Matrix Games Forums

And note that it says:

unless 1/3 of the unmodified AV of the defenders has already crossed from that hex side in a previous turn.

That means if you have plenty of AV already there but the new ones are crossing from a new hex side, they will still shock attack.

Our esteemed Gorn copatriot is offering good advice.

Agree that BB's in CV task forces act as magnets for empire attack planes, deflecting the impact of any successful naval attack on the allied CV's. Note this works for the empire too. If you are intending to hunt empire CV's early then moving POW and R to the American CV's make sense. Keep in mind that any BB will attract naval attack aircraft. As long as you are OK with speed 7/3, you can use the older BB's too. This works especially well when defending a patrol zone where speed is not as important.

Augmenting inferior fleet encounters with land based CAP is a very effective tool you should not hesitate to use in the right measure.

Strategically, IMHO you want to use your CV's early to signal your aggressive intentions to your enemy. Get a deuce or trey CV bundle to a likely invasion area and have at it. be sure to have strict engagement rules. Do not engage if KB shows up! As said before, very important to save Port Moresby if you are looking for a victory in around early 44 / late 43. empire forces are thin there, and turning back the first pulse to rabaul or PM, is a huge allied strategic victory that allows you the time to get forces into that theater.

It will be interesting to see how the empire plays it's first turn.

I also would raid with a CL and 4 DD's in multiple locations. but that is another story.

I just use P-39's as trainers. If you get opportunities to use them for ground attack, that's ok.

They also work excellently to protect bases that are beyond Zero range but within Betty range.

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

I just use P-39's as trainers. If you get opportunities to use them for ground attack, that's ok.

They also work excellently to protect bases that are beyond Zero range but within Betty range.

They also "work" when you haven't got a damned thing other than them to use. [;)]

So what else is the USAAF supposed to use for fighters in the first months of the war? The P-40E is worse than the P-39D.

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

So what else is the USAAF supposed to use for fighters in the first months of the war? The P-40E is worse than the P-39D.

That was my point. Although I'd take the P-40e first.

You want to use an inferior aircraft?

P39 has better climb, maneuver, and durability. The guns, range, and speed are a wash.

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

You want to use an inferior aircraft?

P39 has better climb, maneuver, and durability. The guns, range, and speed are a wash.

Look at endurance. Maneuver bands favor the P-40e at 15,000 feet where carrier strikes tend to be.

Is there something that handicaps the P39 at height?

I dont seem to get similar results with similar situations, maybe it that only the 50cal are effective and its 6 v 2??

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle5

Look at endurance. Maneuver bands favor the P-40e at 15,000 feet where carrier strikes tend to be.

How is a 16 in maneuver better than 17?

ORIGINAL: JeffK
I dont seem to get similar results with similar situations, maybe it that only the 50cal are effective and its 6 v 2??

The P-40E has 6 50 cal with an accuracy of 29.

The P-39D has 2 50 cal with an accuracy of 58, 4 30 cal with an accuracy of 35 and the 37mm with an accuracy of 10. I would tend to call that a wash. But it might be that the 6 50s in the P-40E are more effective, I just don't think so. I have had good results using P-39Ds.

Yeah, but they just dont seem to perform as well????

But given the lack of Allied fighters they do front line service, as do Mohawks and Buffaloes.

Use of the Allied Fleet, especially CV's and Force Z.
Skyros will see them as a major threat, so you must keep them in being so that he will be careful. The AFB's worry about KB, the JFB worries about the US CV's.

So be careful about exposing them, be aware that Netty can hit with torps from long range but have them in place to defend against an attack you cant afford to proceed uncontested. Use the Dutch, RAN & RN forces agressively, these are lost IRL. You are nt going to stop Skyros but every delay to his timetable could be fatal in the long run.

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Is there something that handicaps the P39 at height?

I dont seem to get similar results with similar situations, maybe it that only the 50cal are effective and its 6 v 2??

I don't either. But I had misremembered the 15,000 band. I thought the P-40E had one more hex range too. Against strato-sweeps I've just had more luck with P-40s. Maybe it's the pilots.

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle5

Look at endurance. Maneuver bands favor the P-40e at 15,000 feet where carrier strikes tend to be.

How is a 16 in maneuver better than 17?

You got me. I misremembered. Thought the P-39 topped out at 10,000 and the P-40E better above. It's possible my P-40 pilots are better is all. I also have shuttled P-40s across the Pacific; there's a little better range.

With both, in my game, I've had them in Sumatra and Java facing Oscars at 38,500. It just feels like th eP-40s do a little better at 15-20k when that happens. Maybe it's the guns, maybe it's the pilots.

Your argument is sound as far as it goes, but in my view the Americans made the right choice (for fighters) when they dropped using cannons. That 20mm is still good for shooting up vehicles on the ground but in air combat, because of the lower muzzle velocity, the effective arc trajectory is rather short and the weapon is hard to aim in a dynamic situation like air to air combat. Having consistent aiming points makes the fighter pilot's job a little easier and .50's will do a lot of damage to any type of aircraft. I'll put the P-39 up front after I run out of P-40Es.

When I said "your argument" I was referring to Cap'n Sherwood. I don't think it's a good design choice to mix different guns with different aiming points. Maybe that's just me.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle5

Look at endurance. Maneuver bands favor the P-40e at 15,000 feet where carrier strikes tend to be.

How is a 16 in maneuver better than 17?

You got me. I misremembered. Thought the P-39 topped out at 10,000 and the P-40E better above. It's possible my P-40 pilots are better is all. I also have shuttled P-40s across the Pacific; there's a little better range.

With both, in my game, I've had them in Sumatra and Java facing Oscars at 38,500. It just feels like th eP-40s do a little better at 15-20k when that happens. Maybe it's the guns, maybe it's the pilots.

Maybe it's the Oscars. They suck.

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Your argument is sound as far as it goes, but in my view the Americans made the right choice (for fighters) when they dropped using cannons. That 20mm is still good for shooting up vehicles on the ground but in air combat, because of the lower muzzle velocity, the effective arc trajectory is rather short and the weapon is hard to aim in a dynamic situation like air to air combat. Having consistent aiming points makes the fighter pilot's job a little easier and .50's will do a lot of damage to any type of aircraft. I'll put the P-39 up front after I run out of P-40Es.

When I said "your argument" I was referring to Cap'n Sherwood. I don't think it's a good design choice to mix different guns with different aiming points. Maybe that's just me.

And while I would agree that would be true in real life, in the game I doubt that there is any difference, but I do not know that since I had no input into the design.

Here we are on page four of the AAR and yet to play a turn, however that should change soon.

This morning Skyros sent the completed first turn set up, and I returned it to him not long ago. Actually I got to return it to him twice because I neglected to hit the End Turn button the first time. Fortunately I was very limited on what I could do because of our first turn restrictions on the Allies because otherwise I couldn't have gotten it done today likely as not. I had to spend a lot of time working on the rental house, a remnant from the gf and I merging fleets a whle back. I will go into more detail when I get the first turn results back, but basically I gave orders to about half the Chinese, primarily just those in Southern China - I didn't think losing a day's worth of orders in the hinterlands would matter much - I am pretty beat. Lots of bases in India, Burma, Malaysia, Oz, the SRA, and Norpac started building forts, and Clacutta working on its AF. The US, Canada, and the off-map bases are building AF's and Ports for VP's. My carriers are running SSW at full speed and I sure hope they don't run into anything nefarious because I am pretty sure I left the squadrons in training mode.[:-]

Perhaps tomorrow the war begins! Until then, I [>:]

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Your argument is sound as far as it goes, but in my view the Americans made the right choice (for fighters) when they dropped using cannons. That 20mm is still good for shooting up vehicles on the ground but in air combat, because of the lower muzzle velocity, the effective arc trajectory is rather short and the weapon is hard to aim in a dynamic situation like air to air combat. Having consistent aiming points makes the fighter pilot's job a little easier and .50's will do a lot of damage to any type of aircraft. I'll put the P-39 up front after I run out of P-40Es.

When I said "your argument" I was referring to Cap'n Sherwood. I don't think it's a good design choice to mix different guns with different aiming points. Maybe that's just me.

And while I would agree that would be true in real life, in the game I doubt that there is any difference, but I do not know that since I had no input into the design.

The part I would differ on is that the US seemed to face mostly fighters and lighter bombers that a .50cal battery was effective against. Larger aircraft were much more resistant to the 50s, as the Allied heavy bombers showed. If the USA's adversaries had fielded numbers of tougher aircraft then there would have been much more significant use of the 20mm in American fighters.

The P-39 hits harder with that cannon, but the P-40 just seems to do better in dogfights. I don't know why that is.

Once the Tojo arrives it doesn´t matter if you have 39s or 40s. They are going to get shot down in droves anyway! They are both equal crap! [:D]