CV Airstrike Coordination

[Sonny]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

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

Hell, it took an hour to get a flight of 12 B-17s up and ready to fly off to bomb somewhere and 36 hours before they were ready...

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

And yet in the game they can fly two naval attacks in the same day - at extended range!!!!

[Sonny]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

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


The first thing you learn with rules is that anytime a one sided rule exists, it will break. Putting a factor on cap without putting an equal and opposite control on strike size will simply reduce all air combat to he who flies first wins always.

There is already a control on strikes - lack of coordination. So by your definition it is already one sided. Now to even it out you need to put some sort of control on CAP.

[Mr.Frag]

There is already a control on strikes - lack of coordination. So by your definition it is already one sided. Now to even it out you need to put some sort of control on CAP.

That only applies to aircraft flying off of multiple CV's in one TF. It does not apply to any other strike type hence changing cap would get hammered by all the other routines. It is also completely within the control of the player. The game does not force you to incur the coordination penalty. It makes it very easy to not have the penalty. If *all* strikes suffered, then a cap rule would fit within the model.

[scout1]

Some perspective here. Abstractions exist for simplification, nothing more. Once simpifiled, there will always be some degree of error on the outcome. Newton's Laws are valid for a set of simplifying assumptions, not some universal law of physics. You have to execpt some level of error with any abstraction. Just need to define where the line exists ....

[Crimguy]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Nope, not wrong LST ... This is just another one of those pro USA bias threads where people can't come to terms that the Yanks were not gods.

"Says who?"
-George W. Bush

[spence]

How much CAP oppsed the Enterprise/Yorktown SBDs at Miway. None would be a pretty fair summation. Ever happen in the game? NOPE. IRL The IJN response never has to deal with 53 bomber on any but the most favoable terms.

[Sonny]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

There is already a control on strikes - lack of coordination. So by your definition it is already one sided. Now to even it out you need to put some sort of control on CAP.

That only applies to aircraft flying off of multiple CV's in one TF. It does not apply to any other strike type hence changing cap would get hammered by all the other routines. It is also completely within the control of the player. The game does not force you to incur the coordination penalty. It makes it very easy to not have the penalty. If *all* strikes suffered, then a cap rule would fit within the model.

And the CAP isn't flying off multiple CVs????[8|]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Ron and Frag, take a chill guys.. after all even when we dissagree this is a hobby...
Massed fighters are affective... if you send your fighters as escorts they are less affective... you, Ron, and others see Jap fighters as too affective in the early war years.. point made.. I am sure the folks looking, from 2x3 and MAtrix, at these are aware by now there are multiple views, and taking personal shots at one another is poor play imo..[:-]

Not being a fan boy here, being objective. I'm saying ALL fighters are too effective because of the method by which uncoordinated strikes are modelled. I go further saying that the way CAP vs strikes (coordinated or not) which target multiple LCUs or TFs in a hex get penalized in the same way. In essence, depending on the number of strike splits (which are a game mechanic so more than one LCU or TF can be targeted by same strike) the CAP is technically multiplied by the the number of splits. Say the coordinated strike is launched and three LCUs are targetted and a CAP of 16 fighters is present in the hex. Because each strike must run the gauntlet of CAP, the strike is forced to endure a real CAP of 48 (minus whatever code is present which is supposed to simulate CAP breakdowns etc but seems to be rather negligible). I'm simply saying that the full strike be engaged by the 16 CAP fighters first, then have the strike split and engage the LCUs.

[Mr.Frag]

Once again Ron, you can keep posting this myth but it doesn't make it true.

A strike goes through cap once. Ever. It doesn't matter how much cap or how much strike.

Late arriving strikes go through the *remains* of the cap as they are *late* and subject to cap that has been refueled and rearmed minus what did not make it through the first raid. (coordination penalty)

You would have people believe that over the course of 6 hours that cap flew exactly once. Get serious. Are there even any WW II fighters that could hold 6 hours worth of fuel?

I can see it now, "Pilots, scramble your aircraft!", "Oops, belay that order, you've already been up once today. Hit the Pub boys."

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Once again Ron, you can keep posting this myth but it doesn't make it true.

A strike goes through cap once. Ever. It doesn't matter how much cap or how much strike.

Late arriving strikes go through the *remains* of the cap as they are *late* and subject to cap that has been refueled and rearmed minus what did not make it through the first raid. (coordination penalty)

You would have people believe that over the course of 6 hours that cap flew exactly once. Get serious. Are there even any WW II fighters that could hold 6 hours worth of fuel?

I can see it now, "Pilots, scramble your aircraft!", "Oops, belay that order, you've already been up once today. Hit the Pub boys."

Once again you have the "nya nya, I can't hear you" on.[:D]

OK, let me try it this way....

There are 3 squadrons of Beauforts assigned to attack a base with 4 LCUs. CAP is overhead of the LCUs. The strike is always assumed to be uncoordinated because the AI splits the Beauforts among the LCU targets, even if the 3 squadrons are flying close formation in fact (don't fail the checks for coordination). So, it could be assumed that they should be hit by the CAP, let's say 16 Oscars, at the same time (when they are together). But, the game mechanics plit the strike BEFORE the CAP, so each strike packet must come through the 16 CAP. So, depending on the vagaries of the CAP breakdown coding, somewhat less than 64 Oscars (but way more than 16) get to attack the coordinated strike vs LCUs in this hex because of the mechanics. Same as with multiple TFs in the same hex.

See what I mean? The CAP model in this case is skewed. What should be a 48 plane bomber strike which goes through the 16 fighter CAP once as you say, now, because the mechanics split the group for target selection purposes before CAP resolution, now has become 4 seperate strikes each having to go through CAP once. The 48 plane strike therefore goes through CAP 4 times in this case.

Late arriving strikes go through the *remains* of the cap as they are *late* and subject to cap that has been refueled and rearmed minus what did not make it through the first raid. (coordination penalty)

In my above example, the strike vs the LCUs is always considered to be uncoordinated due to the game mechanics penalizing the bombers for attacking LCUs (or multiple TFs in a hex). So, instead of say 48 bombers having to deal with 16 Cap, we have say a first strike of 12 dealing with 16 CAP, then the second has to deal with the remains (12?), then the third strike (8?) and the fourth and final strike (4?). Add these CAP planes up (16+12+8+4=40) 40 CAP have intercepted a 48 plane coordinated strike when actually a max of 16 was in order.

The CAP resolution should come before the target selection of LCUs. That way it would be possible for strikes vs seperate LCUs and TFs to be coordinated. Think of the hex with the LCUs as a TF. Do we have CAP engaging each packet before it attacks each ship in the TF or does the CAP phase come before target selection? Comes before. It stands to reason that this should be the same LCU selection and TF selection given the scale of game the resultant abstract nature of the combat model.

[Feinder]

Just to bang my own drum here, but y'all can test to your hearts content the abilities of CAP, fatigued pilots, and surprise, on my Midway scenario.

ETA for "version zero" is about a week. I've got all the units in place. I ran my first game against myelf last night, mostly just to verify that stuff is working. Looks -very- promising. I'll send it to my PBEM partners for another pass when I'm done (in about a week). I'll Let them play around with it for another week, then send out a few copies for further beta testing (another week). From them I'll need feed-back on success rates (and ease thereof), in order to balance VPs for playability.

That puts "Midway v1.0" available for general consumption in about 3 weeks.

Just so you know, (at least from last night's run), it's more even than you might think. Don't get me wrong. The odds still look pretty long against USN (just looking at the volume of crap arrayed against them). But that's where we tweak VP levels, and all sorts of goodies, in order to create the -possability- (altho not certainty) of a historical super-surprise-really-clobber-em-good strike by USN. (And Midway's defenses don't suck either by the way).

Cheers.
-F-

[tsimmonds]

Hey Halsey, would you post the combat report details from this action? We'd all be very interested to see how the IJNs CAP was attenuated by losses and fatigue in between each of your strikes.

[Mr.Frag]

Ron, for the final time ... cap losses are taken before additional attacks!

Day Air attack on Khota Bharu , at 24,45 (main raid)

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 24
Ki-21 Sally x 18
Ki-48 Lily x 50

Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 31

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 1 damaged
Ki-48 Lily: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 18 destroyed

Airbase hits 4
Runway hits 5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Khota Bharu , at 24,45 (uncoordinated)

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 56
Ki-46-II Dinah x 3

Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 8 (hmm, wheres your 31 buffalos from above?)

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 1 destroyed

Airbase hits 4
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Khota Bharu , at 24,45

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 3
G3M Nell x 97
Ki-21 Sally x 41

Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 9 (hmm, were's those 31 Buffalos?)

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
Ki-21 Sally: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 2 destroyed, 4 damaged


Allied ground losses:
14 casualties reported

Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 14
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 1

Save is available if you want to see it in action, I am really tired about arguing about *facts*.

[freeboy]

argueing with a person in the right always puts you in the wrong..[X(]
I think that everyone has made their points clear.. does anyone disagree?

[Halsey]

Sorry, I zapped the file already. Let's keep track when it happens in our game.

[freeboy]

My observances as an allied player through 12 43 starting 12 41.. also as Jap player, games suspended...

Jap base cap does well as long as the allied has no escorts or escorts are poor quality.. as soon as US puts escorts out that are experienced.. the bombers get through.. and against bases massed heavies usually can get through even at long ranges while suffering horribly in the process.
Against Jap CV cap, again... you can get through and get hits against even heavy cap after 6 42 if you commit some escorts.. say2/3 the number of Cap..
Against the Allies the Japs suffer terribly after hellcat and corsairs come online with limited, under 50 plane cap... I have never used Uber cap.. over 125.. but it does seem to hurt the japs badly from what I have gleened, and they cannot afford to lose pilots ... a catch 22, use you planes early when you can hurt the Allies lossing planes/pilots, and if you sink carriers 18 months later they are back, or wait and attempt to minimize loses and avoid major battles while sniping at the oponent...all the while the advantage slipping away....

Obviously there are as many variations to this as there are players.. but US cap will be a tough nut for the Jap as the war progresses as will JAp cap early in the war...the game is simply designed that way.. Jap cap decreasing reletive to both early jap and concurrent Allied due to the supperior Allied numbers one should expect as the war progresses.

[Halsey]

IIRC in the battle I just had at Midway, sorry I deleted the file already. The IJN CAP was somewhat smaller each time, but so were the escorting fighters. The last attack was by two BR CV's (under 100 AC in that TF). They went in with no escorts. So even with that TF adhering to the 100 AC coordination rule they were still snuffed. About 10 out of 40 Swordfish got past the CAP.

So damaged and destroyed AC appear to be gone from the following strikes. That's as it should be. They were casualties after all. Still the CAP from the combined TF's was awesome.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Ron, for the final time ... cap losses are taken before additional attacks!

Day Air attack on Khota Bharu , at 24,45 (main raid)

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 24
Ki-21 Sally x 18
Ki-48 Lily x 50

Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 31

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 1 damaged
Ki-48 Lily: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 18 destroyed

Airbase hits 4
Runway hits 5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Khota Bharu , at 24,45 (uncoordinated)

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 56
Ki-46-II Dinah x 3

Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 8 (hmm, wheres your 31 buffalos from above?)

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 1 destroyed

Airbase hits 4
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Khota Bharu , at 24,45

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 3
G3M Nell x 97
Ki-21 Sally x 41

Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 9 (hmm, were's those 31 Buffalos?)

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
Ki-21 Sally: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 2 destroyed, 4 damaged


Allied ground losses:
14 casualties reported

Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 14
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 1

Save is available if you want to see it in action, I am really tired about arguing about *facts*.

So, assume these uncoordinated attacks on Khota Bharu are vs 3 LCUs. One can never have a coordinated strike vs LCUs (unless there is only one LCU present so strike is penalized automatically as uncoordinated the way the mechanics are set up). So, hypothetically, the squadrons, because they split before CAP, now have to deal with the CAP as packets when they should only have to deal with it as a full coordinated strike packet. So, three CAP battles for a total of 48 Buffaloes attacking (31+8+9=48). The CAP should engage before the strike target selection so attacks vs multiple LCUs and TFs in the same hex are not always classed as uncoordinated. The battle, assuming it was between CAP and a coordinated strike, should have been 31 Buffaloes vs 27 Jap fighters and 267 bombers if attacks vs multiple LCUs/TFs in same hex were possible. This is a design oversight which has increased the effect of CAP and vulnerability of bombers when attacking multiple LCUs and TFs in same hex.

[Bombur]

-I think the IJN would have been allowed to have better coordination than the USA Navy in early war, not for tatical/operational skills, but due to the fact the poor speed and range of the TBD made very difficult to organize a coordinated torpedo/dive bomb attack. In contrast, the overall range and speed of Vals and Kates were pretty similar. The longer range of the A6M compared with the F4F helped something too. With the advant of TBF, the coordination advantage of the IJN should come to an end.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Just to bang my own drum here, but y'all can test to your hearts content the abilities of CAP, fatigued pilots, and surprise, on my Midway scenario.

ETA for "version zero" is about a week. I've got all the units in place. I ran my first game against myelf last night, mostly just to verify that stuff is working. Looks -very- promising. I'll send it to my PBEM partners for another pass when I'm done (in about a week). I'll Let them play around with it for another week, then send out a few copies for further beta testing (another week). From them I'll need feed-back on success rates (and ease thereof), in order to balance VPs for playability.

That puts "Midway v1.0" available for general consumption in about 3 weeks.

Just so you know, (at least from last night's run), it's more even than you might think. Don't get me wrong. The odds still look pretty long against USN (just looking at the volume of crap arrayed against them). But that's where we tweak VP levels, and all sorts of goodies, in order to create the -possability- (altho not certainty) of a historical super-surprise-really-clobber-em-good strike by USN. (And Midway's defenses don't suck either by the way).

Cheers.
-F-

That sounds like a fun scenario. Thanks for the work and let us know ASAP when it's ready for public consumption.