Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

House rules for level bomber naval attacks

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> House rules for level bomber naval attacks Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/24/2006 6:44:52 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline 		In my PBEM game the question has come up "are level bomber attacks too accurate at altitudes below 10,000 feet?" I would like to know if anyone has come up with, or has even considered coming up with a house rule about altitude and level bomber naval attacks. If so, what is it?

I make most of my attacks at 6,000 - 8,000 feet. I seem to recal this being a somewhat common altitude for naval attack, unless skip bombing was employed. I could be wrong or given the witp game engine it may produce ahistorical results.

I would first like to thank anyone who replies to this thread.

Second, I would like to ask that anyone responding please stick to the discussion. There have been plenty of other threads debating the merits of level bomber naval attack, production levels of bombers, etc., please direct those comments to another thread.

Thanks.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie
Post #: 1
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/24/2006 6:56:33 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		Allied level bombers attacked Japanese ships from every conceivable altitude in real life. Only JFBs see a need of a house rule to hamstring the Allies.

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 2
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/24/2006 7:02:02 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline 		Being able to answer your question intelligently would require having access to historical bombing data. And I have no idea where to start. (The USAAF Strategic Bombing Survey?)

I you are willing to entertain "gut feelings", or the perception of the accuracy, I would have to say that it seems as if level bombing antinaval strikes at any altitude are probably more accurate ingame than IRL.

Lower level bombing is more accurate than higher level bombing.

Stock game AA may be less effective than IRL.

< Message edited by mlees -- 8/24/2006 7:12:21 PM >

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 3
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/24/2006 7:27:52 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		In my games, I restrict my 4E bombers to 10,000 feet and above, unless the circumstances are dire (major attack threatening a major base - in which case the crews are willing to take extra risks).

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 4
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/24/2006 7:31:56 PM   
DFalcon


Posts: 318
Joined: 11/2/2004
Status: offline
The only problem seems to be with the heavy four engine bombers. The game gives too large a modifier for the number of bombs in the bomb load. The large number of bombs carried by the four engine bombers gives them a dispraprtionate advantage when used for naval strikes.

In my PBEM as the allies I proposed that four engine level bombers on naval stike be set to 10,000ft and above. Even with this restriction I recently had 18 or so B-17s score 6 hits on a CV. This is in a Mod with a 75% reduction in the number of bombs carried by the B-17.

So yes I have used a house rule and it is not crippling. Although I see no reason to restrict all level bombers in this way, just the heavies.

As a side note in my PBEM as the Japanese with no restrictions 12 B-17s flying from a level 4 airfield (reduced bomb load) scored 8 hits on a DD in a fast transport TF.

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 5
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/24/2006 7:42:55 PM   
Graycompany


Posts: 511
Joined: 8/19/2004
Status: offline 		I am Niceguy2005's Pbem opponent. We are having a great game, and have adjusted as we go along to try and stay within the "game" and some issues, while aloing either side to have tactics and strategy that does not always have to follow a historical path. Niceguy is a great player and does not exploit any known bugs or loopholes in the game. My problem is that I find it difficult to beleive that B-17's can hit a small fast surface group (warship) not transports at the rate it has been happening in our game. During the invasion of celyon his 4E bombers hit a number of transports fleets, which I dont have a problem with. The accuracy, while not outstanding, was good. the 2nd day of the Invasion iIhad a surface fleet set to bombard that was 9 hexes out. I parked it there knowing full well nothing but LRB could hit it. which they did, doing small damage but enough to disrupt and make me rethink the bombardment. During the battle of Java his B-17 did major damage to my Invasion fleets as well as Surface groups, the Damage to one of my Ca's was alarming. This last instance which is the reason for the open question on the forum was a Bombardment group going from PM to thursday island, the bombarment went off fine, had a fast group with mostly Ca's Cl's and DD's. After the Bombardment they returned to PM, which had a small cap over them and his B-17's attacked(in port) which while not docked( an not disbanded) might account for their accuracy, which damaged a Ca and a Cl' ( not saying how much). I noticed that they were at 8000 which is not uncommon for his bombing style. My concern is knowing that this run I am making, the only thing that can hit me at all is 4E bombers. He does not over use his 17's or 24's keeps to historic levels and squadrons ( much appreciated). I on the other hand do bomb at the same level with mass bombers( a mistake that the IJA IMO made by not doing) with effectivness. So his last 4 attacks by 4E's have knocked out of commison for a time 2 Ca's CL' and a BB as well as a number of DD's and a horde of transports. Am I wrong here in my concern, or should I shut up and take it like a Nip? My thought is that the Big Bombers would be at a higher alt, and I have no wish to take this tactic away, and if this is a tactic that is not Buggy in game terms, I wanted to know what others felt?

_____________________________

I thought this place was a empire, now im the last, I can't be sure...


(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 6
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/24/2006 8:57:58 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		Until such time as Japanese twin engine bombers are modified such that they only carry torpedoes with the same frequency as their real life counterparts AND the relative inaccuracy of their aerial torpedoes is correctly modelled I see no reason to further hamstring the Allied LBA.  Numerous threads in the past have inquired into Japanese aerial torpedo usage and into the effectiveness of said attacks when they did occur.  The attack on Force Z was THE exception to the rule with regards to effectiveness and for the first six months the only land based torpedo attack at all.  That the planes were capable of carrying torpedos is not an issue nor is it an issue that the Japanese would like to have carried torpedos all the time but circumstances beyond the control of the local commanders often dictated otherwise and G3s and G4s and G5s continued to carry bombs as often or more often than torpedoes for the rest of the war.  And though they scored some hits later in the war for the most part they failed miserably to inflict operationally significant losses, by which I mean losses that caused the Allied fleets to change their objective or withdraw.   

      That some Allied air commanders were overly enamored with the idea of high altitude precision bombing and thought that it had some relevance to antiship strikes is not denied.   The unsuccessful B-17 attacks at Midway are mistakenly held up as the model for all 4E bomber attacks for the war.  Almost no mention is made of the deadly attacks made by Navy PB4Y-1s and PB4Y-2s against Japanese merchant shipping and their escorts which were consistently at masthead height or only a little higher and which featured 1 plane firing its .50s as a "broadside" at the enemy AAA while the other plane in the section bombed.  If you wander through the TROMs of Japanese warships as I have you find that 4E bombers scored hits on moving Japanese warships on multiple occasions (I listed the instances in some thread about a year ago but can't remember the name now).  The frequency was frankly pretty close to the frequency with which the Nells and Bettys scored with their torpedoes IRL.

The game allows the Allied Player to set the altitude...that may be buggy on a game of this overall scale...it imposes a penalty on air group morale inversely proportional to bombing altitude.  That seems fair.  In general the Japanese never really operated within range of powerful Allied LBA IRL.  If the Japanese finds that he can't sail full in the face of Allied LBA in the game perhaps that's because in IRL he couldn't and the player shouldn't. 

  

(in reply to Graycompany)
Post #: 7
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/24/2006 9:00:52 PM   
Oliver Heindorf


Posts: 1911
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Hamburg/Deutschland
Status: offline 		I included in one of my pbems the "raver rule", these were suggestions by raver and they are fine :

in 1942 allied bombers can go down to 14000 feet

in 1943 allied bombers can go down to 9000 feet. in 7/43 I can go to 100 feet OR 9000 feet or higher.

in 44 I am free to select. This is to reflect the game engine limitations and it is historic as well.




< Message edited by Oliver Heindorf -- 8/24/2006 9:01:01 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 8
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/24/2006 9:19:37 PM   
Graycompany


Posts: 511
Joined: 8/19/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

.  In general the Japanese never really operated within range of powerful Allied LBA IRL.  If the Japanese finds that he can't sail full in the face of Allied LBA in the game perhaps that's because in IRL he couldn't and the player shouldn't. 

  


I would disagree with this. From PM there are numerous bases, Buna, Lae, Rabaul ect ect, all within Range of LBA in which shipping often sailed. This happned through 1942 well into late 1943. Not to mention after Guam, Saipan fell to the Allies, shipping in and around this area as well into the Phillipines was at risk.

_____________________________

I thought this place was a empire, now im the last, I can't be sure...


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 9
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/24/2006 9:28:12 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		In general I agree. Meaning, that I usually keep to those limits for bombing attacks. However, there are some proviso. If an enemy occupied hex is adjacent to one in which my forces are built up, and I know there is no, or insignificant AAA present, my heavies will come in as low as 6,000, but usually stick to 10K. If enemy BB's are close to my air base, or main base, all bets are off - as I assume the would be in real life. Enemy Amphibs with the same location are also considered fair game for anything that can hit them. And in the meantime I will wait for Matrix to figure out how to stop the Imperial Japanese Water Spigot from flushing the Pacific of my amphibs, et al, with Japanese torpedos. I think the idea of handling them like 1000# APs on carriers sounded theoretically appropriate.

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to Oliver Heindorf)
Post #: 10
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/24/2006 9:51:43 PM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline 		In my current {vs the AI} game, I use 9000' for 2e and 11000' for 4e.  Since I don't have to worry about SF, Pearl or Aden/Karachi being bombed, I don't have plans to modify this.  I will allow skip bombing, but don't have any crews able to do so yet.

I earlier had thought starting the war with a 15000' height and lowering 1000' every year of the war, but I figured this might be too much work.

(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 11
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/24/2006 10:05:19 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		Against fast, maneuverable targets 4e bombers should rarely hit. Part of the problem in this instance is that the IJN player can absolutely rely on setting a bombardment tf x number of hexes away and the allied player can only strike back w/ lrb. Irl the Combined Fleet commander could only dream of being able to warp in and out of dauntless/avenger/beaufort range.

< Message edited by anarchyintheuk -- 8/24/2006 10:06:23 PM >

(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 12
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/24/2006 10:29:10 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

.  In general the Japanese never really operated within range of powerful Allied LBA IRL.  If the Japanese finds that he can't sail full in the face of Allied LBA in the game perhaps that's because in IRL he couldn't and the player shouldn't. 

 



I would disagree with this. From PM there are numerous bases, Buna, Lae, Rabaul ect ect, all within Range of LBA in which shipping often sailed. This happned through 1942 well into late 1943. Not to mention after Guam, Saipan fell to the Allies, shipping in and around this area as well into the Phillipines was at risk.



The IJN risked destroyers, the occasional CL, various auxiliaries and merchies in the face of Allied LBA but rarely risked major fleet units:  CAs, BBs and CVs.  Midway comes to mind as one instance where they brought their CVs into range of a relatively powerful Allied base with level bombers at it.  The B-17 drivers launched ineffective attacks from high altitude (but I am fairly certain that one salvo of bombs straddled an IJN carrier and if that is the case then the attacks might well have been characterized in an altogether different way).  In the Guadalcanal Campaign they also sailed major fleet units within range of Henderson Field to their cost though the attacks suffered were generally not from level bombers.  They never ventured South of the Solomons Chain into the range of large numbers of B-17s.  Even prior to the Battle of the Bismarck Sea the IJN had had several DDs and a CL damaged significantly or sunk by level bombers in the waters near New Guinea so they wouldn't risk their larger ships.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 13
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/24/2006 10:53:21 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		A quick stroll through the TROMs at Combined Fleet (interrupted by mundane work matters) revealed the following IJN warships hit by level bombers in New Guinean waters in late 1942.

DD YAYOI sunk (9-10-42)
CL TENRYU damaged (9-11-42)
DD URAKAZE sunk (8-25-42)
DD HAGIKAZE damaged (8-19-42) actually I think this was in the Solomons but I forgot to check - in any case hit by a bomb from a B-17 and severely damaged

The TROMs for these ships also mentioned several AP/AK types sunk by level bombers in New Guinean waters in the same time frame if not the same attacks.

< Message edited by spence -- 8/24/2006 10:55:08 PM >

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 14
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/24/2006 11:06:42 PM   
Cathartes

 

Posts: 2155
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees
I you are willing to entertain "gut feelings", or the perception of the accuracy, I would have to say that it seems as if level bombing antinaval strikes at any altitude are probably more accurate ingame than IRL.



I believe this pretty well sums it up. High elevation bombing of DD/cruisers/BB/CVs never yielded spectacular results. Consistent, measurable success came in ports/at anchor. Fast moving capital ships should be difficult to hit for level bombers, and if they come down low they should pay a hefty AA price for it.


(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 15
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/24/2006 11:12:50 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Graycompany


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

.  In general the Japanese never really operated within range of powerful Allied LBA IRL.  If the Japanese finds that he can't sail full in the face of Allied LBA in the game perhaps that's because in IRL he couldn't and the player shouldn't. 

  


I would disagree with this. From PM there are numerous bases, Buna, Lae, Rabaul ect ect, all within Range of LBA in which shipping often sailed. This happned through 1942 well into late 1943. Not to mention after Guam, Saipan fell to the Allies, shipping in and around this area as well into the Phillipines was at risk.


Buna was captured in 1/43. By the end of the campaign the IJA was starving.

Absent supply by barge/submarine, Lae was effectively cutoff after the Bismarck Sea battle in 3/43.

Due to the distance between PM (and future bases) and Rabaul, it was far harder to isolate. Probably not until 3/44 or so.

(in reply to Graycompany)
Post #: 16
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/24/2006 11:28:18 PM   
goodboyladdie


Posts: 3469
Joined: 11/18/2005
From: Rendlesham, Suffolk
Status: offline 		I thought the entire point of playing these games was to see if you could do better than what occurred in real life. If IRL Army heavy bombers usually delivered attacks on shipping from too great a height to be effective against a moving target, should we repeat the error? Naval bombers delivered from lower altitude and shipping attacks in Europe were at medium to low level as a matter of course, so this could have filtered through to Army Air Force groups. The default heights are a good guide. Naval attack is set at 6000 feet for level bombers. If you have inexperienced or low morale groups, they suck. If they are experienced they are a lot more effective. That sounds pretty realistic to me.

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 17
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/24/2006 11:55:00 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		A relevent question to ask would be......are skip bombing tactics necessary in the game? (meaning....does any allied player feel the need to use them?)

_____________________________


(in reply to goodboyladdie)
Post #: 18
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/25/2006 12:02:04 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Yes I have several times for the critical emergancy attack that must not fail.

The morale hit, exp requirement and AA punishment is brutal so I cannot use it often

When PZB was attacking New Britain a few months back I used B24J's on Skip Bombing to good effect.


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 19
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/25/2006 12:04:04 AM   
Jakerson

 

Posts: 565
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline 		I think it’s not that hard to level bomb a ship as it is a target that you can clearly identify from air and see trough your targeting apparatus. Especially at clear weather bombardier see and know exactly when to drop bombs.

Level bomber could also make his bombing run from direction that bomb drop in the way that intersects with multiple ships at convoy.

Bombing a land buildings or ground troops was much more difficult at time as identifying target had much more difficult causing sometimes all bombers to drop bombs at wrong coordinates this is something that wont happened in ship bombing.


(in reply to goodboyladdie)
Post #: 20
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/25/2006 12:21:15 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Yes I have several times for the critical emergancy attack that must not fail.

The morale hit, exp requirement and AA punishment is brutal so I cannot use it often

When PZB was attacking New Britain a few months back I used B24J's on Skip Bombing to good effect.




Perhaps i should rephrase a little Outside of the critical type emergency, those situations where many a kitchen sink is called for for throwing purposes....do Allied players feel the need to use skip bombing tactics?


_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 21
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/25/2006 12:28:33 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Not really... They're too costly...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 22
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/25/2006 12:41:55 AM   
RUPD3658


Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline 		As a Japanese player the thought of skip bombing B-29s is frighting.

I see no real need to have a house rule. Almost every advantage for one side or the other comes out even in the end.

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 23
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/25/2006 12:47:46 AM   
Sardonic

 

Posts: 215
Joined: 12/1/2005
Status: offline 		I doubt you could skip bomb a B-29. It simply isnt that manuverable

(in reply to RUPD3658)
Post #: 24
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/25/2006 12:52:13 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Graycompany

I am Niceguy2005's Pbem opponent. We are having a great game, and have adjusted as we go along to try and stay within the "game" and some issues, while aloing either side to have tactics and strategy that does not always have to follow a historical path. Niceguy is a great player and does not exploit any known bugs or loopholes in the game. My problem is that I find it difficult to beleive that B-17's can hit a small fast surface group (warship) not transports at the rate it has been happening in our game. During the invasion of celyon his 4E bombers hit a number of transports fleets, which I dont have a problem with. The accuracy, while not outstanding, was good. the 2nd day of the Invasion iIhad a surface fleet set to bombard that was 9 hexes out. I parked it there knowing full well nothing but LRB could hit it. which they did, doing small damage but enough to disrupt and make me rethink the bombardment. During the battle of Java his B-17 did major damage to my Invasion fleets as well as Surface groups, the Damage to one of my Ca's was alarming. This last instance which is the reason for the open question on the forum was a Bombardment group going from PM to thursday island, the bombarment went off fine, had a fast group with mostly Ca's Cl's and DD's. After the Bombardment they returned to PM, which had a small cap over them and his B-17's attacked(in port) which while not docked( an not disbanded) might account for their accuracy, which damaged a Ca and a Cl' ( not saying how much). I noticed that they were at 8000 which is not uncommon for his bombing style. My concern is knowing that this run I am making, the only thing that can hit me at all is 4E bombers. He does not over use his 17's or 24's keeps to historic levels and squadrons ( much appreciated). I on the other hand do bomb at the same level with mass bombers( a mistake that the IJA IMO made by not doing) with effectivness. So his last 4 attacks by 4E's have knocked out of commison for a time 2 Ca's CL' and a BB as well as a number of DD's and a horde of transports. Am I wrong here in my concern, or should I shut up and take it like a Nip? My thought is that the Big Bombers would be at a higher alt, and I have no wish to take this tactic away, and if this is a tactic that is not Buggy in game terms, I wanted to know what others felt?


There are problems on both sides, not to mention the basic game mechanics problems. From your description, I would venture to guess that you have probably already made more surface bombardments than the Japanese did during the entire war. On the other side, because of their limited numbers, B-17's and 24's were rarely used as naval strike aircraft, being too valuable for reccon and base attacks (They did carry a few bombs on reccon missions, but generally dropped them from 15 to 20,000 feet with more damage to fish than the Japs). The primary naval attack aircraft of the Allies were their 2-engined bombers - but unfortunately the game's movement/night mechanics mean they will hardly ever be in range to be used historically. So about the best a pair of "history fanboy" opponants can achieve seems to be the paths of "restraint" you two are trying to follow.

(in reply to Graycompany)
Post #: 25
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/25/2006 12:54:57 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

I doubt you could skip bomb a B-29. It simply isnt that manuverable


Or more rationally, it's too damned expensive for such "flak-eating" missions. Also, why risk such a large crew when an A-26 can do the job so much better?

(in reply to Sardonic)
Post #: 26
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/25/2006 1:45:03 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		B29's arent really used on any naval bombing mission they are to valuable as search AC and as bombers of Airbases etc

B17's are rarely worth using on naval attack except as last resort until the PB4Y's start arriving in numbers they are to valuable in a search role.

Again I will use them on naval attack if I must but there are better uses for them .

B24J's I am more flexible with and will have the odd Sqn sitting on LR Naval Attack 50% search as they are dammed handy in that role

B25J's are the best I have so many good XP B25 groups that I would use these on skip bombing if I have the opportunity

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 27
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/25/2006 2:03:59 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Yes I have several times for the critical emergancy attack that must not fail.

The morale hit, exp requirement and AA punishment is brutal so I cannot use it often

When PZB was attacking New Britain a few months back I used B24J's on Skip Bombing to good effect.




Perhaps i should rephrase a little Outside of the critical type emergency, those situations where many a kitchen sink is called for for throwing purposes....do Allied players feel the need to use skip bombing tactics?



Barge hunting where decent Fighter-Bombers are not available.

(And by the way, the game already penalizes this in a way. No more than four of any plane's forward facing guns will fire in a strafing/skip-bombing attack. So all those B-25Js with their eight cheek mounted 50's? Only four of them will fire.)


_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 28
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/25/2006 2:06:28 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		what about merchants and warships at sea?

_____________________________


(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 29
RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks - 8/25/2006 2:12:43 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline 		I'd do it against merchants with high (80+, like the manual states) experience 2E bombers but if I had a choice not against warships because of the AAA.  I don't do it at all with 4E because it doesn't "feel" historically right.  (Trying to play by the spirit of the rules, not the loopholes.)

But then none of you listen to me anyways 'cause I only play against the AI. 

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> House rules for level bomber naval attacks Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.156