New ideas on A2A in the next patch

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I tried tests in 1945 - putting a US fleet at Osaka - and the whole Japanese air force died in one day - in spite of NO airplanes for the Americans! They scored a single hit on USS New Jersey. Joe said - yeah - after a fixed date - Japanese planes can't function. Another person on the forum confirmed Joe's findings. Thereafter I test late war planes in 1941 - for even tests. Joe said he had 12,000 turns experience - and he felt "one day Japan can fight - the next it cannot - in the air" - that day in mid 1943.

Not sure what you are doing - but my test indicated Japan needs NO air force in 1945 - if it flies it dies.

Can somebody from Matrix confirm that? If it is true I will stop playing...

I'm interested too in the details... I'm not sure that i would play this game anymore too...

Allied already have advantage in supperior ac (speed, speed, speed!) and this bonus is pretty stupid thing, i'm sure. It is based on pressumption that Japan doesn't have exp pilots anymore so Allied veterans will bounce them more often. This bonus should be negated if Japan pilots are skilled, don't you think?

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

There is an Allied CAP bonus starting in 7/43. Gives Allied airgroups the bounce more often.

Nik, thanks for info. Does it mean that any allied ac have this bonus?

(that would explain why Franks barely achived 1:1 kills ratio against Kittyhawk III)...

[ChezDaJez]

In a large variety of readings it seems to me that the IJN did not have a formal standard tactical unit that was designed to function in combat. The individual pilot seems to have operated as a "lone wolf" throughout a significant portion of the war. That's not to say that they didn't help one another in combat but that there was not any formal setup where one pilot was responsible for any specific other pilot as is established in the Leader/Wingman concept.

Japanese fighter and bomber formations were based on the rule of 3's. 3 vics of 3 formed a chutai, 3 chutai to a daitai and so forth (the exact terminology may be incorrect butthe numbers aren't).

You are correct on the "lone wolf" concept. Japanese pilots, once engaged, tended to fight on an individual basis. That meant they weren't capable of providing the mutual support that made alllied fighters so deadly from mid-42 on. Plus without radios, they weren't able to warn their buddies of any danger. The second biggest problem was that the Japanese held onto the vic formation until well after every other nation had dropped it and adopted the 2 plane team concept.

Some Japanese pilots wanted to adopt the 2-plane formation. Sakai recognized its superiority but being a lowly petty officer, his views didn't carry much weight. He took to training his wingmen along US guidelines and once claimed that he had never lost a wingman who followed his orders.

Chez

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Hmmm... don't think so... there is no special date in code (except for Allied proximity fuzing in AA)...


And yes we all did test much in UV and WitP (when it come out)!

I tried tests in 1945 - putting a US fleet at Osaka - and the whole Japanese air force died in one day - in spite of NO airplanes for the Americans! They scored a single hit on USS New Jersey. Joe said - yeah - after a fixed date - Japanese planes can't function. Another person on the forum confirmed Joe's findings. Thereafter I test late war planes in 1941 - for even tests. Joe said he had 12,000 turns experience - and he felt "one day Japan can fight - the next it cannot - in the air" - that day in mid 1943.

Not sure what you are doing - but my test indicated Japan needs NO air force in 1945 - if it flies it dies.

So if this is true, it makes a mockery of the entire training system for IJ. As if the pilots coming late in the war weren't bad enough.

[pauk]

neither the late war period IJ planes were....

[spence]

Allied already have advantage in supperior ac (speed, speed, speed!) and this bonus is pretty stupid thing, i'm sure. It is based on pressumption that Japan doesn't have exp pilots anymore so Allied veterans will bounce them more often. This bonus should be negated if Japan pilots are skilled, don't you think

I believe what he's talking about is an organizational/command and control sort of thing.
The USN spent 1942 (and the Lexington, the Yorktown and the Hornet) developing Fighter Direction Centers to control the CAP most efficiently and overcoming the "bugs" in the system. That's not to say the FDCs were perfect but they were several whole orders of magnitude more effective than what passed for CAP control in the IJN and certainly demonstrated that advantage at the Battle of the Philippine Sea. Even skilled Japanese pilots could not be effective if they were in the wrong place or at the wrong altitude or looking in the wrong direction because nobody told them where the threat(s) was coming from. Even with the addition of air search radar on some of their ships they had nobody trying to manage the air battle. Incredible as it may seem that concept somehow escaped their attention until there was no fleet left to protect.

The post indicates the US will get the "bounce" more often, not invariably. That seems about right though perhaps "much more often" is arguably more accurate historically.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: pauk

neither the late war period IJ planes were....

Could you re-phrase that? Sounds like you're saying it makes a mockery of the planes getting more advanced too.

[pauk]

yes, i meant that it makes a mockery of the solid japanese late war fighters too (especially Frank).

friend of mine told me that i should never use Franks for the escort (he made some tests) - now i know why[8|]

[Charles2222]

Well, I'm tending to believe this disgrace for the time being, and until I can be convinced otherwise, or somebody fixes it, this game is shutting down for me.

[Charles2222]

And to think the allied fanboys whine about the Zero bonus [:-].

[pauk]

hi, we need more info. I feel dissapointed too. Just imagine how hard is to spend 2 and half years carefully managing your pilots, training them fortifying your bases, preserving your KB and Navy hoping that you can give your opponent a hard time and then, suddently in one day you lost everything you've done in 2 and half RL years...

It seems that only possible way to delay Allies is cheating (puting all fighters on cv instead Vals and Kates) but this is not my game. So i tend to agree with you here but i'm careful...

we could be wrong and that's why i would like to hear more details from officials...

thanks in advance...

[pauk]

meanwhile we can bet how much this thread will be long?

10 pages?[:D]

[spence]

Though I might be called something of an Allied Fanboy I surely do hope that there is NOT some "magic date" at which all air combat is suddenly changed to "Allies win". In a warfare simulation my gut feeling is that no one should ever be confident that any defense or attack is a sure thing and any code that allows that perfect confidence is wrong.

[Charles2222]

Only 6 more to go.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: spence

Though I might be called something of an Allied Fanboy I surely do hope that there is NOT some "magic date" at which all air combat is suddenly changed to "Allies win". In a warfare simulation my gut feeling is that no one should ever be confident that any defense or attack is a sure thing and any code that allows that perfect confidence is wrong.

One likes to imagine that they had no idea that such a bonus would be so devastating. It's a surprise to me anyway, but then I may never get that deep into the game anyway, and this just gives me one more reason not to.

[Ursa MAior]

Are not CAP + radar bonus solely responsible for the inparity? Does the inparity exist in allied attacks, in which case they clearly dont have these advantages?

[Drongo]

There's an awful lot of gloom and doom being assumed without anyone bothering to check if it's that bad.

Why don't you test it yourselves rather than relying on hearsay?

I've been working on a mod for mid '43 to end of '45 and I had run some tests under 1.8 as part of seeing how the Japanese airstrikes go in '45.

Here are two examples that I had saved. All pilots (both sides) were rated experience 70. All USN ships had their late war radars and AA fit. The Allied base had the late war radar as well. All aircraft, ships, weapons, etc are stock. The USN TF being attacked was made up of 2 x Essex, 2 x Iowa, 2 x Alaska, 2 x Atlanta and 5 Gearing class DDs.

It doesn't appear to be automatic death for the Japanese to take to the air in '45.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/02/45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 56,91

Japanese aircraft
Ki-84-Ia Frank x 68
Ki-67 Peggy x 51

Allied aircraft
F6F Hellcat x 72

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-84-Ia Frank: 37 destroyed
Ki-67 Peggy: 26 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F6F Hellcat: 38 destroyed

Allied Ships
BB Missouri
BB Wisconsin, Torpedo hits 1
CV Lake Champlain, Torpedo hits 1
CL Dayton
CLAA Flint
CV Shangri-La

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x Ki-67 Peggy launching torpedoes at 200 feet
4 x Ki-67 Peggy launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x Ki-67 Peggy launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x Ki-67 Peggy launching torpedoes at 200 feet
3 x Ki-67 Peggy launching torpedoes at 200 feet
3 x Ki-67 Peggy launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x Ki-67 Peggy launching torpedoes at 200 feet
1 x Ki-67 Peggy launching torpedoes at 200 feet
3 x Ki-67 Peggy launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x Ki-67 Peggy launching torpedoes at 200 feet
1 x Ki-67 Peggy launching torpedoes at 200 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
Ki-84-Ia Frank x 72
Ki-67 Peggy x 71
Ki-46-II Dinah x 4

Allied aircraft
P-38J Lightning x 43

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-84-Ia Frank: 31 destroyed, 3 damaged
Ki-67 Peggy: 5 destroyed, 9 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-38J Lightning: 20 destroyed, 3 damaged


Allied ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 3

Aircraft Attacking:
29 x Ki-67 Peggy bombing at 15000 feet
26 x Ki-67 Peggy bombing at 15000 feet
5 x Ki-67 Peggy bombing at 15000 feet
3 x Ki-67 Peggy bombing at 15000 feet
3 x Ki-67 Peggy bombing at 15000 feet

[frank1970]

And you really think those numbers are somehow realistic?
65 Peggies should have more than 7hits.
And 72 Franks shouldn´t really loose 31 (yes, half of all fighters ) to 43 Lightnings (which loose half of their force, too).

[spence]

Although I think it should be very very difficult for the Japanese to marshall more than a couple of Daitai with 70-ish experience in 1945 those results at least seem to indicate that the Japanese can accomplish something if they do manage keep their experience levels relatively high.

And if they don't keep their experience hight then I don't guess I find it inconsistent with history if all they manage is the occasional lucky hit (which is about all the Allies can manage in 1941-early 42 when the experience disparity is heavily against them).

[spence]

65 Peggies should have more than 7hits

On what basis do you make this claim? IRL, if one excludes the singularly successful strike against the PoW and Repulse, you will be hard pressed to find the IJNs twin engine torpedo bombers scoring 7 hits in all their strikes combined in any single year, let alone in a single strike.

[spence]

And to continue with the success of IJN aerial torpedo attacks IRL, the Kate drivers of the KB did hardly better than that (7 hits) with all their torpedo attacks in all of 1942. They got some good hits to be sure (2 on Lexington, 2 on Yorktown and 3 on Hornet) but researching but quite a number of posters in these forums came up with two pretty short lists of documented successful torpedo attacks by both the carrier and the land based IJN torpedo bombers.