it is that the war proceeds differently than history, and as such things on the home front proceed differently. Now, since we aren't seing the Big Red One or Blood and Guts Patton in WitP, I'd say it does fairly well.

The problem with "oversimulating" events is the fact that in the game, they may never happen. FOr instance, a P-38 unit in New Guinea (I forget the Squadron.... I want to say 48th, but I don't know) ran out of spares, and was forced to switch to the P-47. Now, in WitP it may not run out of spares. But if we "historically simulate" everything, then whether the problem presents itself or not, that unit must upgrade to the P-47. So, considering the amount of planes lost is different, where they used are different, how they are used different, it only stands to reason that the number being built should be different.

There are two ways to look at this predicatament. The number of equipment or planes produced reflected how the battles were fought, or the way the battles were fought dictated the number of planes and equipment produced. Now, the way I look at it, it is a combination of both. To produce only the historic amount of equipment would force players in every instance to fight as was done hsitorricaly, which again broaches the question, why should I or anyone else play as Japan?

As to calling the devs clowns, and the game garbage... all I can say is make your game, and then let us have a look see and see if you modeled everything 100% correctly. WitP is not perfect. WPO is not perfect. But I am not going to say the game is nothing but garbage when I know I can't do better. Not saying you can't do better, if we are so wrapped up in whinning I see three options. Accept the game as is as a reasobaly accurate representation of the Pacific Conflict, continue denouncing those who made it, or make our own game, and make sure that it is far better than WitP by all accounts. I am a simple man, I'll choose the first one. I don't like everything about it, I have been bitten by several of its bugs, but, knowning I can't do a better game from the ground up, I am not going to call it garbage and the designers clowns.

Wow, that was kind of a rant.... time to go to bed....

For the record, I am not defending Matrix, I am not defending 2by3. But I am pointing out that if everything down to the last man and the last clip of .30-06 ammo was modeled, and every single historical situation was presented, I'd save myself the 80 bucks and read a book. And I sure as hell wouldn't play as Japan if I picked the game up in the bargain bin 3 years after release.

[NemRod]

IIRC, later in the game USN pilots come with 75 exp.,so the designers assume you can reach at least 75 exp in game terms without seeing combat, just with a training program.

Bombing a rear base will require 3 months to improve exp. above 70 for green IJN pilots (and it costs supply and op losses).It's a little bit too fast but can't be considered gamey.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

Another uber Allied 4E attack from a range of 10-hex:

Day Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 67,101

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 8
A6M3a Zero x 29

Allied aircraft
PB4Y Liberator x 14
B-24D Liberator x 33

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 damaged
A6M3a Zero: 3 destroyed, 7 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
PB4Y Liberator: 5 destroyed, 4 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 5 destroyed, 23 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo, Bomb hits 10, on fire
BB Yamato, Bomb hits 10, on fire

Let me see if I understand you right. You are complaining because you shot down/damaged 78% of the attacking bombers? Or is it you complaining that they hit you with 20 x 500 pounders that will do NO damage to a BB except the fire damage? No personally I agree 4E aircraft just were not as effective vs ships as this game has them. And probably not vs land targets either. But, from my point of view, the Japs won this encounter. You also failed to say how many of the 27 damaged bombers crashed on the way home. Im sure a few did.

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

Take a look at this one

Night Air attack on Daly Waters , at 35,90

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 35
LB-30 Liberator x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 6 destroyed
Ki-46-II Dinah: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 2 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
29 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Airbase hits 5
Runway hits 11

actually there were 14 planes destroyed on the ground...out of 120 present....a quite high % for a level 4 AF, don't you think so?!
I have hundreds of these reports...always the same old story. From 10 to 25 planes left of the ground each night....and without any chance of doing anything different from a bold retreat....

Whats the date? Whats the experience of the attacking bombers? How much AA fire did you have? Your list of damage means nothing without ALL the facts.

Tanker, what I think Mike means is this game doesnt "simulate" anything. You can not do things that were actually done. For example:

Midget subs: They were used in PH. Cant in the game.
Mixed air groups: at start of war VF3 on Saratoga consisted of 7 x F4F-3s, 2 x F4F3As, and 1 x XF4F4. Aussies had fighters and bombers in the same squadrons.

I could go on and on, and I am sure you could as well. The point being, this game is not, nor never will be a simulation. Simulation by defination simulates something. This game doesnt simulater anything.

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: elxaime

ORIGINAL: Honda

There is[:D]

Care to share the intelligence? What is this Japanese super-fighter? Is it one of those cigar-shaped things with a rocket engine that flies straight up?

Look at the Dude vs. Zeta AAR (Hirohito style). you will get clear picture of this

[:D]

[paladin333]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: DDLAfan

Bottom line, this is a SIMULATION, and not a historical recreation of the pacific war. Plus, I am playing a side that has virtually no chance for victory in this game. I’m going to do what I can to win, just as my opponent is and has been doing.

THIS DRIVES ME NUTS! Just what is it that you think is SUPPOSED to be "simulated" by this SIMULATION? Could it perhaps be the "Historical Pacific War? That's what a "simulation" game is supposed to recreate as closely as possible. As in providing (as closely as can be ascertained) the actual historicic units and equipment in the correct numbers at the correct time. Instead of just tossing piles of stuff in at random.

Your "defense/explanation" is in truth a TOTAL CONDEMNATION of the game as unforgivably inaccurate. But instead of all screaming in unison for the designer's to FIX this mess, most of us are defending our little "pet pieces" of nonsense while attacking everyone else's. No wonder the term "FanBoy" keeps popping up on this forum? Are we all so completely wrapped up in "winning" with our favorite side that we can't come together and pillary the real villians---the clowns that put this garbage into a game while claiming to be producing a "simulation".

Your are wrong.
Description of word "simulation game" from Encyclopedia of Computer Science...

A simulation game, or sim game, (also known as a game of status or mixed game) is a mixture of a game of skill, a game of chance and a game of strategy, which results in a simulation of a complex structure (like a stock exchange, or civilisation flux). These games are quite current through their mirror of modern society. Its benefit is the representation of complex situations of communal life, interconnections in society, and partial aspects of the economy (for example, the development of the railroad).

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: esteban
-you can convert the otherwise useless Wirraways to Hurricanes

This is where most Japanese players lose me in this argument. They do not have to contend with a fixed replacement rate, they can tailor make their industry to replace or fill out as many air frames as needed, so they make blanket statements like these without looking at the facts of the allied position.

WitP is brutally bloody compared to historical losses, so you are going to lose far more aircraft of any type than was lost historically. In my standard WitP game, the allied hurricane replacement rate is 60. By mid May of 42 I had lost 200 Hurricanes from all causes and they’ve only really been in the front lines about 2 months now. So I’m already losing 100 or so planes a month and I only receive 60 replacements period. I’ve had some air battles over Mandalay where I lost 30-40 Hurricanes in one day fighting the uber stack of 50 zeroes my opponent seems to have in every theatre!

Australia’s air force has 8 Wirraway groups I think (not exactly sure might be 7 or 9). That's 16 planes per group for a total of 128 planes needed just to upgrade the airforce. That's fully two months supply of hurricanes, but I've lost 200 out of a total of about 300 planes received to date and this from just the hurricane groups that I start with. I might have upgraded 1 or 2 groups max already, but my pool is virtually empty (20 odd replacements) and there are NO hurricanes to upgrade Australia’s airforce with unless I want to run my pools on empty. As it is I’ll be pulling the Hurricanes out of action to rebuild some reserves in my pools within a week or so.

Were I to pull all hurricanes out of action for over 2 months then perhaps, but I already can't keep my current hurricane groups well supported with the measly 60 planes a month, so why would I want to increase the burn rate of hurricane losses by converting the entire Australian air force. The allies are stuck with a fixed system and receive far too few replacements to contend with the horrifically high losses the game engine generates.

Everyone keeps saying “but they only had so many planes historically” but no one looks at the losses in the game. The engine drains the allies dry, but Japan has 100% full air groups no problem. Either hamstring Japan with fixed production or give the allies equal freedom.

That or simply reduce the number of destroyed aircraft being generated by the games engine so they are more in line with historical casualty rates.

Jim

[pauk]

REPETITION: you can have thousands of planes, but if you don't have pilots for them they are useless. No, wait, they aren't useless - planes with 30exp pilots in their cockpits are good for:

A) easy scored victory points,

B) gaining experience for your pilots


IJN RATE: 10 exp pilots, IJA 20 exp pilots/monthly

[>:][>:][>:]

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: pauk
IJN RATE: 10 exp pilots, IJA 20 exp pilots/monthly

Allied Pilots total: Hundreds a month. Too bad no planes for them to fly.

I'd much rather have 1000 planes with 30 exp pilots (soon to be 60's in a month or two) than 5000 pilots and hardly an air frame to be seen.

Balance in all things though. Just increase all the air frames armor rating by a factor of 3 or something perhaps that would slow down the destruction to a more reasonably historic level?

Don’t get me wrong, Japan should dominate the air game in 1942 I agree. But having dozens of allied air groups sitting on rear area bases for months just to rebuild. And then they only last one or two days on the front line and then months of rebuilding again is NOT historical. Nor is it fun, it needs to be tweaked and perhaps the Japanese pilot pools need to be reduced in experience levels (just 5 or 10 points above the allies) but increased in numbers.

Jim

[kkoovvoo]

ORIGINAL: pauk


REPETITION: you can have thousands of planes, but if you don't have pilots for them they are useless. No, wait, they aren't useless - planes with 30exp pilots in their cockpits are good for:

A) easy scored victory points,

B) gaining experience for your pilots


IJN RATE: 10 exp pilots, IJA 20 exp pilots/monthly

[>:][>:][>:]

After week of groung attacks IJ untrained pilots rise from 30 exp to 50 exp and posses the same quality like Allied pilots replacements. It cost you only several days to cancel Allied advantage of *trained* pilots.

[Honda]

Be patient till the Corsair arrives. When I think of it, one out of two replies I make look like this. Let's bomb Japan in '41![;)]

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

I'm sorry but the results i've tested extensively myself and seen in AAR's leads me to say night bombing of aifields and ports are still too effetive.

Hi Steven,

From what I've seen, 1.6 did tone it down enough to where our house rule of only 1 bomber group per target provides a fairly realistic result. I think the best my opponent achieved was 5 runway hits and 1-2 aircraft destroyed on the ground for 3 or 4 bombers damaged by flak during a night attack. He figured out fairly quickly that he got much better results during the day with larger groups for only a few more damaged aircraft and 1-2 losses (much to my chagrin!). Plus those heavies shoot down my fighters at a fairly decent rate during the day. (And now he is escorting them!!!)

During my game with TJ under v1.5, night bombing was absolutely deadly and TJ milked it to the max by sending 150-200 bombers over Rabaul at night. He would achieve 100 runway hits and 20-30 destroyed aircraft each time. It was one of the main reasons why that game ended.

Just saw WitP_Dude's combat report. Ouch, that is a bit overboard. Luckily I haven't been on the receiving end of a B-17 or B-24 naval strike.

Chez

Hi Chez,

Oh yes I gree that 1.6 toned it down a lot but as Hoepner is finding out IF your opponent sends groups and groups you can still achieve OTT results. 1 BG sounds reasonable for sure but as I say in my games its always a no no [;)]

P.S. TJ made me laugh with that. He would moan and moan about the game being broken but would then use something real gamey like this. Nice [;)]

Steven

[Feinder]

Or create a production model for the Allies, similar to Japan.

Will never happen tho.
-F-

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

This is where most Japanese players lose me in this argument. They do not have to contend with a fixed replacement rate, they can tailor make their industry to replace or fill out as many air frames as needed, so they make blanket statements like these without looking at the facts of the allied position.

Yes, this is one of the major problems of the game. A solution for this could be a house rule that Japan is not allowed to convert existing factories. Instead the Japanese player should have to build new factories if he wants to produce more Tonies or whatever he wants. This would prevent the Japanese player from streamlining his production in a totally ahistoric way when this option is not available to the Allied player while still keeping the option open for the Japanese player to produce what he wants, only that he'ld have to "pay" for it. Should restore balance (production-wise) to a certain degree and still give the Japanese player interesting options!

WitP is brutally bloody compared to historical losses, so you are going to lose far more aircraft of any type than was lost historically. In my standard WitP game, the allied hurricane replacement rate is 60. By mid May of 42 I had lost 200 Hurricanes from all causes and they’ve only really been in the front lines about 2 months now. So I’m already losing 100 or so planes a month and I only receive 60 replacements period. I’ve had some air battles over Mandalay where I lost 30-40 Hurricanes in one day fighting the uber stack of 50 zeroes my opponent seems to have in every theatre!

Be careful with this statement: Loss rates (for both players) may vary in different PBEM's with different players. The "bloodiness" of air combat largely depends on player's actions.

Australia’s air force has 8 Wirraway groups I think (not exactly sure might be 7 or 9). That's 16 planes per group for a total of 128 planes needed just to upgrade the airforce. That's fully two months supply of hurricanes, but I've lost 200 out of a total of about 300 planes received to date and this from just the hurricane groups that I start with. I might have upgraded 1 or 2 groups max already, but my pool is virtually empty (20 odd replacements) and there are NO hurricanes to upgrade Australia’s airforce with unless I want to run my pools on empty. As it is I’ll be pulling the Hurricanes out of action to rebuild some reserves in my pools within a week or so.

True enough, I always wondered why the Australian-Wirraway-Issue worried many Japanese players. Hurricanes (or even Spitfires) with their limited range are as useful as Wirraways to guard bases that are out of Japanese fighter range but are rather useless for offensive (escort) actions due to their limited range. Really no biggie, game-wise!

Were I to pull all hurricanes out of action for over 2 months then perhaps, but I already can't keep my current hurricane groups well supported with the measly 60 planes a month, so why would I want to increase the burn rate of hurricane losses by converting the entire Australian air force. The allies are stuck with a fixed system and receive far too few replacements to content with the horrifically high losses the game engine generates.

As above, largely depends on your own game-style.

Everyone keeps saying “but they only had so many planes historically” but no one looks at the losses in the game. The engine drains the allies dry, but Japan has 100% full air groups no problem. Either hamstring Japan with fixed production or give the allies equal freedom.

By giving the Allies total freedom, nobody would be playing Japan anymore. I always regarded the fixed Allied replacement rates as justified by representing the demands of the ETO not allowing for Allied production changes...

[WiTP_Dude]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger


Let me see if I understand you right. You are complaining because you shot down/damaged 78% of the attacking bombers? Or is it you complaining that they hit you with 20 x 500 pounders that will do NO damage to a BB except the fire damage?

They didn't do no damage. They knocked out over half of Yamato's guns so the battleship can't go into a fight. The Kongo is in bad shape too. I just wonder how 65% of the non-destroyed level bombers scored hits on battleships maneuvering around 30 knots at a distance of 600 miles while unescorted and under attack from over 35 highly experienced zeros. Maybe the B-24 Liberator is just this good - it was the favorite heavy bomber of the Allies and much preferred over the B-17. However, I really doubt even the Liberator could score 65% hits on a fast moving target while under attack from fighters.

No personally I agree 4E aircraft just were not as effective vs ships as this game has them. And probably not vs land targets either. But, from my point of view, the Japs won this encounter. You also failed to say how many of the 27 damaged bombers crashed on the way home. Im sure a few did.

I see this as an Allied victory. It doesn't matter how many bombers the Allies lost, as they can alway quickly replace them. The scenario is in March 1943 and the Allies have lost over 2,000 level bombers (including over 350 Liberators) but there is no effect of course.

[Hoplosternum]

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude


I see this as an Allied victory. It doesn't matter how many bombers the Allies lost, as they can alway quickly replace them. The scenario is in March 1943 and the Allies have lost over 2,000 level bombers (including over 350 Liberators) but there is no effect of course.

But this is not completely true. At 6000' only highly experienced pilots in Level Bombers hit moving ships often. The planes can be replaced but not the pilots. I know that the US does not have the dreadful 30 experience newbies that the apanese have, but the B-24s are Army planes I think. Even in '43 they only come with experience of about 60. Better than the Japanese but they won't be getting those kind of results again until they are up in the 80s. And that takes a lot of time and a lot of practice.

Quite frankly it is tough to boost up the experience of the allies at all in '42. A few maulings by the Zero's and your squadrons are full of 55-65 newbies again. Nothing like the problem that the Japanese have of course but it's still a problem.

The combat missions against quiet sections of the front is needed by both sides although obviosly more acute for the Japanese. I don't really like the tactic of leaving a cut off force just for this and don't practice this in my games. It's just a little too gamey for me as it's just too 'safe', you know your opponent cannot pull a surprise. But I will bomb weak targets to build up experience where I can find them. And the distinction is pretty marginal I know [:)]