Matrix Games Forums

Excellent progress and a good recovery from the aborted invasion of SE Oz. Do you believe that the forces on hand are sufficient to take Perth?

I think Perth is untenable for Allies now; much like Rockhampton. If Andy reinforces heavily I can cut it of, bombard it from the sea and air...think he sees this. I do have sizeable number of troops available, 2 divisions worth in Geraldton - now resting to repair all their damage. Also got 3 divisions at Soerabaja resting, all planning for Perth.

I see New Caledonia is undeveldoped and most likely lightly defended.
Is it worth to grab it, place an Air HQ there together with a regiment and 30 Zero's and 30 Betties?
Could be useful as an emergency port.

Don't want to spread to thin, sending a convoy south now with 5 arty units and 4 base force units.
Base units go to the Solomons; this is our main objective - build a strong line of defense.
Also shipping out supplies, want as much as the bases can hold.

When Andy goes onto the offensive he will be channelled towards the weakest link in the chain.
If we deliberately allows one of our sectors to be weakly held we can anticipate his moves and prepare counter-measures accordingly.

New Caledonia could be a useful outpost for two reasons - 1) It's got to be taken before Andy can move on the Solomons & NG, giving more time to develop the MLR further back; and 2) Allied players like to use carriers here. This could tempt him into a CV duel on favorable terms if played right.

New Caledonia could indeed be a side show and a bait to get some attention.
After reading String's thread about his carrier battle with Andy I'm not sure Andy is keen on another carrier brawl with the KB in mid 42!-)

My best bet at winning time is to hack away at Andy's weak side, his not all to big enthusiasm for micro management.
This makes him vulnerable for actions like those in the last post. When it comes to long term planning and execution I've never been able to stop him, merely delay and divert.

Cheers!
I just got this overwelming urge to take part.
New Caledonia is, very much like OZ (except the North), too far away to serve a purpose in the defense of the Empire. But it is a hell of a position to hold throughout 1942 and early 1943, especially when you are conducting operations in Oz. The key is not to have it cut off, that is to time the withdrawal correctly. Strong Guadalcanal is a must. New Caledonia and surrounding islands can be useful as a nuisance to the Allied player who will have to take it back sooner or later which will tie down a portion of his troops and naval assets for at least a month.

Have a nice a war and may the sea run red with the blood of the enemy.

Honda

Hi Honda, good to hear from you!
Yes, New Caledonia is a "nice to have" but not a must.
Will consider an operation as we regroup. Converting some AK's into AK-t's.

Been trying to get a structured convoy system in place - a constant struggle to toggle everything.
A few questions; How many resources do you leave in places like Port Arthur and Hong Kong?
Also; Is it important for the war industry to ship much raw oil to the home islands or does refined fuel do?


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jun 08, 42

Ground Combat

Ok Rockhampton is secured!

Ground combat at Rockhampton (95,152)
Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 528 troops, 0 guns, 94 vehicles, Assault Value = 361
Defending force 0 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 0

Japanese adjusted assault: 50
Allied adjusted defense: 1

Japanese assault odds: 50 to 1 (fort level 3)
Japanese forces CAPTURE Rockhampton !!!

Combat modifiers
Attacker:

Assaulting units:
9th Tank Regiment
1st Infantry Regiment
5th Tank Regiment
3rd Tank Regiment
22nd Recon Regiment
7th Tank Regiment
45th Field AA Battalion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We continue to drive the Alice Springs defenders south!

Ground combat at 73,146
Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 1025 troops, 4 guns, 42 vehicles, Assault Value = 38
Defending force 687 troops, 21 guns, 11 vehicles, Assault Value = 25

Japanese adjusted assault: 15
Allied adjusted defense: 6

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(-), fatigue(-)
Attacker: leaders(-)

Japanese ground losses:
24 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 2 (0 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
284 casualties reported
Squads: 8 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 10 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 2 (2 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 1

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
1st Recon Regiment

Defending units:
3rd Australian Brigade
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Oodnadatta (74,149)
Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 403 troops, 8 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 19
Defending force 325 troops, 0 guns, 12 vehicles, Assault Value = 30

Japanese adjusted assault: 8
Allied adjusted defense: 3

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: op mode(-), leaders(-), disruption(-), preparation(-)
supply(-)
Attacker: leaders(-)

Japanese ground losses:
9 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
66 casualties reported
Squads: 8 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 2

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
Yokosuka Assault SNLF /15

Defending units:
2nd Recce Battalion
2nd USMC Parachute Bn /60
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLAK PIT

Think we are ready to greet visitors with a little firework here!

Been trying to get a structured convoy system in place - a constant struggle to toggle everything.
A few questions; How many resources do you leave in places like Port Arthur and Hong Kong?
Also; Is it important for the war industry to ship much raw oil to the home islands or does refined fuel do?

You have a lot of excess refinery capacity in the home islands, so any oil you can ship there will be used. Don't ship more than what is excess in the SRA however.

I have no idea about surplus refinery capacity in Home Islands Mynok, but if we run low on fuel one day it can't hurt if we build up oil stocks!

Interesting turn...got some issues I've asked Andy about, a few are described below in the combat text!

The others;

1. In another game I got against Al I put lots of troops to follow my HQ marching into Singapore.
Twice the HQ has cancelled its movement whe 50-75% there. Annoying... Now I've put all units to march and they will cross helter skelter, forcing several shock attacks. Suggestions?

2. If you put 10k troops on an atoll with a limit of 6k troops, will this affect supply levels and supply usage in any extreme way?

Have unloaded 4k supplies at Palmyra and supply levels have been staying steady at 20!! continously despite all damage being fixed a long time ago. Trying to move out some troops but it's very frustrating...just like a black hole is eating up everything unloaded here.


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jun 11, 42

Sub Attacks

The happy hunting grounds outside Colombo is still rich with targets!
Clan Macnaught - must be a scotsman!-)

Submarine attack near Colombo at 26,48

Japanese Ships
SS I-165

Allied Ships
xAK Clan Macnaughton, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, heavy damage

xAK Clan Macnaughton is sighted by SS I-165
SS I-165 attacking on the surface
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bombardments

Ok we gave Perth a severe pounding! 36 ac destroyed on the ground including 8 P-38's! [8D]
The Hyuga and Fuso concentrated on Perth while the not so lucky Yamashiro pulled the shortest straw and engaged
Freemantle fort! Hundreds of 9.2, 6 and 4" shells were hurled at her and she was duped in fire. Still, sys damage = only 2
and one secondary turret is destroyed....

Naval bombardment of Perth at 49,147 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
B-26 Marauder: 7 destroyed on ground
F4F-3 Wildcat: 3 destroyed on ground
P-40E Warhawk: 3 destroyed on ground
F4F-3A Wildcat: 1 destroyed on ground
PBY-5A Catalina: 1 destroyed on ground
Beaufighter Ic: 2 destroyed on ground
P-38E Lightning: 3 destroyed on ground

102 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
BB Hyuga
BB Yamashiro, Shell hits 31
BB Fuso
CL Tama

Allied ground losses:
181 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 10 destroyed, 26 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Guns lost 12 (1 destroyed, 11 disabled)
Vehicles lost 4 (0 destroyed, 4 disabled)

Airbase hits 16
Airbase supply hits 9
Runway hits 114

BB Hyuga firing at Perth
BB Yamashiro firing at Freemantle Fortress
BB Fuso firing at Perth
CL Tama firing at Perth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Tried to organize a massive sweep over Calcutta...found no one home - but what upset me
was that all air units went in one by one despite my preparations!

1. Plenty supplies in base
2. Air HQ in base
3. All fighters given the same target and altitude

I see that weather was poor, but still - the sweeping ac launched unit by unit, no
attempts at coordination!

Why is this [&:]

Afternoon Air attack on Calcutta , at 52,37

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 28 NM, estimated altitude 30,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 12

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x Ki-43-Ic Oscar sweeping at 25000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Calcutta , at 52,37

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 42 NM, estimated altitude 26,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 34

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
34 x Ki-43-Ib Oscar sweeping at 25000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Calcutta , at 52,37

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 29,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 36

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
36 x Ki-45 KAIa Nick sweeping at 25000 feet *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Calcutta , at 52,37

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 31 NM, estimated altitude 26,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 9

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 25000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Calcutta , at 52,37

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 14 NM, estimated altitude 30,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 36

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
36 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 25000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

Trying to take out another stack that was surrounded...Andy made no attempts at withdrawing or
preventing the encirclement. A bit strange, the combat text says "forts reduced" twice but they didn't go down at all???

Ground combat at Kukong (79,57)

Japanese Deliberate attack
Attacking force 43316 troops, 327 guns, 64 vehicles, Assault Value = 1590

Defending force 20827 troops, 180 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 731
Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 2

Japanese adjusted assault: 980
Allied adjusted defense: 393

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 2)
Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), op mode(-), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
2469 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 161 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 95 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 17 disabled
Vehicles lost 5 (0 destroyed, 5 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
1497 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 119 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 100 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled

Assaulting units:
22nd Division
12th Ind.Mixed Brigade
2nd Ind.Mixed Regiment
17th/C Division
13th Ind.Mixed Brigade
116th/A Division
17th/B Division
116th/B Division

Defending units:
21st Chinese Corps
78th Chinese Corps
49th Chinese Corps
3rd New Chinese Corps
7th War Area
30th Group Army
12th Group Army
11th Chinese Base Force
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've asked Andy about this one; 6 guns an no men defending against 120 tanks and 1000 troops.
3 times in a row I've shock attacked with 15-21 to 1 in odds. No results, no casualties and no retreat [&:]
A coastal arty unit should be dead and buried a long time ago - shouldn't even be able to move with guns!!
Annoying....

Ground combat at 50,144

Japanese Shock attack
Attacking force 1071 troops, 4 guns, 119 vehicles, Assault Value = 71

Defending force 0 troops, 6 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1
Japanese adjusted assault: 15

Allied adjusted defense: 1
Japanese assault odds: 15 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(-), disruption(-), fatigue(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+), disruption(-)

Assaulting units:
16th Recon Regiment
2nd Tank Regiment

Defending units:
276th Coastal Artillery Battalion
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perth receives a pounding!

36x14" guns can deliver a sizeable barrage [8D]

Progress Map

ORIGINAL: PzB

1. In another game I got against Al I put lots of troops to follow my HQ marching into Singapore.
Twice the HQ has cancelled its movement whe 50-75% there. Annoying... Now I've put all units to march and they will cross helter skelter, forcing several shock attacks. Suggestions?

I think the HQ can't be first in where enemy units are present. Try having them follow a combat unit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've asked Andy about this one; 6 guns an no men defending against 120 tanks and 1000 troops.
3 times in a row I've shock attacked with 15-21 to 1 in odds. No results, no casualties and no retreat [&:]
A coastal arty unit should be dead and buried a long time ago - shouldn't even be able to move with guns!!
Annoying....

Ground combat at 50,144

Japanese Shock attack
Attacking force 1071 troops, 4 guns, 119 vehicles, Assault Value = 71

Defending force 0 troops, 6 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1
Japanese adjusted assault: 15

Allied adjusted defense: 1
Japanese assault odds: 15 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(-), disruption(-), fatigue(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+), disruption(-)

Assaulting units:
16th Recon Regiment
2nd Tank Regiment

Defending units:
276th Coastal Artillery Battalion

They have Bogie! Ever seen Sahara?

Do you not use WitpTracker PzB? That'll show you the excess refinery capacity quickly.

ORIGINAL: PzB

Air Combat

Tried to organize a massive sweep over Calcutta...found no one home - but what upset me
was that all air units went in one by one despite my preparations!

1. Plenty supplies in base
2. Air HQ in base
3. All fighters given the same target and altitude

I see that weather was poor, but still - the sweeping ac launched unit by unit, no
attempts at coordination!

Why is this [&:]

Because that´s how it is designed now, it´s called "strike package". [;)] So while your sweep or other attacks go in piece meal (strike package) you can be very unlucky in attacking a base with enough radar coverage and face the full Cap and all your "strike packages" will be whiped out. Same goes when attacking TFs, KB for example (and Allied TFs of course), you will face quite a high Cap as many (if not all) fighters will scramble to meet your piece meal strikes. This then leads to the strike packages being hit hard, as can be seen in many AARs. It´s hard coded and you can´t do much (if anything) against it, the air coordination guide on the forum is nice but is 95% theory. Follow it and you won´t find much difference IMO. All the "you need this and that" just doesn´t work in my AE version and it doesn´t work in most versions, at least I have yet to see an AAR that proves it working.

It doesn´t and that´s because it was designed to work like this, it was even part of the "what´s new commercial". Design desicion, set three fighter squadrons to fly from the same base to a target 120 miles away and you will probably see all three squadrons going in piecemeal (with the squadrons themself split up too) most of the time. Instead of designing it that something can get screwed up SOMETIME it was designed that strikes get screwed up MOST of the time, which is just plain wrong and is not reflecting real life, at least not in the books we all read about it. Just not true that strikes of 50 aircraft got lost most of the time, yet in the game they do.

PzB re coordination:
 
Weather was not bad, it was horrible for coordination purposes. More so if you want to accomplish this with
100+ fighters. I would not have dared to launch this mission against expected heavy CAP.
Just imagine large formations with WWII nav equipment through something dubbed "severe storms". Close to impossible.
I´d say this was the number one killer for a coordinated sweep.
 
Additional impacts might have been the by different Airframes (Oscar, Zero, Nick).
Also check for other flights assigned to 25k in the area, another thing that prevents coordination.
I guess you set all squads to the HQ?
 
Usually I refrain from flying heavy strikes/sweeps in bad weather as this seldom works as intended.
 
CT its not 95% theory. [;)]
I´m living by these rules and my unexplainable issues with coordination are about 0.1%.
Also coordination only screws up MOST of the time if you try to accomplish something that can´t
work in RL, (like flying 80 bombers with escorts to a target and expect them all to arrive at the same time)
so why should it in-game? The guide is something that helps you get coordinated results within reasonable
limits.
But I think we have had discussions over this topic for a lifetime anyway...
 
In my current PBEM against Rob I deliberately waited for bad weather to launch an invasion because i knew this would
disrupt his attempts to counter with the overwhelming assets he has available.
I admit I was lucky until now too and this is far from done but in general most players tend to underestimate weather
as a deciding factor.

Hi PzB,

You can't attack across river with HQ. Although you have combat units following the game mechanics keep them some 1 mile beihind or something. I think the game resets the movement when it comes to making the assult. try having them follow a unit with some assult value (even basic non-combat engineers will do). IIRC, that should do the trick.

Honda

P.S.
Oops, just noticed witpqs got there first.

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

PzB re coordination:

Weather was not bad, it was horrible for coordination purposes. More so if you want to accomplish this with
100+ fighters. I would not have dared to launch this mission against expected heavy CAP.
Just imagine large formations with WWII nav equipment through something dubbed "severe storms". Close to impossible.
I´d say this was the number one killer for a coordinated sweep.

Additional impacts might have been the by different Airframes (Oscar, Zero, Nick).
Also check for other flights assigned to 25k in the area, another thing that prevents coordination.
I guess you set all squads to the HQ?

Usually I refrain from flying heavy strikes/sweeps in bad weather as this seldom works as intended.

CT its not 95% theory. [;)]
I´m living by these rules and my unexplainable issues with coordination are about 0.1%.
Also coordination only screws up MOST of the time if you try to accomplish something that can´t
work in RL, (like flying 80 bombers with escorts to a target and expect them all to arrive at the same time)
so why should it in-game? The guide is something that helps you get coordinated results within reasonable
limits.
But I think we have had discussions over this topic for a lifetime anyway...

In my current PBEM against Rob I deliberately waited for bad weather to launch an invasion because i knew this would
disrupt his attempts to counter with the overwhelming assets he has available.
I admit I was lucky until now too and this is far from done but in general most players tend to underestimate weather
as a deciding factor.

I don´t doubt your words, but what I see in all AARs I read and myself playing I can follow all the assumptions of what to do and what not and it still doesn´t help at all. The ONLY thing so far I can confirm is that it´s better to have your fighters at the same alt as your bombers but that´s it. No matter if bright sunshine or thunderstorms, I´ve got it happening all the time and seriously, if you want to wait for good weather in the game to launch a strike you will never launch one because even if the forecast says "clear" you most often still end up in thunderstorms. The weather model in the game is screwed and I guess most people agree on this, knowing that some would say it´s perfectly fine and realistic. I´ve got thunderstorms or severe storms in the desert so often that I wonder why it´s called desert.

But as you say I shouldn´t expect to see 80 aircraft flying at the same time to the same target we´re both fine already as this is what doesn´t work. But I´m glad the "we send all fighters on Cap" still works.

Coordination works just fine then and you don´t have to follow ANY assumptions then, because sending one squadron works. NO, sorry, doesn´t work either, as usually 23 fighter arrive with the last 4 separated.

We can go even further, even if we´re going off topic even more (sry PzB hope you don´t mind). We have realistic or historical numbers coming in but we have ahistorical numbers of Cap in the air and now the most unrealistical thing then: the damage done is repaired in no time. In real life it took one or two succesful mission to wreck an airbase for a long time, yet in the game I can still repair it in no time, if there are enough eng on hand. Just because you have 5000 engineers at a base doesn´t mean you would have all your hangers, concrete runways, storage buildings, etc up running within one or two days again - everything brand new. In the game, no problem, put 300 eng squads at a base and have a level 9 airfield repaired from 100% in just a couple of days. Wonder how long it took to repair the damage done at Pearl Harbour in real life. And there it probably would not be more than 10-20% (if it even was that high).

Again, if you´re saying 80 aircraft are too many to have them coming in coordinated when flying out of an airfield complex level 7-9 then I´m out of the discussion anyway an won´t complain again. Those 80 aircraft being split up in 4, 5 or 6 single strikes meet a hell a lot of Cap though. Wonder how those fighters can take off and intercept then when the same number can´t fly to a target together. And yes, it is full theory because for a strike of two squadrons of 12 aircraft each I just don´t care about any setting as those work just fine.

I was told by a dev it´s NOT necessary to have all squadrons command being set to the HQ at the base.

One last thing, can you explain me in a realistic way what has to go wrong in real life to have 50 B-17 not being able to coordinate when they launch from a level 8 airfield, attacking a target 4 hexes away? The bombers could circle for hours over their base to form up. The only thing then would be to get lost during their way onto the target and that´s fine with me. That´s what should sometimes screw up, but not 95% of the time.

In my version of WITP AE and the version being sold to most of the rest of the players doing an AAR it´s all just plain theory. HQ, alt, weather, av support, same aircraft type, position of the moon, birthday of Adolf Hitler... it all just doesn´t matter because most of the time strikes bigger than 40 ac don´t work. Heck, strikes of single squadrons usually don´t work. So what setting is wrong if a 27 fighter squadron comes in as 23 + 4 strike? The only thing that convinced me so far is experience of the crews. With 70 it seems you get just nicely combined strikes. Haven´t done extensive testing on this in my AI game but it seems to work as I used the editor to have halve a dozen squadrons with 70 exp. But try to get 70 exp in the game. I have bomber crews with 100+ missions flown and they still are only in the high 50s or low 60s. It takes until the end of the war to reach 70 exp in the game. Skill is no problem, takes only 2 months training to reach 70 skill as a newb out of flight school.

Big strikes work from carriers though, this again can be related to high experienced crews or the coordination from 7 carriers is being seen easier than from an airfield complex level 9. IMO, it´s the other way around. A huge airfield should be better than 7 carriers where you can´t even park all the aircraft on deck. "My theory" is that exp is what counts, but as you will never reach high enough exp you will never see something that you wouldn´t call "screwed up". Of course you can happily go on sending 20 bombers escorted by 20 fighters against targets with 100 fighters in the air and if you´re lucky to do 10% of af damage it will be 0% the next day.

CT I´ll leave it with a short answer theres no need to hijack a great AAR for this but I think
you sometimes deliberately try to misunderstand what I´m saying.
 
No prob with 50 bombers running a coordinated mission.
I said theres  no way - in RL and in-game - they will arrive in one single "bomber box" over target at the same time all ready to
protect the other bombers and form an impenetrable target wall against fighters like you want to have it.
On the other hand scambling interceptors are given vectors and altitude of enemy formations so whats unrealistic about
them being able to concentrate forces and single out stragglers or seperated formations? 
If you don´t understand what this implies, what disadvantages the attacking formations had to face in WWII against a prepared defender
that benefits from early warning - and how you have to translate this into combat replay - I can´t help you.
 
If you still think I´m wrong lets leave it as it is and conclude that we just seem to have different opinions on this topic.
 
 
 
 
 

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

CT I´ll leave it with a short answer theres no need to hijack a great AAR for this but I think
you sometimes deliberately try to misunderstand what I´m saying.

No prob with 50 bombers running a coordinated mission.
I said theres  no way - in RL and in-game - they will arrive in one single "bomber box" over target at the same time all ready to
protect the other bombers and form an impenetrable target wall against fighters like you want to have it.
On the other hand scambling interceptors are given vectors and altitude of enemy formations so whats unrealistic about
them being able to concentrate forces and single out stragglers or seperated formations? 
If you don´t understand what this implies, what disadvantages the attacking formations had to face in WWII against a prepared defender
that benefits from early warning - and how you have to translate this into combat replay - I can´t help you.

If you still think I´m wrong lets leave it as it is and conclude that we just seem to have different opinions on this topic.

lol, have you ever had 50 medium bombers being attacked by 50 Zeroes? Or worse, 50 IJAAF medium bombers by 50 Warhawks? I had 50+ obsolete Dutch bombers being shot down by not even two dozen Zeroes and Marauders or Mitchells aren´t expected to form this wall you´re talking about either. One such attack and you lose two months replacements of US medium bombers.

We do have two different opinions on this topic for sure. I really appreciate all the work you´ve put into the guide as much I appreciate all the testing some people are doing to solve issues. Problem is, it either is not working or only works for you, because like I´ve stated before, all the AARs I´m reading are showing different outcomes and the same goes for my game. I can follow it perfectly and still will have those piece meal strikes. And why shouldn´t I? It´s working as designed and it´s been designed to have "strike packs".

It sure can be the case that all those experienced players (like beta testers or members of the dev team) are just not able to figure out how their "own" desing works. Andy vs String is just one of dozens instances I can remember, he was not happy to have hundreds of aircraft go in piece meal against KB. Just one of many examples. Being a member of the dev team you could think he would know what to do. Or he´s just a bad player, sorry Andy. [;)]

ORIGINAL: PzB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've asked Andy about this one; 6 guns an no men defending against 120 tanks and 1000 troops.
3 times in a row I've shock attacked with 15-21 to 1 in odds. No results, no casualties and no retreat [&:]
A coastal arty unit should be dead and buried a long time ago - shouldn't even be able to move with guns!!
Annoying....

Ground combat at 50,144

Japanese Shock attack
Attacking force 1071 troops, 4 guns, 119 vehicles, Assault Value = 71

Defending force 0 troops, 6 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1
Japanese adjusted assault: 15

Allied adjusted defense: 1
Japanese assault odds: 15 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(-), disruption(-), fatigue(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+), disruption(-)

Assaulting units:
16th Recon Regiment
2nd Tank Regiment

Defending units:
276th Coastal Artillery Battalion

Very strange PzB. This reminds me about the severe problems seidlitz had when he launched his attack against the SU.

I really thought there was a solution for the static unit defend-to-the-last-man syndrome long ago.
Thats your own fault for extending the Japanese sphere of influence way beyond historical limitations...
Somehow 6 Paul Hogans armed to the teeth behind barbed wire spring to mind... [:D]

Tried to organize a massive sweep over Calcutta...found no one home - but what upset me
was that all air units went in one by one despite my preparations!

1. Plenty supplies in base
2. Air HQ in base
3. All fighters given the same target and altitude

I see that weather was poor, but still - the sweeping ac launched unit by unit, no
attempts at coordination!

Why is this

What was the exp of the pilots? I find in my games that this is the most important factor for flying coordinated strikes. I rarely have this problem when exp is over 60.

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

Tried to organize a massive sweep over Calcutta...found no one home - but what upset me
was that all air units went in one by one despite my preparations!

1. Plenty supplies in base
2. Air HQ in base
3. All fighters given the same target and altitude

I see that weather was poor, but still - the sweeping ac launched unit by unit, no
attempts at coordination!

Why is this

What was the exp of the pilots? I find in my games that this is the most important factor for flying coordinated strikes. I rarely have this problem when exp is over 60.

Sorry Pzb .. Hijacker alert ! ..

I'm actually quite taken with your and CT's idea that exp might indeed have a much larger impact than a/c type/range etc. Would actually make pilot exp very very valuable instead as its now treated as a secondary commodity over individual skills. Interesting thoughts.

I'll discuss my co-ordination 'efforts' with LoBaron over e-mail so as not to turn this AAR into a forum thread.

Good luck as ever PzB ! Long live the Empire of scandanavia !