Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice)

 
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 >> RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 7:20:12 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1730
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
About Shokaku's radar:

16 June 1942:
Enter drydock at Kure Naval Yard for battle damage repairs.

27 June 1942:
Leave drydock at Kure, repairs complete. During this tenure an early Type 21 radar was installed, placed directly atop her island's director.


24 August 1942:
Carrier Battle of the Eastern Solomons

- 1315 While still launching the strike wave, SHOKAKU is suddenly dive-bombed by two ENTERPRISE search bombers. Though the new radar room had detected them and sent warning to the bridge in a radar "first" for Kido Butai, it is not received in time.


26 October 1942:
Carrier Battle of Santa Cruz

- 0640 SHOKAKU's radar detects inbound enemy strike, 78 miles away. A CAP of twenty-three fighters is readied over the carriers. (This early example of IJN carrier using radar had detected USS HORNET's first strike wave of 15 dive-bombers with 8 fighters and 6 torpedo planes launched at 0530).


http://www.combinedfleet.com/shokaku.htm

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 61
RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 7:33:48 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1730
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

I think the question is why Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu and Soryu don't get radar during 1st upgrade in 7/42?

After Shokaku and Zuikaku, next japanese air combat TF capable ships with radars are Akizuki class destroyers in 1/1943.
It's really strange that Minekaze-class APDs get radars in 8/42, but not any of the more valuable ships...

I can live with that, but lack of radar definitely hampers japanese carrier TFs...


Was the Type 21 radar available for those 4 CV if Midway didn't happen?? Then, the question is why none of the OOB have this happening?? An oversight or another reason I'm not aware of??


It seems that prototype/experimental versions of Type 21 radar were installed from 4/1942. Battleship Ise got it first, then Shokaku 6/42, and several ships in early 1943. Final production version became operational in August 1943.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 62
RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/13/2011 7:33:59 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 6658
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel/Romania
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

About Shokaku's radar:

16 June 1942:
Enter drydock at Kure Naval Yard for battle damage repairs.

27 June 1942:
Leave drydock at Kure, repairs complete. During this tenure an early Type 21 radar was installed, placed directly atop her island's director.


24 August 1942:
Carrier Battle of the Eastern Solomons

- 1315 While still launching the strike wave, SHOKAKU is suddenly dive-bombed by two ENTERPRISE search bombers. Though the new radar room had detected them and sent warning to the bridge in a radar "first" for Kido Butai, it is not received in time.


26 October 1942:
Carrier Battle of Santa Cruz

- 0640 SHOKAKU's radar detects inbound enemy strike, 78 miles away. A CAP of twenty-three fighters is readied over the carriers. (This early example of IJN carrier using radar had detected USS HORNET's first strike wave of 15 dive-bombers with 8 fighters and 6 torpedo planes launched at 0530).


http://www.combinedfleet.com/shokaku.htm


It'd be contradicting sources.

One source indicates only 1 set of this type built, but same source indicates it was installed on numerous ships. Type 21 first fitted to BB Ise in April 1942, Taiyo, Chuyo and Unyo in January 1943, others prior to August 1943. At least 30-40 sets built and used operationally.


< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 11/13/2011 7:35:06 PM >


_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 63
RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day - 11/13/2011 9:26:05 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9312
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Viperpol and I had two major carrier clashes in early 1943 but have not had any since. It was a good year ago in real time but I have not read that the air model has been changed at all in any of the patches. In those clashes, we basically slaughtered each others aircraft. My wildcats got crucified by the zeros. The raids exchanged some damage between sides but never enough to put any carriers of note on the bottom. It seemed right then. I will say that I have noticed some raids in our game recently (both sides) where the intercepting fighters just don't do their job. Probably more historical but not really as the bombers (both sides) then do some serious damage.

It is odd to me that nobody here even mentioned the non performance of AA fire for either side. The combat reports show little AA casualties. Both sides pretty much sucked at AA in 42 but still....If AA fire was working well a lot more bombers would be damaged while attacking-if not shot down, and it is my experience that a damaged aircraft virtually never hits a target.

It don't think it is CAP that needs fixing but AA.

Ark and I are at 4/44 in our game and as far as I can see my Allied naval AA is no better if not worse than his Japanese ships. And my ships are stinking loaded with AA guns. I just don't get why this issue has been allowed to lag.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 64
RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day - 11/13/2011 11:38:31 PM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1441
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Terrible roll. Sorry, mate.

I would venture that the largest culprit here isn't the 40% CAP setting, but the altitude of your fighters. At 9k, they're not able to fend off the DBs before they tip over into their dive and build speed to catch those attackers below them. With 170+ fighters on CAP, you outnumbered your opponent's escort by more than 2:1. His raids should have been shredded wholesale.

ETA: Please provide us with the patch number or official version of the game you are using for this cautionary tale.



Absolutely correct about the altitude. Being underneath incoming raids not only removes any potential bouce but it also extends the time required to intercept. The good news is that most Japanese aicraft climb quickly but you are starting at a severe tactical disadvantage by having your fighters too low.

And 60% is a much better CAP figure to use.

Chez


Chez -

Thank You for the above explanation - I shall keep it very much in mind.

Mac

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 65
RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/14/2011 12:13:23 AM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1441
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

CV radar - The Japanese OOB does NOT have the other heavy CVs getting radar like the Shokaku and Zuikaku does in July 42?? Why not?? I pointed this oversight to John and Stanislav when they did Reluctant Admiral mod to get corrected. The other 4 were sunk at Midway and this may be an oversight.

Allied CVs - 12 ships per TF all with good CV admirals leading them. Of course, Halsey is in Big E and has the other CVs follow her. The CV has 4 CA/CL/CLAA and 7 DDs in each.

Naval Search - I have my Kingfisher on 50% Naval Search and some on ASW at 2 hex range with 1000' and at 50%. SBDs are all set at 10% Naval Search.

I'll gladly give Damian my PW and do any testing from my side. Just as long as we can start another game soon.


ny59giants -

Excellent advice on CV warfare to newbies like me.

Gents - all of your posts have been most informative, this is an excellent "how to do CV air ops" thread.

Original:

ny59giants - I'll gladly give Damian my PW and do any testing from my side. Just as long as we can start another game soon..

Damian - I just want to understand and play better next time. If there is an issue I'll make it. If I made a mistake I'll admit it.

Gents - this is exactly the professional attitude I would expect from two very experienced players. If you do start a new game, I would, if I may be so bold, title it "Clash of Titans" (a little David Glantz there...<grin>). And, of course, hope for an AAR...

Mac

< Message edited by Mac Linehan -- 11/14/2011 2:16:20 AM >


_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 66
RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/14/2011 1:15:28 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8085
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

CV radar - The Japanese OOB does NOT have the other heavy CVs getting radar like the Shokaku and Zuikaku does in July 42?? Why not?? I pointed this oversight to John and Stanislav when they did Reluctant Admiral mod to get corrected. The other 4 were sunk at Midway and this may be an oversight.


The Sho and Zui got radar during their repairs after Coral Sea. It is pretty clear from my reading that the IJN philosophy was to NOT upgrade ships until they came in for repair. So, the rest of the KB not having radar was a conscious decision by the IJN.



I think the question is why Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu and Soryu don't get radar during 1st upgrade in 7/42?

After Shokaku and Zuikaku, next japanese air combat TF capable ships with radars are Akizuki class destroyers in 1/1943.
It's really strange that Minekaze-class APDs get radars in 8/42, but not any of the more valuable ships...

I can live with that, but lack of radar definitely hampers japanese carrier TFs...

The reason they do not in the official games is that because historically they did not. Simple. The devs are focused on historical accuracy which is what is demanded by so many in these forums.

Other game forums would have the devs adding radar WHEN it would have been possible to have it. But that's a different group of people, not the core group here. Can't have both.

That's why I take the stock game and mod it. I greatly appreciate the historical accuracy of the stock game. But I have no interest in playing history. I've read the book, I already know how that ends. I want to play what if's ....


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 67
RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/14/2011 1:48:10 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1730
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

CV radar - The Japanese OOB does NOT have the other heavy CVs getting radar like the Shokaku and Zuikaku does in July 42?? Why not?? I pointed this oversight to John and Stanislav when they did Reluctant Admiral mod to get corrected. The other 4 were sunk at Midway and this may be an oversight.


The Sho and Zui got radar during their repairs after Coral Sea. It is pretty clear from my reading that the IJN philosophy was to NOT upgrade ships until they came in for repair. So, the rest of the KB not having radar was a conscious decision by the IJN.



I think the question is why Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu and Soryu don't get radar during 1st upgrade in 7/42?



The reason they do not in the official games is that because historically they did not. Simple.



Historically Midway carries didn't have any upgrades in 7/42, because at that point every one of them were pushing tube worms. So we can't talk about historical accuracy when we talk about updrades of Midway carriers.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 68
RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/14/2011 4:21:17 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8085
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

CV radar - The Japanese OOB does NOT have the other heavy CVs getting radar like the Shokaku and Zuikaku does in July 42?? Why not?? I pointed this oversight to John and Stanislav when they did Reluctant Admiral mod to get corrected. The other 4 were sunk at Midway and this may be an oversight.


The Sho and Zui got radar during their repairs after Coral Sea. It is pretty clear from my reading that the IJN philosophy was to NOT upgrade ships until they came in for repair. So, the rest of the KB not having radar was a conscious decision by the IJN.



I think the question is why Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu and Soryu don't get radar during 1st upgrade in 7/42?



The reason they do not in the official games is that because historically they did not. Simple.



Historically Midway carries didn't have any upgrades in 7/42, because at that point every one of them were pushing tube worms. So we can't talk about historical accuracy when we talk about updrades of Midway carriers.

Correct, so I think the dev's reasoned that IF they had survived, they would have gone in for upgrades towards the end of the year. And then since IJ cannot upgrade all of them at once, they staggered them. A very plausible scenario. Not my choice, but it is completely plausible.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 69
RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/14/2011 4:21:50 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 2322
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
The question is could they, not did they. Every aspect of the campaign game is hypothetical is it not?

It seems to me that unless The Japs can engage the allied carriers early on then they dare not do anything before they ave radar equped ships in the TF.

This means the Z and S are the most important ships to Japan CV force before mid 43.

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 70
RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/14/2011 4:23:17 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8085
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
correct, for the stock game.

I agree with you on all points, hence part of the basis around which my mod is arranged: player choice based upon when devices became available.

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 11/14/2011 4:25:20 PM >


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 71
RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/14/2011 4:29:49 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 15120
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I think the CVs of KB would have gotten their upgrades by Division as alluded to above. It seems reasonable to me that if CarDiv5 got their Radar after Coral Sea then the other CarDivs would see the same thing. This is Modded in RA as well as Perfect War. It made a lot of sense.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 72
RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/14/2011 4:32:13 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 22869
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: online
Yes, this was an important aspect in my recent (May, 1943) CV battle. I wanted to wait for most of the Japanese fleet CVs to upgrade before seeking battle. I think it helped with my CAP intercept of his response raids.

The question is, how many (what percentage) of the ships in the CVTF need to have upgraded to be useful? If you have multiple CVTFs (to keep under the 200 a/c stacking issues), will you get the CAP bonus with functional radar if only one of the CVs has air search radar? If so, should you maximize the CAP contribution of that one carrier and minimize the contributions of the other non-radar equipped CVs in the TF?

_____________________________


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 73
RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/14/2011 4:39:28 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1730
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
Yes, Shokaku and Zuikaku are most valuable carriers because of radar. In this game they both get radar in 6/42, because historically Shokaku got one.

But all Midway carriers are class of their own. So maybe one of them should get radar in 7/42? Hiryu would be a good candidate, you know all this talk about "Midway radar..."

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 74
RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/14/2011 4:39:42 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8085
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
If you use the editor to look at the devices, you see that the radar adds a chance for detection. Hence, more the better. I think I calc'd that with just the Sho/Zui in the KB with radar, they had ~65% to detect incoming at 40 miles declining sharply farther out. Far better than the visual search, but still allows a good chance to have short notice as seen in the OP.

On the allied side, not only the CV's, but many other ships have air search as well. This will kick the odds up considerably and almost assure you that the incoming will be detected at +80 miles (ok, doesn't work exactly that way, but you get the time equivalent of +80 miles detection so who cares how they actually do it) which is HUGE in terms of how well the CAP performs.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 75
RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/14/2011 4:50:19 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 2322
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
So every ship helps, even if its not the CV?

That also means the Akitzuki DD are very valuable as is The Tone and Chickuma who get earlier radar than most.

I will have to watch this carefully as did not pay enough attention to it in the past.

Cav

< Message edited by cavalry -- 11/14/2011 4:52:56 PM >

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 76
RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/14/2011 6:23:19 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8085
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
As I understand the game mechanics of radar, yes ... every ship in the TF helps, or actually every ship in the area helps.

I expect, though have not tested as I play mostly IJ VS AI, that radar pickets for the allies would be very effective in game as they were IRL.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 77
RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/14/2011 7:00:01 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 22869
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: online
The end of Shattered Sword went into excellent detail with how the battle influence Japanese operational considerations for future carrier battles. They identified a benefit with BB-heavy TFs serving as radar picket (and, to the chagrin of the 'big gun' advocated) and bait for Allied CV raids and structured their ideal TF conformation accordingly.

In the game, it would be interesting if such a TF, followed two hexes distance by the main CVTFs body, would warn of and sponge off initial Allied attacks, allowing the following CVTFs to react into the Allied CV threat. That would be the game equivalent of this proposed setup, but I'm not sure how well that would work with the game mechanics.

_____________________________


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 78
RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/14/2011 8:32:05 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1730
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
One of my allied opponent once used that kind of tactic. He had battleship TF 3 or 4 hexes away from carriers. About 1/3 of my bombers went after battlewagons instead of flattops, and that really ruined my day. I lost 4 carriers for 2 old US battleships.

That battleship bait might have been accidential, but it worked anyway.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 79
RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/15/2011 1:59:03 AM   
n01487477


Posts: 4769
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
OK - I'm continuing to test this as is Seille. I'll post a full summary workup of my results and more details where I see necessary next weekend.

So far in the 10 times I've set this up so far:
- different ranges, different %CAP,Alt & load out.

  • At no time have the IJN done reasonably well.
  • At no time have the IJN planes attacked CV's /ships outside the initial TF + 1 other TF. So, I believe that NY59Giants practice of making multiple single or 2 CV, CVTF's is a good way to minimise losses for the Allies. I'm still checking this for the IJN, but it seems similar so far.
  • %CAP and ALT have made very little difference to any of the resulting losses to CV's. Slight increase in intercepts after the fact though.
  • Range has made very little difference too.
  • With large CAP - incoming strikes; both sides CAP are being blown through. More so for the Japanese. In summary from what I've read here and seen, large plane no's don't work well with the current leakage system. Radar might change that ... but as the Allies have the same ...
  • Going to replicate the turn with Japanese CV's with radar, obviously there will be variations as I have to sand box it. And that is why I'll wait till the weekend to post everything.

    Till later

    _____________________________


    (in reply to Puhis)
  • Post #: 80
    RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/15/2011 9:29:22 AM   
    seille

     

    Posts: 2134
    Joined: 6/19/2007
    From: Germany
    Status: offline
    I´m pretty sure Michaels success has several keys from what i saw so far.

    1. His taskforce composition (japs attacked max 2 TF so far in my test)
    2. Missing radar for the japs which gives them not enough time to position their CAP
    3. Number of attackers, just too many to fight in a short amount of time

    I just compared this to Chickenboys CV battle in may 1943:
    http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2952300

    In his first attack wave 29 torpedoes hit their targets. Compare this to Damians first attempt. The number of torpedo bombers are similar.
    As well as the allied CAP strength. The jap torpedo bombers have more escorts, but still lose much more planes than in Chickenboys combat report.
    Significant difference is "thunderstorms" for Damian while Chickenboy had "partial cloud"

    Chickenboy had the advantage of radar detection, but also less attacking enemy planes. More smaller packages.
    Imho the most important factor is the radar. But size of enemy strike package is also very important. There must be enough
    time and firepower to shred it.
    Can´t await to see the result of Damians test with radar. Sadly i do not know how to setup such a sandbox test. Never played around with any editors.
    I´ll do some more tests with the saves to see if i can get better results for the japanese with existing assets and without any radar help.

    < Message edited by seille -- 11/15/2011 9:40:03 AM >

    (in reply to n01487477)
    Post #: 81
    RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/15/2011 10:10:01 AM   
    denisonh


    Posts: 2188
    Joined: 12/21/2001
    From: Northern Virginia
    Status: offline
    Really interested to see how the variables change the range of outcomes. If there is enough volatiliy in the model, it should take a significant number of observations to provide useful analysis (for you prob and stats guys, think central limit theorem)

    _____________________________


    "Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

    (in reply to n01487477)
    Post #: 82
    RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) - 11/15/2011 2:35:23 PM   
    Chickenboy


    Posts: 22869
    Joined: 6/29/2002
    From: San Antonio, TX
    Status: online

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: seille

    I´m pretty sure Michaels success has several keys from what i saw so far.

    1. His taskforce composition (japs attacked max 2 TF so far in my test)
    2. Missing radar for the japs which gives them not enough time to position their CAP
    3. Number of attackers, just too many to fight in a short amount of time

    I just compared this to Chickenboys CV battle in may 1943:
    http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2952300

    In his first attack wave 29 torpedoes hit their targets. Compare this to Damians first attempt. The number of torpedo bombers are similar.
    As well as the allied CAP strength. The jap torpedo bombers have more escorts, but still lose much more planes than in Chickenboys combat report.
    Significant difference is "thunderstorms" for Damian while Chickenboy had "partial cloud"

    Chickenboy had the advantage of radar detection, but also less attacking enemy planes. More smaller packages.
    Imho the most important factor is the radar. But size of enemy strike package is also very important. There must be enough
    time and firepower to shred it.
    Can´t await to see the result of Damians test with radar. Sadly i do not know how to setup such a sandbox test. Never played around with any editors.
    I´ll do some more tests with the saves to see if i can get better results for the japanese with existing assets and without any radar help.


    I agree with all of the previous and I would add:

    1. Range of Allies responding attack. My CV:CV battle took place at ranges most beneficial to myself-7 hexes. The other raid occured at 2 hexes, permitting the Allies greater payload and more effective antiship measures (i.e. torpedoes) for their planes. In general, it's a bad idea to let the Allied CVs into 'knife fighting range'.

    2. Altitude. My CAP fighters were set between 15,000-20,000 feet, depending on the unit. Mostly the former. Jap fliers didn't have to climb to be upon their attackers.

    3. Numbers. I outnumbered the Allied opposition approximately 600:475.


    _____________________________


    (in reply to seille)
    Post #: 83
    Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
    All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: How I lost 5 CV/CVL + 2 Sinking in a day (twice) Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
    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

    0.176