Author Topic: SOPS tonight (Read 4080 times)

Dantoo · « **Reply #30 on:** January 26, 2004, 02:25:07 PM »

Great Plan - well executed. Had fun and so did squad.

I participate here because of the immersion, the requirement for discipline and need for intelligent tactical planning.

The aim is to complete the task and come home alive. It is in those two achievements that satisfaction is gained. This week we achieved everything and we gained maximum satisfaction.

I get sick to death of the whines that come from same predictable prima-donnas whenever a furball fails to materialise or whenever they get shot.

I had two words for them but have managed to refine it to one -

"LEAVE".

ghostdancer · « **Reply #31 on:** January 26, 2004, 03:13:49 PM »

Artik,

Thank you for the comments.

Planeset is not really balanced P-40B is outperformed in allmost all by Zerro.

Matter of debate on just how much teh P40B is better than the A6M2. It has its advantages but it is definitely more of a challenge to fly versus the A6M2 in this match up. I don't believe it is a hopelss match up though.

IJN get 2 lives for bombers ? When did it heppen last time in SSO?

We have done 2 lives for early war bombers before in FSO and SSO (haven't been in the pacific for a long time in SSO). It makes up for the fact that person flying these planes are basically dead if fighters come across them.

Remember in frame 1 2nd lives made very little difference because of the timing of the IJN strikes. And in frame 2 they didn't use any (JU88s did not get 2nd lives). So was a non issue but allowed those assigned to D3A1s a chance at flying something else late in the frame that gives them more of a chance for fun.

SBDs for allies will also have 2nd lives.

Ju88 just has no place there - they can outrun p-40b when light - and how do you suggest to intercept them with cover of 30k Zerros? At least turn formations off.

Granted JU88s are not a good stand in for Betties. And actually they are not a good stand in for He111s as the allies found out in frame 3 of the battle of Britain for FSO.

What wrong with Vals - looks like they should be main bombers for IJN - at least that will give better chances for interseption

Nothing is wrong with vals. JU88s were given as an option to simulate the medium bomber forces coming in from Taiwan to bomb. The IJN were given this option and took it and the IJN did up quite a few JU88s in frame 2. To very little affect as others pointed out. They went high and became very innaccurate for the amount of bombers they had and bombs dropped. Which is the cost of going high.

I personally prefer JABO strikes but that is me and I will not micromanage a CiCs battle plans.

However, the JU88s had more of an impact than I thought they would. Not battle wise they just scratch the based but in the fun factor. The IJN had fun with them the allies were bored and watched the JU88s basically bomb rice paddies instead of hangars.

Fuel settings 1.5 - if it was reduced to 1.0 it will make the setup more ballanced and would require less refules for USAF

Fuel setting was 1.0 not 1.5. However, there are those suggesting this just made things worst. Since it gave the IJN plenty of time to stage, get to alt, and take a round about method instead of having to get to the target much sooner and lower to have enough fuel to get home.

But fuel setting was 1.0.

Alt limit - I do not think it is good idea to set it up. But it is possible to make restrictions for bombers alt to 20k - that is much more reasonable then for fighters that can go high during combat

Alt limit is under discussion for future similiar circumstances. If B17s are used frame 3 by the allies there will be one keeping them from going into the 30s. If we go with the SBD option advocated by Flyboy instead and have SBD strikes versus D3A1 strikes there will be no alt limit. Dive bombers have to come down some time and diving from 30K is difficult to say the least.

But there are many other ways to ballance the setup - give limited P-40E or force more bombers for IJN.

Frame 1, from the majority of the C.O.s and X.O.s communications, seemed to be fine. Frame 2 is the one we have issues with and making adjustments for.

Thank you for your polite feedback.

ghostdancer · « **Reply #32 on:** January 26, 2004, 03:18:12 PM »

Vladd good observation. The IJN kept their planes safe but as you point out had very little affect on taking out the US airfields.

So again the frame really goes to the US since Clark airfield and its sister airfield are almost fully operational and ready for the invasion. Something the Japanese wanted to make absolutely sure did not happen in real life.

However, the real issue was the fun factor for both sides. The IJN had the fun of pulling off, cooridanting, etc. a deep range strike. The Allied did not have fun.

Tilt · « **Reply #33 on:** January 26, 2004, 03:23:18 PM »

reducing the fuel burn to 1.0 allowed the zekes to stay up all frame.......and then some. Actually, given that the P40'es would have to enter refuelling patterns any way, a higher burn rate (say 1.5) would have meant that the zeke could not hold cap for the full frame and the Ju88's would have had to hit earlier............. and therefore lower.

The irony was that the very thing done as a response to frame 1 enabled us to do what we did in frame 2...............

Moral........becareful what you wish for.................

Re field damage...........any one looking would have seen that 10 and 11 was covered in crators............. whan camo changed the plan (as was his right) from 3 bomber squads to 2 my thoughts were........."well he may have a point".......in retrospect I think the additional 8 x 10 x 3 =240 bombs per target field of the 9GIAP would have been significant.

ghostdancer · « **Reply #34 on:** January 26, 2004, 03:24:47 PM »

I have not gotten responses back from every squad yet. But here is the responses I have gotten from the commanding staff of the squads participatin so far in response to Ramzey call to cancel frame 3:

I will wait a bit longer to make sure that the last 3 squads have their say by email. But one way or another I plan to have this resolved tonight.

klem · « **Reply #35 on:** January 26, 2004, 04:16:04 PM »

IMHO Scenarios are for immersion, SSOs are to try to achieve that but also to bring a reasonable level of engagement to these very regular turnouts.

I think the weakness in Frame 2 was not having an IJN objective with real value.

The minimal damage inflicted in achieving the IJN objective of just bombing the fields would have meant little in RL other than a waste of much needed IJN resources. Requiring a pre-determined minimum level of damage for victory would probably have brought the bombers in lower with greater engagement all round.

With no offence intended to anyone I felt the frame was pretty impotent, but that's easy to say with hindsight.

~~all~~

ghostdancer · « **Reply #36 on:** January 26, 2004, 04:50:33 PM »

Okay heard from 332nd. Things now stand at:

So that is 8 to 1 with 1 not heard from.

Frame 3 of Invasion Philippines is a go. Objectives will be going out tonight.

Suave's SSO will follow after frame 3.

Suave · « **Reply #37 on:** January 26, 2004, 07:19:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by artik
The main problem is not Tilt's tactics - it is great and right.

The problem is setup:
[list=1]
Planeset is not really balanced P-40B is outperformed in allmost all by Zerro.
IJN get 2 lives for bombers ? When did it heppen last time in SSO?
Ju88 just has no place there - they can outrun p-40b when light - and how do you suggest to intercept them with cover of 30k Zerros? At least turn formations off.
What wrong with Vals - looks like they should be main bombers for IJN - at least that will give better chances for interseption
Fuel settings 1.5 - if it was reduced to 1.0 it will make the setup more ballanced and would require less refules for USAF
Alt limit - I do not think it is good idea to set it up. But it is possible to make restrictions for bombers alt to 20k - that is much more reasonable then for fighters that can go high during combat
But there are many other ways to ballance the setup - give limited P-40E or force more bombers for IJN.

Most important part of each senario is ballance and if it is not present it is impossible to have a fun (at least not for all of us)

I think maybe b5n kate would've been a better choice of level bomber than the ju88 for balance purposes.

ghostdancer · « **Reply #38 on:** January 27, 2004, 07:29:13 AM »

In hindsight possibly correct. Although the 101st RED sqn, Israel thinks that the TBM would be a better substitute for the betty. Hopefully when AH2 is finished we will get the Betty and He111 for early war events.

I have heard from all the squads now. 9 vote DON'T CANCEL frame 3. 1 votes CANCEL frame 3.

Objectives have been sent (the Allies are going with the SBDs with 2nd life optio over the very, very limited B17 option based on feed back from command staff of squads).

Its ViFF versus Dantoo.

blackwitch · « **Reply #39 on:** January 27, 2004, 10:43:48 AM »

Hi all

Looks like getting dumped saved me from "death by boredom".

While I'll admit the axis achieved (very limited) objectives, and disregarding that the allies refuelling can be set on your watch, this seems to be a strange way to conduct a battle?, Why would you want to attack the enemy but not destroy his air force?, seems like a short-sighted strategy.

No land attack would succeed while the allies still have (bomb capable?) P-40's and have suffered virtually no aircraft losses.

I'm afraid I'm unimpressed by the axis strategy. Lack of action is a by product of this strategy...

"Once at the enemy, you should not aspire just to strike him, but to cling after the attack"
Miyamoto Musashi

BlauK · « **Reply #40 on:** January 28, 2004, 01:34:45 AM »

Aircraft losses dont really count for anythin g in SqOps, do they? Even if all P-40's were destroyed there would still be a plane for each and every allied pilot in next frame.

If the given task was to kill the P-40's then I guess IJN failed terribly. IJN shoul d have taken the min 4 ju-88's and then just zeros to kill the enemy fighters. If the task was to bomb 2 bases it was a success, even tough a very minor one if the damage is counted in hangars and objects. Still what would be the point to kill hangars when only one is needed to up the whole allied force in AH.

In many earlier SqOps bombing missions I have heard "just drop them in the base area" and then screenshots have been taken or craters verified (counted?) afterwards to figure out the target stage. Now I dont really know what is the proper way to play "historical" bombing missions in SqOps. Are people supposed to just hunt the objects or is the mission also properly executed if the rwy is full of craters?

Maybe mission tasks should be explained with further details.

ghostdancer · « **Reply #41 on:** January 28, 2004, 10:06:44 AM »

It depends on the individual squad ops.

For example in the just recently ended FSO (Battle of Britain) points were given for percentage of target destroyed (so actual objects had to be destroyed). Points were also given to both sides for losses of aircraft for all reasons off the opposing side.

So while the next frame both sides got to reup all planes planes losses could tip the frame one or another for victory in that frame.

For example in frame 3 the LW bombed london and did 83% damage. They got 502 points out of a possible 600 max. So the RAF goal was to stop the bombing (destruction of objects) and prevent them from scoring points. But then each side also got 10 pts for each fighter lossed, 20 points for me110s and 25 points to JU88s. So besides preventing points the RAF was able to score points be destroying the opposing airforce. The LW got the same.

In frame 3 the point spread was 107 to the LW. It was close, they got through but took losses. Problem was that the RAF took much heavier air to air losses trying to stop them.

Now in Invasion Phillipines the point structure is not clearly laid out. But yes, both factors are consider .. destruction of objects and the type of object. The goal of the IJN is to destroy the american ability to field aircraft and naval forces (like in real life). Obviously for game play we are not going to restrict how many fighters can up, etc.

But it is kept in mind. Which is why I judge frame 1 and 2 goes to the allies. The bases were hit but still very operational. 2 out of 3 naval bases in the south full up. The Allied airfields in the N only lightly damaged.

Next is air to air losses. They have been equal so far. The IJN want to first destroy the american bases (historical would be hard to fly with no spare parts, ammo, etc.) and then of course wipe out the american air opposition to the invasion.

Unlike Warloc (admin CM for FSO) I don't go by an official point score but look at the results of what is hit and losses on both sides and then judge the level of victory.

The plans of frame 1 and frame 2 were well executed and good plans for the IJN. But the results left in place operational naval bases and airfields and the allied airforce for the most part. Leaving the americans the ability to oppose the invasion (even if we did start factoring in losses and preventing both sides from up what they lossed).

I will try to be more clear on that in the future. And will fire off a note to the command staff of the squads clarifying this.

The allies are striving for survival and keeping their bases operational so that they can try to stop the invasion. The IJN were striving at destroying the allied ability to field planes and ships. Destroy their bases and inflict air losses. This is what is being used for this particular SSO for determining victory.

blackwitch · « **Reply #42 on:** January 28, 2004, 12:34:55 PM »

Excellent write up Ghostdancer

BlauK · « **Reply #43 on:** January 28, 2004, 04:57:52 PM »

Good clarification. So next time if a base is targeted it is good to mention that the actual objects need to get hit.

In last frame the IJN order was just to carpet bomb the bases and not target individual objects.

In object hunting precise dive bombings are the way to do it.

Flyboy · « **Reply #44 on:** January 29, 2004, 02:07:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by BlauK
wipass,
Ju-88's could not climb higher than 29k and even then it was very hard to keep them in formation. During the bomb run we were all between 25 and 28k.

HAhem *cough*

i rest my case