Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/3/2011 11:29:16 PM

Rusty1961

Posts: 1219
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

Okay, it is May, 1942 and my Japanese opponent blew a gasket when I bombed Rabaul from 33,000-which is about 200 feet above the ceiling of the Zero.

And what did I get for the one landing barge obliterated? Two B-17s lost as operational losses.

Is using the B-17 at it's maximum altitude gamey? There were no previous house rules against this.

Post #: 1

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/3/2011 11:37:20 PM

Smeulders

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

You actually hit something from 33,000 feet ? Congrats, now what would be gamey about this ?

_____________________________

The AE-Wiki, help fill it out

(in reply to Rusty1961)

Post #: 2

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/3/2011 11:48:31 PM

Rusty1961

Posts: 1219
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

I don't know what would be gamey. Personally, I'd think he'd be ecstatic at losing on barge for two B-17s.

I'm flummoxed at why this would be considered gamey, but I figured you guys would know better than I would having played this game so much and I having played it so little in comparison.

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 3

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/3/2011 11:48:57 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

It is a real technical-tactical characteristic of the plane.

If your opponent used max altitude sweeps until now then I don't think he has any grounds for complaint. He used altitude to his advantage, now you are.

Max altitude bombing runs with high detection levels on crowded ports and airfields are an excellent way of harrassing the Japanese. Go ahead and use it IF your opponent used his altitude advantage early in the war on sweeps. He can't complain if he used it. If he HRed his advantage out at game start then, of course, you should reciprocate by not bombing at this altitude. I'd be willing to bet he didn't though.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 4

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/3/2011 11:56:39 PM

Rusty1961

Posts: 1219
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

My opponent and I agreed on a 25,000 limit on CAP and sweeps at the beginning of the game.. We had no standing house rule on other altitudes.

I went to High Altitude bombing as he said my night-bombing attacks on the airfields (Rabaul) were "gamey". I did offer the house rule stated on a recent thread and he rejected the offer.

I think his contention is that the B-17 couldn't carry the 8 bombs to 33k and of course he can't intercept them.

What to do?

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 5

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/4/2011 12:10:44 AM

Smeulders

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

If you restricted the rest of the air war to 25,000 feet, then sending in your bombers above this altitude does seem gamey.

_____________________________

The AE-Wiki, help fill it out

(in reply to Rusty1961)

Post #: 6

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/4/2011 12:27:03 AM

Rusty1961

Posts: 1219
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

Okay, Smeulders, thank you for your input.

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 7

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/4/2011 12:34:26 AM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Well, if he limited sweep and CAP altitude then I think he has a point.

I think it'd be fair to drop the B-17s to 25,000 feet.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Rusty1961)

Post #: 8

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/4/2011 12:35:13 AM

jeffs

Posts: 644
Joined: 2/19/2004
From: Tokyo
Status: offline

You guys might want to conisder amending the HR to max 25000 in 42 max 30000 in 43 max 35000 in 1944 etc...

I am agnostic on it but it can make some sense.

I do agree though that if you are regulating some operations (sweep, cap) everything needs to be (Level bombing) included.

That said....given the damage on both sides, your opponent should be able to move on

_____________________________

To quote from Evans/Peattie`s {Kaigun}
"Mistakes in operations and tactics can be corrected, but
political and strategic mistakes live forever". The authors were refering to Japan but the same could be said of the US misadventure in Iraq

(in reply to Rusty1961)

Post #: 9

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/4/2011 1:53:38 AM

Rusty1961

Posts: 1219
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

Jeffs, Good point. Initially, our house rule only encompassed CAP and SWEEPS as were were concerned with the altitude advantage bug.
I didn't do the 33,000 bombing to tick him off, but what am I to do since I can't bomb Rabaul at night? Flying into a swarm of 40 to 50 Zeros at 25,000 feet (daylight) resulted in 5 B-17s shot down the last time I did that!

(in reply to jeffs)

Post #: 10

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/4/2011 2:03:51 AM

Mark VII

Posts: 1838
Joined: 8/11/2003
From: Brentwood,TN
Status: offline

As a current Japanese player, I bet your B17's will do better than his Zero 's. The long range op losses are what you need to worry about.

_____________________________

(in reply to jeffs)

Post #: 11

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/4/2011 2:09:42 AM

Rusty1961

Posts: 1219
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

Mark,
I went to Rabaul with about 50 to 60 bombers over a two day period and suffered 5 B-17 losses and about 19 B25/B26 losses. Unacceptable losses over two days. I shot my wad in that raid and you just dont' get the B26s. I then switched to night-bombing after a week and he said that I was gaming the system with the night raids on the Air fields.

Thus why i went to 33K.

(in reply to Mark VII)

Post #: 12

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/4/2011 2:38:53 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

If you restricted the rest of the air war to 25,000 feet, then sending in your bombers above this altitude does seem gamey.

I disagree totally. CAP is where the aircraft "hang out". They will climb to meet/get above any bombers. The whole point of the CAP/Sweep HRs that people use is to counter what many feel is a weakness in the game engine on fighter to fighter combat. The interception of attacks will not be affected.

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 13

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/4/2011 2:50:00 AM

USS Henrico

Posts: 152
Joined: 8/2/2009
From: Charlottesville, VA
Status: offline

Use P-38 sweeps before you bomb. You do get a squadron worth of replacements in May, more starting in August. Or wait till you get closer bases and/or later fighters with the range to reach Rabaul.

Fighter cover avoids unacceptable bomber losses.

(in reply to Rusty1961)

Post #: 14

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/4/2011 3:13:30 AM

USSAmerica

Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Okay, it is May, 1942 and my Japanese opponent blew a gasket when I bombed Rabaul from 33,000-which is about 200 feet above the ceiling of the Zero.

And what did I get for the one landing barge obliterated? Two B-17s lost as operational losses.

Is using the B-17 at it's maximum altitude gamey? There were no previous house rules against this.

Nothing gamey about it at all. I do doubt you will be happy with the bomber's effectiveness from that altitude, but everything else is just sour grapes.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Rusty1961)

Post #: 15

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/4/2011 6:52:22 AM

Rusty1961

Posts: 1219
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS Henrico

Use P-38 sweeps before you bomb. You do get a squadron worth of replacements in May, more starting in August. Or wait till you get closer bases and/or later fighters with the range to reach Rabaul.

Fighter cover avoids unacceptable bomber losses.

I don't have enough, yet. It is May of '42.

(in reply to USS Henrico)

Post #: 16

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/4/2011 10:51:04 AM

Dixie

Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

In itself, sending the B-17 in at max altitude isn't gamey. It may possibly be against the spirit of the HRs you agreed, if your oppo though everything was limited to 25k. But I wouldn't be complaining that much about B-17s at max alt. They might be impossible to shoot down but they're doing cock-all damage from up there.

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Rusty1961)

Post #: 17

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/4/2011 1:21:48 PM

jeffs

Posts: 644
Joined: 2/19/2004
From: Tokyo
Status: offline

I am not sure night attacks on airfields are gamey (though I have heard people limiting their size to 1 unit a turn). I would argue that night attacks (at least a limited version) is far from gamey (maybe in 1942 have 15 squadrons attack at once is gamey).

I think you had a bad roll of the dice...That said, try to use a closer base. If you are at max distance you will attrit planes no matter what.

_____________________________

(in reply to Dixie)

Post #: 18

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/4/2011 4:45:57 PM

vettim89

Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

I am conflicted about this matter. If you agreed to the 25k limit on CAP/Sweeps, I could see how your opponent might object. However, it has already been pointed out that the altitude set for CAP is not a hard ceiling. His fighters will still attack bombers above their CAP altitude. While quibling over 200 feet differnce in celing does seem silly, I think the point has been made that accuracy at that alitude is going to be pretty low. Considering how the USAAF 4-E have often been referred to as "The Allies Best Fighter", you opponent might want to consider that it was a good thing his A6M's didn't intercept the incoming bombers

Where I have a little problem here is that you now have run into two instances in a fairly short period where you have been accused by your opponent of being "gamey". I know what Nemo would say about this: every problem has a solution. A resourceful player would find an answer to the situation instead of crying foul.

So while I concede your opponent might have some traction on the altitude issue, I see a problem with his willingness to attribute adverse events within the game as "gamey". They game has some well recognized imbalances. Just like you have to deal with the overstated effectiveness of Nellies, he has to deal with the overstated effectiveness of 4-E bombers.

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to jeffs)

Post #: 19

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/4/2011 6:50:31 PM

Rusty1961

Posts: 1219
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I am conflicted about this matter. If you agreed to the 25k limit on CAP/Sweeps, I could see how your opponent might object. However, it has already been pointed out that the altitude set for CAP is not a hard ceiling. His fighters will still attack bombers above their CAP altitude. While quibling over 200 feet differnce in celing does seem silly, I think the point has been made that accuracy at that alitude is going to be pretty low. Considering how the USAAF 4-E have often been referred to as "The Allies Best Fighter", you opponent might want to consider that it was a good thing his A6M's didn't intercept the incoming bombers

Where I have a little problem here is that you now have run into two instances in a fairly short period where you have been accused by your opponent of being "gamey". I know what Nemo would say about this: every problem has a solution. A resourceful player would find an answer to the situation instead of crying foul.

So while I concede your opponent might have some traction on the altitude issue, I see a problem with his willingness to attribute adverse events within the game as "gamey". They game has some well recognized imbalances. Just like you have to deal with the overstated effectiveness of Nellies, he has to deal with the overstated effectiveness of 4-E bombers.

quote:

So while I concede your opponent might have some traction on the altitude issue, I see a problem with his willingness to attribute adverse events within the game as "gamey". They game has some well recognized imbalances. Just like you have to deal with the overstated effectiveness of Nellies, he has to deal with the overstated effectiveness of 4-E bombers.

Agreed, but his comments are not due to any perceived breaking of a house rule, it's due to the fact that he doesn't have a plane to intercept the 17s with.

For my part, aside from the HR on 25K for CAP/SWEEP, I have not asked for any restrictions on his units. I have said that the sweeps are unhistorical in their effectiveness (he completely gutted the Burma Allied Air Force), but I kept my mouth shut on it.

As Nemo said, just work around it. I try to do that.

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 20

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/5/2011 3:28:42 AM

Flying Tiger

Posts: 496
Joined: 3/11/2008
From: ummmm... i HATE that question!
Status: offline

i'm a little confused. You said you bombed his airfield at night. Right? But you sunk a barge?? IRL that is remotely believable, but in WitP unlikely that a 'miss' on the airfield will 'hit' a barge?

Anyway, i have more of an issue on night bombing being called 'gamey' than the altitude question. IF he thinks you had a set 25k max altitude rule then he can complain if he wants. But night bombing. Come on!! Is launching allied offensive ops before August '42 outlawed as well? What about sinking Jap ships? is that allowed??

(in reply to Rusty1961)

Post #: 21

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/5/2011 3:46:21 AM

Rusty1961

Posts: 1219
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

i'm a little confused. You said you bombed his airfield at night. Right? But you sunk a barge?? IRL that is remotely believable, but in WitP unlikely that a 'miss' on the airfield will 'hit' a barge?

Anyway, i have more of an issue on night bombing being called 'gamey' than the altitude question. IF he thinks you had a set 25k max altitude rule then he can complain if he wants. But night bombing. Come on!! Is launching allied offensive ops before August '42 outlawed as well? What about sinking Jap ships? is that allowed??

1. Bombing Rabaul with unescorted bombers was too "expensive" in both medium and heavy bombers. I lost about 50% of my bomber fleet in two days.

2. I switched to night bombing for a few times and my opponent declared that I was gaming the system since he almost never shot down a plan (not that he sent any Zeros or anything up at Rabaul for night interception-he relied on AAA to defend Rabaul).

3. So, trying to find **something** offensively to do with my B-17s I switched to 33K alt. bombing. That was than decreed to be gaming the system. It was this one raid which saw 2 B-17s lost for the destruction of one landing barge.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

(in reply to Flying Tiger)

Post #: 22

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/5/2011 3:46:58 AM

DivePac88

Posts: 3119
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Somewhere in the South Pacific.
Status: offline

You Bombed his airfield from 33,000ft, even though you had suggested and agreed to a HR of 25,000ft ; I call that bad form.

You bombed his airfield from 33,000 which is above Japanese flak, against no fighter CAP, and at night. You lost 2x B-17's, and hit a barge, what game are you playing?

Methinks this smells like a whined-up.

_____________________________

When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time
You understand now, Why you came this way

(in reply to Rusty1961)

Post #: 23

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/5/2011 4:04:36 AM

Rusty1961

Posts: 1219
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88

You Bombed his airfield from 33,000ft, even though you had suggested and agreed to a HR of 25,000ft ; I call that bad form.

You bombed his airfield from 33,000 which is above Japanese flak, against no fighter CAP, and at night. You lost 2x B-17's, and hit a barge, what game are you playing?

Methinks this smells like a whined-up.

Hi DivePac!

The HR Stipulated CAP and SWEEP at 25,000 feet.

What do you mean by "What game are you playing"?

Is there some problem, because it sounds like you have one with me!

take care!

(in reply to DivePac88)

Post #: 24

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/5/2011 4:27:38 AM

CV 2

Posts: 376
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline

The purpose of a bomber is to get to the target and get out without being shot down. Between the wars, the development went in 2 directions, speed and altitude. Some fighters simply cant catch the bombers (P-26 for example). Is it gamey to use Bettys against P-26s? The other option was altitude. Again, the reason they can fly so high is simply to avoid the fighters. That was the purpose. Again, nothing gamey about it.

But as many other have said, you will do more harm to him if you let him hit you as the B-17E will shoot down many more Zeros than he shoots down of you. If you have had heavy bomber losses, Im guessing that you are using B-17Ds and not Es. Switch to the E and come in at 11,000 and LET him intercept you.

< Message edited by CV 2 -- 5/5/2011 4:29:14 AM >

(in reply to Rusty1961)

Post #: 25

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/5/2011 4:46:01 AM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

the whole GAMEY thing is pretty funny, after all its a game!
so, the game is not a perfect model, to compensate we compete , not recreate, the conflict... I am in favor of house rules.. but some are items I never ever would agree to. for instance, no night bombing... give me a realistic a2a model where I can punish the japs paper airplane fleet in combat and I will stop bombing at night..
As it is I play the rock pape rsciscors game, I use my air and night riads to shut down airfeilds.. I grind away and invade.. move forward
repeat..
If you remove the allies HUGE airsupperiority, not just numbers but quality of planes and pilots from mid to late 42, ever increasing, you get odd results... my night attacks are an attempt to level the playing field

(in reply to CV 2)

Post #: 26

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/5/2011 9:10:00 AM

DivePac88

Posts: 3119
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Somewhere in the South Pacific.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

take care!

Oh my god, a veiled threat. I can't stop my mouse shaking in my hand.

_____________________________

When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time
You understand now, Why you came this way

(in reply to Rusty1961)

Post #: 27

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/5/2011 4:49:14 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Well, historically if the bombers went in at say 30,000 feet the zeros still would not be very effective vs them. The zero could climb that high but would not really be very good at that height and the bombers would not be in danger.

Try this with your opponent. We set max cap to 29,000 feet. (max altitude for the P 40) This benefits the Allied player early in the game and then helps the Japanese player later in the game when all allied fighters can go highter. We tend to do a lot of fighting at 29,000 feet but it helps prevent the whacked out altitude bonuses.

I also suggest that you limit night bombing to one squadron per night per theater. You will get some night bombing in and it won't get out of control as it usually does without a HR.

I should also point out that if your opponent is night bombing then even one regular fighter squadron set to night patrol will greatly lessen the effects. You will not shoot down much but many bombers will turn away some due to lack of escort and the rest will suffer a great accuracy hit regardless of losses. This is a good use for you smaller Australian squadrons. Try it, it really works. In fact, so far I have yet to discover any difference between regular fighters and night fighters set to night CAP. But they all work.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to DivePac88)

Post #: 28

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/5/2011 4:51:09 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

If you restricted the rest of the air war to 25,000 feet, then sending in your bombers above this altitude does seem gamey.

Yup. I agree.

_____________________________

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 29

RE: Gamey: Bombing Rabaul 5/42 from 33,000 feet - 5/5/2011 5:58:40 PM

Puhis

Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

IMO using any airplane at max altitude is "gamey". That did not happen in real war. And there was very good reasons why it did not happen...

Using very high altitude to avoid enemy fighters does not sound "fair" strategy to me. Real commanders did not have airplane database, where they could check plane max altitudes. "AHA! Zero can only fly at 32800 feet, so I set my bombers 200 feet higher!"

I'll bet Rusty1961 doesn't want to see japanese kamikazes diving from 40000 feet, where allied fighters can't intercept them at all...

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 30