|
   Things go quiet again and it's afternoon before anything interesting happens.   Pictured, a very poor idea. I am annoyed at how poorly we did.   I replace about a hundred pilots over all my carriers. This is the kind of thing that hurts. There is a core of good pilots – one squadron having about ten 90 skill guys, then a lot of chaff. We also had a much better day in the air than reports would suggest.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:02 |
|
|
Pretty amazing that the Japanese can get 130 planes in the air at a time there, regardless of whether it's a good idea or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
6 November 1943 US destroyer Beatty, torpedoed 40 miles WNW of Philippeville, Algeria by German aircraft. Yesterday saw a major raid on Rabaul by aircraft from Saratoga and Princeton which, while failing to sink anything, put six cruisers out of action: Agano, Atago, Maya, Mogami, Noshiro, and Takao.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Is it worth it to put a lot of your higher experience pilots into training or rear areas so they can work with other squadrons or go back to the pilot pool/reserve so you have them onhand or is the payoff of haing all your elites on the carriers a worthwhile tradeoff so you can inflict maximum pain with them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
wedgekree posted:Is it worth it to put a lot of your higher experience pilots into training or rear areas so they can work with other squadrons or go back to the pilot pool/reserve so you have them onhand or is the payoff of haing all your elites on the carriers a worthwhile tradeoff so you can inflict maximum pain with them? As the Allies, the complete opposite is true for pilot training. Every Ace should be pulled from the front if possible during the first year and set to training pilots back home. The Allies start out with kinda crap planes and few carriers, but later on get better planes and way more of them, and more carriers. Aces training pilots home will have them ready when the later push in 1943 and 1944 happens. I think at this point Grey has great pilots in the KB that sink lots of ships and dumb pilots in the land based squadrons that keep trying to attack Port Morseby with 4 Betties, but part of that can be blamed on the grognardy rear end game. He's got good land based pilots on the Western front. His fighter squadrons do well against other fighter squadrons and poorly against the big 4 engine bombers (Liberators and B-24s) but that's historically accurate. What's not historically accurate is B-24s hitting naval shipping at anywhere near the rate they are in this game. CannonFodder fucked around with this message at 09:45 on Nov 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 09:28
|
|
|
You can do a lot to train up pilots in the background, but it ends up taking about as much time as the rest of the game combined as it's all manually shuffling peeps around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
So while it is possible to train up pilots and do things with them, actually doing so is a hellish nightmare due to required micromanagement and manual placement of folks to ensure that they are doing as intended or showing up where they are supposed to be, and then transferring them around? That somehow sounds ocmpletley appropriate for this game. Also the weirdness for how it handles strike and interception missions also I guess. And at least from Grey's previous thing it seems like the high altitude bombers thing is a purely AI thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
Training pilots really isn't that bad. It is something you look at every couple weeks of game time. Maybe I am not doing the optimal min/max thing but pulling your best pilots off carriers as the US feels only necessary if you are straight up docking them for the first year of the war. If you are playing against the AI you can still use them effectively even while dodging fights against your counterparts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
   Their ASW is improving.  Here we go again.  Sub day! At least this one is mine.  Owch!  The Allies finally take Buna.  Well, that was a less than stellar day!
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
What counts as a hit during a depth charge attack on a sub anyway? Anything that causes some quantified damage to the sub?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 06:28
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Please tell me you did not have an AO sailing around alone
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
wedgekree posted:So while it is possible to train up pilots and do things with them, actually doing so is a hellish nightmare due to required micromanagement and manual placement of folks to ensure that they are doing as intended or showing up where they are supposed to be, and then transferring them around? That somehow sounds ocmpletley appropriate for this game. The Allied player's pilots start with a higher level of experience to reflect that they have a better training program on the back-end. The Japanese player's pilots start off with a low amount of experience, and getting around that by having them do "in-game training" via bombing Chinese forces and doing constant swaps between front-line forces and rear-area troops is a "nightmare of micromanagement", but it's also because you're effectively "breaking" historicity. The "real" way to play would be to lift pilots directly from their 30 XP deployment into front-line service and keep them there. We don't want to do that because it'd be a stupid thing to do, but then that's what the Japanese actually did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
SerthVarnee posted:Please tell me you did not have an AO sailing around alone God no! Its just the combat reports only show ships that engage in combat. Sub captains in this game are very focused people. They only see what they shoot apparently. No reports of other parts of the convoy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 10:53
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The Allied player's pilots start with a higher level of experience to reflect that they have a better training program on the back-end. Dropping bombs on Chinese people arguably probably shouldn't do much to improve your odds against the USN I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 12:10
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Dropping bombs on Chinese people arguably probably shouldn't do much to improve your odds against the USN I suppose. Late-war Japan historically couldn't afford to let their pilot-trainees take training flights, so everything was talked about and described in the "classroom", and their first combat mission might also be their first ever time in the air, so having taken-off and landed once before might make them marginally more effective at taking out a Hellcat maybe?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Dropping bombs on Chinese people arguably probably shouldn't do much to improve your odds against the USN I suppose. Not really true. The biggest limiting factor early on is flight time so giving a pilot an extra 100 hours over china would have at least doubled life expectancy. It seems to me no one really had a great training program in ww2.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:Not really true. The biggest limiting factor early on is flight time so giving a pilot an extra 100 hours over china would have at least doubled life expectancy. The western allies at least (possibly the Soviets too, but haven't really looked into their programs), tended to set tours of duty on aircrew of all sorts, where after a certain number of missions the pilot (and crew, depending on plane) rotated back to the homeland for a number of months to act as instructors and get some downtime. This alone, the downtime combined with new recruits having at least some instruction by veterans, made a pretty significant difference. As opposed to the Axis powers, where due to the situation the vast majority of veterans simply kept flying until they died. The fuel shortages that started heavily hitting Germany/Japan as the war dragged on was another pretty major factor, as it seriously cut into the number of hours trainees actually got in the air before being expected to go into combat. Japan's insane pilot training requirements at the beginning of the war certainly didn't help them keep a healthy pool of at least somewhat experienced reserve pilots either, though given their similarly insane airframe building policy that actually matters somewhat less than it would have for anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
I know that one of Canada’s significant contributions in the Second World War was through its commonwealth pilot training program (BCATP), wherein we trained over 130,000 pilots. It cost us over a billion dollars, employed over 100,000 people, constructed over 8,000 buildings (700 of which were hangars), and generally involved the kind of tremendous effort that we so rarely see today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
And then the PM declined to select the superior and cheaper Avro Arrow and trashed the Canadian military-industrial complex because interceptors weren't useful anymore... Before buying a US interceptor. He just wanted to spend more money on the Toronto metro and didn't like the hard drinking, smoking CEO. Of course dismissing the greatest collection of aircraft engine has had a lasting effect on the Canadian economy and tax receipts. Its military industrial has not recovered to this day. RA Rx fucked around with this message at 11:05 on Nov 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 09:08
|
|
|
  In the wake of losing Buna I sally the carriers. We lose some fighters, but they get the bombers in on target.  And their fighters can't be everywhere.  These dammed Allies have to learn if they take a base there will be a price.  This does put the carriers at some risk, but I trust my CAP.  This was the strike that worried me the most.  We bring down a Liberator!  We see a sweep in Burma as well.  The carriers continue to enjoy their uninterrupted killing sprees. Where are the American carriers? I'll take the 2:1 kill rate in the air as well.  We have now past 1,000 sunk allied ships.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 09:33
|
|
|
drat that's pretty decent number of kills. ~ 40-45 in total. Also that's a.. weird group of planes hitting you. That'd be likely the Aussie air force coming from Port Moresby on the carriers?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 11:31
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:Not really true. The biggest limiting factor early on is flight time so giving a pilot an extra 100 hours over china would have at least doubled life expectancy. Wow, I thought the thing about them missing training was on the level of "these guys need a couple weeks of dogfighting tactics practice" and not "these guys barely know how to fly the plane". That's hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Wow, I thought the thing about them missing training was on the level of "these guys need a couple weeks of dogfighting tactics practice" and not "these guys barely know how to fly the plane". That's hosed up. Keep in mind that some training programs were good/fine on their own, but the necessities of year either stripped them down or cut portions out, based on how well that nation was doing in the grand scheme of things. The RAF pre and during BoB is a much different beast then RAF 1943+
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 12:42
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:And then the PM declined to select the superior and cheaper Avro Arrow and trashed the Canadian military-industrial complex because interceptors weren't useful anymore... Before buying a US interceptor. Trap sprung I guess, but the Avro Arrow really wasn't superior and it definitely wasn't cheaper. It was a massive clusterfuck of constantly inflating costs, with unit prices increasing almost 1000% over the development cycle, bespoke Canada-only critical parts (like the missiles, engines, radar), and political fuckery. On top of that the RCAF insisted on so many special adaptations that made the plane not only overly expensive, but also suitable only for Scandinavian air forces. Think the F-35 development cycle except worse, except that all the political mud-slinging made it falsely seem like a successful development program even to today. I've summarized an excellent chapter from Charlie Foxtrot about it here: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?action=showpost&postid=469449787
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
YOU ALLIED FUCKS STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM MY SHIP~!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
If canadians really want some bloated military industrial complex I'm sure we your neighbors to the south can donate a little of ours.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Decoy Badger posted:Trap sprung I guess, but the Avro Arrow really wasn't superior and it definitely wasn't cheaper. It was a massive clusterfuck of constantly inflating costs, with unit prices increasing almost 1000% over the development cycle, bespoke Canada-only critical parts (like the missiles, engines, radar), and political fuckery. On top of that the RCAF insisted on so many special adaptations that made the plane not only overly expensive, but also suitable only for Scandinavian air forces. Think the F-35 development cycle except worse, except that all the political mud-slinging made it falsely seem like a successful development program even to today. b-but my military industrial!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
Fighting Zeros while flying Buffaloes must be a hell of a thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Buffalo had the most aces per number of planes produced.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:Buffalo had the most aces per number of planes produced. Isn't that because the USSR air force fuckin sucked against Finlands and does not at all represent the relationship between the Zero and Buffalo? Unless I'm thinking of the wrong model
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
3 DONG HORSE posted:Isn't that because the USSR air force fuckin sucked against Finlands and does not at all represent the relationship between the Zero and Buffalo? Unless I'm thinking of the wrong model Yeah that's it, the Buffalo got loving slaughtered in every other theater it fought in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
  I'm not sure why I both sometimes.  I'd respond to this, but I'd never make it in time.  The broken record plays again.  Go flak!  My Bettys get some hits in, but lose a number of escorts – on the other had, at least they HAD escorts.  I think this is straight up suicide.   Curses!  They have landed to more small tank divisions at Luganville. This seems to be the pattern.  At least she wasn't valuable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
What are the conditions for activation of kamikaze missions? IIRC the allies have to have a base within a certain radius of the home islands, but I forget if they're also date restricted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
Also why does the USN do limited bombardment missions? They send ina couple of BB's for a day, rotate them out. Wouldn't having them be on station for a few days so long as they have the fuel do a lot better? Or is that just an AI quirk? Or was doing quick bombardment hit and runs part of doctrine? I know with the IJN at Guadalcanal they had fuel issues when it came to deploying surface TF's consistently to do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
If you leave a battleship parked in contested waters for a week or two you're gonna get your fat rear end torpedoed when every carrier, submarine, and naval bomber wing within 2000 miles converges on you for free points. Presumably the AI is scripted to leave after a couple days to prevent that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
Also I would assume the USN has vastly more fuel available, so there's not much harm in wasting it transiting all over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
wedgekree posted:Also why does the USN do limited bombardment missions? They send ina couple of BB's for a day, rotate them out. Wouldn't having them be on station for a few days so long as they have the fuel do a lot better? Or is that just an AI quirk? Or was doing quick bombardment hit and runs part of doctrine? The United States also had fuel issues during much of the fighting around Guadalcanal, due to logistical strain rather than production deficiencies. It's one reason none of the pre-Washington Treaty battleships were deployed there even during the most desperate fighting. In this case, though, they might be running low on ammo. American battleships of that era typically carried 100 rounds per gun (or at least something pretty close to that—can't remember for certain), which could be expended in a few hours heavy firing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
Triggerhappypilot posted:What are the conditions for activation of kamikaze missions? IIRC the allies have to have a base within a certain radius of the home islands, but I forget if they're also date restricted. Kamikazes trigger anytime after January 1, 1944 that the Allies hold a base within 15 hexes (traced by sea only) of Saigon, Tokyo, or one other base (somewhere on Formosa, I think?)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
wedgekree posted:Also why does the USN do limited bombardment missions? They send ina couple of BB's for a day, rotate them out. Wouldn't having them be on station for a few days so long as they have the fuel do a lot better? Or is that just an AI quirk? Or was doing quick bombardment hit and runs part of doctrine? AFAIK you only really have enough ammo to do one day's worth of shelling, two tops. If you're using it to suppress an airfield, the key is to have more than one wave queued up, and to also have your own (land-based) bombers ready to take advantage of a bombed-out airfield to continue the bombing and make sure they never get to recover. If you're using it to prep for an amphibious landing, the key is to have one advance wave, and then have a second group synchronized with the actual landing TF.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:02 |
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Yeah that's it, the Buffalo got loving slaughtered in every other theater it fought in. That said, the flight sim IL-2 Sturmovik had a fantastic campaign flying Buffalos for the Finns. If you own a joystick, that's a good reason to drop ten bucks on Steam or GOG for a copy of IL2 1946.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 08:21
|
|
