Matrix Games Forums

Happy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser Trailer
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Why do we not use historical initial air groups?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Why do we not use historical initial air groups? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Why do we not use historical initial air groups? - 7/4/2011 10:18:25 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14898
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Testing my move before submitting for a human player in a modified Scenario 1
I had to do some sort of Allied turn
and I was struck by the fact EVERY Allied carrier air squadron is at strength -
when IRL none were.

Since this is a nominally historical scenario, I wonder why that is the case?
Usually, as an Allied player on the first day, I consider my air groups too weak to
commit - never mind the carriers are not yet united. With 18 planes per squadron,
I find it tempting to go hunting.
Post #: 1
RE: Why do we not use historical initial air groups? - 7/4/2011 11:07:07 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41086
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Yawn... The only bad example of this otherwise imagined "issue" is VF-3.

And if having a full-strength USN scouting or bombing squadron on 12/7 makes you want to "go hunting", the only thing you're "exposing" is your lack of experience in actually PLAYING the game, rather than whinging about it not being the way you think it should be.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 2
RE: Why do we not use historical initial air groups? - 7/6/2011 11:14:31 PM   
timtom


Posts: 2357
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
Actually Sid has a point. IIRC Niehorster's data was used for this, but what's currently on his website is rather at variance with what's in the DB.


_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 3
RE: Why do we not use historical initial air groups? - 7/7/2011 1:23:22 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 3856
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
quote:

Actually Sid has a point. IIRC Niehorster's data was used for this, but what's currently on his website is rather at variance with what's in the DB.


Sid may have a point BUT by what stretch of fantasy do the pilots of the newly formed air groups of the 5th Carrier Division (Zuikaku and Shokaku) have 70's experience when they:
1) had no experience to speak of fighting other aircraft; including Chinese aircraft
2) had for the most part never dropped a bomb on anyone; including Chinese
3) had for the most part never even practiced dropping torpedoes
For the Pearl Harbor raid they practiced landings on carriers and formation flying (not getting lost) because they'd never even done that.

By comparision the pilots of the USN airgroups were in large part long-term professional aviators, many having completed tours of duty in different types of aircraft (that is to say fighter pilots who knew how to dive bomb and fly search patterns and various other permutations of the preceding). Even as the "newbies" joined the fleet they were graduates having considerable training hours having joined the training programs well before hostilities.
The training did not have the benefit of war veterans prior to Dec 1941 but then the Japanese experience of fighting untrained pilots flying obsolete/obsolescent aircraft really wasn't all that much help fighting anybody who didn't suffer the same liabilities.


The USN did not:
1) have an operational doctrine that stressed coordinating the operations of multiple carriers and
2) did not have aircraft whose flight characteristics so seamlessly meshed together as those of the IJN.

The experience and quality of the individual pilots was much the same.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 4
RE: Why do we not use historical initial air groups? - 7/7/2011 3:22:53 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5030
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

Actually Sid has a point. IIRC Niehorster's data was used for this, but what's currently on his website is rather at variance with what's in the DB.


Sid may have a point BUT by what stretch of fantasy do the pilots of the newly formed air groups of the 5th Carrier Division (Zuikaku and Shokaku) have 70's experience when they:
1) had no experience to speak of fighting other aircraft; including Chinese aircraft
2) had for the most part never dropped a bomb on anyone; including Chinese
3) had for the most part never even practiced dropping torpedoes
For the Pearl Harbor raid they practiced landings on carriers and formation flying (not getting lost) because they'd never even done that.

By comparision the pilots of the USN airgroups were in large part long-term professional aviators, many having completed tours of duty in different types of aircraft (that is to say fighter pilots who knew how to dive bomb and fly search patterns and various other permutations of the preceding). Even as the "newbies" joined the fleet they were graduates having considerable training hours having joined the training programs well before hostilities.
The training did not have the benefit of war veterans prior to Dec 1941 but then the Japanese experience of fighting untrained pilots flying obsolete/obsolescent aircraft really wasn't all that much help fighting anybody who didn't suffer the same liabilities.


The USN did not:
1) have an operational doctrine that stressed coordinating the operations of multiple carriers and
2) did not have aircraft whose flight characteristics so seamlessly meshed together as those of the IJN.

The experience and quality of the individual pilots was much the same.


Spence,

You could probably extend this to Ship, TF & LCU leaders and troops.

Instead of the IJA/IJN player having to work hard for his victories against underwhelming enemies, they are given help in this area to ensure its a given.



_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 5
RE: Why do we not use historical initial air groups? - 7/7/2011 7:43:54 PM   
Gary D


Posts: 156
Joined: 6/6/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline
In Scenario 1 stock I do not see all full USN CV airgroups.

4 of the 12 groups are below complement.

VF-2 22/27
VT-2 12/15
VF-6 23/27
VF-3 21/27

Regards

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 6
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Why do we not use historical initial air groups? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.066