Thanks GhstDncr and Nef!

[jededii]

The defenders at A4 were outnumbered - we were the fighter escort with 16 zeros and I'm going to guess the defense was at most 8 to 10 P40's (and mainly B's - I don't recall seeing any E's).

However they didn't help themselves by coming in small numbers - I never saw more than 4 arrive at any one time - and apart from the first four we encountered, they all seemed very low. Had all the defenders met us at once, I think it would have been a different story.

801 came in at about 10K and I believe that the Gamblers were right on the deck. All were B Models but I don't think that  made any difference. I think that there were 7 between the 2 sqns vs 16-IJN. #s were the main weakness for us. If we had been a bit more co-ordinated in our defense the final result prolly would have been the same but at a much higher cost to you guys. But as always it was fun. 

[ghostdancer]

CptA thanks for the kind words.

As with all FSOs we strive to allow individual CiCs to have much flexibility as we can give them while also trying to make sure everybody has a chance at seeing action (no flying around for 2 hours with no enemy contact) or being hit by a massively superior force. However, as soon as you give CiCs and pilots free choice that means that the event can unfolded in a million different ways.

For example lets take the case of the A72 battle in frame 1. I actually have the battle plans at both sides and the logs from the fight.

PLANNED MISSIONS
The Japanese assigned the Damned SE (4-6) and Das Muppets (7-10) to defend the fleet. A range of 11 to 16 fighters, not counting the -2 +2 rule.

The U.S. assigned Rolling Thunder (16-21) in SBDs and WD40 (7-10) in no more than 10 P40Es then rest in P40Bs to attack A71. A range of 7-10 fighters and 16-21 SBDs or 21 to 31 aircraft.

Roughly the U.S on paper had a 2 to 1 plane advantage. But the Japanese had a roughly 5 fighter plane advantage over the U.S.

ACTUALY TURNOUT
Japanese
13 Fighters = 3 Damned SE, 10 Das Muppets

U.S
11 Fighters = 11 WD40
18 Dive Bombers = 18 Rolling Thunder

So 13 versus 29 (13 fighters versus 11 fighters).

THOUGHTS ON PIG PILING
The very nature of attacking targets usually means there will be more planes in an attack force since you need both bomb carriers and those protecting them from enemy fighters. So, yes usually an attacking force will have more planes. But that is a gamble that a CiC takes since he does not know the number of enemy defenders that will be at the target.

In the case of the U.S. attack on C71 and C81 they chose to task 7-10 P40Es  and 11-15 SBDs. Basically they went weaker hitting these 2 CVs so they could be stronger on other attacks. While the Japanese CiC on the other hand decided to deploy his defenders evenly assigning 11-16 to defend both C71 and C81. In the case of those two CVs on paper it was 18-25 US versus 11-16 Japanese with the Japanese 5 fighter plane advantage.

Of course actually squad turnout then affects the battle to.

So the question comes down is this pig piling? I guess it depends on your definition. However, I don't think it is. In the case of C72 it was 2 to 1 on paper in actual battle. In the case of C71 and C81 it is 1.6 to 1 on paper.

All of this basically stems from the fact that both CiCs are given the freedom to plan and to use their non-allocated planes (the credible force rule) they way they wish. Then you factor in squad turnout and this further increases the possibilities of a stronger force hitting a weaker force. But that is the nature of battle and the gamble CiCs take when coming up with a battle plan.

My personal take is that no 2.2 to 1 odds is extremely excessive in this situation.


FOG OF WAR
The next issue players have to remember is that we actually do experience in this game a the fog of war. I have seen CVs reported sunk and a CiC change his whole in game task assignments based on a wrong report or mistaken belief.

In this case:

C72 we encountered about 15-20 SBD's and 15-20 P-40E's against our 8 or so pilots and 5 or so Damned SE pilots...in A6M2's...well guess how that worked out eh Smiley

The total number of Japanese fighters is right 13 however, the size and type of the U.S. force is not accurate. 11 P40Es and 18 SBDs, 29 total. The perception of the U.S. forces are off do to the fog of war. It happens all the time and fortunately for us the CMs actually have the logs, battle plans, etc. to look into each incident to see if things are seriously out of whack or if is more a fog of war issue or a case of somebody was strong at one place making themselves weaker else where.

[Boxboy]

Thanks for the explanation Ghostdancer, the problem is that 2 v 1 odds really turn into 5 v 1 and then 5 v 1 as the attackers with the numbers seldom break into an equal number vs the defenders.  In our case we made 2 mistakes we were too low and too few to be split up our total was 7 vs 16 zero's and some number of b5n's looked like 10-15 but had no chance to count as I was trying to avoid at least 5 to 6 attackers.

I believe it will be ever thus, if the CiC's don't choose to place larger defense measures.  In the last FSO's I have been in it has been this way for both sides (Light defense and heavy attack)

[Spikes]

CptA thanks for the kind words.

As with all FSOs we strive to allow individual CiCs to have much flexibility as we can give them while also trying to make sure everybody has a chance at seeing action (no flying around for 2 hours with no enemy contact) or being hit by a massively superior force. However, as soon as you give CiCs and pilots free choice that means that the event can unfolded in a million different ways.

For example lets take the case of the A72 battle in frame 1. I actually have the battle plans at both sides and the logs from the fight.

PLANNED MISSIONS
The Japanese assigned the Damned SE (4-6) and Das Muppets (7-10) to defend the fleet. A range of 11 to 16 fighters, not counting the -2 +2 rule.

The U.S. assigned Rolling Thunder (16-21) in SBDs and WD40 (7-10) in no more than 10 P40Es then rest in P40Bs to attack A71. A range of 7-10 fighters and 16-21 SBDs or 21 to 31 aircraft.

Roughly the U.S on paper had a 2 to 1 plane advantage. But the Japanese had a roughly 5 fighter plane advantage over the U.S.

ACTUALY TURNOUT
Japanese
13 Fighters = 3 Damned SE, 10 Das Muppets

U.S
11 Fighters = 11 WD40
18 Dive Bombers = 18 Rolling Thunder

So 13 versus 29 (13 fighters versus 11 fighters).

THOUGHTS ON PIG PILING
The very nature of attacking targets usually means there will be more planes in an attack force since you need both bomb carriers and those protecting them from enemy fighters. So, yes usually an attacking force will have more planes. But that is a gamble that a CiC takes since he does not know the number of enemy defenders that will be at the target.

In the case of the U.S. attack on C71 and C81 they chose to task 7-10 P40Es  and 11-15 SBDs. Basically they went weaker hitting these 2 CVs so they could be stronger on other attacks. While the Japanese CiC on the other hand decided to deploy his defenders evenly assigning 11-16 to defend both C71 and C81. In the case of those two CVs on paper it was 18-25 US versus 11-16 Japanese with the Japanese 5 fighter plane advantage.

Of course actually squad turnout then affects the battle to.

So the question comes down is this pig piling? I guess it depends on your definition. However, I don't think it is. In the case of C72 it was 2 to 1 on paper in actual battle. In the case of C71 and C81 it is 1.6 to 1 on paper.

All of this basically stems from the fact that both CiCs are given the freedom to plan and to use their non-allocated planes (the credible force rule) they way they wish. Then you factor in squad turnout and this further increases the possibilities of a stronger force hitting a weaker force. But that is the nature of battle and the gamble CiCs take when coming up with a battle plan.

My personal take is that no 2.2 to 1 odds is extremely excessive in this situation.


FOG OF WAR
The next issue players have to remember is that we actually do experience in this game a the fog of war. I have seen CVs reported sunk and a CiC change his whole in game task assignments based on a wrong report or mistaken belief.

In this case:

The total number of Japanese fighters is right 13 however, the size and type of the U.S. force is not accurate. 11 P40Es and 18 SBDs, 29 total. The perception of the U.S. forces are off do to the fog of war. It happens all the time and fortunately for us the CMs actually have the logs, battle plans, etc. to look into each incident to see if things are seriously out of whack or if is more a fog of war issue or a case of somebody was strong at one place making themselves weaker else where.

Keep in mind that was a completely rough guesstimate. Regardless it's tough to fight even odds and then go on and kill 18 SBD's when you normally actually find the attackers less than 20 miles out. Most of my squad went for the fighters and I dove in heroically (hehe) to the massive formation of SBD's (again, a guess, I NEVER got a good look at the P-40's since they were coming right at us, didn't have time to count).

Like I said, I'm not complaining. I don't think the 'fighter plane advantage' is relevant because it's still not an even fight. Sure we could kill all the fighter planes but that gets us nowhere as the SBD's then get in unopposed. Best comparison is total numbers and they had a near 3:1 advantage and we paid the price.

[ghostdancer]

Spikes I know. I was commenting on your example because it comes up a lot. Not you but basically it is a general comment that is made by people. As CMs we look into each item and evaluate whether there is something wrong with the setup or if it just one of those cases of getting the short end of the stick.

Designs are made to force a CiC to make hard choices. Obviously when attacking you want to hit with a superior force. A good design makes sure that a CiC has to make a decision that if he is strong somewhere he is weak somewhere else. When you guys bring things up like this that is the first thing I look at. To see if the original battle plans has the CiC making decisions. If he is able to be strong everywhere then I basically I have to figure out if I built in an imbalance into the design or over looked something.

The second item is that many times people comment on impressions. Again we look into it to see if it was an impression (fog of war) or if there was more to it and if so to take appropriate actions to correct the issue.

In this case they had a 2.2 to 1 (29 to 13) advantage in total numbers. A tough situation I agree that requires hard choices on what to do. Do you attack the fighters and try to strip the SBDs of defense and then hopefully kill them once their protection is dead or do you ignore their fighters and concentrate on the SBDs because it prevents them from dropping bombs but leave yourself open to their fighters? Or some sort of mix? I have been there and I know it is a tough situation and at times not fun but looking over the battle plans and the overall action the allies did pay a price for going strong in a couple areas.

I will release the preliminary results soon but basically the battle overall was a draw with the allies up by about 120 points. The Japanese won the air war but the allies overall were more successful in their bombing.

[SlipKnt]

When VF15 received the orders and were tasked to be CiC, we understood the mission to mean 1) sink CVs, & 2) defend the bases.  The targets that had heavy hitters were by design.  There was a possibility that if they got through and back safely, there would have been rearming and secondary attacks for CVs that were still floating.  We had a minimum number to meet with the SBDs.  Having had the honor of flying them for a FSO in the past, we knew what we had to do to get them through to target.  Keeping in mind what we had to defend.  Had the mission been only to DA, we would have set it up differently.  But our primary assignment was to attack and defend.  Knowing the point system, we set up our defense as best we could.  It is extremely difficult to balance numbers which is why we had a secondary plan. 

When A4 was attacked, we moved a squad from A11 after it was attacked.  Once they arrived, A11 started blinking again (well played you evil Axis peeps).

We have been victim to the merciless fighter sweeps and watched our bases get demolished from the tower powerless to do anything about it.  We learned from that and employed a similar plan.  The worse feeling in FSO in a SBD (or other very slow plane) is getting to target and having your CAP or fighter sweep gone. 

Reading the responses from Frame 1, I think it went well for the Allies.  AKP planned it very well and we gave the squad COs the flexibility to do what they needed to do to get to target.  We don't feel that we sent a "pig pile".  We feel that we sent capable escorts as well as capable CAP to accomplish our mission.   

No offense intended of course.

Well done Allies!   
 

[ghostdancer]

Truthfully I think both sides did very well. I made both sides make some hard choices and do some creative thinking. U.S went heavier on the offense and concentrated on sinking ships. Japanese went for a more balance approach.

Results the Japanese killed more U.S. planes in the air but U.S. put more bombs on target.

Net results they fought each other to a draw with the U.S. being up by about 120 points.

I have to congrat both on getting orders out early, having very detail battle plans, and running a tight fight. From my perspective it was a good frame and nothing seemed out of whack. The only thing from my end is the low numbers for the frame. Roughly 200+ a side .. I was expect more in the mid 400s. I am sure the low numbers further complicated things for both sides since your main bomb carriers were SBDs, D3A1, and B5N2s.

Again salute to both for doing well in a setup made to make things difficult for you.

[SlipKnt]

Truthfully I think both sides did very well. I made both sides make some hard choices and do some creative thinking. U.S went heavier on the offense and concentrated on sinking ships. Japanese went for a more balance approach.

Results the Japanese killed more U.S. planes in the air but U.S. put more bombs on target.

Net results they fought each other to a draw with the U.S. being up by about 120 points.

I have to congrat both on getting orders out early, having very detail battle plans, and running a tight fight. From my perspective it was a good frame and nothing seemed out of whack. The only thing from my end is the low numbers for the frame. Roughly 200+ a side .. I was expect more in the mid 400s. I am sure the low numbers further complicated things for both sides since your main bomb carriers were SBDs, D3A1, and B5N2s.

Again salute to both for doing well in a setup made to make things difficult for you.

    It was definately fun and we look forward to the future challenges! 
Overall I thought it went quite well. 

 

[68Wooley]

Regarding the bombing results - one comment:

For me, a CV is a much bigger and easier to hit target than field hangers when the ack is turned down - particularly at the moment when a large percentage of the players are unfamiliar with what the hangers look like.

I think the Axis did a pretty good job getting the buffs to target, but once there, scoring decent points is harder than attacking a task group.

[ghostdancer]

Yes and no. A bomber hangar doesn't move while a CV does. If the Allies had somebody their controlling the CV putting it on evasive it increases the difficulty. More so for level bombing than dive bomber though.