DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Airbattle Games
HTML https://airbattle.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: IGNORE: Wing Leader Playtest Archive
*****************************************************
#Post#: 564--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rabaul Campaign Feedback
DIR By: ScottKey
Date: November 17, 2018, 3:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Scenario: Rabaul Campaign, Nov 1
Version:
Playtesters: Scott Key, solitaire
Report:
Weather did nit advance and thus stayed on Start (reset)
Clouds, Wispy at 7 thus they played no role in the battle
Medium bomber raid. Port target
7 Sqns B-25s, (3 Sqns Gunships, All Sqns armed with Parafrags,
1 Veteran Sqn)(3 Strafing, 4 Bombing), 1 Experte and a veteran
Sqn
6 P-38 Sqns (3 sweep, 3 escort), 1 Experte Wing Leader Veteran
Squadron in the Sweep, 1 experte in the sweep, 1 Experte Wing
leader Veteran Sqn in the Escort Wing, 1 experte in a B-25
6 A6M5 (CAP) (2 Wing Leader experte Veteran Squadrons)
3 A6M5 reinforcements (intercept), (1 Veteran Sqn, 1 Green
flight)
October 30 and 31 were spent recovering the P-38s to the point
where they would be used as escorts. The odds looked too long to
send any raid without any escort whatsoever. Japanese took the
reinforcements.
Game played similar to previous medium bomber raids. The USAAF
sweeps and escorts dealt pretty well with the IJN CAP but the
Japanese were still able to sneak an attack or two into the raid
causing a couple of casualties and disrupting some gunships. All
squadrons on both sides but one P-38 escort were broken (or in
one case had returned to base).
The bombers successfully suppressed the first heavy flak battery
but nonetheless took lots of hits and some disruptions in
traversing the multiple barrage squares. A single gunship
squadron scored 18 points of damage on the port followed by two
more lesser hits to bring it to 22 total damage. One cruiser was
successfully strafed for 1 point of damage.
During the flight out the Japanese reinforcing Squadrons/flights
caused many more hits and converted most stragglers that were on
the bombers into full kills.
16 (!) Zekes were downed.
Japanese downed 6 P-38s (!) and 16 B-25s (a massacre)
Total: +4 CVP (+3 for target fatally damaged with 21 points of
damage and +1 for Japanese reinforcements), P-38s moved to the
starred box with three hits still in the box. B-25s ended at the
starred box with 7 hits still in the box the A6M5s at seven with
with no hits still in the box
After adjustment of -1 CVP because the airfield was undamaged
the US has a net 7 CVP. On Nov 2 the Port will score one more
CVP but this would be negated if the airfield in good shape. So
an unescorted raid by the Heavies is necessary to ensure a slim
victory. Odds seem about the same for raising the Port back to
Fatally damaged as for scoring major damage on the airfield so I
am thinking the raid will be against the Port. It will be a
total massacre however...
Recommendations: No recommendations. I find it unclear as to
whether you can choose to fly a bombing raid WITHOUT escorts
even if they are available. Not sure why you would do so but I
did mull it over.
#Post#: 565--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rabaul Campaign Feedback
DIR By: ScottKey
Date: November 17, 2018, 3:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Now to decide what altitude to fly the heavies at. Probably try
to calculate how quickly the Zekes can climband base it on that.
#Post#: 566--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rabaul Campaign Feedback
DIR By: pilotofficerprune
Date: November 17, 2018, 5:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> I find it unclear as to whether you can choose to fly a
bombing raid WITHOUT escorts even if they are available.
--- End Quote ---
Interesting. Is this an option we should offer to the player?
#Post#: 567--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rabaul Campaign Feedback
DIR By: ScottKey
Date: November 17, 2018, 5:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
From a historical perspective: I have read that during several
raids bombers pressed on despite their escorts turning back. But
that is weather related and dealt with well in the campaign
system.
I know that amongst the USAAF types there was still some belief
that Heavies could go it alone even at this point in 1943. But
did they ever do it in the SWPac? That would be my deciding
point...
The temptation is to launch a Heavy raid w/o P-38s so that the
P-38s get another day to recover sorties. The Heavies might
possibly score enough damage to gain a CVP, though this seems
improbable.
#Post#: 631--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rabaul Campaign Feedback
DIR By: ScottKey
Date: November 29, 2018, 3:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Scenario: Rabaul Campaign, Nov 2 & 3
Version:
Playtesters: Scott Key, solitaire
Report:
Weather advanced 1 space CW to good
Clouds, Wispy at 6 thus they played no role in the battle
Heavy bomber raid. Airfield target
6 Sqns B-24s, 3 Veteran Sqns +2 Experte: Flew at altitude 14
NO P-38 escorts (none were available)
7 A6M5 (Intercept) squadrons (2 Wing Leader experte Veteran
Squadrons) 1 Wing (A,B) at altitude 12/11, second Wing (CDE) at
altitude 5/4/3, individual intercept sqns (F & G) at altitude 3
Most of the A6M5s had to spend the whole game climbing to
altitude 14. The lower interceptor wing almost didn’t catch up
with the bombers as they passed overhead since I miscalculated
where the interception should occur. I was surprised by how
heavy the Japanese casualties were relative to the number of
B-24s downed.
Flak was pretty effective at disrupting the bombers and this
ended up being important.
Bombing was ineffective since the highest rolls were a couple of
8s. These were modified down by the altitude modifier (-2) and
the fact that these squadrons were both disrupted. One Veteran+
Experte squadron was able to get a 10% hit scoring 2 points of
damage (Slight). I believe that flying lower would have resulted
in more broken B-24 squadrons so I dont think that altitude was
the problem, mostly it was just that the odds were against
scoring anything meaningful. However if only a few more hits
were scored the game would have been much closer. A single 25%
hit and would have negated the -1 CVP penalty.
10 Zekes were downed. The heavy bomber advantage and the fact
that the Japanese often chose to use turning attacks
contributed greatly to these numbers.
Japanese downed 8 B-24s
Total: +0 CVP
After adjustment of -1 CVP because the airfield was undamaged
and -2 CVP on Nov 3 because the Cruisers sortied the US has a
net 4 CVP a pretty bad campaign loss.
Recommendations:
I am assuming that if you have NO P-38s available as escort you
can fly a bombing mission w/o them, however I dont see that
explicitly stated. I am assuming this mission was legit but if
not then the USAAF loss still ultimately lay with the FIRST
Heavy bomber mission (another mission which also didn’t result
in any meaningful damage and set the stage for P-38 recovery to
be difficult).
The Japanese deliberately tried to cause the P-38 situation to
collapse and I would say that strategy succeeded. The IJN can
take way more damage than the USAAF while still flying thus
engaging the P-38s seems to be the best approach to the
campaign. I also think my combat rolls were very “hot” in this
campaign compared to what I’m used to and so the casualties were
much higher than expected.
#Post#: 632--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rabaul Campaign Feedback
DIR By: pilotofficerprune
Date: November 30, 2018, 4:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm. . .
Good catch on needing clarification on whether raids can be
flown without escort. I'm tempted to force the US player to fly
with escorts unless none are available.
I wonder what the American response is to a strategy of
attempting to attrite only the escorts early on?
#Post#: 635--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rabaul Campaign Feedback
DIR By: pilotofficerprune
Date: November 30, 2018, 2:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ScottKey link ---
> I am assuming that if you have NO P-38s available as escort
you can fly a bombing mission w/o them, however I dont see that
explicitly stated.
--- End Quote ---
Rule R7.3 seems fairly clear to me. If the squadrons value is 0,
no sorties of that type are generated.
Is there any need to reinforce this concept? If so, where?
#Post#: 636--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rabaul Campaign Feedback
DIR By: ScottKey
Date: November 30, 2018, 10:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No, it is clear enough. For some reason I started doubting
whaether a raid would be launched knowing there would be no
escorts (as opposed to escorts aborting). My problem. No rules
clarification needed.
#Post#: 637--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rabaul Campaign Feedback
DIR By: ScottKey
Date: November 30, 2018, 10:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As to what the American response should be... not sure. I am
stuck on the notion that my later problems all oroginated in my
initial Heavy Bomber raid. In hindsight I think that a more
measured pace of B-25 raids would have got the USAAF the points
they needed without quite so many losses. That assumes, however,
that the weather cooperates. The weather proceeded perfectly
predictably until Nov 1 and Right now I’m thinking that the
campaign was lost by then.
Maybe less dogfighting? But, of course, that’s not entirely in
their control. I know P-38 pilots when later writing advice for
rookies emphasized NEVER getting into dogfights with the
Japanese: Hit, run and climb back up to do it again. This is
certainly borne out in the game
#Post#: 639--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rabaul Campaign Feedback
DIR By: pilotofficerprune
Date: December 2, 2018, 3:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ScottKey link ---
> No, it is clear enough.
--- End Quote ---
It doesn't hurt to add a sidebar, anyway.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page