Hello PacWarriors,
I'm just wandering around the PAC41 campaign file with the editor and have just realised that Halsey and Spruance have an air rating of 7 from the very beginning:eek:. Isn't it a bit too high? Halsey was commanding a one flattop TF, and Spruance was a CA TF commander until Midway. Nagumo is also 7, and he had far more experience in carrier operations. Shouldn't they be lowered a bit?. Maybe 6 for Halsey and 4/5 for Spruance?.
Waiting for replies. Is it me or the PacWar forum is a bit quiet since Matrix opened it again?
US CV TF Commanders
-
Admiral DadMan
- Posts: 3407
- Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
JL,
I tend to agree with the 7's.
Halsey was only commanding 1 carrier group due to the few carriers in the Fleet at that time. He also (after earning his wings in the 1930's on the Saratoga I think) was one of the leading proponents of the USN air corp, and Spruance was his Screen Commander (who proved himself equally adept at Midway).
Had Halsey not been sick at the time of Midway, he would have been commanding TF16 and 17 instead of RAdm Fletcher.
Scot
_________________________
The Lion uses all its might to catch the Rabbit
I tend to agree with the 7's.
Halsey was only commanding 1 carrier group due to the few carriers in the Fleet at that time. He also (after earning his wings in the 1930's on the Saratoga I think) was one of the leading proponents of the USN air corp, and Spruance was his Screen Commander (who proved himself equally adept at Midway).
Had Halsey not been sick at the time of Midway, he would have been commanding TF16 and 17 instead of RAdm Fletcher.
Scot
_________________________
The Lion uses all its might to catch the Rabbit
I'd say the reverse - lower Nagumo's rating if anyone's. Nagumo had spent his career in destroyers and was given command of the First Air Fleet on the basis of seniority rather than any relevant experience or aptitude. In practice, he never displayed anything more than basic competence. It should also be pointed out that large, multi-divisional carrier task forces were a fairly recent innovation even in the IJN, and NOBODY had a great deal of experience in commanding and coordinating such a formation.
Halsey on the other hand was a qualified naval aviator, with first-hand experience of the requirements of aviation operations. By December 1941 he held the post of Commander, Air Battle Force - the equivalent in US service of Nagumo's command. To top it off, he was highly regarded by his people, and very effective at actually leading. Halsey should definitely have a higher rating than Nagumo.
Prior to Midway, Spruance had commanded the cruisers attached to Halsey's TF, and he had roughly zero experience with aviation ops. But he was Halsey's choice for command of TF 16 when Halsey was incapacitated by illness during the summer f 1942 - why? Other officers were available with more seniority, more relevant experience, or both. But Spruance had one of the sharpest minds in the Navy; he was a quick study who knew how to listen to advice. Perhaps in his case the "7" rating reflects not so much his own ability as that of his staff? Or perhaps Spruance should be lowered to a 6, but only if Nagumo's rating is lowered as well - Spruance was certainly no worse than Nagumo.
Halsey on the other hand was a qualified naval aviator, with first-hand experience of the requirements of aviation operations. By December 1941 he held the post of Commander, Air Battle Force - the equivalent in US service of Nagumo's command. To top it off, he was highly regarded by his people, and very effective at actually leading. Halsey should definitely have a higher rating than Nagumo.
Prior to Midway, Spruance had commanded the cruisers attached to Halsey's TF, and he had roughly zero experience with aviation ops. But he was Halsey's choice for command of TF 16 when Halsey was incapacitated by illness during the summer f 1942 - why? Other officers were available with more seniority, more relevant experience, or both. But Spruance had one of the sharpest minds in the Navy; he was a quick study who knew how to listen to advice. Perhaps in his case the "7" rating reflects not so much his own ability as that of his staff? Or perhaps Spruance should be lowered to a 6, but only if Nagumo's rating is lowered as well - Spruance was certainly no worse than Nagumo.
Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.
Some days you're the bug.
-
Admiral DadMan
- Posts: 3407
- Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
I also recall that Nagumo often referred to Genda and Yamaguchi (the former he relied on heavily at Midway, much to his undoing). Nagumo also got knocked around in carrier battles in the Solomons in August/Sept '42. By the time of the Mariannas Turkey Shoot, Nagumo was commanding a costal defense squadron at either Guam or Saipan (committed suicide there too).
Additionally, RAdm Fitch was also considered one of the "air-minded Admirals" around that time as well. Fletcher essentially let him run Coral Sea as OTC in May '42. Spruance was promoted over Fitch to command TF16 @ Midway (on Halsey's recommendation), and Spurance did inherit Halsey's staff. I remember one of Halsey's/Spruance staff being referred to as a, "slide rule brain". I think it was Capt. Miles Browning as described by Samuel Elliot Morison.
Geez, I'm gonna have to pull out my books and re-read some...
Scot
_________________________
The Lion uses all its might to catch the Rabbit
Additionally, RAdm Fitch was also considered one of the "air-minded Admirals" around that time as well. Fletcher essentially let him run Coral Sea as OTC in May '42. Spruance was promoted over Fitch to command TF16 @ Midway (on Halsey's recommendation), and Spurance did inherit Halsey's staff. I remember one of Halsey's/Spruance staff being referred to as a, "slide rule brain". I think it was Capt. Miles Browning as described by Samuel Elliot Morison.
Geez, I'm gonna have to pull out my books and re-read some...
Scot
_________________________
The Lion uses all its might to catch the Rabbit
I knew you Americans were going to jump on me like tigers 
.
OK, I can support the lowering of Nagumo, but I still think that US CV commanders are overrated. The reason of the early '42 raids on the Marshalls, the Gilberts and Wake was to get combat experience in CV operations.
Now I'm ready for the next broadside...
.OK, I can support the lowering of Nagumo, but I still think that US CV commanders are overrated. The reason of the early '42 raids on the Marshalls, the Gilberts and Wake was to get combat experience in CV operations.
Now I'm ready for the next broadside...
Sorry, I didn't mean that to come across as an attack. I more or less agree with you - the air ratings may be a little high. I just think that based on their respective records, Nagumo should face at least as heavy a penalty as Spruance, and a steeper one than Halsey.
But say Halsey is lowered to a 6, and Spruance and Nagumo to 5's. Then every other naval leader (at least!) in the game would have to be adjusted to keep things in proportion. For example: Fitch and Fletcher probably shouldn't be equal to Halsey and Spruance, respectively, so they'd need to be stepped back a notch as well, and so on. I would suggest a less ambitious edit - leaving Halsey at 7, and bumping Spruance and Nagumo down to 6's, perhaps.
But say Halsey is lowered to a 6, and Spruance and Nagumo to 5's. Then every other naval leader (at least!) in the game would have to be adjusted to keep things in proportion. For example: Fitch and Fletcher probably shouldn't be equal to Halsey and Spruance, respectively, so they'd need to be stepped back a notch as well, and so on. I would suggest a less ambitious edit - leaving Halsey at 7, and bumping Spruance and Nagumo down to 6's, perhaps.
Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.
Some days you're the bug.
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
The question that should be asked is how high, and how often do leader's rankings raise?
If we cut down the best air commanders to level 7's, then what is the purpose of having level 8 and 9 if it takes a miracle to raise their scores up? I don't really pay much attention to leader's ratings, or else I would be spending forever (I occasionally check leaders who have been given a promotion). If we knew the rate at which leaders increase scores, then figuring out the basic rate should be easier.
Remember, carrier air strikes are dependent on leader abilities when compared to carrier points.
I think that rankings should be generally lowered, but still have a few "shining" leaders. Yamaguchi and Halsey were renowned carrier commanders, and should have high air ratings. Others were merely 'good' or 'adequate', but still able to launch attacks.
One thing that I noticed was the severe under-rating of British commanders. Most rise up to level 3-4, sub average, while most Japanese and American commanders are rated at 5-6. I looked at the leaders, and checked their actual combat history and changed them accordingly. I lowered many Japanese and American leaders (mostly those who fought very poorly, ie. Homma) and raised up a few British leaders.
I also increased the statistics for Kimmel and Short, since they were good commanders (fools rarely got promoted to command the US Pacific Fleet!), and were rated as poor in PacWar (in my opinion) to represent their poor performance at Pearl Harbour, which only reflected their inability to predict the attack. MacArthur was also changed as well.
I then added up all of the points (Naval, Land, Air) for all of the commanders to determine total values (ie Naval + Air + Land).
Most commanders hovered at the 10 level, with some down to 8 and some up to 12. There were some commanders who reached levels of 18, but those were very few.
Common trends were...
USN Leaders were usually rated at 10-12
USMC Leaders were usually rated at 10-12
USA Leaders were usually rated between 9-11 (With very few above 11)
IJN Leaders were usually rated at 10-12
IJA Leaders were usually rated at 10-12
I am going to tweak the leader rating for the 2.4 version even more, so that there will be fewer "Jack of all trades" commanders, and more specialists. There were very few commanders who were good at everything, let alone had experience at everything.
Some (Tanaka, Fletcher) were historically good at two aspects (Tanaka = Naval + Land, Fletcher = Naval + Air). Only a few (Mountbatten, Nimitz) were good at everything. Most other commanders were good/capable at 1-2 options, and totally clueless at the third. There should be very few IJA commanders who have anything but a level 1 for Land combat, and few Naval commanders with more than Naval combat experience.
Aggressiveness ratings have also been tweaked around. Some commanders, like MacArthur, have average and slightly above ageverage statistics, but have a level 8-9 aggressiveness. This means his HQ gets a lot of PP's, but has to rely on good field commanders to get the job done. I think that this will occur for most HQ commanders, since they would not use much of their skills in tactical battles, but in gaining supply and support. YOU as the player fill in for the roles of HQ commanders, which is where to attack, and what with.
As the game now stands, the only leader shortage that appears is for the British Army and Navy. Both the Japanese and Americans are inundated with qualified commanders, when in reality they were forced to use some very poor commanders (Ghormley, Kaijioka) repeatedly in combat. Whereas the British have about 2/3 the size of the USN (if allowed to retain all ships) but just 9 TF Naval commanders (as of now the 2.4 version has 10 RN Admirals capable of commanding TF's). There is ALWAYS a shortage of RN commanders, but if you look at naval oob's of the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean from 1941-1945, in 1944-45 there are at least 4 TF commanding admirals not included in the game. British land commanders are also as limited. There are curently 10 British Army commanders, 2 are usually lost at the beginning of 1942, leaving the rest of the British posessions (3 HQ's, now the 'Indian GHQ', 'SEAC' and '14th Army) to be commanded by 8 commanders (6 used up for HQ Leaders) leaving just 2 commanders for the field! However, if you count up the number of British/Indian LCU's there are, they equal the number of US Army LCU's.
If we cut down the best air commanders to level 7's, then what is the purpose of having level 8 and 9 if it takes a miracle to raise their scores up? I don't really pay much attention to leader's ratings, or else I would be spending forever (I occasionally check leaders who have been given a promotion). If we knew the rate at which leaders increase scores, then figuring out the basic rate should be easier.
Remember, carrier air strikes are dependent on leader abilities when compared to carrier points.
I think that rankings should be generally lowered, but still have a few "shining" leaders. Yamaguchi and Halsey were renowned carrier commanders, and should have high air ratings. Others were merely 'good' or 'adequate', but still able to launch attacks.
One thing that I noticed was the severe under-rating of British commanders. Most rise up to level 3-4, sub average, while most Japanese and American commanders are rated at 5-6. I looked at the leaders, and checked their actual combat history and changed them accordingly. I lowered many Japanese and American leaders (mostly those who fought very poorly, ie. Homma) and raised up a few British leaders.
I also increased the statistics for Kimmel and Short, since they were good commanders (fools rarely got promoted to command the US Pacific Fleet!), and were rated as poor in PacWar (in my opinion) to represent their poor performance at Pearl Harbour, which only reflected their inability to predict the attack. MacArthur was also changed as well.
I then added up all of the points (Naval, Land, Air) for all of the commanders to determine total values (ie Naval + Air + Land).
Most commanders hovered at the 10 level, with some down to 8 and some up to 12. There were some commanders who reached levels of 18, but those were very few.
Common trends were...
USN Leaders were usually rated at 10-12
USMC Leaders were usually rated at 10-12
USA Leaders were usually rated between 9-11 (With very few above 11)
IJN Leaders were usually rated at 10-12
IJA Leaders were usually rated at 10-12
I am going to tweak the leader rating for the 2.4 version even more, so that there will be fewer "Jack of all trades" commanders, and more specialists. There were very few commanders who were good at everything, let alone had experience at everything.
Some (Tanaka, Fletcher) were historically good at two aspects (Tanaka = Naval + Land, Fletcher = Naval + Air). Only a few (Mountbatten, Nimitz) were good at everything. Most other commanders were good/capable at 1-2 options, and totally clueless at the third. There should be very few IJA commanders who have anything but a level 1 for Land combat, and few Naval commanders with more than Naval combat experience.
Aggressiveness ratings have also been tweaked around. Some commanders, like MacArthur, have average and slightly above ageverage statistics, but have a level 8-9 aggressiveness. This means his HQ gets a lot of PP's, but has to rely on good field commanders to get the job done. I think that this will occur for most HQ commanders, since they would not use much of their skills in tactical battles, but in gaining supply and support. YOU as the player fill in for the roles of HQ commanders, which is where to attack, and what with.
As the game now stands, the only leader shortage that appears is for the British Army and Navy. Both the Japanese and Americans are inundated with qualified commanders, when in reality they were forced to use some very poor commanders (Ghormley, Kaijioka) repeatedly in combat. Whereas the British have about 2/3 the size of the USN (if allowed to retain all ships) but just 9 TF Naval commanders (as of now the 2.4 version has 10 RN Admirals capable of commanding TF's). There is ALWAYS a shortage of RN commanders, but if you look at naval oob's of the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean from 1941-1945, in 1944-45 there are at least 4 TF commanding admirals not included in the game. British land commanders are also as limited. There are curently 10 British Army commanders, 2 are usually lost at the beginning of 1942, leaving the rest of the British posessions (3 HQ's, now the 'Indian GHQ', 'SEAC' and '14th Army) to be commanded by 8 commanders (6 used up for HQ Leaders) leaving just 2 commanders for the field! However, if you count up the number of British/Indian LCU's there are, they equal the number of US Army LCU's.
-
Admiral DadMan
- Posts: 3407
- Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
One thing that we as players don't see is the EXPERIENCE level. It looks to me that this has an effect on how and when ratings rise and promotions are awarded. It's too bad that Experience is not displayed on the leader screen.
US Carrier Admirals got the bulk of their training "on the job" shortly after PH with the use of hit-and-run raids in the Marshalls, Gilberts, Solomons, and New Guinea.
It also looks as though some of the Leaders start the war too high in Rank. On the US side, Halsey, Glassford, and Ghormley in particular were RAdm's at the outbreak. The source I am using is, "Two Ocean War" by Capt. Samuel Eliot Morison. (USN Ret.)
I could also go off about how Essex Class CV's are handled, but that's the subject for another thread maybe...
US Carrier Admirals got the bulk of their training "on the job" shortly after PH with the use of hit-and-run raids in the Marshalls, Gilberts, Solomons, and New Guinea.
It also looks as though some of the Leaders start the war too high in Rank. On the US side, Halsey, Glassford, and Ghormley in particular were RAdm's at the outbreak. The source I am using is, "Two Ocean War" by Capt. Samuel Eliot Morison. (USN Ret.)
I could also go off about how Essex Class CV's are handled, but that's the subject for another thread maybe...
Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
The question that should be asked is how high, and how often do leader's rankings raise?
...
One thing that I noticed was the severe under-rating of British commanders. Most rise up to level 3-4, sub average, while most Japanese and American commanders are rated at 5-6.
Are you referring here to the start values for British Admirals, or the values they eventually reach? I've noticed that when I play as Allied, unless the Japanese player makes a strong bid for India/the IO I generally don't use the Far Eastern Fleet much until very late in the game. So while my US TF commanders are out racking up experience and upping their ratings, my British COs sit in port in Calcutta waiting for the IJN to give them something to react to, and NOT improving. If the war lasts to 1945, I typically have 8 or 9 Admirals whose Air rating is 8 or 9; meanwhile, I'm just starting to get the RN into action.
On the other hand, I do see your point about the shortage of and low start values for British commanders - especially the Air ratings. The RN got, IIRC, ONE decent Air leader (Vian) through the entire game in 2.2 (3 in 2.3 with Fraser and Rawlings). Changing the leader ratings would be one solution; another might be to derate the RN CVs down to CVLs - this would fit their limited capacity (especially for the Illustrious class) AND make it easier for a low-rated Air Leader to get full strikes off.
Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.
Some days you're the bug.
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
I was talking about starting values. Most of the RN admirals in the Pacific had a lot of experience. Sommerville had 2 years experience in the Western Medeterranean. I think that the levels should be equivalent to the Japanese and American, since neither of these two navies had fought in battle in decades, (Japan 1905, and the US in the 1890's).
I do notice that commanders with already high ratings (7-9) tend to increase faster than those with low ratings, probably because you use those with the higher stats more than the lower ones! Doorman usually gets upgraded to a Vice Admiral primarily because he is the most used Minor-Allied commander.
Rear Admiral Vian had 4 years experience fighting in the Medeterranean (before the Pacific War started this was the most active naval theatre of war).
Rear Admiral Rawlings commanded the 1st Battle Squadron in the Medeteranean.
Vice Admiral Power commanded a cruiser squadron in the Medeteranean and fought many engagements against the Italians.
Vice Admiral Willis was a battleship captain early in the war.
The other commanders had been in the Pacific/Indian Ocean since the beginning of the war, had no experience.
Of course, experience does not mean that they are good. The success of their prior battles should determine how good of commanders they are. All of the commanders listed had a lot of 'positive' experience in their commands.
The British should have some very high ratings for surface combat, but not quite as high for carrier commanders. This is because most British carrier actions (until 1945) dealt with a pair or a single Aircraft Carrier. Not many British commanders had experience in launching large coordinated strikes. Their carrier commanders should be rated at around 6, maximum, but most of their experienced surface leaders should be at around 7 or 8.
Aggressiveness will be lower than might be expected as the British were not keen on offensive operations in the Indian Ocean until 1945, as keeping the Bay of Bengal open was the sole important mission, and not offensive actions. However, when the later commanders appear, the British hard-headedness should reappear!
I do notice that commanders with already high ratings (7-9) tend to increase faster than those with low ratings, probably because you use those with the higher stats more than the lower ones! Doorman usually gets upgraded to a Vice Admiral primarily because he is the most used Minor-Allied commander.
Rear Admiral Vian had 4 years experience fighting in the Medeterranean (before the Pacific War started this was the most active naval theatre of war).
Rear Admiral Rawlings commanded the 1st Battle Squadron in the Medeteranean.
Vice Admiral Power commanded a cruiser squadron in the Medeteranean and fought many engagements against the Italians.
Vice Admiral Willis was a battleship captain early in the war.
The other commanders had been in the Pacific/Indian Ocean since the beginning of the war, had no experience.
Of course, experience does not mean that they are good. The success of their prior battles should determine how good of commanders they are. All of the commanders listed had a lot of 'positive' experience in their commands.
The British should have some very high ratings for surface combat, but not quite as high for carrier commanders. This is because most British carrier actions (until 1945) dealt with a pair or a single Aircraft Carrier. Not many British commanders had experience in launching large coordinated strikes. Their carrier commanders should be rated at around 6, maximum, but most of their experienced surface leaders should be at around 7 or 8.
Aggressiveness will be lower than might be expected as the British were not keen on offensive operations in the Indian Ocean until 1945, as keeping the Bay of Bengal open was the sole important mission, and not offensive actions. However, when the later commanders appear, the British hard-headedness should reappear!
The Royal Navy is severely underrated in this game, partly because Gary Grigsby tends to down rate items that he doesn't want emphasised in his designs (maybe as proof against "stupid human tricks"??), but I can find no other logical reasoning.
King George V class BBs are severely short changed on their armour and durability ratings. They were actually better protected than the North Carolina or South Dakota class BBs, yet have lower ratings.
The RN Admirals were very active for 2 years before the pacific war and while thet carrier admirals were initially not accustomed to multi CV TFs, the RN was VERY quick at getting its strikes off. I n the later afternoon during the final stage of the bismark chase, after it was ound again having eluded the two RN cruisers, the Ark Royal sent off a strike (of swordfish biplanes, the only real problem with the RN was its carrier planes - until they started using US planes) which mistook a British cruiser (fortunately no hits). Then it recovered this strike and re armed it, re-fueled it and sent it off after the real bismark where the fatal rudder jamming hit was made. Then the Ark royal recovered the strike (after dark I presume).
The RN had experience in carrier warfare.
The USN by the same token, didn't spend 20 years sitting in port. As I said in other threads, you didn't get to be a Lt commander in charge of a fighter or bomber squadron after 5 or 10 years, it took many years, even longer to make admiral in a peacetime navy, that only started expanding about a year before the war. Hell, I have nearly 18 years in and am only a Major (Navy eq is Lt Cdr). The peacteime navy was VERY slow in promotions.
Admiral Marc A. Mitscher was the premier fighting fast carrier admiral of the entire war on all sides. He remained in charge of TF 58 or TF38 from late Jan 44 tru Jul 45 The war wore him out, he actually sufferred several heart attacks at sea. It was shame that he died shortly after the end of the war. He should be an air 9, naval 6 and agressiveness 7 right from the start, and that's the way I edit him before any game.
Lastly don't down-rate the RN CVs to CVLs, as in the IJN units. There are hard coded upgrades to the RN CVs simulating their late practice in adopting deck stoage. They go up by abour 50-60%, making the formadible almost equal to a USN CV (with an armoured flight deck). and I think that just because the IJN built some crappy carriers, they shouldn't be downrated to CVL just because of their lower capacities. IJN CVs are only 2 pts anyway, where USN and RN CVs are 3 pts each.
King George V class BBs are severely short changed on their armour and durability ratings. They were actually better protected than the North Carolina or South Dakota class BBs, yet have lower ratings.
The RN Admirals were very active for 2 years before the pacific war and while thet carrier admirals were initially not accustomed to multi CV TFs, the RN was VERY quick at getting its strikes off. I n the later afternoon during the final stage of the bismark chase, after it was ound again having eluded the two RN cruisers, the Ark Royal sent off a strike (of swordfish biplanes, the only real problem with the RN was its carrier planes - until they started using US planes) which mistook a British cruiser (fortunately no hits). Then it recovered this strike and re armed it, re-fueled it and sent it off after the real bismark where the fatal rudder jamming hit was made. Then the Ark royal recovered the strike (after dark I presume).
The RN had experience in carrier warfare.
The USN by the same token, didn't spend 20 years sitting in port. As I said in other threads, you didn't get to be a Lt commander in charge of a fighter or bomber squadron after 5 or 10 years, it took many years, even longer to make admiral in a peacetime navy, that only started expanding about a year before the war. Hell, I have nearly 18 years in and am only a Major (Navy eq is Lt Cdr). The peacteime navy was VERY slow in promotions.
Admiral Marc A. Mitscher was the premier fighting fast carrier admiral of the entire war on all sides. He remained in charge of TF 58 or TF38 from late Jan 44 tru Jul 45 The war wore him out, he actually sufferred several heart attacks at sea. It was shame that he died shortly after the end of the war. He should be an air 9, naval 6 and agressiveness 7 right from the start, and that's the way I edit him before any game.
Lastly don't down-rate the RN CVs to CVLs, as in the IJN units. There are hard coded upgrades to the RN CVs simulating their late practice in adopting deck stoage. They go up by abour 50-60%, making the formadible almost equal to a USN CV (with an armoured flight deck). and I think that just because the IJN built some crappy carriers, they shouldn't be downrated to CVL just because of their lower capacities. IJN CVs are only 2 pts anyway, where USN and RN CVs are 3 pts each.
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
While reading up on the King George V, and contemporary US Treaty Battleships a conundrum appears. The UK ships had thicker armour, but the US armour was better sloped... The UK ships were protected against 16" shells, while US ships were protected agaisnt 14" shells. I looked and read, and the contradictions fly! Some sources tell me that the KGV was better then the North Carolina's, others state that the armour slope made their armour better... ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree fully that US commanders were not totally inexperienced, but war experience does increase their ability drastically more then peacetime experience.
What will probably happen is that US commanders that appear in 1941 will be average to mediocre (not including some shining stars!). However, those that appear later in the game will start off with higher levels. Why? Because most of them spent 1941 and 1942 as captains commanding Carriers, Cruisers and Battleships gaining vast amounts of active combat expereince. Rear Admiral Sherman was the captain of the Saratoga (or the Enterprise?). By the time he became a Rear Admiral he had more experience then the most experienced British Admiral in carriers!
I am probably going to remove some lesser commanders, those that did not participate much in the war (a few that come to mind is RN Rear Admiral Palliser, who was on the Chief of Staff, never in an active role, this was the reason I got rid of Helfreich... USA Major General Brereton, since he was quickly sent to the Medeterranean in early 1942 and replaced by Brett, otherwize he will remain in the Pacific until 1945, and could be better used for a better US commander!).
I was not going to change RN CV's to CVL's, primarily because they were 'full fleet carriers'. Indeed, the Hermes was actually slated as a full fleet carrer, as the RN did not classify fleet and light carriers until later in the war. I also did change back the Junyo and Hiyo to CV's instead of CVL's, since they were full fleet carriers, and were used as such.
I agree fully that US commanders were not totally inexperienced, but war experience does increase their ability drastically more then peacetime experience.
What will probably happen is that US commanders that appear in 1941 will be average to mediocre (not including some shining stars!). However, those that appear later in the game will start off with higher levels. Why? Because most of them spent 1941 and 1942 as captains commanding Carriers, Cruisers and Battleships gaining vast amounts of active combat expereince. Rear Admiral Sherman was the captain of the Saratoga (or the Enterprise?). By the time he became a Rear Admiral he had more experience then the most experienced British Admiral in carriers!
I am probably going to remove some lesser commanders, those that did not participate much in the war (a few that come to mind is RN Rear Admiral Palliser, who was on the Chief of Staff, never in an active role, this was the reason I got rid of Helfreich... USA Major General Brereton, since he was quickly sent to the Medeterranean in early 1942 and replaced by Brett, otherwize he will remain in the Pacific until 1945, and could be better used for a better US commander!).
I was not going to change RN CV's to CVL's, primarily because they were 'full fleet carriers'. Indeed, the Hermes was actually slated as a full fleet carrer, as the RN did not classify fleet and light carriers until later in the war. I also did change back the Junyo and Hiyo to CV's instead of CVL's, since they were full fleet carriers, and were used as such.
Exactly, Mitscher was captain of the Hornet at Midway.
If you remove Palliser, will he be replaced with a british commander. The game is short british Commanders as it is.
also, I forgot to mention this.
Ozawa was a better admiral than Nagumo. He should be raised. Nagumo was on sapain when he offed himself. The IJN would have been better off if He not Yamaguchi went down at Midway.
If you remove Palliser, will he be replaced with a british commander. The game is short british Commanders as it is.
also, I forgot to mention this.
Ozawa was a better admiral than Nagumo. He should be raised. Nagumo was on sapain when he offed himself. The IJN would have been better off if He not Yamaguchi went down at Midway.
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
Actually, Ozawa was one of those "Jack of most trades" commanders. He was a good surface commander (brilliantly raided the Indian Ocean in April 1942!), but was not given command of the carriers until 1943!! By that time even Yamaguchi could not save the IJN!
Yes, Palliser was to be replaced by a British Admiral. Possibly Moody (the late war Eastern Fleet Carrier Admiral).
Nagumo should have a strong Naval factor, but a lower Air factor. He should also have a low Aggressiveness, which I think he already has.
Yes, Palliser was to be replaced by a British Admiral. Possibly Moody (the late war Eastern Fleet Carrier Admiral).
Nagumo should have a strong Naval factor, but a lower Air factor. He should also have a low Aggressiveness, which I think he already has.
I believe Forrest Sherman was the CO of Lexington at Coral Sea. He's also noted for a raid on Rabaul with a TF comprising Saratoga and Independence which did a lot of damage and preemptively broke up a large-scale Japanese move down the Slot.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that the IJN wasn't particularly big on launching full strikes. From Pearl Harbor to Midway, the Kido Butai repeatedly launched half strikes. Sometimes multiple waves, as at PH, but not full strikes. The normal procedure was for one CV (or CarDiv) to contribute some fighters and its dive bomber contingent, while another would add more fighters and its torpedo bomber contingent. But you wouldn't see, for example, Akagi's full complement of Zeros (less a CAP force), Vals, and Kates formed into one strike. There were strong doctrinal and technical reasons for this, as described in the following article from the USNI Proceedings: http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/20 ... d1-su1.htm
So it seems to me that IJN Admirals probably shouldn't have too good a chance of launching a full strike, since they'd have to launch half of it, then wait 45 minutes to get the 2nd half airborne... On the other hand, it's already hard enough to win as Japan!
One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that the IJN wasn't particularly big on launching full strikes. From Pearl Harbor to Midway, the Kido Butai repeatedly launched half strikes. Sometimes multiple waves, as at PH, but not full strikes. The normal procedure was for one CV (or CarDiv) to contribute some fighters and its dive bomber contingent, while another would add more fighters and its torpedo bomber contingent. But you wouldn't see, for example, Akagi's full complement of Zeros (less a CAP force), Vals, and Kates formed into one strike. There were strong doctrinal and technical reasons for this, as described in the following article from the USNI Proceedings: http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/20 ... d1-su1.htm
So it seems to me that IJN Admirals probably shouldn't have too good a chance of launching a full strike, since they'd have to launch half of it, then wait 45 minutes to get the 2nd half airborne... On the other hand, it's already hard enough to win as Japan!
Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.
Some days you're the bug.
Ozawa's plan to draw off Hasley brillaintly succeded in the battle for Leyte gulf. It was only the ferocious bravery of the escort carrier groups and an unexplainable timidness on Kurita's part that prevented the IJN from really trashing up the beachheads that day. It wouldn't have lost the battle or changed the outcome of the war, and it might have cost the IJN more battleships, but the fact remains that Ozawa definately got the better of Halsey intellectually that time. He knew the brash Halsey would take off the moment he heard of the japanese carriers.
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
-
Admiral DadMan
- Posts: 3407
- Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Ranger,
You're on the mark about Halsey: IJN flat-tops gave him "blood in the eye", as Samuel Eliot Morison put it (if only he had left VAdm. Lee's TF 34 Battle Line at San Bernadino Straight...)
The following may help explain the "unexplainable timidness" of VAdm. Kurita, IJN:
It appears that Kurita was easily knocked off his pins, a quality first displayed during the Battle for Guadalcanal 13-15 Nov 42. On the night of 13 Nov, he was to deliver a pounding to Henderson Field with a force that included 2 BB, Kirishima and Hiei (I don't recall the CA/CL/DD part of the OOB). He faced RAdms. Dan Callaghan and Norman Scott with a force of 2 CA, 1 CL, 2 CLAA, and maybe 10 DD.
Kurita should have wiped them out and pounded Henderson, but thru poor battle management got BB Hiei beaten up, lost a couple of DD's and had a few other ships pounded too. The USN lost 2 cruisers and 2 DD, with 5 other ships beaten hard. He could have pressed through, even with the pounding he took. But he turned tail and ran.
Kurita came back 2 days later with BB Kirishima and several CA's and DD's against RAdm. Lee with 2 BB and 4 DD. This time he was thoroughly pounded, losing BB Kirishima, a CA (maybe), and a couple DDs.
At Letye Gulf, Kurita believed he was up against Halsey's TF 38 with CV's, not RAdm. Sprague's "Taffy 3" with 6 CVE, 3 DD, 4 DE. Though Kurita's CA's managed to sink CVE Gambier Bay, hole Kitkun Bay, sink 2 of 3 DD's and 3 of 4 DE's, the ferocity of Sprague's screen and his aircraft (Wildcats and Avengers) eventually unnerved him into retiring.
Addionally, if Kurita had reached the landing area, Oldendorf was there waiting for him with the old BB's after wiping out RAdm. Shima in Suriago Straight the night before.
You're on the mark about Halsey: IJN flat-tops gave him "blood in the eye", as Samuel Eliot Morison put it (if only he had left VAdm. Lee's TF 34 Battle Line at San Bernadino Straight...)
The following may help explain the "unexplainable timidness" of VAdm. Kurita, IJN:
It appears that Kurita was easily knocked off his pins, a quality first displayed during the Battle for Guadalcanal 13-15 Nov 42. On the night of 13 Nov, he was to deliver a pounding to Henderson Field with a force that included 2 BB, Kirishima and Hiei (I don't recall the CA/CL/DD part of the OOB). He faced RAdms. Dan Callaghan and Norman Scott with a force of 2 CA, 1 CL, 2 CLAA, and maybe 10 DD.
Kurita should have wiped them out and pounded Henderson, but thru poor battle management got BB Hiei beaten up, lost a couple of DD's and had a few other ships pounded too. The USN lost 2 cruisers and 2 DD, with 5 other ships beaten hard. He could have pressed through, even with the pounding he took. But he turned tail and ran.
Kurita came back 2 days later with BB Kirishima and several CA's and DD's against RAdm. Lee with 2 BB and 4 DD. This time he was thoroughly pounded, losing BB Kirishima, a CA (maybe), and a couple DDs.
At Letye Gulf, Kurita believed he was up against Halsey's TF 38 with CV's, not RAdm. Sprague's "Taffy 3" with 6 CVE, 3 DD, 4 DE. Though Kurita's CA's managed to sink CVE Gambier Bay, hole Kitkun Bay, sink 2 of 3 DD's and 3 of 4 DE's, the ferocity of Sprague's screen and his aircraft (Wildcats and Avengers) eventually unnerved him into retiring.
Addionally, if Kurita had reached the landing area, Oldendorf was there waiting for him with the old BB's after wiping out RAdm. Shima in Suriago Straight the night before.
Wan't it Nishimura's forces which were wiped out at Surigao? The last BB vs BB battle of all times. R.I.P.Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
Addionally, if Kurita had reached the landing area, Oldendorf was there waiting for him with the old BB's after wiping out RAdm. Shima in Suriago Straight the night before.
Had Kurita reached the landing areas, what would have been the score?. They were probably low on ammo and fuel, and the US BB's had excelent radars. The wisest decission made by Kurita was to return home.