LB-30's

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

LB-30's

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 >> LB-30's

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

LB-30's - 10/7/2007 3:16:45 AM

bigjoe96912

Posts: 67
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline

What in the world are LB-30's doing in this game. There was only 75 in the entire USAAF, and only 13 ever saw combat as part of the 19th BG in Java. and they ended up in Austraila. the rest where converted to transports. In a game I am playing it is Jan 1942 and I am being attacked in by 2 groups of LB-30's. Under no circumstances of reality should I see any for any sustained period of time. The game should only start out with one BS of 16 with no replacements and no production and let them be upgraded. With the advantage that 4E bombers give the allies that to throw another in the mix just to have the plane is ludicrious. Allies shouldn't even be able to pretend to do Strategic Bombing attackes with LB-30's in early '42 Hell even the B-17 rate is too high. You got everyone converting all there 2E to 4E's because you can get more done with a 4E but in real life those 4E's were on there way to UK and even those didn't there was never enough to fill out all the squadrons, plus remember throughout 1942 the US was really worried about a US invasion. On december 7 1941 the USAAF had only 131 B-17's that was why they stole the LB-30's anyway. So on the next round of patches, they need to nix the LB_30 production run and slow down production of 4E

Post #: 1

RE: LB-30's - 10/7/2007 3:49:36 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

I did a tweak of CHS where I worked on the aircraft a bit. I need to get back to it because I found a bunch of bugs...

I replaced the LB-30 with the C-87 which arrives later. To represent the handful of LB-30s, I put a few B-24Ds in the pool at the start, and production of B-24Ds don't start until at some point in 1942. The defensive armament of the LB-30 was a bit different from the B-24D, but it was such a minor player overall that it doesn't make a big difference.

I found when playing with this arrangement, the first batch of B-24Ds get used much more like the LB-30s were in the real world.

CHS reduced the bomb load of the B-17E along with the production rate to keep them from showing up everywhere.

Matrix has not been modifying the database with patches. There are quite a few mods out there, most have made an attempt to be more accurate than the stock OOB. CHS stands for Combined Historical Scenarios and was intended to blend together quite a few mods of different areas. It still has some innacuracies, but it is much better than stock. RHS is an evolution from CHS and has some experimental tweaks to get around some limitations in the engine. It is still in development, though development is nearing an end. There are other mods that people play such as the Big B mod and the Nik mod.

I personally prefer CHS. Standard CHS doesn't tweak the game engine much, but has a much richer OOB. The other mods have their following too.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to bigjoe96912)

Post #: 2

RE: LB-30's - 10/7/2007 5:27:24 AM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

Stock WITP introduced the LB 30 to quite a few players, but wargaming being the realm of so many amateur historians revealed the fallacy of the importance given the LB 30, so most modders corrected OOB's(aircraft included), very early on.
If ya' wanna nitpick, you need to go to a mod and find things less noticeable, cuz' these bones have already been picked over, partner.
Welcome to the Pacific.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by m10bob -- 10/7/2007 5:30:07 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 3

RE: LB-30's - 10/7/2007 5:49:19 AM

Reg

Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline

Careful m10bob, we don't want to discourage anyone from freely contributing opinions on this forum.

However in this case I agree this has been noted and incorporated into most of the player mods. I for one am a CHS convert due to the fact these corrections have been incorporated to reflect real life and would never go back to stock.

Personally I feel Matrix are reticent to make wholesale changes to the stock OOBs in case unforeseen play balance issues pop up, which is the conservative approach you would expect for the default dataset.

Bigjoe, if you go to the Search link at the top of the page and search for 'LB-30' you will get 156 hits on the main WITP forum and a further 73 hits in the Scenario Design sub-forum which may address most of your concerns.

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 4

RE: LB-30's - 10/7/2007 6:05:43 AM

witpqs

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

Aw Reg, m10bob was just doin' his Groucho Matrix impression!

(in reply to Reg)

Post #: 5

RE: LB-30's - 10/7/2007 11:02:06 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Stock WITP introduced the LB 30 to quite a few players, but wargaming being the realm of so many amateur historians revealed the fallacy of the importance given the LB 30, so most modders corrected OOB's(aircraft included), very early on.

I played CHS and found the LB-30 too common there, though all 4E bombers are more realistic in CHS than stock. When I played the tutorial I could see problems with the stock OOB and decided I was going to play a mod for the full campaign.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 6

RE: LB-30's - 10/7/2007 7:18:36 PM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigjoe96912

What in the world are LB-30's doing in this game. There was only 75 in the entire USAAF, and only 13 ever saw combat as part of the 19th BG in Java. and they ended up in Austraila. the rest where converted to transports. In a game I am playing it is Jan 1942 and I am being attacked in by 2 groups of LB-30's. Under no circumstances of reality should I see any for any sustained period of time. The game should only start out with one BS of 16 with no replacements and no production and let them be upgraded. With the advantage that 4E bombers give the allies that to throw another in the mix just to have the plane is ludicrious. Allies shouldn't even be able to pretend to do Strategic Bombing attackes with LB-30's in early '42 Hell even the B-17 rate is too high. You got everyone converting all there 2E to 4E's because you can get more done with a 4E but in real life those 4E's were on there way to UK and even those didn't there was never enough to fill out all the squadrons, plus remember throughout 1942 the US was really worried about a US invasion. On december 7 1941 the USAAF had only 131 B-17's that was why they stole the LB-30's anyway. So on the next round of patches, they need to nix the LB_30 production run and slow down production of 4E

Just as an FYI, below are the actual numbers of heavy bombers on hand - by month (Table 93) in the Far East Air Forces in 1942, and (Table 91) in all theaters fighting Japan: (source - USAF Archives)

There were quite a few B-17s in the Pacific...

Attachment (1)

(in reply to bigjoe96912)

Post #: 7

RE: LB-30's - 10/7/2007 8:07:13 PM

niceguy2005

Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

There's a simple way to deal with the LB-30 problem...don't use them. I'm one of the players that did become aware of LB-30s when I started playing the game. A little research turned up the fact that this was a stop gap bomber, so I tend to use it that way. I upgrage one BG to LB-30s and use them through Oct 42 or so and then convert them to B-24s.

_____________________________

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 8

RE: LB-30's - 10/7/2007 11:13:35 PM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

I am using one Bomber group of LB-30s in southeast asia. Not as a bombers but as a transport planes. They are flying over the Hump.

_____________________________

(in reply to niceguy2005)

Post #: 9

RE: LB-30's - 10/8/2007 9:59:41 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B
There were quite a few B-17s in the Pacific...

According to the table you posted, B-17s in the Pacific peaked at 168 in September 1942. To cover an entire ocean, that isn't many airplanes. That inlcued any that happened to be in India, those in Alaska, the South Pacific, Australia, Hawaii, etc. That's a total of 14 squadrons.

In stock, some players can have double that on one base by September 42. CHS builds up slower, but the B-17s still accumulate.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 10