At least not in early 1944 before destroying / attriting the bulk of the IJNAF and KB.ORIGINAL: Miller
A very brave move by GJ, but any Allied commander viewing the outcome of that will not send his CVs within 12 hexes of mainland Japan, period.
The Power of Inexperience / GreyJoy(A)-Rader(J)
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
-
Chickenboy
- Posts: 24642
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
- Location: San Antonio, TX
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE!
-
CaptBeefheart
- Posts: 2595
- Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 2:42 am
- Location: Seoul, Korea
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE!
Wow, sorry to see this and sorry to suggest CAP could handle such an attack in my last comment. [&:] A toast to the brave, lost sailors of TF58.
Well, on the positive side, what you are doing here GJ is providing some excellent feedback to make this game even better, while providing a lot of entertainment. Thanks for doing so.
Cheers,
CC
Well, on the positive side, what you are doing here GJ is providing some excellent feedback to make this game even better, while providing a lot of entertainment. Thanks for doing so.
Cheers,
CC
Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE!
Half a league, half a league,
  Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
  Rode the six hundred.
'Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns' he said:
Into the valley of Death
  Rode the six hundred.
I think you suffered from the limited CAP attacks where apparantly you only get 200 shots at the attackers.
Plus the nerfed AAA in the game doesnt knock down 10% of IRL numbers.
And you stuck your head into the lions mouth, without at the same time ensure he was dead!
  Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
  Rode the six hundred.
'Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns' he said:
Into the valley of Death
  Rode the six hundred.
I think you suffered from the limited CAP attacks where apparantly you only get 200 shots at the attackers.
Plus the nerfed AAA in the game doesnt knock down 10% of IRL numbers.
And you stuck your head into the lions mouth, without at the same time ensure he was dead!
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE!
Plus I still dont know if he has won the Tim Tebow award, is this another pick6?
Dont forget I brought up the Battle of the Crater.
Dont forget I brought up the Battle of the Crater.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
HOLD FAST!
The way i see it, in this very specific case it wasn't a "code" fault...but simply bad luck (combined probably with a mistake of mine)
If you read the combat report it seems that placing most of my fighters on CAP (between 60 and 70%, i checked) have resulted in a "reverse midway effect"...where the bulk of my fighters were caught while refueling/rearming and only 30% of them were available to scramble or were already in the air....
Then, during the second strike, most of my fighters were out of position (look at the time necessary to reach the target)...and so on....
Bad luck i say...and, a part from the fact that probably 60% CAP isn't a good thing, i couldn't do much more...
On a strategical answer....my view was (and IS) that Sadogashima (obviously with the allied CVs still intact) could have been a perfect way of bypassing the north.....if defended and well supplied (and obviously this mean with the allied CV threat still active) it could have provided a lot of close support CAP to an invasion of the Nijigata Area....without even using the CVs (that was the idea)...and so forcing Rader to committ his reserves in this area...
Obviously now everything changes and Sado will be bombed to death by Rader....let's see if i can re-supply it...will be a good battleground[:D]
But, hey, we're not dead yet! I still have 8 CVs undamaged and some usefull 20 CVEs....which means a carrier force of more than 1000 carrier planes...enough to ruin KB's day if we have to clash with each other (out of LBA range clearly[:'(])...
Valar Morghulis....all men must die[8D]
If you read the combat report it seems that placing most of my fighters on CAP (between 60 and 70%, i checked) have resulted in a "reverse midway effect"...where the bulk of my fighters were caught while refueling/rearming and only 30% of them were available to scramble or were already in the air....
Then, during the second strike, most of my fighters were out of position (look at the time necessary to reach the target)...and so on....
Bad luck i say...and, a part from the fact that probably 60% CAP isn't a good thing, i couldn't do much more...
On a strategical answer....my view was (and IS) that Sadogashima (obviously with the allied CVs still intact) could have been a perfect way of bypassing the north.....if defended and well supplied (and obviously this mean with the allied CV threat still active) it could have provided a lot of close support CAP to an invasion of the Nijigata Area....without even using the CVs (that was the idea)...and so forcing Rader to committ his reserves in this area...
Obviously now everything changes and Sado will be bombed to death by Rader....let's see if i can re-supply it...will be a good battleground[:D]
But, hey, we're not dead yet! I still have 8 CVs undamaged and some usefull 20 CVEs....which means a carrier force of more than 1000 carrier planes...enough to ruin KB's day if we have to clash with each other (out of LBA range clearly[:'(])...
Valar Morghulis....all men must die[8D]
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE!
ORIGINAL: JeffK
Half a league, half a league,
  Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
  Rode the six hundred.
'Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns' he said:
Into the valley of Death
  Rode the six hundred.
Picket's charge song?[:D]
DixieLand[8D]
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE!
The fast Allied merchantmen also have a large cargo carrying capacity. At a size 2 port, they will be taxing the stevedores ability to unload them in the same phase and thus will be prone to remain within the target hairs of the enemy bombers.
What rader needs to do to maximise his opportunity is:
(a) have his attack bombers limited to a range which covers Sadogashima
(b) primary mission naval attack
(c) secondary mission port attack
(d) target set to Sadogashima
(e) deploy minefields at Sadogashima and on the direct approach routes
(f) set some fighter LRCAP over Sadogashima to bag Allied air transports flying in supply
(g) regularly send in small suicidal landing parties to force Allied consumption rates above the single ship resupply rates
The initial Allied landing wave so its AV reduced from approximately 1100 unadjusted AV to about 70 adjusted AV. That means a lot of rest and recovery time is needed, and that needs supply.
As to the CAP failure, the wrong lessons are being presented.
(1) This game is being played with the new 300 flight limit
(2) In theory up to 2400 Allied fighters could have participated in combat, and had they done so they could have wiped out completely the enemy bomber. That less than that number participated in the defense of the Allied carriers has nothing to do with the flight limit
(3) IIRC, approximately 40% of the potential Allied fighter CAP was already tasked to provide LRCAP over the transports at the beachhead some hexes away. That was a player decision and not the victim of the game code
(4) Much of the remaining available Allied CAP had a time to interception longer than the time to target of the incoming bombers, thus it was out of position. Being out of position is a major factor in determining whether it gets a chance to participate in combat at all or when it does, such as pre or post the raid
(5) With multiple CV TFs located in the same hex there is an opportunity for the CAP of all the TFs to participate but only the CAP of the computer targetted TF is in the optimal position to intercept. The CAP of the adjacent TFs has to move into position
(6) Allied CAP was set to only 60%. In view of (a) the short journey, (b) the short term exposure of the carriers and (c) the anticipated heavy enemy response (evidenced by the carriers having bomber units replaced by additional fighter units), a good argument could be made that 100% CAP should have been set
(7) CAP altitude was too staggered. The main reason why one wants to stagger CAP is to counter sweeps. Generally speaking a maximum of 3 altitudes suffices to counter sweeps. Again 3 altitudes, albeit at different heights, generally suffices to meet kamikazes. To counter normal enemy bomber strikes 2 maybe 3 CAP altitudes will normally suffice for the enemy bombers have set attack profile runs. Bottom line, by having so many different CAP altitudes, more CAP fighters were already being placed out of position to quickly respond and get into optimal position
(8) GreyJoy had no prior experience of handling the massed Allied carrier fleet. LBA and CV based air have one thing in common; they both fly through the air. Otherwise there are some significant differences between the two regarding how the player should approach their utilisation.
So once again before jumping on the bandwagon of criticising the game engine people would do well to consider what player made decisions contributed to the outcome. As to the overall strategy employed here and previously, I will maintain my continued silence.
Alfred
What rader needs to do to maximise his opportunity is:
(a) have his attack bombers limited to a range which covers Sadogashima
(b) primary mission naval attack
(c) secondary mission port attack
(d) target set to Sadogashima
(e) deploy minefields at Sadogashima and on the direct approach routes
(f) set some fighter LRCAP over Sadogashima to bag Allied air transports flying in supply
(g) regularly send in small suicidal landing parties to force Allied consumption rates above the single ship resupply rates
The initial Allied landing wave so its AV reduced from approximately 1100 unadjusted AV to about 70 adjusted AV. That means a lot of rest and recovery time is needed, and that needs supply.
As to the CAP failure, the wrong lessons are being presented.
(1) This game is being played with the new 300 flight limit
(2) In theory up to 2400 Allied fighters could have participated in combat, and had they done so they could have wiped out completely the enemy bomber. That less than that number participated in the defense of the Allied carriers has nothing to do with the flight limit
(3) IIRC, approximately 40% of the potential Allied fighter CAP was already tasked to provide LRCAP over the transports at the beachhead some hexes away. That was a player decision and not the victim of the game code
(4) Much of the remaining available Allied CAP had a time to interception longer than the time to target of the incoming bombers, thus it was out of position. Being out of position is a major factor in determining whether it gets a chance to participate in combat at all or when it does, such as pre or post the raid
(5) With multiple CV TFs located in the same hex there is an opportunity for the CAP of all the TFs to participate but only the CAP of the computer targetted TF is in the optimal position to intercept. The CAP of the adjacent TFs has to move into position
(6) Allied CAP was set to only 60%. In view of (a) the short journey, (b) the short term exposure of the carriers and (c) the anticipated heavy enemy response (evidenced by the carriers having bomber units replaced by additional fighter units), a good argument could be made that 100% CAP should have been set
(7) CAP altitude was too staggered. The main reason why one wants to stagger CAP is to counter sweeps. Generally speaking a maximum of 3 altitudes suffices to counter sweeps. Again 3 altitudes, albeit at different heights, generally suffices to meet kamikazes. To counter normal enemy bomber strikes 2 maybe 3 CAP altitudes will normally suffice for the enemy bombers have set attack profile runs. Bottom line, by having so many different CAP altitudes, more CAP fighters were already being placed out of position to quickly respond and get into optimal position
(8) GreyJoy had no prior experience of handling the massed Allied carrier fleet. LBA and CV based air have one thing in common; they both fly through the air. Otherwise there are some significant differences between the two regarding how the player should approach their utilisation.
So once again before jumping on the bandwagon of criticising the game engine people would do well to consider what player made decisions contributed to the outcome. As to the overall strategy employed here and previously, I will maintain my continued silence.
Alfred
-
CT Grognard
- Posts: 694
- Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 6:42 pm
- Location: Cape Town, South Africa
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE!
"Charge of the Light Brigade", by Alfred, Lord Tennyson. [8D]
"The Trooper" by Iron Maiden was based on this poem:
The bugle sounds as the charge begins
But on this battlefield no one wins
The smell of acrid smoke and horses breath
As you plunge into a certain death
The horse he sweats with fear we break to run
The might roar of the Russian guns
And as we race towards the human wall
The screams of pain as my comrades fall
"The Trooper" by Iron Maiden was based on this poem:
The bugle sounds as the charge begins
But on this battlefield no one wins
The smell of acrid smoke and horses breath
As you plunge into a certain death
The horse he sweats with fear we break to run
The might roar of the Russian guns
And as we race towards the human wall
The screams of pain as my comrades fall
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE!
Alfred covered the CAP topic brilliantly, as always.
I only like to add that different settings, such as LRCAP or CAP, do not reserve
a specific plane for a specific mission for the whole day. It only displays the probability
of mission type assigned for a specific plane which is about to be launched.
If you set a squad to 60% CAP, 40% LRCAP for example, expect a lot more than 40% of total a/c
affected by the percentage flying LRCAP mission.
Since LRCAP naturally results in a much higher attrition rate because of distance, air time,
plane fatigue, and so on, a high percentage of planes return from LRCAP to refuel/rearm/maintenance
during the resolution phase, with negative impact on any planes available to be launched on CAP missions,
or react to incoming strikes immediately.
It might be this added to the low readiness numbers to counter the first strike.
I only like to add that different settings, such as LRCAP or CAP, do not reserve
a specific plane for a specific mission for the whole day. It only displays the probability
of mission type assigned for a specific plane which is about to be launched.
If you set a squad to 60% CAP, 40% LRCAP for example, expect a lot more than 40% of total a/c
affected by the percentage flying LRCAP mission.
Since LRCAP naturally results in a much higher attrition rate because of distance, air time,
plane fatigue, and so on, a high percentage of planes return from LRCAP to refuel/rearm/maintenance
during the resolution phase, with negative impact on any planes available to be launched on CAP missions,
or react to incoming strikes immediately.
It might be this added to the low readiness numbers to counter the first strike.
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE!
ORIGINAL: Alfred
(3) IIRC, approximately 40% of the potential Allied fighter CAP was already tasked to provide LRCAP over the transports at the beachhead some hexes away. That was a player decision and not the victim of the game code
(4) Much of the remaining available Allied CAP had a time to interception longer than the time to target of the incoming bombers, thus it was out of position. Being out of position is a major factor in determining whether it gets a chance to participate in combat at all or when it does, such as pre or post the raid
(5) With multiple CV TFs located in the same hex there is an opportunity for the CAP of all the TFs to participate but only the CAP of the computer targetted TF is in the optimal position to intercept. The CAP of the adjacent TFs has to move into position
(6) Allied CAP was set to only 60%. In view of (a) the short journey, (b) the short term exposure of the carriers and (c) the anticipated heavy enemy response (evidenced by the carriers having bomber units replaced by additional fighter units), a good argument could be made that 100% CAP should have been set
(7) CAP altitude was too staggered. The main reason why one wants to stagger CAP is to counter sweeps. Generally speaking a maximum of 3 altitudes suffices to counter sweeps. Again 3 altitudes, albeit at different heights, generally suffices to meet kamikazes. To counter normal enemy bomber strikes 2 maybe 3 CAP altitudes will normally suffice for the enemy bombers have set attack profile runs. Bottom line, by having so many different CAP altitudes, more CAP fighters were already being placed out of position to quickly respond and get into optimal position
(8) GreyJoy had no prior experience of handling the massed Allied carrier fleet. LBA and CV based air have one thing in common; they both fly through the air. Otherwise there are some significant differences between the two regarding how the player should approach their utilisation.
So once again before jumping on the bandwagon of criticising the game engine people would do well to consider what player made decisions contributed to the outcome. As to the overall strategy employed here and previously, I will maintain my continued silence.
Alfred
(3) Alfred, the numbers present in the combat report were fighters all set to CAP and not LRCAP. I placed on LRCAP only the Hellcats-3, while Hellcats-5 (plus a small % of Hellcats 3) and the corsairs were all on CAP (60% or 70%) with range 0. So i had more than 1000 fighters on CAP over my CVs.
(4) but this wasn't my fault, right? just bad dice and rolls?
(5) Got it...
(6) I see...i set the CAP at 60/70 because i wanted to avoid what seems to have happened...that our fighters weren't ready to scramble when needed because all of them were out of position. The problem i see is the "stand-by" position when the raid arrived...to me that means that my fighters were refueling ...wouldn't have been better, in retrospective, to have say 30% on CAP and the rest ready to scramble?
(7) well...i feared the Kamikaze Nemo's approach...meaning lots of different altitudes (from 42k to 100 feet) in order to catch the CAP anaware...
(8) true...but sooner or later i had to try, right? [:'(]
As always thanks for your insight mate!
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE!
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Alfred covered the CAP topic brilliantly, as always.
I only like to add that different settings, such as LRCAP or CAP, do not reserve
a specific plane for a specific mission for the whole day. It only displays the probability
of mission type assigned for a specific plane which is about to be launched.
If you set a squad to 60% CAP, 40% LRCAP for example, expect a lot more than 40% of total a/c
affected by the percentage flying LRCAP mission.
Since LRCAP naturally results in a much higher attrition rate because of distance, air time,
plane fatigue, and so on, a high percentage of planes return from LRCAP to refuel/rearm/maintenance
during the resolution phase, with negative impact on any planes available to be launched on CAP missions,
or react to incoming strikes immediately.
It might be this added to the low readiness numbers to counter the first strike.
Not in this case.
I had dedicated squadrons for LRCAP (90% of the Hellcats 3) while the rest of the squadrons were simply set to 60% CAP with 0 range.
With 2 days turn the 100% CAP can be really a problem because the second day, after a day of battles, will result in your crews having more than 50 fatigue accumulated...
But in this case, i strongly suggest to ready how many fighters were on "stand by" mode when the raids arrived.... it seems to me that a bad dice and roll caused the 60% fighters that were ordered to CAP over the CVs to refuel/rearm all at the same time...right when the raid arrived... Don't you think so?
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE!
Apologies, it looked in the post like you used hybrid settings, which you say was not the
case.
You could be right that the numbers of standby are a sideeffect of you CAP% settings.
What was the rest set to? Rest, or not assigned?
case.
You could be right that the numbers of standby are a sideeffect of you CAP% settings.
What was the rest set to? Rest, or not assigned?
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE!
These Hellcats were all on LRCAP from the CVs (2 hexes away), so as you may see they are not added in the combat report of the raid against my CVs...they are not counted...that's why i say that those fighters you see in the combat report on the raid over my CVs were those dedicated ONLY to CAP duties having a range of 0.
LRCAP performed much much better this time...[:(]
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Sadogashima at 114,56 (INVASION FLEET)
Weather in hex: Partial cloud
Raid detected at 118 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 35 minutes
Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 38
A6M5 Zero x 38
A6M5c Zero x 48
B6N2 Jill x 33
G4M1 Betty x 40
G4M3a Betty x 18
N1K1-J George x 47
P1Y1 Frances x 18
Allied aircraft
Thunderbolt I x 15
P-38L Lightning x 101
F6F-3 Hellcat x 280
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 9 destroyed
A6M5 Zero: 7 destroyed
A6M5c Zero: 13 destroyed
B6N2 Jill: 7 destroyed, 12 damaged
B6N2 Jill: 2 destroyed by flak
G4M1 Betty: 15 destroyed, 6 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed by flak
G4M3a Betty: 9 destroyed, 1 damaged
N1K1-J George: 14 destroyed
P1Y1 Frances: 4 destroyed, 5 damaged
P1Y1 Frances: 1 destroyed by flak
Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 3 destroyed
Allied Ships
CL Newfoundland
DD Walker
BB Mississippi
CL Birmingham
DD Halligan
CL Santa Fe
DD Witte de With
APD Bulmer
DD Relentless
APD Barr
CL Biloxi
Aircraft Attacking:
12 x P1Y1 Frances launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
7 x A6M5c Zero sweeping at 14000 feet *
2 x G4M3a Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
18 x A6M5 Zero sweeping at 14000 feet
16 x B6N2 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
8 x A6M3a Zero sweeping at 14000 feet
9 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
7 x A6M5c Zero sweeping at 14000 feet *
8 x N1K1-J George sweeping at 14000 feet
6 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
CAP engaged:
VF-32 with F6F-3 Hellcat (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 19000
Raid is overhead
VF-51 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000
Raid is overhead
VF-22 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 16 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes
VF-31 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 16 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 38000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 8 minutes
VF-32 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 17 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 9000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 12 minutes
VF-51 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 16 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 23000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 16 minutes
No.800 Sqn FAA with Thunderbolt I (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 19000
Raid is overhead
VC(F)-27 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 13 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 13000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes
VC(F)-75 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 13 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes
VC(F)-82 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 13 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 28000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 12 minutes
VC(F)-87 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 13 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 14 minutes
VC(F)-88 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 13 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 8000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes
VOC(F)-1 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 17 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 17000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 12 minutes
VC(F)-7 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 13 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000
Raid is overhead
VRF-1F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 20 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 11 minutes
VRF-4F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 21 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 11000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 5 minutes
VRF-6F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 19 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes
VRF-7F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 20 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes
VRF-8F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 19 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
VMF-124 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 19 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 19000
Raid is overhead
LRCAP performed much much better this time...[:(]
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Sadogashima at 114,56 (INVASION FLEET)
Weather in hex: Partial cloud
Raid detected at 118 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 35 minutes
Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 38
A6M5 Zero x 38
A6M5c Zero x 48
B6N2 Jill x 33
G4M1 Betty x 40
G4M3a Betty x 18
N1K1-J George x 47
P1Y1 Frances x 18
Allied aircraft
Thunderbolt I x 15
P-38L Lightning x 101
F6F-3 Hellcat x 280
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 9 destroyed
A6M5 Zero: 7 destroyed
A6M5c Zero: 13 destroyed
B6N2 Jill: 7 destroyed, 12 damaged
B6N2 Jill: 2 destroyed by flak
G4M1 Betty: 15 destroyed, 6 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed by flak
G4M3a Betty: 9 destroyed, 1 damaged
N1K1-J George: 14 destroyed
P1Y1 Frances: 4 destroyed, 5 damaged
P1Y1 Frances: 1 destroyed by flak
Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 3 destroyed
Allied Ships
CL Newfoundland
DD Walker
BB Mississippi
CL Birmingham
DD Halligan
CL Santa Fe
DD Witte de With
APD Bulmer
DD Relentless
APD Barr
CL Biloxi
Aircraft Attacking:
12 x P1Y1 Frances launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
7 x A6M5c Zero sweeping at 14000 feet *
2 x G4M3a Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
18 x A6M5 Zero sweeping at 14000 feet
16 x B6N2 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
8 x A6M3a Zero sweeping at 14000 feet
9 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
7 x A6M5c Zero sweeping at 14000 feet *
8 x N1K1-J George sweeping at 14000 feet
6 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
CAP engaged:
VF-32 with F6F-3 Hellcat (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 19000
Raid is overhead
VF-51 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000
Raid is overhead
VF-22 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 16 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes
VF-31 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 16 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 38000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 8 minutes
VF-32 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 17 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 9000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 12 minutes
VF-51 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 16 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 23000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 16 minutes
No.800 Sqn FAA with Thunderbolt I (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 19000
Raid is overhead
VC(F)-27 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 13 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 13000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes
VC(F)-75 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 13 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes
VC(F)-82 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 13 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 28000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 12 minutes
VC(F)-87 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 13 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 14 minutes
VC(F)-88 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 13 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 8000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes
VOC(F)-1 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 17 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 17000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 12 minutes
VC(F)-7 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 13 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000
Raid is overhead
VRF-1F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 20 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 11 minutes
VRF-4F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 21 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 11000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 5 minutes
VRF-6F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 19 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes
VRF-7F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 20 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes
VRF-8F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 19 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
VMF-124 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 19 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 19000
Raid is overhead
-
castor troy
- Posts: 14331
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
- Location: Austria
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE!
ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
I am a little surprised at how bent out of shape the JFBs seem to be getting over a little free intel going the Allies way in a game that completely fails to model the HUGE intel advantage the Allies actually had.
How about we just suppose the allies intercepted the orders and decoded them....wait....no that can't happen in RL!!!
This whole JFB/AFB is starting to get to me. Hans, have you ever played the Japanese? Perhaps experience things on that end of the spectrum and then make your comments. Many of the things you gripe about are included for play balance...right or wrong. It's a GAME. Japan needs some help, otherwise you don't have a game, you have a simulation. Frankly, who wants that?
the magic words
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE!
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Apologies, it looked in the post like you used hybrid settings, which you say was not the
case.
You could be right that the numbers of standby are a sideeffect of you CAP% settings.
What was the rest set to? Rest, or not assigned?
Not assigned. Cause i wanted them to be ready to scramble...
Settings were very simple:
CAP 60
LRCAP 0
Rest 0
Range Hex 0
I thought this would guarantee me a solid 40% of my fighter forse (say 450 fighters) ready to scamble, while 600 of my fighters should have been already in the air ready to reach the raid.... Was i wrong?
-
castor troy
- Posts: 14331
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
- Location: Austria
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE!
ORIGINAL: hades1001
a coordinated strike of 600 planes sounds too sci-fi to me.
Even at the beginning of the war Japs sent two wave of 108 planes each as coordinated strike. And each of the pilot in the attack is an ACE!
So later in the war with worse quality of pilots it's just so unrealistic for a 600 planes in a single wave and they attack the fleet at the same time?
Come on. System definitely failed here.
The air combat simulation of large number planes involved is broken. Totally.
I've made some comments a year ago when I finally dropped out of the game for some time that AE has reversed WITP's late war slaughters of IJ air strikes to the slaughter of Allied CV fleets and there is just nothing you can do about it when the enemy is actually able to attack. I have fielded CV/CVL/CVE fleets GreyJoy doesn't come even close to with 1500+ Corsair/Hellcats on CAP and on day one of the fight you can see a dozen carriers blow up being sunk. Which IJ player wouldn't sacrifice 600 aircraft shot down for the sinking of a dozen CVE/CVL or even CV? The ships can not replaced, the IJ aircraft and pilot? Lol, don't have to answer this I guess.
As with many other things in the game (if not all), "leaking Cap" works very well early war until late 43, from then on, it is a Japanese player's wet dream! And fanboyism yes or no, I do not care, it is ONLY really benefitting one side. Why? Because I do not care about a couple of leaking Allied LBA bombers in 42 to drop one or two bombs on an IJN CV when KB is covered by 150 Zeroes for the exchange of being whiped out for sure in 44/45 when 1500+ Corsairs/Hellcats guard the Allied fleet. And early on the IJ bombers just leak the same as the Allied's. Again, it works well for two and a halve years, then it is getting ridicoulos, as ridicoulos as in WITP when 300 Corsairs created a bullet prove Cap to whipe out 1500 attacking aircraft.
We can either accept it or drop the games in mid 44 but I think anyone arguing these are realistic results needs a doctor, a serious one.
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE!
Planes in the hex where the CVs are located (includes standby fighters, fighters
rearming/refueling, fighters with different mission setting)
Allied aircraft
Corsair II x 97
F4U-1A Corsair x 330
F4U-1D Corsair x 129
F6F-3 Hellcat x 72
F6F-5 Hellcat x 555
On first strike your CAP faced roughly 460 escorts and 250 fighters, about 700+ total.
This doesn´t look much comparing to your fighters available, but do not confuse total
numbers on strike (which is a true value) with planes theoretically available for CAP.
Of the 1180 fighters available only 30% were scrambling and another 10% airborne.
(taken from your combat report)
This makes about 400+ fighters available to engage, so roughly 1:1 compared to fighters
in the strike, 2:3 considering total number of a/c involved.
This is not an issue with setting, this is just the character of a CAP mission.
If I calculate available CAP, I always assume potential planes available to intercept a specific
incoming strike to be roughly 30-40% of total fighters assigned to the mission at best.
A strike always has the advantage in plane percentage involved as the time of attack, and
so the time where all available strenght can be focused, can be chosen at will. CAP cannot.
To really stop an incoming raid I would always assume at least an advantage of 3:1 in fighters
capable to engage and at least a 2:1 advantage in total planes. This results in requireing at least
6-7:1 in total CAP fighters available in the hex.
In your case this means 4500+ fighters, considering that the naval attack planes get the most love
from raders training program.
You were far from those numbers.
rearming/refueling, fighters with different mission setting)
Allied aircraft
Corsair II x 97
F4U-1A Corsair x 330
F4U-1D Corsair x 129
F6F-3 Hellcat x 72
F6F-5 Hellcat x 555
On first strike your CAP faced roughly 460 escorts and 250 fighters, about 700+ total.
This doesn´t look much comparing to your fighters available, but do not confuse total
numbers on strike (which is a true value) with planes theoretically available for CAP.
Of the 1180 fighters available only 30% were scrambling and another 10% airborne.
(taken from your combat report)
This makes about 400+ fighters available to engage, so roughly 1:1 compared to fighters
in the strike, 2:3 considering total number of a/c involved.
This is not an issue with setting, this is just the character of a CAP mission.
If I calculate available CAP, I always assume potential planes available to intercept a specific
incoming strike to be roughly 30-40% of total fighters assigned to the mission at best.
A strike always has the advantage in plane percentage involved as the time of attack, and
so the time where all available strenght can be focused, can be chosen at will. CAP cannot.
To really stop an incoming raid I would always assume at least an advantage of 3:1 in fighters
capable to engage and at least a 2:1 advantage in total planes. This results in requireing at least
6-7:1 in total CAP fighters available in the hex.
In your case this means 4500+ fighters, considering that the naval attack planes get the most love
from raders training program.
You were far from those numbers.
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE!
ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Apologies, it looked in the post like you used hybrid settings, which you say was not the
case.
You could be right that the numbers of standby are a sideeffect of you CAP% settings.
What was the rest set to? Rest, or not assigned?
Not assigned. Cause i wanted them to be ready to scramble...
Settings were very simple:
CAP 60
LRCAP 0
Rest 0
Range Hex 0
I thought this would guarantee me a solid 40% of my fighter forse (say 450 fighters) ready to scamble, while 600 of my fighters should have been already in the air ready to reach the raid.... Was i wrong?
Yes, a bit.
This setting means:
60% of fighters are reserved for CAP.
Of those about 20-30% might be airborne at any time, 30% are ready to scramble on short notice, and the
rest in various states of readyness or turnaround/rearm/refuel.
The remaining 40% with no mission assignement are in secondary readyness, available to replace planes broken
down and available for scramble with high delay. These planes most probably all missed the interception of
the first wave, but probably helped engaging the follow up strikes.
Taking your numbers again this means:
about 160-200 fighters airborne
about 200 fighters on ready5 and probably within intercept time
about 200-250 fighters under service/turnaround with no chance to intercept
400 fighters with low readiness, probably much more than the 40mins required for successful intercept.
See the difference?
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE!
ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
ORIGINAL: Alfred
(3) IIRC, approximately 40% of the potential Allied fighter CAP was already tasked to provide LRCAP over the transports at the beachhead some hexes away. That was a player decision and not the victim of the game code
(4) Much of the remaining available Allied CAP had a time to interception longer than the time to target of the incoming bombers, thus it was out of position. Being out of position is a major factor in determining whether it gets a chance to participate in combat at all or when it does, such as pre or post the raid
(5) With multiple CV TFs located in the same hex there is an opportunity for the CAP of all the TFs to participate but only the CAP of the computer targetted TF is in the optimal position to intercept. The CAP of the adjacent TFs has to move into position
(6) Allied CAP was set to only 60%. In view of (a) the short journey, (b) the short term exposure of the carriers and (c) the anticipated heavy enemy response (evidenced by the carriers having bomber units replaced by additional fighter units), a good argument could be made that 100% CAP should have been set
(7) CAP altitude was too staggered. The main reason why one wants to stagger CAP is to counter sweeps. Generally speaking a maximum of 3 altitudes suffices to counter sweeps. Again 3 altitudes, albeit at different heights, generally suffices to meet kamikazes. To counter normal enemy bomber strikes 2 maybe 3 CAP altitudes will normally suffice for the enemy bombers have set attack profile runs. Bottom line, by having so many different CAP altitudes, more CAP fighters were already being placed out of position to quickly respond and get into optimal position
(8) GreyJoy had no prior experience of handling the massed Allied carrier fleet. LBA and CV based air have one thing in common; they both fly through the air. Otherwise there are some significant differences between the two regarding how the player should approach their utilisation.
So once again before jumping on the bandwagon of criticising the game engine people would do well to consider what player made decisions contributed to the outcome. As to the overall strategy employed here and previously, I will maintain my continued silence.
Alfred
(3) Alfred, the numbers present in the combat report were fighters all set to CAP and not LRCAP. I placed on LRCAP only the Hellcats-3, while Hellcats-5 (plus a small % of Hellcats 3) and the corsairs were all on CAP (60% or 70%) with range 0. So i had more than 1000 fighters on CAP over my CVs.
Understood, my point being that you were already limiting your maximum theoretical CAP - see LoBaron's post #6029. Still having 1000 fighters for CAP is only of value if properly set.
(4) but this wasn't my fault, right? just bad dice and rolls?
Not your fault in terms of silly error, but your fault in terms of the natural consequence of your decisions. It is most definitely not the result of bad dice rolls and you need to understand that you were not the victim of circumstances beyond your control. In the circumstances which developed you were always going to have some CAP out of position, the question is whether your decisions exacerbated problem.
(5) Got it...
Like everything there is always a pro and a con to every decision. Allied players tend to have only 1 CV TFs in 1942 to avoid the coordination penalties. By 1944 they can move to a 2 CV structure and not suffer the coordination penalties. However doing so does increase the likelihood of having CAP slightly out of position. More importantly, as the intent of your carriers was to not launch a strike but only to provide protection to the transports at the beach and over the carriers themselves, concern about strike penalties was moot. IOW you could have operated a single giant CV TF.
(6) I see...i set the CAP at 60/70 because i wanted to avoid what seems to have happened...that our fighters weren't ready to scramble when needed because all of them were out of position. The problem i see is the "stand-by" position when the raid arrived...to me that means that my fighters were refueling ...wouldn't have been better, in retrospective, to have say 30% on CAP and the rest ready to scramble?
No.[:)] Whatever CAP level you set, 1/3 of the quantum will be in the air, 1/3 of the quantum is refueling and the other 1/3 of the quantum is on the ground. So by upping the CAP per centage rate you automatically increase the quantum. Having a CAP ratio merely increased the quantum on the ground thus had you gone with a 30% CAP rate the quantum already in the air would have been even smaller.
(7) well...i feared the Kamikaze Nemo's approach...meaning lots of different altitudes (from 42k to 100 feet) in order to catch the CAP anaware...
Yes but you only have to fear 3 kamikaze altitude attack profiles; low (means 100'), medium and high (above most of your midwar fighter latitude ceilings). This means that the real issue is that low kamikazes will arrive over the target before fighters higher up can get down to intercept. With regard to the other two attack profiles you don't need to have multi staggered CAP levels in each profile as most fighters will be able to get to the bandits in time. Thus in addition to setting a low level altitude CAP, having one mid level and one high level CAP altitude generally suffices. Plus accept that just as in real life, some kamikazes will get through and cause some damage but not necessarily enough to sink a capital ship.
(8) true...but sooner or later i had to try, right? [:'(]
Not necessarily.[;)] Depends on whether the tactical risk/reward was consistent with the overall strategic plan. Assuming it is a good strategic plan. In this instance if Sadogashima was to be invaded, then the Allied carriers had to be used.
As always thanks for your insight mate!
Alfred
-
CT Grognard
- Posts: 694
- Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 6:42 pm
- Location: Cape Town, South Africa
RE: 1st oct 1944 Shidens ONLINE!
It's quite simple, in the absence of historical evidence of such large raids occurring, I'd simply provide a House Rule that naval air strikes are limited to a set number of bombers.
I'd say 250, this seems to be just about the largest number of bomber aircraft participating in naval strikes that I'm aware of historically.
Also, I would not have had more than four CVs in a TF - I'd have broken up my carriers into a number of task forces, all in the same hex.
I'd say 250, this seems to be just about the largest number of bomber aircraft participating in naval strikes that I'm aware of historically.
Also, I would not have had more than four CVs in a TF - I'd have broken up my carriers into a number of task forces, all in the same hex.