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: No Torp Naval atack option...

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: No Torp Naval atack option... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/29/2004 4:47:48 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Subchaser

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Let's try this senario.

You have a CV TF and you know that there is an enemy CV TF in the area and you are willing to accept a CV-CV battle. You have your Topedo capable aircraft loaded with torpedos. You stumble upon an enemy TF with 2 or 3 AP in it and the AI launches two waves of Torpedo armed aircraft against it, thereby cutting your torpedos down to about 15% of what you can carry. Now what do you do? I can all ready hear the screams.


These are two different problems, loadouts and wrong targets, btw as I remember it’s already fixed in WitP, if there is enemy CV TF, your carriers will attack them first. If torpedo attack on APs was carried out on the eve of CV battle, that’s another case, of course it can be painful, but your opponent can run into the same hassle. Here we can turn back and discuss why do we need that ‘attack only carriers’ mode for CV TFs.


No they are not. Maybe I didn't make it clear, you have NOT spotted the enemy CV TF, you just know it is in the area when your TF Comander launches all torpedeo aircraft twice with torpedeos loaded. The enemy sees this and presto moves as fast as possible to inteercept you since you have few if any torpedeos to use against him.


You are still talking about fortunes of war. If my carriers had already wasted all torpedoes, they still have large caliber bombs to deal with enemy carriers, yes it can be less effective, but they are not harmless anyhow and outcome of possible battle is not so clear to me.

There are many other factors involved besides the wasted torpedoes. Alongside with torpedoes I lose fresh CAP, fatigue rises and enemy receives DL advantage next turn, it's unavoidable in this situation and can have more serious impact on battle outcome rather than the lack of torpedoes.

BTW what if its your carriers are yet unspotted and its enemy carriers who had wasted torpedoes on unimportant targets, I bet this situation will make you a bit more enthusiastic.

Why do you think that carriers should always fight on equal terms. “If you’re in fair CV fight – you didn’t plan it properly”. Head-on CV engagement is the worst variant of CV battle, you should always try to put YOUR carriers into such position, to ambush enemy, to caught him without torps and without CAP. It’s not a medieval tournament.

CV Carrier aviation ordnance was serious factor historically, Nagumo’s decision to rearm torpedo planes with land-attack bombs at Midway was one of the reasons of IJN defeat, etc.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 31
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/29/2004 4:56:30 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun

There is one aspect that everyone seems to be forgetting. So you have 45 torpedoes.. Which is roughly enough for 3 full strikes... So do we give a CV Torpedo Ammo of 3 ? If so, what if you only have half a squadron of TBs ?


Who told you that this gonna work this way? This is how I see the problem:

CV "X" ordnance points:
50 torps pnts.
100 AP(S) bomb pnts.
300 AP bomb pnts.
400 GP bomb pnts.

1 sortie consumes 1 torp. point. Full sqn (18 Kates) will be able to fly 3 mission (about 50 sorties), half of sqn will be able to fly 6 mission and so on… if there is just 1 torpedo bomber it can fly 50 sorties with torpedo.

When on a third mission sqn will not have enough torpedoes to arm all planes (18)+(18)=36 – 14 torps left, 14 planes will carry torps and one section of 4 planes will carry large caliber bombs, on forth mission all planes will carry bombs.

_____________________________


(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 32
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/29/2004 5:52:32 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10699
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
"4 planes will carry large caliber bombs,"

This in it's self raises an interesting question, we know Kates will schlep (and I supose the Jills and TBM's as well), the # 80 bombs to ports for atacks, it was the prefered bomb for land targets after all, But will we see the 500 KG bombs on longer mishions? or will the kates cary the much less effective 250 KG bombs? I am woundering how detailed the load out options are in WiTP. Is the AI smart enough to select the most logical load out, for the target in question? ( UV has tought me the AI is apt to do the stupidest thing prety much all the time).

(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 33
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/29/2004 7:30:08 PM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline
I don't know what the torpedo capacity of a CV is, but I meant that it seems this whole ammo choice thing is mainly intent on conserving torpedoes on a CV/base. I would be content to let this be abstracted and the attacks limited to the actual ammo capacity. We'll see what the designers come up with.

(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 34
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/29/2004 8:07:29 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10699
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
Drex, the Torp, and bomb type capacitys were listed in another thread on this forum recently (like yesterday), and prety much boil down to just 2 and perhaps 3 sorties worth of torpedos for CV planes regardless of nationality. While this is defenatly a concern, you dont want your planes wasting these on Merchants, when bombs are in much greater suply and less dangerious to deleaver. What this means is that to avoid wasting the torps you would (under the present system) have to stand dwon your torp bombers, when realy they could be used to cary bombs..if only we could select them to do so...Thier is also the point that the TBM and the Kate/Jill could cary better Bombs than the Vall did, 500KG and 800KG bombs for use aganst capatol ships (so could the Land based medieum bombers of the Japaense army and Navy).

Though I just today became aware of the fact that the Vall could cary a 500KG bomb if the gunner stayed at home...

(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 35
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/29/2004 9:31:03 PM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Drex, the Torp, and bomb type capacitys were listed in another thread on this forum recently (like yesterday), and prety much boil down to just 2 and perhaps 3 sorties worth of torpedos for CV planes regardless of nationality. While this is defenatly a concern, you dont want your planes wasting these on Merchants, when bombs are in much greater suply and less dangerious to deleaver. What this means is that to avoid wasting the torps you would (under the present system) have to stand dwon your torp bombers, when realy they could be used to cary bombs..if only we could select them to do so...Thier is also the point that the TBM and the Kate/Jill could cary better Bombs than the Vall did, 500KG and 800KG bombs for use aganst capatol ships (so could the Land based medieum bombers of the Japaense army and Navy).


I'm sorry, but I think this reflects a further misunderstanding of the nature of this game design. What we need is AI subordinates who make rational decisions on the basis of attacks to be launched. When you "step down" to TF commander level and order your planes to attack shipping until you give them countermanding orders, there is a priority list of preferred targets, enemy CVs being at the top. Depending on what air search reports to be the nature of the target actually to be struck, the aircraft are armed accordingly by order of your air ops commander. If you have perfect intelligence and absolute tactical control, you are playing a game that has wandered far away from historical simulation. This was never the intent of the UV system that has grown up to become the WitP system, and I object most strenuously to sh1tcanning one of the most important design elements in favor of imposing a "grand tactical" level of control on what, for me, has been a very enjoyable game system for almost two years now (notwithstanding the warts and occasional compromises of historical accuracy in favor of playability and keeping player command and control at an appropriate level of abstraction).

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 36
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/29/2004 10:04:02 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10699
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
If the AI could be tweaked to make better judgement calls than it is capable of doing in UV then I would be more inclined to let it do so, howeaver given the choice I would prefer doing all this my self, I would rather play a grand Tactical game any day then a grand Stratigic game that is so tweaked for playabaility that we see consistant unrealistic results that do nothing but frustrate me and make we want to leap into the virtual world and Bi~tchslap the CAG or Fleat Comander.

Honestly I feal many are realy overreacting hear, I cant for the life of me understand why one would want less controle and fewer choices espichaly regarding something so critical to the war effort. All that were realy (or I am ) proposing is simply one switch (on/off) torps/No torps, sounds prety simple, but then again I am not a programer I dont fully grasp the details of such a request.

< Message edited by Brady -- 2/29/2004 8:10:43 PM >

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 37
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 3/1/2004 12:11:26 AM   
bilbow


Posts: 738
Joined: 8/22/2002
From: Concord NH
Status: offline
I love a lot of detail too, but I agree with professor Pasternakski in this case. Multple ammo types to track makes this all too tactical. Then you have to get into plane loadouts and maybe even CV ammo loadouts. Too many unintended consequences. A simple strike count limit is the best answer, and can't be gamed anywhere as easily as the multiple ammo-type solution.

< Message edited by bilbow -- 2/29/2004 5:15:26 PM >

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 38
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 3/1/2004 12:27:10 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10699
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
How is it going to be gamed the only gamey thing is either No change like UV witch is totlay gamey or a over simplified aproach witch is almost as bad, the player is not going to make any load out choices, the AI will do all this, the AI will track the ammo used and it will show on the screan,if it runs out of XX type then it will use what is left, seams prety simpl you dont have to do didely, the only thing that is being sugested hear is to select yes or no to torps for a given plane type.

< Message edited by Brady -- 2/29/2004 10:32:08 PM >

(in reply to bilbow)
Post #: 39
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 3/1/2004 12:58:27 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline
Brady I have no doubt that you and Subchaser are correct tactically. If WitP allowed us to choose our naval targets, the 4 ammo choices would be the way to go(I guess), but the game doesn't allow us to choose targets. the AI chooses the target and it is logical for the AI to choose the ammo. I am repeating myself here so I will leave the argument. I have had my say.

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 40
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 3/1/2004 1:50:44 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drex

I am repeating myself here so I will leave the argument. I have had my say.


Witch is the right thing to do.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 41
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 3/1/2004 7:43:02 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
Maybe the real problem is the game gives players too much silly and non-essential
information. Because they felt the need to program the "attack sub-routine" into
the game, they had to post "detailed results" as well. And because this was done
poorly, some of the "results" are silly---like torpedo attacks on barges and sub-
chasers and ships in dry-docks. Probably would have been better to have left the
results at a level more comensurate with the game. Something like:

"7 surviving Betties report 9 hit on CA and 12 hits on Transport"

Ship ID by pilots wasn't that hot, even by class---and they over-reported their success
in virtually every action. The Allies got a little better as the War went on, while the Japs
got noticibly worse. And the only "first hand" reports the command level people (players)
get is what the guys who made it back can tell them. Or if a sub intercepts a few barges,
you might get:

"Gato reports engaging two barges and sinking one. 1 man killed and three injurd by
return fire."

Then we wouldn't have to look at silly reports about who fired torpedoes at what target
or shelled it or whatever. A lot of the "wanting to screem and jump into cyber-space and
strangle the CO" results from information that is silly and unnecessary for a game at this
level. The game posts some silly results, and we react. With-out heavy re-coding to
remove the silly and absurd from the results matrix, there's no hope for the system
currently in use. But a simpler system could be used that would remove much of the
frustration.

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 42
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 3/1/2004 4:31:49 PM   
Damien Thorn

 

Posts: 1107
Joined: 7/24/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Then we wouldn't have to look at silly reports about who fired torpedoes at what target
or shelled it or whatever. A lot of the "wanting to screem and jump into cyber-space and
strangle the CO" results from information that is silly and unnecessary for a game at this
level.


You may thing the information is silly but everyone else I know likes to have as much information as they can get. If you don't like the level of detail that has been provided to us you can always turn off animations and reports and base your in-game decisions on the sighting reports you see on the map.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 43
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 3/1/2004 4:55:32 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
Moving in this direction you will end up with two basic grand prime super strategic options – for US “Defeat Japan!” and for Japan ‘Delay defeat!’, and then you have to do only one thing - watch which morons down there are not up to task, and waste some political points on them from time to time.

< Message edited by Subchaser -- 3/1/2004 6:00:21 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 44
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 3/1/2004 7:11:51 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
I didn't say a thing about doing away with the Combat reports. I suggestted doing
away with a lot of extraineous details that often end up being silly. How many com-
ments do you remember about the fact that the game will report the Pennsylvania
to be torpedoed while in dry-dock at PH? Or the "inboard' BB's being torpedoed
there, even though the torpedoes in question would have had to travel THROUGH
the "outboard" ships? Or a sub waisting torpedoes on attacking a barge? These are
silly reports.

If you are at the Nimitz/MacArthur or IJN/IJA General HQ level and can't even tell your
airstrikes what naval target to engage, this level of detail in reporting is silly anyway.
What you get (and what you want) is a report that says "We got an estimated 5 hits
on a Salt Lake City class CA, left in sinking condition; two hits on a Northhampton class,
at least one hit each on 3 DD's thought to be Fletcher class, and one confirmed hit on
a Yorktown class CV, left with fires aboard, but still maintaining cruise speed. We lost
17 aircraft confirmed, with 23 others damaged (4 beyond repair)."

All the rest of the stuff you seem to love is extraneous drivil.

(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 45
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 3/1/2004 8:23:28 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I didn't say a thing about doing away with the Combat reports. I suggestted doing
away with a lot of extraineous details that often end up being silly. How many com-
ments do you remember about the fact that the game will report the Pennsylvania
to be torpedoed while in dry-dock at PH? Or the "inboard' BB's being torpedoed
there, even though the torpedoes in question would have had to travel THROUGH
the "outboard" ships? Or a sub waisting torpedoes on attacking a barge? These are
silly reports.


So you’re happy with sub wasting torpedoes on barge, you just don’t want to hear about it. Right???

quote:

If you are at the Nimitz/MacArthur or IJN/IJA General HQ level and can't even tell your
airstrikes what naval target to engage, this level of detail in reporting is silly anyway.
What you get (and what you want) is a report that says "We got an estimated 5 hits
on a Salt Lake City class CA, left in sinking condition; two hits on a Northhampton class,
at least one hit each on 3 DD's thought to be Fletcher class, and one confirmed hit on
a Yorktown class CV, left with fires aboard, but still maintaining cruise speed. We lost
17 aircraft confirmed, with 23 others damaged (4 beyond repair)."

All the rest of the stuff you seem to love is extraneous drivil.


The problem is that you’re NOT Nimitz/MacArthur, you’re amalgamation of entire command chain. This sounds really silly, agree, but this is how this game works. You generate strategic plan and then go down to control it on operational – tactical level

< Message edited by Subchaser -- 3/1/2004 9:27:54 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 46
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 3/1/2004 9:14:02 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
The real problem here is that for ammo choices to make sense, you need to have player controlled naval targeting.

eg: I want to attack some barges, I'll going to send some fighters to strafe! I'm not going to send a bunch of TB & DB.

eg: I want to attack a CV, I'm going to load up everything I have with heavy bombs and torpedoes and pray for that lucky strike.

eg: I want to attack a group of transports, I'll do so from altitude with relative immunity based on poor AA.

eg: I want to attack a ground target, it will vary based on the target, airfield = craters, troops = strafing/small bombs, city = incidiary, etc.

Without having that dynamic mission choice just before takeoff commences based on target info, it makes no sense.

Flight profiles are governed by the number and type of aircraft balanced against what is expected at the target. You really can not have one part abstracted while the others are not as it makes for no sense in the decision making process. Either have complete control or complete abstraction. These mixups where we sit somewhere in the middle always go in circular debates because there really is no right answer

(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 47
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 3/1/2004 10:21:58 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline
One thing I remember from PacWar, was allied Fighter/bombers automaticaly switching from GB bombs to rockets based on some date. If we are going to talk about ammo types we to open the full can of worms and also also discuss loadouts for land based aircraft.

Do any aircraft types switch ammo types during the game in Witp?

How are rockets used in Witp?


Are A-bombs limited to three in 1945?

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 48
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 3/2/2004 11:35:50 AM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

eg: I want to attack some barges, I'll going to send some fighters to strafe! I'm not going to send a bunch of TB & DB.


You want carriers to hunt barges?

Different ammo option for CV aircraft gives you far more realistic gameplay than abstractive swamp of 1 strike point, if we choose more realism over insufficiently easier in-game managing here, we have to go a little bit further. If you can’t choose targets for CV TF, you should be able to choose what type of ammo should not be wasted on unimportant targets, - switch between torps and bombs for TB carrier units.

If you forgot or didn’t see a reason to switch carrier torpedo bombers from bombs back to torps and next turn you were ambushed by enemy carrier and your TB were attacking with bombs. Well, it’s actually your mistake (like Nagumo’s), you wasn’t aware of incoming danger, your intel department did not do their job right, recce birds were either unlucky or did not fly at all. If you will be ambushed in such situation, you’ll lose mostly because of small CAP, and not because of bombs instead torpedoes.

quote:

eg: I want to attack a CV, I'm going to load up everything I have with heavy bombs and torpedoes and pray for that lucky strike.


And the opposite option here is… ??? Without switch between torps and bombs and with 1 strike point for everything, you do what?

quote:

eg: I want to attack a ground target, it will vary based on the target, airfield = craters, troops = strafing/small bombs, city = incidiary, etc.


Here is where abstraction welcomed, it doesn’t matter what kind of bomb it is, you still have to drop it on target, unified method of usage here, what you drop 10 small bombs or 1 large bomb, it’s doesn’t matter. When you attack a/f in WitP you can assume that level bombers carry GPs, when city – incendiary, when infantry – small anitisoft bombs, you can select altitudes according to what your expectations and needs are, high altitude – few hits/low losses, low altitude – more hits/high losses. Obviously you have full tactical control here, no need to select ammo types.

On contrary, bomb load out for naval attack means another method of attack, in comparison with torp attack. Different attack method, different load/outs. Please understand this.

Let me explain what I’m talking about in more popular way, for land based bombers I do not suggest different ammo just like for carrier planes, I suggest an option to change the role they act in, (Betty unit / naval attack / currently – torpedo bombers; switch to level bombers). I do not want to see what type of torpedo or what bombs they carry, I just want them to change tactics. That’s all.

Scenario

Mid summer ’42. I’ve captured PM and Gili Gili, then transferred 10 Betty units there in order to interdict sea communications in this area. My opponent didn’t abandon his attempts to move reinforcements to his Queensland bases though, he now move his convoys here very carefully and they always arrive to ports in the morning, thus my Betties, in the most cases, have opportunity to attack them only when they’re already docked in port, where he has air cover and AA units.

If my Betties will try to attack them with torpedoes in ports, my bombers will inevitably suffer awful losses, and Japanese bomber force won’t be a factor in this area within a couple of weeks. If I will switch them to level bombers and they will attack convoys from flak safe altitude, on which P-39s are also less dangerous, I will be able to score some hits on transports from time to time and keep losses on acceptable level, when I’ll decide that there is good chance for successful torpedo attack (I see convoy which will be in open sea and within the range next turn or warships were sighted –they worth losses) I’ll switch them back to torpedoes.

With this option my tactics is flexible, losses low (in comparison) and results are higher in fact (1 torp-bomber can do just 5-7 sorties before it will be lost, scoring 1-2 hits in a process / 1 level bomber can do much more sorties before it will be lost doing comparable damage in process. So for immediate serious damage to enemy – use torpedoes, for disruption strikes use bombs and accumulate forces for the right moment to use torpedoes). Without this option any my attempts to blockade Australia for any sufficient amount of time are hopeless.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 49
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 3/2/2004 12:49:14 PM   
Hoplosternum


Posts: 690
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: Romford, England
Status: offline
Subchaser,

I am not sure you are completely convincing here. Remember that high level B-17s don't hit many ships on Naval attack, all the moaning about them was when they start skip bombing or attack from 1000' or so. Even with hundreds of Betty's you are not going to hit much. You are not immune to all Flak or even Irondogs (without Escorts) at high level either. So you will get far lower percentage losses by high level bombing under the circumstances you state, but you are not going to be very scary either.

In UV you could roughly approximate this by just putting a single squadron (possibly with a large % on Naval search to limit your exposure) on Naval Attack. That squadron gets much more hits per plane as it is torpedoing but takes heavy % casualties, yet it's only one squadron. So not necessarily more losses overall than the odd Flak and CAP losses of high level bombing and the big OP losses you get for flying 100 odd Betties instead of just one squadron's worth. So really where is the difference? You don't need to be flying each day for either method. And with both you have the threat that you can send a massive torpedo strike.

Having said that I have no problem with a none-Torpedo option for planes. Just for LBA where Torpedos are unlimited I doubt I or anyone else will use it much. After all if one day he sends some more valuable stuff (like a couple of CVs along) your method will result in dozens of CAP losses and no hits on the 'surprise' day. Mine would result in at most one squadron mauled and possibly a couple of priceless hits on his CVs. Likewise your method is wide open to other forms of ambush such as him transfering a few squadrons of P40s to the area.

(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 50
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 3/2/2004 1:57:33 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

I am not sure you are completely convincing here. Remember that high level B-17s don't hit many ships on Naval attack, all the moaning about them was when they start skip bombing or attack from 1000' or so. Even with hundreds of Betty's you are not going to hit much.


B-17s are generally being used for naval attacks when their pilots are not very experienced, when they come in mass they have different job – to maul bases. Although I sometimes switch skilled heavy bomber units to naval attack and with good results:

this is latest turn from my game vs AdmiralLaurent

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 02/08/43

Weather: Thunderstorms

Air attack on TF, near Dobadura at 13,38

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 57
A6M3 Zero x 31

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 16
B-24D Liberator x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress x 11 damaged

Japanese Ships
DD Nagatsuki
CL Kiso
DD Mochizuki, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
3 x B-24D Liberator at 6000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
3 x B-24D Liberator at 6000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet


One DD is out. US heavies with experienced pilots can do very well against enemy shipping, and I have no arguments to insist that highly experienced (much more experienced than these B-17 guys) Betty pilots will be less effective. BTW those 2 sqns did not fly any naval attack missions on previous turns, it’s not lucky strike, they came to Dobadura for ships and did their job from the first attempt, too bad it was DD, there are some CV around.

quote:

but you are not going to be very scary either.


I can be scary in different ways, I can try to sink ships at every opportunity (and soon exhaust my offensive power) or I can just mark my ability to sink ships (and this equal tactical measure sometimes, you don’t walk on minefield and mines probably will never hurt you, but menace is always here and it makes you scared). The presence of my bombers will force my opponent to keep high CAP, always, he can’t transfer fighter units to somewhere else, cause I’ll notice this and will strike harder (may be with torpedoes who knows?). Besides that, presence of Betties around will prevent enemy usage of these bases as supply depots and navy bases.

quote:

In UV you could roughly approximate this by just putting a single squadron (possibly with a large % on Naval search to limit your exposure) on Naval Attack. That squadron gets much more hits per plane as it is torpedoing but takes heavy % casualties, yet it's only one squadron. So not necessarily more losses overall than the odd Flak and CAP losses of high level bombing and the big OP losses you get for flying 100 odd Betties instead of just one squadron's worth. So really where is the difference?


One by one squadrons will lose experienced pilots, I don’t like it, to sacrifice sqn per attack, reminds kamikaze, small groups, some hits, nobody returns. BTW you can combine two methods, as it was in reality, it should make CAP less effective. Overall losses I think will be higher with TB anyway, however this depends on how heavy ship traffic is in the area.

quote:

Just for LBA where Torpedos are unlimited I doubt I or anyone else will use it much.


Torpedoes are unlimited, Betties and skilled pilots unfortunately are not.
That's the problem.

quote:

After all if one day he sends some more valuable stuff (like a couple of CVs along) your method will result in dozens of CAP losses and no hits on the 'surprise' day.


I can have some squadrons with torps for such occasions.

quote:

Likewise your method is wide open to other forms of ambush such as him transfering a few squadrons of P40s to the area.


Options here: 1) set them to naval attack only when target is within the range of Zeros from Gili 2) Use your method, kamikaze torpedo strikes, you will lose them anyway. etc.

There could be myriad of situations, and I think it’s always better to have several options to choose from.

_____________________________


(in reply to Hoplosternum)
Post #: 51
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 3/2/2004 3:47:32 PM   
Hoplosternum


Posts: 690
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: Romford, England
Status: offline
Subchaser,

Nice bombing with the allied heavies But 6000' is not that high. You will suffer plenty of Flak losses with Betty's at that height. And the allied P39s will have a ball You can test it out yourself using the Sally's and Helen's on 6000' Naval attack in '43 Good luck! If these were Japanese bombers (of any sort) would you really fly them against such a target (small surface taskforce) through that CAP? It is only that we all know that B17s and B24s are so tough that anyone would take such risks. And in thunderstorms too

I am all for options but I think you have already stated the best use of the Betty's. It's the threat of their use that can close down the allied options. Your opponent cannot send supply convoys without large amounts of CAP which has to be up for many days while you may or may not show up at all!

I just cannot imagine flying many Betty's at high altitude (if the option to bomb was given) in the hope of getting a few hits. The op losses alone would make it dubious never mind the losses to Flak and CAP on my fragile and priceless Betty's. Yes it will be slow and the losses spread out, but the good crews will be lost by your strategy too. I only suggested the naval attack strategy if you actually wanted to cause some shipping losses as you seemed to imply your high level attacks would do. I suspect that both you and I would either use them all in a single massive escorted hit, or none at all.

(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 52
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: No Torp Naval atack option... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.164