The Power of Inexperience / GreyJoy(A)-Rader(J)

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: DTurtle

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Just for laughs why not try just 200 fighters? Maybe the math goes bad just based on gross numbers? Might be the software developer in me but I have seen stranger things

Yeah, I'm with this. If it was that easy to get bombers through, this problem should have been known for a long time - as those are numbers that can be reached very, very early. There has to be something else screwing with this.

Maybe it really is that you have too many fighters defending - definitely worth a test.

Ok, i'll try to empty hakodate and only use 200 fighters to defend against the same size strike...but i don't have many expectatipns to be honest...

I've been lucky till now cause Rader, untill the last turn, told me he was too scared to send hos betties and frances to attack my Surface fleet at Hakodate and face those 3000 crack fighterrs i have there....if he only had known....[8|]

Yes, and he has not used kamikazes to any great extent. Imagine what would be left of your fleet if he put a 1,000 plane kami attack on it. That might be worth a test too. Heck even 500 would do massive damaged. Not that he needed to use kamis at all. His torpedo bombers did a pretty good job.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman

GJ, try having 4 groups of 50 aircraft each. Perhaps having 200 aircraft in one group is breaking the code.

Here u are... 4 groups of 50 planes each. Escort + 50% CAP, 0 range, 15k alt....


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Sep 01, 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Hakodate at 119,53

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 77 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 22 minutes

Japanese aircraft
P1Y2 Frances x 50
Ki-84r Frank x 50



Allied aircraft
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 100


Japanese aircraft losses
P1Y2 Frances: 11 destroyed, 31 damaged
P1Y2 Frances: 5 destroyed by flak
Ki-84r Frank: 10 destroyed

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
CVE Chenango, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
BB West Virginia, Torpedo hits 1
BB Valiant, Torpedo hits 1
CVE Sangamon, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
BB Colorado



Aircraft Attacking:
33 x P1Y2 Frances launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo

CAP engaged:
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 42000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 2000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes

Actually for these numbers and this test, the results are what I would expect given reasonably experienced Japanese pilots. Nothing wrong here and the number of planes shot down is well within expected norms. The problem here is the lack of decent flak. In an attack such as this you would expect the bolts to tangle with the fighters and get to the bombers a bit. However, with many already damaged bombers attacking into late war flak you would expect many more to drop to flak or get severe enough damage so that the attack run results in a miss.

Likewise, given the balance of the forces-although the damage to the ships is high it is not out of the range of expectations. Remember, you are dealing with higher quality planes and pilots than the Allied had to deal with in the real affair. I really have little problem with air warfare at the lower levels. However, I have a problem with flak at all levels as we get into the late war battles.

[BBfanboy]

Having only played the AI, I am not sure I have correctly followed all your fighter deployments so I apologize if you have already tried this :

Since Allied fighter defence late war was a "defence in depth" with concentric rings or arcs of fighters intercepting incoming strikes from the time of first detection, have you tried setting up arcs of CAP/LRCAP in arcs along the likely approach of incoming enemies? Say one and two hexes out from the one you are protecting?
Your last experiment seems to show that smaller groups engage as well as large ones so spread them out and have more engagements prior to the attack.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Actually for these numbers and this test, the results are what I would expect given reasonably experienced Japanese pilots. Nothing wrong here and the number of planes shot down is well within expected norms.

I have to agree here. Frances and Frank are Japan's best and fastest planes. Not that easy to shot down than old Betties and Zeros.

I wonder what would it be if Japan had older and slower planes?

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Having only played the AI, I am not sure I have correctly followed all your fighter deployments so I apologize if you have already tried this :

Since Allied fighter defence late war was a "defence in depth" with concentric rings or arcs of fighters intercepting incoming strikes from the time of first detection, have you tried setting up arcs of CAP/LRCAP in arcs along the likely approach of incoming enemies? Say one and two hexes out from the one you are protecting?
Your last experiment seems to show that smaller groups engage as well as large ones so spread them out and have more engagements prior to the attack.

that doesn't work. Cap or LRCAP doesn't intercept strikes that aren't going into the hex Cap or LRCAP is assigned to.

[BBfanboy]

Thanks CT. So an enemy strike would get a free pass through a hex with fighters just viewing the scenery?!! This looks like a code change is needed - there should at least be a chance of interception at a distance, given radar detection at 119 miles in the last test and vectoring from ground/sea fighter controllers.

As it stands you would need to put picket ships out there that the Japanese strike would go to instead of the main force. Would a hoarde of PTs work?? Torpedoes should pass right under them without exploding!

[CT Grognard]

I'm sure something like that would be possible.

After all, they managed to code in the mid-ocean intercept from WITP to WITP-AE. Same rationale - TFs were only engaging if they ended the phase in the same turn.

[jeffk3510]

GreyJoy.. don't use 50% rest like you indicated.. that means the other 50% do just like you want... rest.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Having only played the AI, I am not sure I have correctly followed all your fighter deployments so I apologize if you have already tried this :

Since Allied fighter defence late war was a "defence in depth" with concentric rings or arcs of fighters intercepting incoming strikes from the time of first detection, have you tried setting up arcs of CAP/LRCAP in arcs along the likely approach of incoming enemies? Say one and two hexes out from the one you are protecting?
Your last experiment seems to show that smaller groups engage as well as large ones so spread them out and have more engagements prior to the attack.

that doesn't work. Cap or LRCAP doesn't intercept strikes that aren't going into the hex Cap or LRCAP is assigned to.

That would be the circles of apollonius problem applied to every squadron in the attack after die rolls .. it wold be more realistic . it would also be more intense on the computing side of the equation so to speak ..

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

GreyJoy.. don't use 50% rest like you indicated.. that means the other 50% do just like you want... rest.

Jeff, i used that setting only once...to try...and the result was: out of 200 fighters, 50 rested, 50 flew CAP and the other 100 simply remained in the hangars (no scambling, no standby...)

Was just an attempt...i know what happens with "rest"...[;)]

[GreyJoy]

But guys, please don't get me wrong: these latest testing weren't the core of my research. I first wanted to know what happens to large CAP concentrations against big strikes. Secondly i wanted to well understand how CAP actually works. It seems that i've learnt quite a few things...especially about the scrambling (which works 1 out of 10 times and there's seem to be a "limit") and being "out of position"...

The latest small tests were just looking for a decent HR that could address this particular game, given that large air battles simply aren't working fine.

Yes, 100 against 2/300 works pretty well... but it's very very difficult to regulate these settings in the environement we're playin

[jeffk3510]

Well, I figured you did..but..ya know [:)]

[hades1001]

LOL it's really fun to see all these Leaking CAP arguments are still going on after my 2 weeks away from the game.

Greyjoy thanks for your tests because I have tried to acknowledge you weeks ago that your carriers defeat was not a bad dice and roll but inevitable. I had run tons of tests and I tried to point out that 200 fighters with 200 torpedo bombers will wipe out the TF58 no matter what number of CAP you put up. This is simply wrong but some guys in this forum, some so-called "veterans", are still defending the broken A2A system and being reluctant to any changes.

I have suspended the game and wait it to get fixed anyway. I'm glad you finally take a break and do the tests by yourself. Until then you will see how broken the system is. Hope you will not be fooled by those "veterans" who are trying to justify the problem with some vague assumptions and guesses.

[CaptBeefheart]

OK, someone needs to bump this.

GJ: Are you guys receiving any joy on getting the air-to-air fixed? It would be a crime against humanity for this AAR to be stopped at this point.

Cheers,
CC

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

OK, someone needs to bump this.

GJ: Are you guys receiving any joy on getting the air-to-air fixed? It would be a crime against humanity for this AAR to be stopped at this point.

Cheers,
CC

[X(] You guessed it! Some Syrian guy named Assad had his hackers bork the code to focus our attention away from him! [8|]

[AcePylut]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Thanks CT. So an enemy strike would get a free pass through a hex with fighters just viewing the scenery?!! This looks like a code change is needed - there should at least be a chance of interception at a distance, given radar detection at 119 miles in the last test and vectoring from ground/sea fighter controllers.

As it stands you would need to put picket ships out there that the Japanese strike would go to instead of the main force. Would a hoarde of PTs work?? Torpedoes should pass right under them without exploding!

You are exactly right, and this problem with the code is what allows Rader to fly multiple kamikaze groups to an empty IJN base 1000 miles behind US lines and then launch kami strikes against unescorted tankers, 1500 miles behind US lines.

I've been doing the "provide the IJN with a target rich environment of small tf's of CL/DD's spread all over the map" in my Downfall AAR, and it seems to be working so far. DD's are hard to hit, and for the most part, they don't get hit. The next turn in my AAR will tell, however, as I have about 40 US CV/CVE 20+ BB, etc. etc. 1 hex off Kyushu.

[aoffen]

Greyjoy
Any news? It has been a while now. Is there a chance the game will be resurrected or do you think its over?
Regards
Andrew

[CaptBeefheart]

ORIGINAL: aoffen

Greyjoy
Any news? It has been a while now. Is there a chance the game will be resurrected or do you think its over?
Regards
Andrew

...the world wonders.

Cheers,
CC

[GreyJoy]

It's not over guys...
 
We just took a break...we badly needed to....
 
Rader is being very busy (he's flying to Oz for a week now) and i focused on my job too...
 
We'll resume the game within the next 2 weeks...
 
I still don't have a solution for the problem we've encountered so i think we'll just keep on playing it as it gets...but i'm not very confident that the allies would be able to do much more than what they did till now...

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

OK, someone needs to bump this.

GJ: Are you guys receiving any joy on getting the air-to-air fixed? It would be a crime against humanity for this AAR to be stopped at this point.

Cheers,
CC

Not at all unfortunately...i think it's almost impossible to fix it without a massive testing behind any new code modifications...