Matrix Games Forums

Who is Ian?

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Who is Ian?

me...

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I finally sold Moses on all this in our game - when he sent 100+ fighters to Port Morseby and I unhinged this beast - by launching a small fighter sweep from Lae (which always got slaughtered) following by a smaller fighter sweep from the admiralties - which didn't do too well - and finally followed by a huge raid from Rabaul with escorted Betty's ... I think one turn I killed 250 planes in the air and on the ground (he also had staged a big pile of bombers to PM) and I think I lost under 100. This convinced him that multiple - small sweeps - exploiting the sweep bonus - was the way to crack fighter defenses. He has used it successfully against me ever since. Check out my AAR - I know it is demonstrated there.

How do you time the missions to make the small sweep go first and the large strike go last?

Range to target perhaps....

It seems to me over my time playing that sometimes you're even better off using several smaller bomber strikes as opposed to the 1 big one as well. The cumulative effect is often greater than the shock strike is.

Granted, I don't think I'd be sending single squadrons of G4Ms against 100s of fighters stationed in 1 spot, but in China and the DEI I've noticed it to be much more effective to send several raids rather than the single massed raid.

It works on the same principle as the fighter sweeps. Multiple attacks wear down the defenders.

But has anyone else experienced this, or am I seeing skewed results simply due to playing mostly the AI?

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

How do you time the missions to make the small sweep go first and the large strike go last?

Range - it isn't perfect - but it is fairly reliable. So, in my example, Lae is closer to PM than Admiralties which is closer to PM than Rabaul. I'd say probably 4 out of 5 times the missions went in in range order. Moses does the same to me in Burma with about the same frequency of sequence control.

ORIGINAL: Shark7

It seems to me over my time playing that sometimes you're even better off using several smaller bomber strikes as opposed to the 1 big one as well. The cumulative effect is often greater than the shock strike is.

Granted, I don't think I'd be sending single squadrons of G4Ms against 100s of fighters stationed in 1 spot, but in China and the DEI I've noticed it to be much more effective to send several raids rather than the single massed raid.

It works on the same principle as the fighter sweeps. Multiple attacks wear down the defenders.

But has anyone else experienced this, or am I seeing skewed results simply due to playing mostly the AI?

Multiple attacks on the same CAP do wear done that CAP - in fact this is actually too predictable and hence can be exploited - in fact IIRC Nik and I started using a house rule against multi-sweeps to remove the ability to exploit this. It is actually kind of a hidden "anti-Uber CAP" feature. But you will never notice it if you only launch single large strikes at enemy bases. But once you try launching multiple smaller strikes it becomes obvious.

Oh, Oh, Oh!!! Has the target selection for air vs ground units been moved so that the strike comes in one wave, endures CAP, then splits? Right now the strike "splits" in order to hit multiple LCUs before the CAP phase, allowing CAP to hit each packet seperately. IMO, I think this split should come after CAP...much like a/c selecting individual ships in a TF.

What are your feelings on this?

I feel the split before CAP encounter is okay, it's the CAP intercept model that should be improved (cap should be more fragmented, ammo limits or equivalent, etc.). I thought that improvements there were mentioned earlier? Don't remember specifically.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Oh, Oh, Oh!!! Has the target selection for air vs ground units been moved so that the strike comes in one wave, endures CAP, then splits? Right now the strike "splits" in order to hit multiple LCUs before the CAP phase, allowing CAP to hit each packet seperately. IMO, I think this split should come after CAP...much like a/c selecting individual ships in a TF.

What are your feelings on this?

After agonizing about it a good bit over the years - I have to say I think it is better the way it is. The current way actually maximizes the chance of being able to hit many of the LCUs in the hex - and to really wear out the hex - you need to spread your attacks out across potentially 10-20 LCUs. Of course bombing the AF and port at the same time are also good things to do. Moses has been refining his bombing of my big stack at Akyab - and now that he is spreading his attacks out across all target - AF/Port/all LCUs .. .I really am running out of stuff faster than I can get fresh stuff there.
If enemy CAP is heavy - then hit it will multiple sweeps - if allowed in your game - this will wear out the cap and your strikes can go in.

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

If enemy CAP is heavy - then hit it will multiple sweeps - if allowed in your game - this will wear out the cap and your strikes can go in.

Making multiple use of the "sweep bonus" has a faintly "gamey" oder to it..., don't you think?

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

If enemy CAP is heavy - then hit it will multiple sweeps - if allowed in your game - this will wear out the cap and your strikes can go in.

Making multiple use of the "sweep bonus" has a faintly "gamey" oder to it..., don't you think?

In the WITP community at least, many "gamey" activities" seem to be subject to variations of player preferences. Hence, house rules exist.

I used it in my game with Moses, but explained the tactic exactly to him and he has used it to great effect back at me. In any situation we must adapt to the situation. So I have tried to - but there is (so far - July 43) no defence against Corsair sweeps in Burma.

On the contrary in our playtesting of Nik's GuadMod, we determined that multi-sweeps were an exploit - and made a rule against them.

So, I've done it both ways.

But it is interesting, that a tactic to defeat Uber Cap over land targets - already exists - the multi-sweep. Just doesn't work against carriers - can't sweep them.

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
but there is (so far - July 43) no defence against Corsair sweeps in Burma.

Joe, don't you think Corsair Sweeps in Burma are gamey????[;)]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

If enemy CAP is heavy - then hit it will multiple sweeps - if allowed in your game - this will wear out the cap and your strikes can go in.

Making multiple use of the "sweep bonus" has a faintly "gamey" oder to it..., don't you think?

In the WITP community at least, many "gamey" activities" seem to be subject to variations of player preferences. Hence, house rules exist.

I used it in my game with Moses, but explained the tactic exactly to him and he has used it to great effect back at me. In any situation we must adapt to the situation. So I have tried to - but there is (so far - July 43) no defence against Corsair sweeps in Burma.

On the contrary in our playtesting of Nik's GuadMod, we determined that multi-sweeps were an exploit - and made a rule against them.

So, I've done it both ways.

But it is interesting, that a tactic to defeat Uber Cap over land targets - already exists - the multi-sweep. Just doesn't work against carriers - can't sweep them.

Wonder how it would play out against multiple LRCAPS?

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
but there is (so far - July 43) no defence against Corsair sweeps in Burma.

Joe, don't you think Corsair Sweeps in Burma are gamey????[;)]

I don't happen to - I had my fun Zero sweeping him why shouldn't he have his fun Corsair sweeping me? But this is why I say players must be able to adjust to each others styles in order to sustain a game.

Just illustrating - this kind of flexibility is why I favor PDU. Not abusing it by going to all 4E, etc., just for the legitimate flexibility analogous to what you're describing. [8D]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

If enemy CAP is heavy - then hit it will multiple sweeps - if allowed in your game - this will wear out the cap and your strikes can go in.

Making multiple use of the "sweep bonus" has a faintly "gamey" oder to it..., don't you think?

In the WITP community at least, many "gamey" activities" seem to be subject to variations of player preferences. Hence, house rules exist.

I used it in my game with Moses, but explained the tactic exactly to him and he has used it to great effect back at me. In any situation we must adapt to the situation. So I have tried to - but there is (so far - July 43) no defence against Corsair sweeps in Burma.

On the contrary in our playtesting of Nik's GuadMod, we determined that multi-sweeps were an exploit - and made a rule against them.

So, I've done it both ways.

But it is interesting, that a tactic to defeat Uber Cap over land targets - already exists - the multi-sweep. Just doesn't work against carriers - can't sweep them.

Carriers control the time and place of their operations. That means they can surge when desired. If you hit a land airbase, the CAP consists of the aircraft in the air and on ground alert at that time. If you hit a carrier, it can be everyone. Similarly, a land base generates sorties at some steady rate--they don't surge (generate three times the usual number of sorties for a couple of days) that often because it's inefficient. A carrier can send everyone when necessary and keep it up for a couple of days, because maintenance will have a chance to recover afterwards.

YOU CAN'T GIVE THE IJ PLAYER BREATHING ROOM.

Then it's probably borked from the start. The look and feel of WW2 was that the Japanese could not afford to give the Allies breathing room, which forced them into a situation where their need to keep up the pace of attacks could not be met by the existing logistical services and industrial organization. Time was on the Allies' side, not on Japan's.

The only way this is gonna work is if Japanese logistics has been brought back to earth, hopefully somewhere in the vicinity of RL. Hopefully the days of the invasion of India, Australia, Hawaii, or Panama, or hundreds of betties basing out of Rabaul in 1942 will be long gone.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The only way this is gonna work is if Japanese logistics has been brought back to earth, hopefully somewhere in the vicinity of RL. Hopefully the days of the invasion of India, Australia, Hawaii, or Panama, or hundreds of betties basing out of Rabaul in 1942 will be long gone.

You mean that, in AE, Japanese player cannot win anymore ?

Depends on what you mean by "win." I always figured that sort of thing was handled by victory conditions when one is dealing with games that purport to be about WW2. That war was not a "fair fight" nor were the orders of battle remotely balanced. Invading India, Australia, Hawaii, or Panama were so far beyond any real world capability of Japan's armed forces (other than nuisance raids) that it was never seriously attempted, nor even operationally planned.

Indeed, prior to the opportunity handed to the US at Midway, the Allies' plan was precisely to build up an irresistable force and begin to counterattack in mid-1943. In contrast, Japan's plan was to attempt to FORCE a decisive battle (in which they presumed they'd ne victorious) in 1942, knowing full well that they'd not be able to compete with the Allies after that.

So if you want a game about WW2 that hands the players the same strategic problems and power projection abilities as the combatants, something other than Global Conquest is in the offing for Japan.