Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

PBEM CTF strike, fair results?

 
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 >> PBEM CTF strike, fair results? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/14/2014 10:34:16 PM   
BattleMoose

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 2/17/2014
Status: offline
Hi all,

Me and my PBEM partner have just concluded a game due to decisive results from a CTF battle off the coast of Eastern Australia, Sydney. This is really my first experience of a major CTF battle, against either the AI or Human so don't have any experience to draw on. Its February 1942 and teh question really is, are such results, normal?

We are playing with the Beta.exe and dbb C.

Morning Air attack on TF, near Port Kembla at 91,171

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 53

Allied aircraft
F2A-3 Buffalo x 8
F4F-3A Wildcat x 5
F4F-3 Wildcat x 10
SBD-2 Dauntless x 54
SBD-3 Dauntless x 90

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F2A-3 Buffalo: 2 destroyed
F4F-3A Wildcat: 2 destroyed
F4F-3 Wildcat: 1 destroyed
SBD-2 Dauntless: 3 destroyed, 5 damaged
SBD-3 Dauntless: 4 destroyed, 11 damaged
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed by flak

Japanese Ships
CV Hiryu, Bomb hits 1
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires
DD Shirayuki
CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 4, on fire
CA Tone
CV Soryu, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires
CA Furutaka
CA Chikuma
CL Abukuma, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires
DD Asagumo, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CV Akagi, Bomb hits 3
CA Kako
DD Kagero

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
2 x SBD-2 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
3 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
12 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
7 x SBD-2 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
14 x SBD-2 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
12 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
13 x SBD-2 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
7 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
6 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
2 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
6 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
2 x SBD-2 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
8 x SBD-2 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
4 x SBD-2 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
Akagi-1 with A6M2 Zero (11 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(11 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
11 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 11000
Raid is overhead
Soryu-1 with A6M2 Zero (10 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(10 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
10 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 11000
Raid is overhead
Hiryu-1 with A6M2 Zero (3 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 11000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 12000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 5 minutes
Shokaku-1 with A6M2 Zero (3 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 11000 , scrambling fighters to 11000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 5 minutes
Zuikaku-1 with A6M2 Zero (3 airborne, 7 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 11000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 12000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 5 minutes

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CV Shokaku
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Asagumo
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CV Zuikaku
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CL Abukuma
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring a Japanese CV

And the strike in the PM.

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Port Kembla at 91,171

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 41

Allied aircraft
F2A-3 Buffalo x 6
F4F-3A Wildcat x 4
F4F-3 Wildcat x 9
SB2U-3 Vindicator x 18
SBD-2 Dauntless x 44
SBD-3 Dauntless x 78
TBD-1 Devastator x 30

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat: 2 destroyed
SB2U-3 Vindicator: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
SBD-2 Dauntless: 3 destroyed, 8 damaged
SBD-3 Dauntless: 2 destroyed, 17 damaged
TBD-1 Devastator: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
CV Hiryu, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires
CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CV Akagi, Bomb hits 5, heavy fires
CV Soryu, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Urakaze
CL Abukuma, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Isonami, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Akigumo, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CA Furutaka, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Kagero
DD Inazuma
CA Tone, Bomb hits 3
DD Asagumo, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA Chikuma
DD Ikazuchi
DD Isokaze
CA Kako, Bomb hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
8 x SBD-2 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
14 x TBD-1 Devastator bombing from 10000 feet *
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb
13 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
6 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
7 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
6 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
10 x SBD-2 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
7 x SBD-2 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
13 x TBD-1 Devastator bombing from 10000 feet *
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
9 x SB2U-3 Vindicator releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
7 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
7 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
2 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SB2U-3 Vindicator releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
5 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-2 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-2 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SB2U-3 Vindicator releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
Shokaku-1 with A6M2 Zero (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 11000
Raid is overhead
2 planes vectored on to bombers
Akagi-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 3 on standby, 3 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 11000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 13000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
3 planes vectored on to bombers
Soryu-1 with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 4 on standby, 3 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 11000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes
Hiryu-1 with A6M2 Zero (3 airborne, 7 on standby, 6 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 11000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes
9 planes vectored on to bombers
Zuikaku-1 with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 4 on standby, 3 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 11000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 11000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 29 minutes
5 planes vectored on to bombers

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CV Zuikaku
Fuel storage explosion on CV Soryu
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CV Soryu
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CV Shokaku
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CL Abukuma
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CV Hiryu
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Akigumo
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Isonami
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Asagumo
Ammo storage explosion on CV Akagi
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CV Akagi

My opponent thought that his CAP under performed and I agreed but not sure that they underformed so much as to change the results in a meaningful way?

I am curious as to what the wisdom of the forum will reveal?
Post #: 1
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/14/2014 10:49:38 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4247
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
In the AM attack:
30 zeros airborne, the rest on standby. This vs. 23 fighters and 144 bombers

In the PM attack:
7 zeros airborne, the rest on standby or scrambling. This vs. 19 fighters and 170 bombers

The allied superiority was overwhelming... results seems right

How many carriers did the attack?

(in reply to BattleMoose)
Post #: 2
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/14/2014 11:00:04 PM   
btd64


Posts: 7330
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
Looks like Midway at OZ. I think based on the numbers of zeros flying cap and the number of inbound aircraft, Its right. We got just as lucky at Midway in june 42. All thought i'm not sure how many zeros were up at Midway. GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 3
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/14/2014 11:24:03 PM   
BattleMoose

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 2/17/2014
Status: offline
Thanks for the replies, I had the 4 USN carriers launch the attack.

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 4
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/14/2014 11:53:34 PM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1609
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
What happened in the Japanese attack on the allied CVs?

(in reply to BattleMoose)
Post #: 5
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 12:11:55 AM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1609
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
If you thought your CV engagement was unbalanced, here's one that's even worse (luckily it was in my favor). Kind of felt bad for my opponent for a bit - he was on the bad end of some really lousy rolls.


July 28, 1943 - Another day that will live in infamy.

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Enggano at 43,94

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 119 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 30 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5c Zero x 173
B6N2 Jill x 132
D4Y2 Judy x 236
D4Y3 Judy x 21

Allied aircraft
F6F-3 Hellcat x 49

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5c Zero: 9 destroyed
B6N2 Jill: 1 destroyed, 12 damaged
B6N2 Jill: 3 destroyed by flak
D4Y2 Judy: 1 destroyed, 17 damaged
D4Y2 Judy: 5 destroyed by flak
D4Y3 Judy: 4 destroyed, 2 damaged
D4Y3 Judy: 2 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 4 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Enterprise, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 3, heavy fires
CV Hornet, Bomb hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA San Francisco, Bomb hits 7, Torpedo hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Gillespie, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
DD Stanly, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Nashville
CV Essex, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CL Detroit, Bomb hits 2, on fire
DD Gansevoort, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
CL Raleigh, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires
DD Bancroft, Bomb hits 5, and is sunk
CA Quincy, Bomb hits 7, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Frankford, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA Portland, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CA Minneapolis, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DD Hobby, Bomb hits 1
CL Phoenix, Torpedo hits 1
CL Concord
CLAA San Diego
DD Stuart

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
19 x B6N2 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm Type 91 Torp
20 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
23 x B6N2 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm Type 91 Torp
18 x B6N2 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm Type 91 Torp
1 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
13 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg GP Bomb
2 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
20 x B6N2 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm Type 91 Torp
8 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
11 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
13 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
11 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
6 x B6N2 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm Type 91 Torp
20 x B6N2 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm Type 91 Torp
4 x D4Y3 Judy releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
20 x B6N2 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm Type 91 Torp
14 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
12 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
6 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
2 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
21 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
8 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg GP Bomb
28 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
3 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
9 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
1 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
10 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
3 x D4Y3 Judy releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
3 x D4Y3 Judy releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
9 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
9 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg GP Bomb
8 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
4 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
4 x D4Y2 Judy releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
VF-35 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(2 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 4 minutes
VF-37 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(2 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 11 minutes
VF-3 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes
VF-6 with F6F-3 Hellcat (1 airborne, 7 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 18 minutes
VF-8 with F6F-3 Hellcat (1 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 11000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes
VF-9 with F6F-3 Hellcat (3 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 14000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 34 minutes

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CV Hornet
Magazine explodes on DD Gillespie
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Gillespie
Magazine explodes on DD Gansevoort
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Stanly
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Bancroft
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Frankford
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CA San Francisco


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Batavia at 46,98

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 34 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5c Zero x 193

Allied aircraft
F6F-3 Hellcat x 82
SB2C-1C Helldiver x 83
SBD-3 Dauntless x 33
TBF-1 Avenger x 35

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5c Zero: 6 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 20 destroyed
SB2C-1C Helldiver: 43 destroyed, 6 damaged
SB2C-1C Helldiver: 2 destroyed by flak
SBD-3 Dauntless: 15 destroyed, 3 damaged
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed by flak
TBF-1 Avenger: 9 destroyed, 4 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Kaga, Bomb hits 1
CV Zuikaku
BB Haruna
CVL Shoho
CV Akagi
CVL Zuiho
BB Hiei
CV Hiryu
BB Musashi

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22.4in Mk 13 Torp.
5 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22.4in Mk 13 Torp.
3 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
1 x SB2C-1C Helldiver releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
2 x SB2C-1C Helldiver releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
8 x SB2C-1C Helldiver releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
2 x SB2C-1C Helldiver releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
1 x SB2C-1C Helldiver releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
3 x SB2C-1C Helldiver releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
3 x SB2C-1C Helldiver releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
281 Ku S-1 with A6M5c Zero (0 airborne, 24 on standby, 0 scrambling)
11 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 29 minutes
4 planes vectored on to bombers
Akagi-1 with A6M5c Zero (0 airborne, 24 on standby, 0 scrambling)
11 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 23 minutes
16 planes vectored on to bombers
Kaga-1 with A6M5c Zero (0 airborne, 24 on standby, 0 scrambling)
11 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes
12 planes vectored on to bombers
Soryu-1 with A6M5c Zero (0 airborne, 20 on standby, 0 scrambling)
10 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes
14 planes vectored on to bombers
Hiryu-1 with A6M5c Zero (0 airborne, 20 on standby, 0 scrambling)
10 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 17000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes
18 planes vectored on to bombers
Junyo-1 with A6M5c Zero (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 23 minutes
Unryu-1 with A6M5c Zero (0 airborne, 2 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 23 minutes

PS - the bomb hit on the Kaga caused a whopping total of 1 Sys damage.

(in reply to BattleMoose)
Post #: 6
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 12:12:29 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5300
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

Looks like Midway at OZ. I think based on the numbers of zeros flying cap and the number of inbound aircraft, Its right. We got just as lucky at Midway in june 42. All thought i'm not sure how many zeros were up at Midway. GP


The Japanese got lucky at Midway. They just had used it all up by 1020. They had 41 Zeros on CAP when the bombs came down on Akagi, Kaga and Soryu but 20 odd were tangling with Thach and his 6 Wildcats and the rest were attacking Torpedo 3. Meanwhile they didn't even see Scouting/Bombing 6 and they ignored Bombing 5 because they were fixated on Thach and the torpedo bombers. The fact that the Americans had fed Kido Butai's CAP one unescorted squadron at a time for 3 hours was simply too good to be true - and then it wasn't true any more at all. And then the IJN CAP blew it because no one was in charge.




(in reply to BattleMoose)
Post #: 7
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 12:24:19 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3055
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
Way too little CAP for the Japenese CVs too imho. I have anywhere between 40-60% CAP on all CVs for this very reason. I'd much rather lose DBs and TBs than the platform they are riding on

Where are the other CVs? Why was his CV TF split up? Until Japan has completed the expansion phase, the KB needs to stay togeather for this very reason. If Japan needs CVs for other activities, then that is what the CVLs and CVEs are for

So it was not bad die rolls that sank your game (pun intended ) it was not good decisions by him.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 8
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 12:24:20 AM   
BattleMoose

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 2/17/2014
Status: offline
quote:

What happened in the Japanese attack on the allied CVs?


It was virtually non-existent. He instead chose to port bomb Sydney, it had almost no ships in it (I had prior warning) and a decent land based air CAP.

In both strikes about 20-30 Japanese planes attacked my CTF and in both instances got slaughtered by my CAP.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 9
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 12:33:43 AM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1609
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

quote:

What happened in the Japanese attack on the allied CVs?


It was virtually non-existent. He instead chose to port bomb Sydney, it had almost no ships in it (I had prior warning) and a decent land based air CAP.

In both strikes about 20-30 Japanese planes attacked my CTF and in both instances got slaughtered by my CAP.


Then that's his fault. He either wandered into an area with known enemy carriers and didn't have his guys set to naval attack, or he didn't search adequately to realize your carriers were around. That's why I always keep my carrier air groups set to naval attack. If I might want to hit some other target, I set a secondary target.

In any event, your opponent shouldn't blame the game. He just made some bad choices and got his butt handed to him as a result.

Edit: If anyone has a reason to be a bit miffed at the game engine, it might be my opponent (see post above). He was greatly outnumbered, but the result was still ridiculously skewed in my favor. I should have had at least a carrier or two with some slight/moderate damage and he came up with a big fat goose egg.

< Message edited by Icedawg -- 4/15/2014 1:38:43 AM >

(in reply to BattleMoose)
Post #: 10
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 12:33:46 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3055
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

quote:

What happened in the Japanese attack on the allied CVs?


It was virtually non-existent. He instead chose to port bomb Sydney, it had almost no ships in it (I had prior warning) and a decent land based air CAP.

In both strikes about 20-30 Japanese planes attacked my CTF and in both instances got slaughtered by my CAP.


SYDNEY!!!!

He took a partial CV fleet to Sydney and used CV trained pilots on a Port attack ? Wow.

Japan's KB fleet should be mainly used ONLY against another CV fleet. Certainly not against a major base way outside the main operational area. I don't care what he thought was there. After PH, there is no reason to attack any port anywhere with CVs unless you KNOW it is lightly defended AND there is something there worth the cost in planes/pilots just due to AA.

Japan's initial CV pilots are the best in the game. The last thing you want them to do is die on missions way out of the area for little to no gain. Japan will NEVER get these pilots back so every time you send them off on a mission, you need to ask "Is this worth losing my pilots for?" And a Port attack on Sydney is definately NOT one of those missions.

(in reply to BattleMoose)
Post #: 11
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 1:42:47 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4247
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
The only missing CV is Kaga, so not entirely a partial fleet... bigger issue is the missing Kongos... I cannot see any BB in the report
Kongos have good AA; they would had killed some bombers, and more important, receive some of the punishment the CVs took

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 4/15/2014 2:43:08 AM >

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 12
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 3:14:14 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14452
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
Carrier squadrons are usually not very good at attacking ground targets. If you're training them to get better at that, you're making a big mistake in my view. Only order that when you are 100% certain there's not only going to be no enemy carrier response but no land based response of any credibility. Your opponent needs to get 100 lashes with a wet noodle so he never does that again.

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 13
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 3:54:18 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3055
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

The only missing CV is Kaga, so not entirely a partial fleet... bigger issue is the missing Kongos... I cannot see any BB in the report
Kongos have good AA; they would had killed some bombers, and more important, receive some of the punishment the CVs took


Ah. Miscounted Does not take away from my other points though

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 14
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 4:27:34 AM   
BattleMoose

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 2/17/2014
Status: offline
I think Kaga or at least some other CVs/CVE/CVL where in a separate fleet in the same seazone escorting tankers. For what its worth.

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 15
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 11:25:24 AM   
Feltan


Posts: 1150
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
Not at all unusual.

The results match what one would expect given the description of what the Japanese player was doing.

Regards,
Feltant

(in reply to BattleMoose)
Post #: 16
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 11:48:32 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Plausible results looking at the odds. Your opponent screwed up his settings nicely looking at the fighters on CAP. It did not underperform, it simply was not there.

This is what happens when you combine strategic mistakes with tactical mistakes.


That said, since when is a combat result supposed to be 'fair'? In PBEM your #1 goal should be to make sure it is not.

_____________________________


(in reply to BattleMoose)
Post #: 17
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 1:00:53 PM   
Endy

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 2/6/2014
Status: offline
Hi,

since I was the moron Japanese player I wanted to add a few words explaining myself :)

1. There were 5 carriers, with Kaga being elsewhere. The carriers were split into 2 TFs but both were in the same hex so my reasoning was they are going to cover each other (apparently not..) The decision to split them 3:2 was because I had some lousy raid participation in an earlier battle where all CVs were together, perhaps 25-30% of the bombers even took off with good leaders, morale etc. I read somewhere there's a hard limit of 200+ random 100 planes when rolling for coordination in a Japanese CV TF so I decided to split it, but still keep them in the same hex as I thought planes from both TFs are gonna scramble in case of an attack.

2. Both CV TF's had a CA and a few destroyers. Both CV TF's were also following a surface TF at 0 with Kongos and destroyers in it. I'm guessing the AA from them did not influence the result? Do the BBs need to be in CV TF to use their AA? I thought it was hex thing, same as land combat, but that's another newbie mistake I guess...

3. Only 2 or 3 bomber squadrons were set to port attack, the rest on Naval, even without a secondary order. So the majority should have gone for Aliied CV's which they didn't, not to mention the lack of escorts... Again, I seemed to be having lousy rolls for CV bomber flights with majority of them sittin idle.

4. All Zero squadrons from 5 CVs were set at 60% CAP. I thought that's gonna be plenty but apparently it needs to be set higher? What is a generally a good number? 70%? 90%? OR is it better to have dedicated squadrons at 100% cap and some at 0% for escorts? What's the consensus?


Anyway, sure, I put myself in that position since I only suspected Saratoga in the area based on an earlier a sub sighting. It was supposed to be a surprise strike on Sydney to take it out but I spoiled the surprise a turn before when my CVs attacked some other TF. Anyway, I decided to linger and strike Sydney anyway with a few squadrons, while the rest remained on naval strike. With 60% cap I figured I as pretty safe but you can see the results :)I was very surprised at the results because my planes took ages to kill the escorts, despite them being outnumbered 53 zekes to 23 allied fighters. Usually when I'm outnumbered like that I get my escorting planes all shot up and the bombers suffer even worse, that's why I was surprised the allied losses were so light.

One way or another, after suffering such an early Midway I decided to forfeit the game, feeling a bit cheated by the game engine out of a few months' time but I guess I brought it all on myself :) I was just a bit sad the game decided to punish me so harshly for one mistake (2 CVS sank immediately with 2 going to follow next turn due to damage and fires). If you guys have any advice on how to avoid such disasters in the future I'd be grateful :)

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 18
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 1:38:25 PM   
btd64


Posts: 7330
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
First of all, NEVER GIVE UP!!! I don't know how long you have been playing this game, but I'll tell you I've been playing it long before I joined this forum and I have learned by getting my ass kicked. Just last year I made the mistake of bombing lunga to support a landing and the KB showed up 3 days later and cleaned my clock. The game has a LOOOOOONG learning curve. Just a note, Depending on the number of fighters I have available, I set cap anywhere from 70 to 90%. Just as mentioned in this and other posts, I would perfer to loose DB's instead of their home(CV's). Even for the allies, If you loose a bunch of CV's, it hurts. All though the Allies do recover quicker. Anyway, Keep on playing this great game. The cheapest game you can get per hours of FUN. Key word FUN. Its a game.
GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to Endy)
Post #: 19
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 2:26:15 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4247
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
I think the biggest issue was failures in NAV_SEARCH (a southern, bloodier Midway!) Your Kido Buttai was certainly blind based on point #3... your enemy detection level was very low, otherwise you would have launch something against his carriers.

Did you have any % of your carrier bombers in search? if you only send the float planes to search, then you have a good chance of no search at all if weather is just a bit ugly. Carrier planes in the other hand flight more often). This is compounded by the fact you were far, far away of from your land based umbrella. Land bombers and flying boats are critical in giving you awareness of what are you fighting against. In this case, since you were close to Sydney, they were giving the Allies a good DL of your forces.







< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 4/15/2014 3:26:57 PM >

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 20
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 2:26:34 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
As General Patton said, never give up.

The game is very complex, and the more units, threat axis, and unknowns are involved, the more complex it gets.


As for your CV ops:
The initial KB setup is quite ok for the first year of the war (give and take a few Kongos). I wouldn´t change the composition completely.

Every TF should be a self sufficient entity. To split responsibilities between CV TFs in terms of offensive action might be an option under certain curcumstances, for the defense it is a no-go. Never operate in an area where you do not know the possible enemy strenght for sure with low CAP percentages.

As has been pointed out already, in Feb ´42 your carriers should support landing ops or keep the Allies on their toes - often best achieved by simply not showing up. Your position strategically was worthless, the task of attacking SE Australia at this stage of war probably unimportant, while at the same time it exposed your carriers dangerously, far away from the logistic supply chain and LBA support.
Positioning yourself this way without detailed intel about enemy disposition in short was your strategic error.

The tactical errors were with your CV strike setup.
The most important aspect of a strike is knowledge about the target. Your past experience with lack of strike participation was - most probably - due to either lack of detection levels or bad weather. Another reason could have been target value. In general KB, and the group commanders on the carriers, are the cream of the cream. Failure to launch against a target due to the reasons you described is improbable (even though not completely impossible).

What I am trying to hint at is: naval search is imperative for CV ops. If you lack planes on NavS missions, or look at the wrong direction, this can result in a lost battle, even if the rest of the setup is perfect.

CAP is another important aspect: remember that only about 1/3rd of the planes you assign to CAP are airborne at a point in time. The rest is waiting to scramble or rearming/refuelling. Setting a 24 plane squadron on 50% CAP provides you 12 fighters, of those probably 4 are airborne on strike detection, and 8 are on or below deck with varying chances to scramble an successfully intercept depending on time to target. Thats not a high number per carrier if you expose your fleet to potential enemy CV strikes.

There are many more factors involved, but the above might be enough to sum up what went wrong for you this time.

_____________________________


(in reply to Endy)
Post #: 21
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 2:46:30 PM   
Endy

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 2/6/2014
Status: offline
All good points, however to answer just a few:

- I know it was a mistake from a strategic point of view now, but it was a risk I took to take out an allied CV, not just make a pointless raid on AKs and such. Sure, apparently the risk did not pay off and I blindly trusted my intel about just one allied CV in Asutralia, either Sydney or Brisbane. Anyway, sure, I know now it was a mistake and the whole thing could have been avoided if I did not make the raid. Unfortunately I felt too safe and too confident about the whole thing. I'm more interested in tactical mistakes here though, unless you think the whole engagement was unwinnable from the start and there is nothing that could've changed the result? Is a fight between 5 Jap CVs and 4 Allied ones this early in the war winnable at all considering the planes they carry, pilot experience etc.?

- as for navsearch you guys mentioned, I had all Val and Kate squadrons on 10% search in addition to search planes from CAs and BBs so I was pretty sure that's gonna be enough...

- so a CAP of 70 to 90% is where it should be at? Apparently 60% was insufficient by far...

- do ships in the same hex but a different TF add its AA value to the defence in case of an attack? Or should I just pack each TF to the max 12 (15?) ships?

- I did not want to put 5 CVs (or 6 if I had Kaga with me) in a single TF due to aformentioned coordination issues and the fact that they would constitute half the TF. I actually thought splitting them into two TFs but still keeping them in the same hex will allow me to use all planes for defence but will make the allaied raid get split between TF. Is that reasoning wrong? Is it better to pack just one CV TF? What ship number do you suggest then because if I add a BB or two, some CA etc. I will not have enough room for DDs if I want to stick to 12-15 ship limit right? What would you suggest in this case?

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 22
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 3:11:28 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3055
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
To Endy

As far as AA goes, when TFs are split up like you did, ships cannot support other TFs with ship AA. Each hex is 45 MILES. So you have no idea of exactly where the supporting TFs are in a specific hex. Your Surf TF could have have been 10s of miles away from the action. Even your two CV fleets could have been too far appart to help with AA. Also, when you split up your CVs you also reduce CAP. This is because each TF will seperately 'roll' for the amount of CAP you get. Search is also effected when TFs are split up for the same reason. TF A could search fine, but TF B, even in the same hex may not.

I have learned to never split up Japan's CV TFs when in dangerous waters for the reasons above. Now you have too . If you had your BBs and all your CVs in one TF, the above would not have occured.

What I would suggest is to backup the game to a turn or two before this occured and continue playing. I have done that in every PBEM game I have been in both for myself making dumb moves without understanding what would happen (like this ) and/or the game engine doing something stupid, like having a major Surf TF chase PT boats into Bataan's hex in the PI . Needless to say THAT did not end well lol. My oppenent allowed these backups and he got some as well for the same reasons, like the AI sending the QE within range of LBAs . Anyway that is what I would do if your oppenent was agreeable.

I would also like to say I personally think you are really great for posting here and taking this kind of feedback. That says a lot about you in my opnion as they are many people that would have not done that. So many kudoos for stepping up to the plate. Especially on this forum

(in reply to Endy)
Post #: 23
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 3:59:21 PM   
Endy

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 2/6/2014
Status: offline
Thank you for the kind words Numdydar :)

As for stepping up, I am not afraid to admit that I'm a newbie in Wipt PBEMs only having played some time against the AI before that (never till the end though). And I realize I made a bad mistake, most of all it was a terrible gamble from the beginning strategically of course, but I was also wondering if this situation could've went a different way if I changed something tactically. Basically, was that a losing scenario for me from the beginning and I lost already by putting myself into that position or could I have won if I did some thigns different like different CAP ratio, TF composition etc. And if I did something wrong tactically I'd rather know what than rage now and repeat the same mistakes :)

As for backuping the game, it's a good idea and Battlemoose was kind enough to let me know the password to the game so that I can find an opponent to continue it from a few turns back. I understand and respect his decision to not want to continue this one himself as he said he made some early mistakes as well and would rather start a new game. I could also understand if he thought it unfair to rewind the game as he won the engagement fairly and why would he resign from it. We will probably start a new game eventually but I just can't force myself to set everything from the beginning again just right now, and would rather continue this game (except for the loss of CVs of course) since I was pretty happy with the economy, reasearch etc. I just need to find someone willing to take over the Allies now :)

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 24
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 4:21:40 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

Is a fight between 5 Jap CVs and 4 Allied ones this early in the war winnable at all considering the planes they carry, pilot experience etc.?


Yes is is, but the risk is high. IJN CVs are irreplacable assets which have two primary functions:
1) to support amphibious and supply operations (and so either extend or keep the Japanese defensive perimeter intact)
2) to act as a deterrent against Allied amphibious operations against said defensive perimeter

All operations that not directly in support of 1 and 2 are not worth risking the loss of exactly those assets you require to achieve 1 and 2.


quote:

I actually thought splitting them into two TFs but still keeping them in the same hex will allow me to use all planes for defence but will make the allaied raid get split between TF. Is that reasoning wrong? Is it better to pack just one CV TF?


No, your reasoning is sound, but there are many ifs.

And one major 'if' is: you are playing Japan. You do not have heavy escorts and DD´s in abundance. The consensus seems to be to minimize requirements for those assets by minimizing the number of CV TFs. As the Allied player I prefer to have several self sufficient CV TFs later war, but my setup is variable and depends on the specific mission.

As for the rest of your questions, going into detail would require more detailed knowledge about the battle than can be easily provided with just forum posts. Numdydar´s suggestion to replay the turn and vary your setup is a good one. Play around a bit and find our what might have yielded better results than what you have witnessed.

In general though, my prediction is that you will find out - independent on your tactical modifications - that the overall strategic situation was the root to your defeat. Tactical changes might change the severity but are improbable to yield a result which could be considered an IJN strategic victory.

_____________________________


(in reply to Endy)
Post #: 25
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 4:33:12 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3055
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
Totally agree on having to redo the beginning as either side lol.

After my TF had fun with the mines at Bataan I mentioned earlier, both of us decided it was better to restart the game (this was Dec 28, 1941 btw) versus just backing up. So in just a few weeks, we both had to redo everything all over again lol.

But the one thing I realized from that, is you can actually spread out what you do as Japan versus tring to do it all on turn 1. That makes things a lot more doiable when starting a new game.

Hopefully you will find someone soon to continue the game. I will warn you that if you do go to the end, '44+, as Japan, it will definately be an experience you will not forget . As a yardstick, I lost to a good Allied player in Jan '45 to an AV. And I was pleased I had made it that far. And this was Scenerio 2 no less   


(in reply to Endy)
Post #: 26
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 4:53:52 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9758
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Like others have said, keep all of KB in one TF. This TF should also include a CS (24 FPs on Naval Search with Jakes) and 8 DDs for ASW. Leadership qualities of your TF is also important. Your warning time was only 15 minutes. At this time in the war, Japanese ships don't have radar to improve reaction time. I would not go above 50% CAP. That is normally enough. Since you have your opponents PW, go back and play with settings to see if you can find out what you may have done wrong.

_____________________________


(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 27
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 6:09:23 PM   
Endy

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 2/6/2014
Status: offline
Hmmm, I ran some tests as advised and this is what I got after merging the CV TFs(by the way, the same number of planes intercept from 1 or 2 CV TFs as long as they are in the same hex so I guess merging only influences AA power right?) and setting all Zero squadrons to 90% cap (all at 15k ft). The Allied planes were set to 80% CAP for fighters and DBs and TBs to attack at 15k ft., with all squadrons at 10% search.

Here's the result:

quote:

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 84

Allied aircraft
F2A-3 Buffalo x 5
F4F-3 Wildcat x 10
SBD-2 Dauntless x 51
SBD-3 Dauntless x 85
TBD-1 Devastator x 28

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
F2A-3 Buffalo: 1 destroyed
F4F-3 Wildcat: 1 destroyed
SBD-2 Dauntless: 5 destroyed, 3 damaged
SBD-3 Dauntless: 6 destroyed, 5 damaged
TBD-1 Devastator: 4 destroyed, 3 damaged

Japanese Ships
CL Abukuma
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires
CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CA Chikuma, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CV Akagi, Bomb hits 1
BB Hiei, Bomb hits 5
BB Kirishima
DD Isokaze
CV Soryu, Bomb hits 1
DD Inazuma, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CV Hiryu, Bomb hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Ikazuchi
DD Yugumo
CA Furutaka
DD Shirayuki
DD Kagero, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires


What I find interesting is the really low number of Allied planes destroyed, most of the bombers got through anyway and massacred my CVs. The 15 minute intercept timer is consistent in all trials, but it seems it does not matter at all if there are 53 or 84 planes intercepting?? Allied escort was only 15 planes so I find it really baffling. My own bombers got slaughtered of course since my fighters did not even fly escort (probaby not coordinated well).

Anyway, it appears I lost the fight before it even started as it seems no way 5 jap CVs can defend against 4 allied ones at this point of the war. Perhaps if there were 6 jap CVs all with updated group numbers (around July 42?) , but I still think it would end in a mutual destruction at best.

Is it the radar issue and there's not point engaging the allied CVs with my own until I get one? Is it a plane issue and A6M2 is simply too weak (low firepower) to effectively kill allied carrier planes? I must admit that after these tests I'm even more lost and it sort of changes my thinking about the Jap power in the early war...It does appear it's just too dangerous to use CVs at this point, not without strong LBA support. Or am I doing something very wrong here?

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 28
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 6:22:42 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
If you reread my post #25, this is what I tried to explain: The tactical situation is difficult to discuss in more detail because there are many factors involved which are not shown in the combat report, and are difficult to grasp without checking the turnfile itself. Also I pointed out your prime error was strategic by nature, just maybe enhanced by tactics.

The last report is less informative as it could be, as you removed the snippet involving CAP status.

No, it does not look like you did something fundamentally wrong. You simply went in against opposition of similar strenght and thats the result. There is only so many planes CAP can shoot down with 15mins of warning.

_____________________________


(in reply to Endy)
Post #: 29
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 6:34:46 PM   
Endy

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 2/6/2014
Status: offline
Ok, sorry, here's the snippet:

quote:

CAP engaged:
Akagi-1 with A6M2 Zero (4 airborne, 11 on standby, 2 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 28 minutes
5 planes vectored on to bombers
Soryu-1 with A6M2 Zero (4 airborne, 10 on standby, 2 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes
12 planes vectored on to bombers
Hiryu-1 with A6M2 Zero (5 airborne, 11 on standby, 2 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes
11 planes vectored on to bombers
Shokaku-1 with A6M2 Zero (5 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 18000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 7 minutes
7 planes vectored on to bombers
Zuikaku-1 with A6M2 Zero (5 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 18000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 7 minutes
15 planes vectored on to bombers


As for other information, what else would you think important here? I'll happily provide more info if needed. There were no previous strikes on my CVs, this is the first one in the turn and I also removed the port strike from the equasion. No support from Allied LBA. All jap fighters at 90% like I said.

I know the strategic situation was bad, but it appears any situation involving 4 Allied CVs and 5-6 Jap CVs and a "fair fight" is bad? This is what I find baffling. Even if I had Kaga here I would have around 100 fighters in the air and that at 90% CAP. Which also means I don't get through to Allied CVs with my bombers because they get slaughtered easily by allied 80% CAP.

I'm just curious what the trick here is, because I can't possibly see a way to win against 4 Allied CVs, even if I had 6? Is the only way to win not to fight at all with these odds and only rely on LBA support as the jap player can't possibly win such a CV battle without it? I know it sounds like a complaint but it isn't. I'm just trying to understand what I could possibly do but the test just point me to one thing - not to fight...

By the way, using Dababes mod here as well, forgot to mention.


< Message edited by Endy -- 4/15/2014 7:46:45 PM >

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> PBEM CTF strike, fair results? Page: [1] 2 3   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

0.264