Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/17/2014 9:03:24 PM   
czert2

 

Posts: 508
Joined: 2/10/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Endy

Well, the rolls were very consistent over the several tries I played through with the allies having a big advantage in both plane and ship losses...

Anyway, thanks for the responses guys, I guess I learned my lesson not to use my CVs at all without LBA support or at least a 2v1 advantage :) It seems impossible to defend against allied planes otherwise. It also seems strange to me that Allies have such a big advantage since this early in the war as I was of an opinion that I still had an advantage in February but that got corrected promptly heh. Oh well, one learns by his mistakes I guess :)


well that because you get mixed reality and game :) in 42 in RL us dint maked 4xCVs TF, unike player , they keep using 1xCV and sometimes 2x....which was easy prey for KB :).
Someaone pls corect me, but i think us didnt used more than 2xcv per tf/operational area before midway and start using more after that battle.

(in reply to Endy)
Post #: 61
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/18/2014 11:20:40 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 13373
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: urtel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Endy

@Castor Troy - it was me playing as the Japanese but it'd be nice if you read the whole story before passing your judgement.


i m noob here but one thing i already know if you post anything from Japan side ignore CT...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Endy
Yes, indeed, I decided to surrender the game after this engagement but not because I'm a "bad loser" but because I just don't see a point after losing 4 carriers (most probably all 5) in February '42. Sorry, might be my inexperience speaking now but for me there is no point continuing the game as Japan without a carrier fleet in early '42. Mind you I'm speaking for myself and my skill level so yeah, there it is.

And yes, I brought it all down on myself as I was not expecting 4 carriers there and yes, it was my strategic mistake that led me there and my fault entirely. And no, I do not blame the game engine but I was very curious about the results and if they could be different if I did something differently, mostly set a different CAP %, altitudes, reorganized the TFs etc. but apparently I was wrong and the battle was hopeless from the start and as soon as I put my CV's into that situation I lost already, which I also admitted after hearing some advice from other guys.

But that's all in this thread and it'd be awesome if you read it before passing your judgement on what kind of person I am or what I blame or not. Thank you!

@crsutton - thank you for the tips, very informative :) By the way, do you only set DBs on nav search and not TBs as well as Japan? If yes, why? I had both DBs and TBs set for search so that was not a problem at least but the Allied CVs only set out from Brisbane a turn before the disaster happened :)


your setup for this battle was same as 95% of Japan players will have in this situation for same time period, beside CAP = 90%, and divide in 2 fleets...

So try tu put all in one fleet KB :) set cap 50%-60%, i use 50 because if you not detect enemy carriers in morning phase there is good chance all planes planed from escort strike will join defence in AM phase..

Two more things:
1. check fatigue of you fighter pilots if it is >30% they are too tired reload turn before rest them then try again
2. check KB detection level before battle turn if it is too high reload turn before and try to go into are through some other path

if you got same results then i will like to have that save file, you already stop game so nothing to lose there, so i can experiment little more...

I have one theory but veterans will put fork in mine eyes if i m wrong so i will not talk about it if i can't get more proof...




lol, you are not only a noob but one without any knowledge it seems. I have played more IJ PBEMs than you may ever even think about. Put that together with a couple of thousand Allied PBEM turns.

the result was perfectly fine, no matter which side got the hits. If you think different, let me phrase it this way: you got no clue

< Message edited by castor troy -- 4/18/2014 12:29:29 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to urtel)
Post #: 62
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/18/2014 11:23:46 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 13373
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Endy

@Castor Troy - it was me playing as the Japanese but it'd be nice if you read the whole story before passing your judgement.

Yes, indeed, I decided to surrender the game after this engagement but not because I'm a "bad loser" but because I just don't see a point after losing 4 carriers (most probably all 5) in February '42. Sorry, might be my inexperience speaking now but for me there is no point continuing the game as Japan without a carrier fleet in early '42. Mind you I'm speaking for myself and my skill level so yeah, there it is.

And yes, I brought it all down on myself as I was not expecting 4 carriers there and yes, it was my strategic mistake that led me there and my fault entirely. And no, I do not blame the game engine but I was very curious about the results and if they could be different if I did something differently, mostly set a different CAP %, altitudes, reorganized the TFs etc. but apparently I was wrong and the battle was hopeless from the start and as soon as I put my CV's into that situation I lost already, which I also admitted after hearing some advice from other guys.

But that's all in this thread and it'd be awesome if you read it before passing your judgement on what kind of person I am or what I blame or not. Thank you!

@crsutton - thank you for the tips, very informative :) By the way, do you only set DBs on nav search and not TBs as well as Japan? If yes, why? I had both DBs and TBs set for search so that was not a problem at least but the Allied CVs only set out from Brisbane a turn before the disaster happened :)



well, that is the perfect example of a bad loser. And that's why it is essential to pay a lot attention to whom one plays PBEM. And all I did was replying on your opponent's post that pretty much summed it up.

_____________________________


(in reply to Endy)
Post #: 63
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/18/2014 11:25:09 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 13373
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Endy, don´t mind CT. Hes just an old ranter. The decision is solely between you and your opponent, and it is an understandable decision considering that you both still seem to be in the learning phase. Also, those who cared to read the whole thread know that you both were mainly looking for explanations for an ingame experience.

The first grave mistake in WitP AE is a tough one, even more for Japan. In your situation it acts a reminder to take only calculated risks, and only in support of a strategic goal of sufficient importance.

One small advice though: With this specific event in mind I suggest you try to play through the whole game in a rematch, independent of any adverse battle outcomes. Only by doing so , and by adopting the required mindset for this type of game, WitP shines in all its glory. Because only then the decisions you make have the potential to impact years of gaming. This is what makes the WitP so unique and nailbitingly challenging.

Players who get accustomed to restart after every mistake will never experience WitP AE PBEM as it was meant to be. The best damn WWII grand strategy game ever.


so which part of my post was wrong, smartass? Any thoughts about some woodoo out there how a handful of Zeroes should stop a 200 aircraft strike from bombing carriers? The op's question was "fair result?". Yes, it
was a perfectly fair result, while one could even expect more hits on the ships.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 4/18/2014 12:27:27 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 64
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/18/2014 12:04:52 PM   
LoBaron


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
so which part of my post was wrong, smartass?


Quite simply, your tone. As usual.

The rest was just repetetive and/or unneccesary.

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 65
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/18/2014 12:49:14 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4625
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
It was a fair result. Without radar there cannot be enough fighters in air. So as the saying went at time, the bombers always get trough.

KButai should be whole not parted into TF's. Look for crew fatigue and competence in their main capability. Don't fight 1 vs 1 with American carreirs they have many more planes. Be aware of carrier package change. Initally you have a low number of fighters comparatively, They are roughly 1/3.

_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 66
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.122