Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

The air defense problem or what to defend or not?

 
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 >> The air defense problem or what to defend or not? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The air defense problem or what to defend or not? - 4/19/2020 4:50:26 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1752
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
Do experienced IJE players have guidelines or thoughts in general what they defend in regards to air defense and what they do not ?

Or one leaves a small garrison at outlying islands but one can not really defend these. They will only pose a stumbling block for not easy taking by air or sub dropped troops. However can not stand to any serious amphib attack. If you build forts, to a certain decree these will protect at least the troops and supply at the base, but not the airfields itself it seems.

Of course with no fighters based there, they can easily bombed with LR Allied planes not only 4Es but Mitchels and Wellingtons can also drop a decent payload as long not facing much opposition. Do you also spread out AA guns (here the 88mm or 100mm ones seem to do ok, but the older 88mm gun is lacking in accurary and ceiling, also there units have no radar) or concentrate them? Possibly even if the guns hit not much - accuracy of bombing runs will suffer.

Now fighters opn small bases for Japan have the problem that SR3 planes can not be used theys need at least 3 air field plus more air support then is required on paper. For SR1 fighters this leaves Zeros, these however cannot stand up to serious sweeping or Oscars/Tojos. The Tojo 2c seems the only viable option, with 4 HMGs and decent speed/climb. But opposing sweeps is for sure a numbers game, if your unit has ca. 20 Tojos for example and is swept by 2 x US army P47 or P38 units (25 each) they cannot stand up. US navy has 36 plane units even more dangerous. You need 2xmore at least numbers against sweeps imho. Considering the sweepers are rested and have ok experience.

If the base is bombed to the stoneage (port/fields) it is useless anyway and you lose the troops finally. Also with forts lower than 5 supply tends to be destroyed completly.. I had eg. Horn Is. bombed to zero combat value (2 nav guards and some engs were there) and zero supply.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 4/19/2020 4:58:04 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: The air defense problem or what to defend or not? - 4/19/2020 5:03:24 PM   
John B.


Posts: 3522
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline
I am not an experience IJN player, I'm on my first game and it's 1945. I tend to concentrate my AA in places where Scott has to bomb as that can lead to some decent bomber losses and I do the same with my fighters. Some cities are left to their own devices and I figure they'll get flattened. As for troops, I hide them in rough terrain as much as I can.

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 2
RE: The air defense problem or what to defend or not? - 4/19/2020 8:29:37 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14273
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
Potential outcomes must guide you. Can your fighters shoot down enough attackers to make it worthwhile? Most bases aren't worth repeated air losses to defend, especially if the attacks are merely raids and you have enough engineers present to repair all the damage. If you're able to it's better to sweep and bomb the bases the attacks are coming from. On defense you will generally be at a disadvantage. What else is at the base? If there's an oil facility and/or refineries you can't readily repair the damage done. If there are important ships present you must do your best. If the base is isolated from other bases of yours but not from multiple bases of his, you're just going to lose. A determined defense must come from multiple nearby airfields. So, lots of overlapping airbases built up as far as you can with lots of engineers present to maintain them.

_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 7/20 it is 12/44.

(in reply to John B.)
Post #: 3
RE: The air defense problem or what to defend or not? - 4/19/2020 9:03:02 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2746
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
Big subject, lot to cover.

You seem to be focused on island defence, so will tailor my comments to that.

In no particular order, my thoughts are:

- Rufe float fighters are your friend. They don't require a working airbase and can do well with "shoot and scoot" tactics.

- AA should alwaysbe concentrated in big hub air and naval bases.

- Defence in depth with regards to airbases works wonders. Your frontline bases should be chock full of fighters to fight sweeps/bombers. Bases further to the rear should be where your attack aircraft are massed.

- Develop "clusters" of several airbases within 1-3 hexes range. One of these bases should be a big 7+ base if possible. With radar and a bit of luck, overlapping CAP adds a great deal of resilience to air defence.

- Not all bases are created equal. A size 5 airbase in the Marshalls is not the same value as a size 5 airbase in SWPAC.

- Dot hexes and AV's are your friends, you don't want to waste runway space on ASW or search aircraft when Jakes can do the job.

- Geography is your friend - if it's beyond sweep/escort range, then a base will likely need a smaller CAP to deter raids. Deploy accordingly.

- Relocate as much as possible. With the cluster approach outlined above, have a base where squadrons can rotate for R&R and replacements, and cycle them in and out of bases.

- Don't be passive in defence. Well planned sweeps and airbase attacks can force Allied fighters on to the defensive. Night attacks are a great way to bleed Allied CAP off for light losses.

- Layer your CAP to focus on bombers. B24s close down airbases. P38s don't.

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 4
RE: The air defense problem or what to defend or not? - 4/19/2020 9:04:28 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2746
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John B.

I am not an experience IJN player, I'm on my first game and it's 1945. I tend to concentrate my AA in places where Scott has to bomb as that can lead to some decent bomber losses and I do the same with my fighters. Some cities are left to their own devices and I figure they'll get flattened. As for troops, I hide them in rough terrain as much as I can.


In 1945 you need to adopt an "all-or-nothing" approach with air defence because there's too much of Japan to cover. Protecting supply production is the prime aim here.

(in reply to John B.)
Post #: 5
RE: The air defense problem or what to defend or not? - 4/19/2020 11:00:55 PM   
Moltrey


Posts: 127
Joined: 4/11/2010
From: Virginia
Status: offline
Thanks for the lesson mind_messing, cracking-great stuff there.

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 6
RE: The air defense problem or what to defend or not? - 4/21/2020 8:00:40 AM   
guctony


Posts: 576
Joined: 6/27/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Big subject, lot to cover.

You seem to be focused on island defence, so will tailor my comments to that.

In no particular order, my thoughts are:

- Rufe float fighters are your friend. They don't require a working airbase and can do well with "shoot and scoot" tactics.

- AA should alwaysbe concentrated in big hub air and naval bases.

- Defence in depth with regards to airbases works wonders. Your frontline bases should be chock full of fighters to fight sweeps/bombers. Bases further to the rear should be where your attack aircraft are massed.

- Develop "clusters" of several airbases within 1-3 hexes range. One of these bases should be a big 7+ base if possible. With radar and a bit of luck, overlapping CAP adds a great deal of resilience to air defence.

-
quote:

Not all bases are created equal. A size 5 airbase in the Marshalls is not the same value as a size 5 airbase in SWPAC
.

- Dot hexes and AV's are your friends, you don't want to waste runway space on ASW or search aircraft when Jakes can do the job.

- Geography is your friend - if it's beyond sweep/escort range, then a base will likely need a smaller CAP to deter raids. Deploy accordingly.

- Relocate as much as possible. With the cluster approach outlined above, have a base where squadrons can rotate for R&R and replacements, and cycle them in and out of bases.

- Don't be passive in defence. Well planned sweeps and airbase attacks can force Allied fighters on to the defensive. Night attacks are a great way to bleed Allied CAP off for light losses.

- Layer your CAP to focus on bombers. B24s close down airbases. P38s don't.



What do you mean by -
quote:

Not all bases are created equal. A size 5 airbase in the Marshalls is not the same value as a size 5 airbase in SWPAC
.

Can you elaborate

_____________________________

It turns out that capitalism requires scarcity to operate



You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. BUCKMINSTER FULLER

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 7
RE: The air defense problem or what to defend or not? - 4/21/2020 8:16:48 AM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2746
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
Sure.

The Marshalls has a lot of small islands, most of which are semi-worthless as airbases. The biggest (IIRC) size of airbase that you can get in the Marshalls is size 5, and even then only on a handful of islands and with significant effort.

Given the small size of airbases in the Marshalls generally, owning and being able to use a size 5 airbase to contest against an opponent using smaller airbases gives a considerable advantage.

In SWPAC, airbases can be built up much further, and with much less resources. Here, even the dot bases can normally be built up to respectable sizes, and an opponent can contest the airspace with a greater degree of ease.

There's also much more bases point blank, which changes the dynamic from quite a linear campaign from the Gilberts to the Marshalls.

(in reply to guctony)
Post #: 8
RE: The air defense problem or what to defend or not? - 4/21/2020 8:59:16 AM   
ITAKLinus

 

Posts: 321
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Sure.

The Marshalls has a lot of small islands, most of which are semi-worthless as airbases. The biggest (IIRC) size of airbase that you can get in the Marshalls is size 5, and even then only on a handful of islands and with significant effort.

Given the small size of airbases in the Marshalls generally, owning and being able to use a size 5 airbase to contest against an opponent using smaller airbases gives a considerable advantage.

In SWPAC, airbases can be built up much further, and with much less resources. Here, even the dot bases can normally be built up to respectable sizes, and an opponent can contest the airspace with a greater degree of ease.

There's also much more bases point blank, which changes the dynamic from quite a linear campaign from the Gilberts to the Marshalls.



You remember correctly. Alinglaplap has max AF of 5. Then there is also Tabiteuea which is a potential 6.




Regarding the questions of the thread.

I think that the air defences in 42, 43, 44 and 45 are terribily different and each part of the game is a whole different beast on its own.


In general.

Avoid trash atolls that bring you nothing and that are impossible to defend. Great example is Canton Island, which is a little atoll in the middle of nowhere and the allied player can approach it simply developing dot after dot.
If you defend an area such as Tabiteuea, it's easier: more decent AF around, good supply routes, wonderful SL.

Interpret the game in your strategy. Are you focused on a decisive battle somewhere in 43? In 44? Are you going to do a staged defence to bleed out as much as you can the allies or you'll adopt an all-or-nothing approach? Etcetc.

For example: I am very inclined to focus my industrial production, R&D and forces disposition in order to fight a decisive battle somewhere in late 43 or early 44. It's highly unlikely that my allied opponents will show up with relevant forces I can engage before that date.
Therefore, I am a stingy bastard in terms of pilots, airframes and ships. I prefer to lose an air battle in 42 using crappy pilots but having the good ones in the reserve, rather than having 100-0 in the skies in 42 and then fight with rookies later on.
On the other side, if you have a different strategic approach, you are for sure right in keeping a stronger airforce in 42.


Therefore, it all depends on your basic strategy and your doctrine.


Since you are a lot into island defence, here is my advice: check the bases that are further away from the allied positions. Tabiteuea is a good example, since the allied player cannot really start developing one dot after the other approaching it. It's relatively far from potential bases.
Then, try always to think in terms of mutual support. Tabiteuea, the example, has great SL (40.000 IIRC), good AF, good port. Now, the main asset of the base is that it has various good bases around you can develop.
A group of bases is useful because:
I) the enemy has to put considerable efforts to close all the AF
II) there are safe places where planes can rest / substitute losses
III) it might be the case that the allies cannot recon them and see what's there
IV) you are always able to pose a potential threat to any action undertaken by the enemy with token forces.

Regarding Point IV: in Tabiteuea example, the allied player can put relatively few bombers in a base, trash your AF and land somewhere with few troops. If you have a strong set of various bases, he can do the same (it's not that hard to close various bases for a couple of turns), but he has to bring a lot of stuff to do the trick. That's the point. He cannot just blitz, taking advantage of a temporary superiority.



As mentioned, Rufes are your friends. Definitely useful to shot down pesky Catalinas and to disturb bombing runs.
I don't use any fighter on Pacific Islands since I find positions over there too exposed and I firmly believe that if you put enough distance between you and enemy's (potential) bases, you are just fine. If US Carriers intervene, you are screwed whatever you do, so what's the point?
However, rufes are very very good substitutes of fighter presence.


Positions can be defended in a very strong fashion if you don't overextend. Take Marshall Islands. You have various bases with 6.000SL plus Mili and Alinglaplap which have 10.000SL. You can pretty easily pack 1 SNLF + 1 NavGuards + 1 AF Coy + whatever 4th unit you want in the small islands and have a more relevant presence in Alinglaplap and Mili so that you basically oblige the allied player to assault multiple bases (what does he do with just, say, Jaluit?!). Forts lvl 4 or even 6 aren't that expensive in terms of supplies and they do save your @ss in these small places.

Not a single SR3 fighter should even approach the Pacific. That's my rule. I am open to use them in Rabaul area until it's operational and eventually in the big show in Mariannas.


Regarding AAs. For most of the game, until the Allied player is approaching Onshu, I use them in huge concentrations in key locations.
In a PBEM, for example I have 25xAA at Rabaul and 25xAA at Magwe. This is roughly 50% of the total amount of AAs you have. Just for two bases. My logic is quite simple: few losses won't prevent the allied player to pursue his objectives, while a strong attrition can instead make him change target. And, especially, in case my CAP f@cks up getting slaughtered, I can somehow still defend the base for a while without having a breakdown in the front.

In some places I put sparse AAs just because I want to create a little bit of attrition to the enemy in case he goes with low bombing on my units. The typical example is represented by my line of RTA Divisions in the jungle at the Indo-Burmese border: each unit defends an hex and they have a battery of 75mm just to shot down few allied players when they bomb them.
Other examples are some atolls in which I place SNLF and AF Coy which have a 40mm in the TOE. It upgrades to the 20mm, which can be seen as a better weapon, but I do prefer the 40mm and therefore I set on "no upgrades" and I purchase whatever unit has them (mainly various SNLF in China). The idea is to have few shots to enemy's dive bombers if he does some raid to trash atoll's installations. For this purpose, I also use the 4 (or 5?) MGCo or something like that that are present in Manchuria: they are units with 6x20mm in their TOE with negligible SL and they are quite good if you want to put a token defence on atolls. DiveBombers always get few losses and I deem it a good ROI (few PPs and SL for few US CVs' DBs... Fair).




Last but not least, don't forget these three things when setting up air defences around:
A) possibility of redeployment
B) LRCAP / leaking CAP
C) whatever is on the coast, it's lost

A) is a complex topic and it encompasses both the possibility of moving the a/c in case the AF gets trashed and also the strategic situation. If you have 200F in the Marshalls and the enemy attacks Timor, you'll want for sure the Oscars-IV and their amazing range, not the Tojos.
B) LRCAP and leaking CAP are good techniques to fight bombing runs without exposing yourself too much. A typical example is an allied player who destroyes the AF in Rangoon and you defend the city via leaking CAP from Pegu and Bassein, so that you avoid the nasty situation in which you lose the AF and then you get the port and the infrastructures destroyed.
C) naval bombing is always undervalued but it's the main element in my decision making regarding which AF is gonna be used and which not. For example the base at the center of Hokkaido is amazing since it's plain but it can have an AF lvl 9 and it's the only base not on the sea in the island. It means that the enemy cannot shut down the AF via naval bombing.
Same in Thousand Ships Bay, remarkably forgotten dot north of Tulagi. The funny dot, instead, can be easily protected putting AMC in all the surrounding bases plus mines. Allies will have a complex route to bomb the base through the only non-mined, open-sea hex. In general, I take for granted that whatever is on the coast, will explode in a column of smoke due to naval bombardaments. Another interesting position in the Pacific Theater is represented by Saidor and Long Island if you protect the Vitiaz Strait. I always do and it's quite effective, at least in avoiding sudden naval bombardaments which leave your planes damaged in a base without railway and exposed.

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 9
RE: The air defense problem or what to defend or not? - 4/22/2020 11:43:05 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2746
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

naval bombing is always undervalued but it's the main element in my decision making regarding which AF is gonna be used and which not. For example the base at the center of Hokkaido is amazing since it's plain but it can have an AF lvl 9 and it's the only base not on the sea in the island. It means that the enemy cannot shut down the AF via naval bombing. Same in Thousand Ships Bay, remarkably forgotten dot north of Tulagi. The funny dot, instead, can be easily protected putting AMC in all the surrounding bases plus mines. Allies will have a complex route to bomb the base through the only non-mined, open-sea hex. In general, I take for granted that whatever is on the coast, will explode in a column of smoke due to naval bombardaments. Another interesting position in the Pacific Theater is represented by Saidor and Long Island if you protect the Vitiaz Strait. I always do and it's quite effective, at least in avoiding sudden naval bombardaments which leave your planes damaged in a base without railway and exposed.


That's a good point that I've omitted.

There's a lot of value in either inland bases, or bases that are challenging to reach for enemy ships on bombardment missions.

Also a lot of value in bases with land connections between them. New Ireland is a prime example, as you can shuffle units between them, or at worst force the Allies to commit to a more prolonged campaign than the usual "land, take the base and wipe out the defenders utterly" routine.

(in reply to ITAKLinus)
Post #: 10
RE: The air defense problem or what to defend or not? - 4/27/2020 12:39:34 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1752
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
Great info from all posters...

Well my outer bases Tagula, Deboyne, Woodlark were all trashed...it is end of 6/43
Now also Milne, I have there a bigger presence... I was dissapointed that brandnew Franks
dropped out so fast from the combat - seems most were damaged by 4Es he did not even sweep
there. As you can see I had ca. 30 Frank in the 1st combat which dropped to 3(!) in the 2nd wave, maybe this is another drawback for SR3 fighters you need double the air support for them I guess.

1st combat
Morning Air attack on Milne Bay , at 101,133

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 75 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 23 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 12
Ki-84a Frank x 32

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 14
B-24D1 Liberator x 26

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-84a Frank: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 2 destroyed, 12 damaged
B-24D1 Liberator: 2 destroyed, 23 damaged

Airbase hits 8
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 9

2nd combat

Morning Air attack on Milne Bay , at 101,133

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 79 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 27 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 5
Ki-84a Frank x 3

Allied aircraft
B-24D1 Liberator x 40

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2-N Rufe: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-24D1 Liberator: 4 damaged

Airbase hits 16
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 49



I had not seen such a massive drop of cap fighters before tbh.

He has a small base at Rossel now too. They have Horn for quite some time and I was not sure about Merauke. It just seems to far away from any other bigger bases of ours (Ambon, Dili, Koepnang). I concluded can not be defended and put no big garrison only when I checked again and noted this base can be pretty big I put some soldiers there, however they were overhelmed by a para drop. I did not notice that B25 D1 attack bombers have an extended range of 14.. so from Darwin and soon from Merauke they can reach quite far in my hinterland.
One needs than a cap at least at bases where ships go to and they need to sprint quite fast in the night I guess. Seems to much logistic overload, so hats of to everyone playing this game into 44 and further this is really an accomplishment. I often times feel overwhelmed tbh.

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 11
RE: The air defense problem or what to defend or not? - 4/27/2020 12:55:39 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1752
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
If you're able to it's better to sweep and bomb the bases the attacks are coming from. On defense you will generally be at a disadvantage.


Yes only on the defense sucks, I am also not really used to it. In AI games one is most on the offense and as we know the AI does not sweep much and puts together not the best strikes. So easier but also boring. I am not sure if I could play into 45 from what I read in AARs this is mostly desperate last stand kind of combat. I tried eg. to play the doomsday scenario in TOAW defending Berlin in 45...I gave up after a few turns, just like playing the Germans in Normandy. I am not the type playing hopeless situations it seems. Also only defense sucks, scenarios with more even matched forces and if for you it is possible to attack/counterattack with good odds. Reminds also playing the French in 1940 or the Iraqis in desert storm..not really fun. While I was better playing the Rebs in Civil War2...and the AI in this one is not the worst it can put up some nice moves.

Yeah I tried some sweeps as possible preparation for bombing bases but the defense is too strong, mostly the Corsairs make a big difference while e.g George can deal with Hellcats and P40K etc. Tojos on sweep do not good they are Cap fighters.. so if you can not clear the enemy base better send no bombers. Especially as the Japanese bombers even the best they get HelenB, are more scarred of Flak and hit not much then.

When you say overlapping defense of nearby bases, do you put your fighter at range 1 so they may react to an attack on the nearby base ? I noted that fatigue goes up fast in this case, what is acceptable as maximum fatigue ? I am already worried at 10 or so.

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 12
RE: The air defense problem or what to defend or not? - 4/27/2020 1:03:21 PM   
btd64


Posts: 7087
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
If you're able to it's better to sweep and bomb the bases the attacks are coming from. On defense you will generally be at a disadvantage.


Yes only on the defense sucks, I am also not really used to it. In AI games one is most on the offense and as we know the AI does not sweep much and puts together not the best strikes. So easier but also boring. I am not sure if I could play into 45 from what I read in AARs this is mostly desperate last stand kind of combat. I tried eg. to play the doomsday scenario in TOAW defending Berlin in 45...I gave up after a few turns, just like playing the Germans in Normandy. I am not the type playing hopeless situations it seems. Also only defense sucks, scenarios with more even matched forces and if for you it is possible to attack/counterattack with good odds. Reminds also playing the French in 1940 or the Iraqis in desert storm..not really fun. While I was better playing the Rebs in Civil War2...and the AI in this one is not the worst it can put up some nice moves.

Yeah I tried some sweeps as possible preparation for bombing bases but the defense is too strong, mostly the Corsairs make a big difference while e.g George can deal with Hellcats and P40K etc. Tojos on sweep do not good they are Cap fighters.. so if you can not clear the enemy base better send no bombers. Especially as the Japanese bombers even the best they get HelenB, are more scarred of Flak and hit not much then.

When you say overlapping defense of nearby bases, do you put your fighter at range 1 so they may react to an attack on the nearby base ? I noted that fatigue goes up fast in this case, what is acceptable as maximum fatigue ? I am already worried at 10 or so.


I don't worry about fatigue until it gets below 80....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 Alpha77)
Post #: 13
RE: The air defense problem or what to defend or not? - 4/27/2020 1:28:57 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 5740
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: btd64


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
If you're able to it's better to sweep and bomb the bases the attacks are coming from. On defense you will generally be at a disadvantage.


Yes only on the defense sucks, I am also not really used to it. In AI games one is most on the offense and as we know the AI does not sweep much and puts together not the best strikes. So easier but also boring. I am not sure if I could play into 45 from what I read in AARs this is mostly desperate last stand kind of combat. I tried eg. to play the doomsday scenario in TOAW defending Berlin in 45...I gave up after a few turns, just like playing the Germans in Normandy. I am not the type playing hopeless situations it seems. Also only defense sucks, scenarios with more even matched forces and if for you it is possible to attack/counterattack with good odds. Reminds also playing the French in 1940 or the Iraqis in desert storm..not really fun. While I was better playing the Rebs in Civil War2...and the AI in this one is not the worst it can put up some nice moves.

Yeah I tried some sweeps as possible preparation for bombing bases but the defense is too strong, mostly the Corsairs make a big difference while e.g George can deal with Hellcats and P40K etc. Tojos on sweep do not good they are Cap fighters.. so if you can not clear the enemy base better send no bombers. Especially as the Japanese bombers even the best they get HelenB, are more scarred of Flak and hit not much then.

When you say overlapping defense of nearby bases, do you put your fighter at range 1 so they may react to an attack on the nearby base ? I noted that fatigue goes up fast in this case, what is acceptable as maximum fatigue ? I am already worried at 10 or so.


I don't worry about fatigue until it gets below 80....GP


So you want extremely tired pilots? Or are you referring to morale?

If you need to, go into the pilots for the group, selected the most fatigued pilots and then put them on Group Reserve. They are still in the group but will not fly. Also, you can give the unit a percentage of Rest as well. I do not worry if on defence that the fatigue is about 10%. Offense and LRCAP is where the fatigue really matters. Ops losses go up when the fighters CAP/LRCAP go over two hexes, I presume that fatigue goes up as well. Remember, these are the pilots that would party at night then suck on pure oxygen just to clear their heads in the morning . . .

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 14
RE: The air defense problem or what to defend or not? - 4/27/2020 1:35:22 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1752
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

For example: I am very inclined to focus my industrial production, R&D and forces disposition in order to fight a decisive battle somewhere in late 43 or early 44. It's highly unlikely that my allied opponents will show up with relevant forces I can engage before that date.
Therefore, I am a stingy bastard in terms of pilots, airframes and ships. I prefer to lose an air battle in 42 using crappy pilots but having the good ones in the reserve, rather than having 100-0 in the skies in 42 and then fight with rookies later on.

C) naval bombing is always undervalued but it's the main element in my decision making regarding which AF is gonna be used and which not. For example the base at the center of Hokkaido is amazing since it's plain but it can have an AF lvl 9 and it's the only base not on the sea in the island. It means that the enemy cannot shut down the AF via naval bombing.
Same in Thousand Ships Bay, remarkably forgotten dot north of Tulagi. The funny dot, instead, can be easily protected putting AMC in all the surrounding bases plus mines. Allies will have a complex route to bomb the base through the only non-mined, open-sea hex. In general, I take for granted that whatever is on the coast, will explode in a column of smoke due to naval bombardaments. Another interesting position in the Pacific Theater is represented by Saidor and Long Island if you protect the Vitiaz Strait. I always do and it's quite effective, at least in avoiding sudden naval bombardaments which leave your planes damaged in a base without railway and exposed.


Yes that is me re. training pilots I put a lot of the early elite ones into tracom and reserve. The question is how many are enough in scen2 for example ? Navy pilots are more scarce also, so I try not to use too many risky navy operations in the air. And yep too for this decissive battle thinking...it may not be that decissive but give the IJ a little rest for some weeks perhaps. In 44 and surely 45 most ships of the IJN will be outclassed, in 43 they still have a chance, generally speaking. In the air the Frank is ok but seems not a wonder weapon - Frank R and B might be better. George+Jack can hold their own in 43, in 44+45 not anymore with new P47s,Spits and more+better Corsairs...

Yes, nav bombing is a serious isue and overpowered in game. Also known minefields are mostly avoided I have ca. 400+ mines and not a single one hit (some it before but now not anymore). SSX/mines or small fleets do not do it in the defense vs. nav bombing. one must have luck to perhaps catch a fleet on the way home or put up a serious fleet to protect the base from bombardements, 2 or 3 DDs will not do this...

Btw. re Tabitua I lost this already a while ago, I did not put up much of a fight as it seemed so far away.. maybe I had better fought for it seriously, same for Merauke perhaps..
Btw.2 I have an advantage in this game in that the former Allied player lost many more CVs and BBs then myself. This will flatten out now slowly with the new assets arriving for the US mostly. However the enemy CV groups still exist and fly now from land bases.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 4/27/2020 1:51:36 PM >

(in reply to ITAKLinus)
Post #: 15
RE: The air defense problem or what to defend or not? - 4/27/2020 3:21:00 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2746
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Great info from all posters...

Well my outer bases Tagula, Deboyne, Woodlark were all trashed...it is end of 6/43
Now also Milne, I have there a bigger presence... I was dissapointed that brandnew Franks
dropped out so fast from the combat - seems most were damaged by 4Es he did not even sweep
there. As you can see I had ca. 30 Frank in the 1st combat which dropped to 3(!) in the 2nd wave, maybe this is another drawback for SR3 fighters you need double the air support for them I guess.



It's all about perspective.

On the first attack, he suffered 10% losses (4 bombers out of 40) and took a fair bit of damage to other planes in the formation. 18 hits to various aspects of the airbase

Granted, the second raid got through virtually unopposed as your CAP was exhausted by the earlier fighting.

44 fighters isn't going to cut it against 84 4E bombers. In my view, you need a 2:1 ratio of defending fighters to attacking bombers to get really good results (if enemy fighters are in the mix then up that to 4:1).

You're also not out to seek outright kills on 4E bombers. They're really nice because they're worth 2VPs, but it's not the goal. The goal is to inflict high levels of damage and fatigue on the Allied 4E airgroups. You know how long it takes the Franks at SR3 to repair, now consider what it's like for SR4 heavy bombers.

Victory in this setting isn't raids ceasing, but raids coming in every 7-10 days. If the Allies are putting up 100+ bomber raids more regularly than that, then you're doing it wrong.

quote:

He has a small base at Rossel now too. They have Horn for quite some time and I was not sure about Merauke. It just seems to far away from any other bigger bases of ours (Ambon, Dili, Koepnang). I concluded can not be defended and put no big garrison only when I checked again and noted this base can be pretty big I put some soldiers there, however they were overhelmed by a para drop. I did not notice that B25 D1 attack bombers have an extended range of 14.. so from Darwin and soon from Merauke they can reach quite far in my hinterland.
One needs than a cap at least at bases where ships go to and they need to sprint quite fast in the night I guess. Seems to much logistic overload, so hats of to everyone playing this game into 44 and further this is really an accomplishment. I often times feel overwhelmed tbh.


See my above point about geography being your friend. Merauke to Timor is a fair bit of ocean, and geography works in your favour here.

My preference is to leave the area between Merauke and Horn Island empty as a buffer zone. If the Allies expand into it, they're forced to push shipping through the Torres Strait. in that case, Hansa Bay (dot base, Northern New Guinea coast) can be built up to a large airbase to contest the shipping there.

Merauke is too close to mainland Oz for Japan to contest, but on the flipside, Merauke is exposed to Japanese bases in Northern New Guinea. One has benefits to you, the other not so much!


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
If you're able to it's better to sweep and bomb the bases the attacks are coming from. On defense you will generally be at a disadvantage.


Yes only on the defense sucks, I am also not really used to it. In AI games one is most on the offense and as we know the AI does not sweep much and puts together not the best strikes. So easier but also boring. I am not sure if I could play into 45 from what I read in AARs this is mostly desperate last stand kind of combat. I tried eg. to play the doomsday scenario in TOAW defending Berlin in 45...I gave up after a few turns, just like playing the Germans in Normandy. I am not the type playing hopeless situations it seems. Also only defense sucks, scenarios with more even matched forces and if for you it is possible to attack/counterattack with good odds. Reminds also playing the French in 1940 or the Iraqis in desert storm..not really fun. While I was better playing the Rebs in Civil War2...and the AI in this one is not the worst it can put up some nice moves.

Yeah I tried some sweeps as possible preparation for bombing bases but the defense is too strong, mostly the Corsairs make a big difference while e.g George can deal with Hellcats and P40K etc. Tojos on sweep do not good they are Cap fighters.. so if you can not clear the enemy base better send no bombers. Especially as the Japanese bombers even the best they get HelenB, are more scarred of Flak and hit not much then.

When you say overlapping defense of nearby bases, do you put your fighter at range 1 so they may react to an attack on the nearby base ? I noted that fatigue goes up fast in this case, what is acceptable as maximum fatigue ? I am already worried at 10 or so.


Nothing says you need to be strictly defensive. There is a night phase, and while Allied flak will take a toll on IJ bombers, nothing stops you from nuisance night raids on Allied airbases.

If there's scope for any sort of naval bombardment by IJN warships then jump on it.

Then, when the Allies switch fighters to night CAP at the expense of day CAP, you can send your own sweeps in.

In short, don't be predictable. Routine is the enemy as much as the Allies are.

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 16
RE: The air defense problem or what to defend or not? - 4/27/2020 9:13:29 PM   
ITAKLinus

 

Posts: 321
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: btd64


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
If you're able to it's better to sweep and bomb the bases the attacks are coming from. On defense you will generally be at a disadvantage.


Yes only on the defense sucks, I am also not really used to it. In AI games one is most on the offense and as we know the AI does not sweep much and puts together not the best strikes. So easier but also boring. I am not sure if I could play into 45 from what I read in AARs this is mostly desperate last stand kind of combat. I tried eg. to play the doomsday scenario in TOAW defending Berlin in 45...I gave up after a few turns, just like playing the Germans in Normandy. I am not the type playing hopeless situations it seems. Also only defense sucks, scenarios with more even matched forces and if for you it is possible to attack/counterattack with good odds. Reminds also playing the French in 1940 or the Iraqis in desert storm..not really fun. While I was better playing the Rebs in Civil War2...and the AI in this one is not the worst it can put up some nice moves.

Yeah I tried some sweeps as possible preparation for bombing bases but the defense is too strong, mostly the Corsairs make a big difference while e.g George can deal with Hellcats and P40K etc. Tojos on sweep do not good they are Cap fighters.. so if you can not clear the enemy base better send no bombers. Especially as the Japanese bombers even the best they get HelenB, are more scarred of Flak and hit not much then.

When you say overlapping defense of nearby bases, do you put your fighter at range 1 so they may react to an attack on the nearby base ? I noted that fatigue goes up fast in this case, what is acceptable as maximum fatigue ? I am already worried at 10 or so.


I don't worry about fatigue until it gets below 80....GP


So you want extremely tired pilots? Or are you referring to morale?

If you need to, go into the pilots for the group, selected the most fatigued pilots and then put them on Group Reserve. They are still in the group but will not fly. Also, you can give the unit a percentage of Rest as well. I do not worry if on defence that the fatigue is about 10%. Offense and LRCAP is where the fatigue really matters. Ops losses go up when the fighters CAP/LRCAP go over two hexes, I presume that fatigue goes up as well. Remember, these are the pilots that would party at night then suck on pure oxygen just to clear their heads in the morning . . .



Lol, I think he meant morale.


It's terribly neglected, but one should take care of planes' fatigue as well as pilots' one.

I am quite into checking it constantly.

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 17
RE: The air defense problem or what to defend or not? - 4/28/2020 12:49:32 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 14707
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

It's terribly neglected, but one should take care of planes' fatigue as well as pilots' one.

I am quite into checking it constantly.

+1

I look at the # of planes with fatigue 15 or more and figure out the % of available planes that is. That is the % I set to rest while the rest go on the mission (unless the mission is very dire or the target very juicy and every plane is needed). The side benefit is that I don't have to manage pilot fatigue if I am resting a % of the planes - the AI will select which pilots stay behind and it seems to take fatigue into account.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to ITAKLinus)
Post #: 18
RE: The air defense problem or what to defend or not? - 4/28/2020 11:21:50 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4085
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
Alpha77, if you really have to bomb with Jap bombers, bomb only in good weather. Good weather ups your chance of hitting ground targets considerably.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 19
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The air defense problem or what to defend or not? Page: [1]
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

0.172