Matrix Games Forums

Players 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 TrailerDeal of the Week Alea Jacta EstDeal of the Week Alea Jacta Est
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon

 
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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon Page: <<   < prev  106 107 [108] 109 110   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/27/2013 5:07:41 PM   
obvert


Posts: 6236
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
I even see the flak improvements that michaelm has put in the betas (from DDB I guess) working nearly as well as the Babes mods that I've seen. If I get only one package through to attack it's not enough as the flak rips them apart, even just attacking a CL/DD TF, let alone CV/BB.

You guys are having an epic match, and it's a test of will too. So easy to get down after a difficult turn, and you're showing already the kind of determination that will serve you well in late 44-45 when there is nothing but bad news. It does get bleak, I can testify, but there are some fun moments left and it's always a challenge.

I agree it's time to think of a measured retreat. Think though of how you can stall him while you're moving back, so it doesn't turn into a rout. I guess stacking limits will help in this.

Also, about supply, think about ways to conserve now as it won't get better, especially once he gets to bomb you industry.

Looking forward to seeing this go all of the way!

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 3211
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/27/2013 5:29:35 PM   
buutsy

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 1/29/2006
From: Berlin
Status: offline
Great AAR here, following it from the beginning !
Always asked myself if Stacking Limits isn´t too much in favour for the Allies because of the much much better firepower their troops have in the endgame .
Or am i´m getting something wrong here ?

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3212
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/27/2013 5:33:49 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 5718
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: buutsy

Great AAR here, following it from the beginning !
Always asked myself if Stacking Limits isn´t too much in favour for the Allies because of the much much better firepower their troops have in the endgame .
Or am i´m getting something wrong here ?



No, i don't think so mate. The firepower is an issue, obviously, but consider that the defender has the terrain and the forts on his side, so it's a fair trade IMHO

(in reply to buutsy)
Post #: 3213
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/27/2013 6:04:26 PM   
nashvillen


Posts: 2441
Joined: 7/3/2006
From: Christiana, TN
Status: online
When I saw the pictures on the other "AAR" that was to be disregarded, my first thought was, wow, great carrier package and battle. Then, I see the results of the Allied flak, and it is still a great carrier package, just decreased in effectiveness by the allied flak.

It appears you have positioned yourself well. It is all you can do, sometimes technology overrules that. Don't get down over it. As a lurker, I have enjoyed popping in occasionally and see how this is going and am really interested in your latter half of the war on the defense.

Can't stress enough the stockpiling of fuel and supplies! It is so critical as you leave 1944 into 1945 when the fuel and oil are cut off.

_____________________________


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 3214
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/27/2013 9:03:50 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3413
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
Bummer but inevitable in the long run for Japan. Q really uses the large feints well. Hard to tell when and where he's bluffing. Also, just as in poker, the deadliest hand is when the other guy thinks you're bluffing, but you actually have the cards. Fight on!

_____________________________

Follow my latest AAR as I do battle with our resident author Cuttlefish at: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2742735

(in reply to nashvillen)
Post #: 3215
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/27/2013 10:27:50 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 2062
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
That's not a bad final trade at all. He lost 5 CVEs, 2 CVs, and probably a CVL? That's nontrivial, though unfortunately you don't have the capability to meet him head to head again. Maybe you can pull a Leyte Gulf on him and lure his CVs away from the rest . Maybe with kamis?

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 3216
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/28/2013 10:32:56 AM   
Barb


Posts: 1573
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Slovakia
Status: offline
Always look on the bright side of life... you have less fuel/oil to burn by ships, and more to haul up to Japan while you can




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


"Hello IT. Have you tried turning it off and on again?"

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3217
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/28/2013 12:06:41 PM   
obvert


Posts: 6236
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Always look on the bright side of life... you have less fuel/oil to burn by ships, and more to haul up to Japan while you can



+1



_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 3218
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/30/2013 9:05:26 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 5718
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Feb 21, 1944

The day begun with the worst message: sub contact. Junyo. 46 miles east of Kendari.
The Junyo is making 4 or 5 knots...no way to avoid the torpedoes. 3 of them struk the poor ship, bringing down beneath the waves the carrier, along with the 3 air groups stuck aboard her.
The Katzuragi managed to made to Makassar. Still burning furiously. She's 99% a goner but i'll try to save her if I can. The rest of the KB...what is left of the KB is divided between Makassar and Kendari, covered by the surface vessels.
The allies didn't try to follow me. They remain there, covering the Namlea landings, which went unopposed. No sign of any enemy flaptop sunk... think he saved both CVs and the CVLs....
Well, not much I can do right now. I'll keep the undamaged CVs togheder in the combat area and will withdraw the damaged ones to the HI... I'll have to place them pretty back, thus leaving Kendari very exposed. Think Kendari will be under air siege within a couple of weeks with all those airfields building up in the proximity. I'll do my best to keep it open as long as possible, cause it's being used to haul troops with transports (both planes and barges) from Timor area in order to save as much as possible and re-allocate them.
At Biak my CAP is heavily engaged against 100 P-47s from Kaimana... those bastards obtained a 3-1 with their strato-sweep and I lose a good 70 fighters over Biak (KI-84r, N1K1s and 2s, J2M3s and KI-44cs)... even with layered CAP, plenty of air support, radars and skillfull pilots, the P-47s seems to be unbeatable for me.

No attacks at Ramree Is. or Sarmi this turn.
We managed to repulse the first attack at Namlea...but we suffered 3 times the casualities of the Marines... Ambon will be isolated in a couple of turns. However I've already rescued from there a Mixed Bde, an Air HQ (only the Air support actually) and some base forces... not bad. Same for Boela, where I managed to rescue an air Army HQ with 144 air support!

Constant air bombings over Timor, Ambon, Boela, Sarmi etc... it's a pain to see all my planes grounded and my fields closed...but I really can't do much about it right now.


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 3219
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/30/2013 9:11:38 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 5718
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nashvillen

When I saw the pictures on the other "AAR" that was to be disregarded, my first thought was, wow, great carrier package and battle. Then, I see the results of the Allied flak, and it is still a great carrier package, just decreased in effectiveness by the allied flak.

It appears you have positioned yourself well. It is all you can do, sometimes technology overrules that. Don't get down over it. As a lurker, I have enjoyed popping in occasionally and see how this is going and am really interested in your latter half of the war on the defense.

Can't stress enough the stockpiling of fuel and supplies! It is so critical as you leave 1944 into 1945 when the fuel and oil are cut off.


I'm doing my best to haul fuel to Japan... but the supply problem is what is and will really hurt me. I produce too few supplies. Plain and simple. And the strat bombing campaign hasn't started yet... 25,000 supplies per turn is really too few...without the refineries it's really tough to get enough of it.

But I'm not that sad, really. I was prepared for this moment. I knew it would have come. It's fair, really. Brad has been on the receiving side for what concerns carrier engagements for 2 full years and even if he got pretty lucky in a couple of occasions (where he could have lost the whole lot of CVs), he hasn't been any lucky in damaging my own CVs... so I think this was a good trade off.
It's been fun. Now it will come the hardest part...as i'm learning from Obvert-Joc's game.... but that's all about playing Japan: you need to be ready when the tide turns

(in reply to nashvillen)
Post #: 3220
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/30/2013 11:06:20 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 6736
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
As an Allied player two months behind you, it is nice to be able to place over 400 B-24s (Army and Naval versions) over a base. I do like the fact that I can do this for a few turns, but once I order rest, they take about a week to recover.

Brad just had his big American BFs and another BF expand their Aviation Support by 1/3. Going from 72 to 96 will help Brad base more aircraft at some of his bases. In just over 1/2 month this will happen for me also and we end the altitude restrictions. I hope my P-47s and my P-38s can take advantage of this. In you game, does the P-38L do well??

Slightly OT, but any plans to add Symon/JWEs modification to aircraft data to your game??

Your steady losses in DDs seemed to hurt you in the latest round of combat.

_____________________________


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 3221
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/30/2013 12:35:12 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5459
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

... but the supply problem is what is and will really hurt me. I produce too few supplies. ... 25,000 supplies per turn is really too few...without the refineries it's really tough to get enough of it.


GJ, You do realize that refineries would only give you another ~4K/day max supplies? Yes, 15% is a lot, but at the same time it is manageable. It means don't build/change 4 factories per day. And that means you have to fly older planes longer than you would in stock or have LCU's fighting without supply.

I'm not suggesting I agree with the design (I don't), but the devs of this mod decreased the supply for IJ for just this very reason: trim the IJ ability to build/change ac factories. You have to adjust your economic plan to the mods design.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 3222
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/30/2013 1:40:45 PM   
koniu

 

Posts: 1940
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

... but the supply problem is what is and will really hurt me. I produce too few supplies. ... 25,000 supplies per turn is really too few...without the refineries it's really tough to get enough of it.


GJ, You do realize that refineries would only give you another ~4K/day max supplies? Yes, 15% is a lot, but at the same time it is manageable. It means don't build/change 4 factories per day. And that means you have to fly older planes longer than you would in stock or have LCU's fighting without supply.

I'm not suggesting I agree with the design (I don't), but the devs of this mod decreased the supply for IJ for just this very reason: trim the IJ ability to build/change ac factories. You have to adjust your economic plan to the mods design.

Pax is right. Scenario was designed to force Japanese player to make small and smart moves with economy. And stop Japan from overexpand.
But i will not say that it is only 4k/daily. Only in first two years of war that is almost ~3000000 extra supplies.
For me that mean much more flexibility and bigger error margin during game.

_____________________________

"Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War"

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 3223
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/30/2013 2:23:26 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5459
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu

But i will not say that it is only 4k/daily. Only in first two years of war that is almost ~3000000 extra supplies.
For me that mean much more flexibility and bigger error margin during game.

It does. And 3M supply is a LOT. I couched it in terms of daily 4K/day to demonstrate that within the game you can manage it, but it means BIG sacrifices in terms of factory builds. The same reasons the devs of this mod chose to remove the supply are the same reasons I choose to not play the mod; the lack of supply makes playing IJ no fun for me. Instead, my personal mod uses all of their other changes. And then of course I meld this to Andy's double secret super meltdown allied IronMan with those frickin' Dorniers! (sorry to vent. )

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 3224
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/30/2013 2:43:53 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4166
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Pax, you can have some of my supply if you want to? I have 103 million sitting around not doing much of anything.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 3225
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/30/2013 6:09:58 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 5718
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

... but the supply problem is what is and will really hurt me. I produce too few supplies. ... 25,000 supplies per turn is really too few...without the refineries it's really tough to get enough of it.


GJ, You do realize that refineries would only give you another ~4K/day max supplies? Yes, 15% is a lot, but at the same time it is manageable. It means don't build/change 4 factories per day. And that means you have to fly older planes longer than you would in stock or have LCU's fighting without supply.

I'm not suggesting I agree with the design (I don't), but the devs of this mod decreased the supply for IJ for just this very reason: trim the IJ ability to build/change ac factories. You have to adjust your economic plan to the mods design.


Thanks Pax!
However I think I've not explained well what I meant.
To be honest I haven't touched my factories since the beginning of the war. The only factories I changed are the A6M2 ones in 1942 (cause their upgrade path was pretty weird). All the rest remained the very same since the beginning. I chose not to change R&D factories (we're also playing with realistic R&D) right because of the supply issue. So, once an R&D factory reaches the end of the upgrade path of the a/c it's researching, it simply becomes a production factory.
This was done to minimize the supply expenditure.

Don't know why i'm consuming so many supplies. Probably it's because of my Air Army (constantly kept at max alert) or because of the heavy replacements sent to my units...don't know. The fact is that i'm running very low on supplies...and not because of me tweaking with the factories...
anyway, i'm not complaining, mind you, just stating the status of my situation. Still having great fun playing Japan in 1944

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 3226
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/30/2013 6:13:39 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 5718
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

As an Allied player two months behind you, it is nice to be able to place over 400 B-24s (Army and Naval versions) over a base. I do like the fact that I can do this for a few turns, but once I order rest, they take about a week to recover.

Brad just had his big American BFs and another BF expand their Aviation Support by 1/3. Going from 72 to 96 will help Brad base more aircraft at some of his bases. In just over 1/2 month this will happen for me also and we end the altitude restrictions. I hope my P-47s and my P-38s can take advantage of this. In you game, does the P-38L do well??

Slightly OT, but any plans to add Symon/JWEs modification to aircraft data to your game??

Your steady losses in DDs seemed to hurt you in the latest round of combat.



Can the Symon mods be added now?

Yes, DDs losses are really hurting me. My surface fleet is the shadow of what it used to be.

P-38Ls seem to be just as good as the P-38Hs...not that impressive if you ask me. The KI-84r can dive on them from 34-38k feet and, on the defensive side, even the J2M5 seems to do well against P-38s...even late ones.
The real killer is, as always, the P-47s...but just because of the 42K feet altitude. I wouldn't fear it too much if I could engage it at the same altitude.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 3227
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/30/2013 7:22:25 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 2757
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

The real killer is, as always, the P-47s...but just because of the 42K feet altitude. I wouldn't fear it too much if I could engage it at the same altitude.


I'm running into this problem in my Allied PBEM. We have a height restriction set to 30k to try and stop the tendency simply to fly at maximum altitude all the time in order for one side or the other to get the dive. The problem with this is the P-47's rate of climb sucks. I'm constantly getting dived on because the CAP can climb faster and get the bounce on occasion. The P-47 isn't the beast I've been led to believe it is when it's not flying at 42k and getting the dive bonus against lower altitude Japanese fighters.

I really hope Symon's air tweaks reduce the effect of the dive. I'm not bashing the air model, but I've played long enough to know the dive/bounce is often decisive in an air action and players do whatever is necessary to get it whenever possible. The sheer number of house rules and threads relating to this topic clearly show how the effects of the dive/bounce completely dominate an air action with one side often getting slaughtered as a result and it's an issue. I'd like to see it's effect reduced and pilot skill, maneuver and aircraft specifications count for more.

I'm not trying to rekindle the debate about the dive. This is my own personal opinion and I think the air war would benefit if the effect of the dive was reduced. If pilot skill and plane specs determined who got the dive more so than simply flying higher than the other force to achieve it, I think the game would benefit immensely.

< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 10/30/2013 7:24:31 PM >


_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 3228
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/30/2013 11:12:28 PM   
obvert


Posts: 6236
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

... but the supply problem is what is and will really hurt me. I produce too few supplies. ... 25,000 supplies per turn is really too few...without the refineries it's really tough to get enough of it.


GJ, You do realize that refineries would only give you another ~4K/day max supplies? Yes, 15% is a lot, but at the same time it is manageable. It means don't build/change 4 factories per day. And that means you have to fly older planes longer than you would in stock or have LCU's fighting without supply.

I'm not suggesting I agree with the design (I don't), but the devs of this mod decreased the supply for IJ for just this very reason: trim the IJ ability to build/change ac factories. You have to adjust your economic plan to the mods design.

Pax is right. Scenario was designed to force Japanese player to make small and smart moves with economy. And stop Japan from overexpand.
But i will not say that it is only 4k/daily. Only in first two years of war that is almost ~3000000 extra supplies.
For me that mean much more flexibility and bigger error margin during game.


I still don't understand this change. Supply approximates aviation fuel as well as other things like SPAM. The entire reason the Japanese wanted some of the advanced Borneo refineries was to get good quality av gas, so how can it be taken out? Doesn't make sense.

Not many players will be keen to simply see the turns back with no ability to fly anything by early 45, and it certainly can't be too fun on the other side either.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 3229
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/30/2013 11:14:16 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3413
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
Couldn't agree more. The dive is just too powerful, and is decisive in air engagements, leading to wildly ahistorical altitudes. I'd rather nerf or even toss it entirely rather than continue as is. It wouldn't be so bad if only a few planes got it, but when a massive air group all get a bounce attack, air combat becomes a mono-variable affair.

_____________________________

Follow my latest AAR as I do battle with our resident author Cuttlefish at: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2742735

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 3230
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/30/2013 11:37:34 PM   
MrKane

 

Posts: 111
Joined: 3/9/2013
From: West Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Couldn't agree more. The dive is just too powerful, and is decisive in air engagements, leading to wildly ahistorical altitudes. I'd rather nerf or even toss it entirely rather than continue as is. It wouldn't be so bad if only a few planes got it, but when a massive air group all get a bounce attack, air combat becomes a mono-variable affair.


100% correct.

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 3231
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/31/2013 12:17:27 AM   
obvert


Posts: 6236
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Couldn't agree more. The dive is just too powerful, and is decisive in air engagements, leading to wildly ahistorical altitudes. I'd rather nerf or even toss it entirely rather than continue as is. It wouldn't be so bad if only a few planes got it, but when a massive air group all get a bounce attack, air combat becomes a mono-variable affair.


Yep.

Jocke and I moved to 32k max lately, in 45, and it seems more balanced and less extreme. This was after a short period showed that even a Japanese plane with a dive advantage, (as the Ki-84r had for a short while due to our previous HR), was tough to handle.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 3232
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/31/2013 12:47:24 AM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14106
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
A layered CAP does well enough against higher level sweepers. Been proven enough times.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3233
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/31/2013 1:39:06 AM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3413
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
I've had some success but not as much as I hoped. How many layers are optimal? I may not be using enough.

_____________________________

Follow my latest AAR as I do battle with our resident author Cuttlefish at: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2742735

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3234
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/31/2013 1:41:27 AM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 2757
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

A layered CAP does well enough against higher level sweepers. Been proven enough times.


Why is it that the lowest altitude fighter always gets creamed on layered CAP? Why is it the higher CAP never dives on the sweep prior to the lowest altitude CAP getting slaughtered? To me, using layered CAP has turned the air model into a rock/paper/scissor format and easily exploitable. Ok, I'll use 40 exp pilots in Nate's to suck down the sweeps so my higher flying Tojo's can get the dive, rinse and repeat. Where's the skill involved in that and who can sustain the losses in aircraft and pilots? If you use layered CAP one portion of your force gets hammered almost every time. I use layered CAP myself, but only because I have to in order to not to get completely slaughtered and it just plain feels wrong.

I'd like to see the dive be more random, or have experience, skill and aircraft ability determine a bounce rather than just arbitrarily giving the advantage to one side simply because one player set a higher altitude than the other. The initial dive, as Criptop mentions, can be decisive well before layered CAP even comes into play. Good luck combating higher altitude aircraft if your fighters are committed in driblets by the AI as often happens and watch every single one of your planes bounced and shot down. I've experienced this kind of result time after time and it wasn't until my other opponent and I set a limit that air battles stopped being completely one sided with the winner 95% of the time being the higher altitude aircraft, regardless of airframe.

Like I said, I'm not looking to rekindle the dive debate. I believe the dive is overpowered and exploitable (especially due to layering CAP) so to enjoy the game I look for alternatives through HR's or hopefully Symon's tweak to the air model in DBB will change the effect of the dive. As it is now, I don't enjoy air operations and far too much of my time is spent trying to avoid the effects of the dive, rather than immerse myself in simulating combat operations in the spirit of the times and at the altitudes those operations were flown at. I want the skill of my pilots and airframe specs to determine the outcome, not an overpowered dive routine.

Sorry for the hijack GreyJoy.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3235
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/31/2013 2:50:22 AM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14106
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
I don't know how many layers are optimal, or even if there is an optimal number. It seems like more layers is better (but I do not mean that in the strictest sense), so put as many as you can with what you have. It also seems that you do have to have enough defenders (quantity) to drag the sweepers into that lower altitude fight that you want, which of course will include some defenders getting 'the dive'.

I've had good success with layered CAP with inferior aircraft, and so has Andav (curse you! ), my current opponent.

I can say without any reservation that pilot experience and skills do make a BIG difference. As far who gets 'the dive' and when, I don't even bother to watch that. I hit the Esc key and only care about the outcome of the combat. Adjust what you are doing (altitude, training, etc.) to get the combat results. Forget about 'the dive'. It'll drive you nuts.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 3236
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/31/2013 7:02:59 AM   
Cannonfodder


Posts: 1681
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

The problem with this is the P-47's rate of climb sucks. I'm constantly getting dived on because the CAP can climb faster and get the bounce on occasion. The P-47 isn't the beast I've been led to believe it is when it's not flying at 42k and getting the dive bonus against lower altitude Japanese fighters.



Without going into game mechanics, the P47 was a slow climber. If you go in low (lower then the opposition) as a slow climber you are in trouble. It is the fighter pilots job to try and fight at an advantage..

If you take away the P47s altitude and thus a large part of its speed advantage what does it have left? Ruggedness and guns - thats about it...



_____________________________



"An agile, adaptable and capable Air Force that, person for person, is second to none, and that makes a decisive air power contribution in support of the UK Defence Mission."


(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 3237
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/31/2013 9:48:57 AM   
obvert


Posts: 6236
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I don't know how many layers are optimal, or even if there is an optimal number. It seems like more layers is better (but I do not mean that in the strictest sense), so put as many as you can with what you have. It also seems that you do have to have enough defenders (quantity) to drag the sweepers into that lower altitude fight that you want, which of course will include some defenders getting 'the dive'.

I've had good success with layered CAP with inferior aircraft, and so has Andav (curse you! ), my current opponent.

I can say without any reservation that pilot experience and skills do make a BIG difference. As far who gets 'the dive' and when, I don't even bother to watch that. I hit the Esc key and only care about the outcome of the combat. Adjust what you are doing (altitude, training, etc.) to get the combat results. Forget about 'the dive'. It'll drive you nuts.


With the 42k P-47 sweep all planes get dived on, so the top and middle and bottom layers suffer from the outset, and the numbers get massively extreme, up to 15:1 even with the best pilots in the best airframes available. Then when you multiply that by several months, years, you get a pilot quality discrepancy that is massive.

As stated above the 32k max HR we're using now (after having used 2nd best maneuver) has worked very well since we tried it out. With a massive set of sweeps the Allies still get 2-3 to 1, but not 10-15 to 1 anymore. Generally the lower levels of CAP are hit, but the upper layers do fight it out, and sometimes they get to dive into the lower sweepers after their dive. It was hit and run for the faster Allied planes so it does make sense that it's hard to get to the lower ones after they dive. This HR though does make the upper layers, with good piot sand the best frames duke it out a bit. That's good for the game and makes both sides continue to parry, thrust, deceive and surprise, which is where it gets fun!

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3238
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/31/2013 8:42:10 PM   
leehunt27@bloomberg.net


Posts: 398
Joined: 9/6/2004
Status: offline
tough luck on the CV battle, but I think Lokasenna has a point Greyjoy: you can still have fun creating Kamikaze traps and other decoys. The Japanese player must get a "kick" out of frustrating the Allied player endlessly :)

_____________________________

John 21:25

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3239
RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon - 10/31/2013 9:38:15 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 6828
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: buutsy

Great AAR here, following it from the beginning !
Always asked myself if Stacking Limits isn´t too much in favour for the Allies because of the much much better firepower their troops have in the endgame .
Or am i´m getting something wrong here ?



No, i don't think so mate. The firepower is an issue, obviously, but consider that the defender has the terrain and the forts on his side, so it's a fair trade IMHO



I could be a problem. My 1945 American divisions are upgrading to have 27 sherman CS tanks and 27 "pershing" tanks. They get very powerful. Not to mention when the Soviets start to run amok. But this was the reality for Japan anyways so may not be out of order at all. It also will at least prevent the American from building even greater kill stacks which will eventually become unstoppable. So it is probably still OK.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 3240
Page:   <<   < prev  106 107 [108] 109 110   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: DEFEAT: The battle of Ambon Page: <<   < prev  106 107 [108] 109 110   next >   >>
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

0.154