Solution for the 4 engine discussion

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Solution for the 4 engine discussion

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 >> The War Room >> Solution for the 4 engine discussion

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 6:48:00 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Obviousely many reach the parts of the Grand Campaign now where the Allied supremacy gets felt
and this naturally sports discussions about balancing issues again.
I also received my share of B17/24 attacks now and can say from a pure A2A perspective I think that
the results resemble reality so close that its at least very hard to support "this is bogged" points of view.

Still I think there is a reason why we see some discrepancies between the historical use of HBs and the in game habit
of players to send waves of them into heavy CAP areas without being scratched enough to make this a costly tactic.
(this is what I guess is the main reason for complaints about 4eng effectiveness)

You know what the difference between WWII and this game is regarding those points?

C-R-E-W!

A B17 had (I�m no expert on crew numbers) 8 crew? 10? Pilot, Co, Navigator, Bombardier, Gunners...
What was the price to pay for the bombing campaign over Germany for example? 1000�s of wounded or dead
heavy bomber crew. Even if a damaged bomber came back, there was a high chance that part of the crew would never
sit in a bomber again.

The difference is in game we have 2 "cost" values: the plane and the single pilot that has a chance to be KIA�d if the bomber
gets shot down. Thats not enough to see a reason to escort heavies IMO. And not something that keeps a good Allied player from
sending them into a high CAP area.
Implementing crew, while an interesting addition, won�t be possible because this is something that had to come with a whole new
part of the game that simply isn�t there.

How could we abstract the loss of crew with only what we have available?

I think the best way to do it would be the following:

There is a slight chance of pilot exp loss when a plane gets damaged (at least in theory, admittedly I have never really seen this).
So how about increasing this exp loss to a noticable level for heavy bombers?

When a heavy bomber gets damaged the pilot (who is an abstraction of the crew) lose quite a chunk of experience and random other values
(this could simulate the different crew members afffected) like Def, A2A, Grnd,...

This would cause 3 things:
- it would simulate bomber crew losses on damage, as exp loss simulates replacing the wounded/KIA crewmembers with green ones.
- it would still make unescorted raids possible but make it more costly if theres enough CAP to damage many of the bombers.
- and as a result this would make escorts for heavy bombers an interesting strategy again (which it currently isn�t)

What do you think?

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 12:48:52 PM

tocaff

Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline

Maybe a more effective way to do what you propose is through the maintenance value of 4E bombers.

The pipeline of new, well trained crews was historical fact. To dispute this was to say that the 8th couldn't continue with their high loses in the ETO. The US had a large manpower pool and an excellent training program so that the AAC and USN were able to field huge forces. This did come at a cost as the number of ground combat formations never even approached the planned for numbers.

Maybe, just maybe the game has gotten it as close to reality as they can without the actual spilling of blood.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 2

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 1:53:56 PM

topeverest

Posts: 3376
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline

Lobaron,

The devil is in the details on that proposal. Is there enough collective experience to be fairly definitive that this part of the air war is out of balance in PBEM games where the Japanese player can control his or her economy and military production? There are many historical examples of late war HB raids with no or very few A2A losses despite considerable effort by the defenders.

Let me suggest writing a test scenario to determine how each of the various determinates interact. I have a sneaky feeling that becasue there are so many variables, a wide continuom of results can be attained. Anyone enterprising enough to write such a test bed and pluck the gems is certain to have an advantage of some level going forward. My forward facing guess is that allied total losses will be mainly determined by Japanese pilot skill, then airframe, then distance to target, then Anti Aircraft, then altitude - but I am guessing.

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to tocaff)

Post #: 3

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 2:18:36 PM

Grit

Posts: 142
Joined: 4/7/2010
Status: offline

I haven't played nearly far enough into the game to know the answer to this. Does the game allow a player to send 200-300 B29's on a bombing raid over Tokyo? (I'm just using this as an example.)

If it doesn't then maybe the loss rate is already figured into the game. As it doesn't give the player the same amount of planes that were available historically? If it does, then I can definitely see the problem.

_____________________________

(in reply to topeverest)

Post #: 4

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 2:31:45 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest

Lobaron,

The devil is in the details on that proposal. Is there enough collective experience to be fairly definitive that this part of the air war is out of balance in PBEM games where the Japanese player can control his or her economy and military production? There are many historical examples of late war HB raids with no or very few A2A losses despite considerable effort by the defenders.

Agreed, and there are many examples of early war losses so high that it set the operating parameters for quite some time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverestLet me suggest writing a test scenario to determine how each of the various determinates interact. I have a sneaky feeling that becasue there are so many variables, a wide continuom of results can be attained. Anyone enterprising enough to write such a test bed and pluck the gems is certain to have an advantage of some level going forward. My forward facing guess is that allied total losses will be mainly determined by Japanese pilot skill, then airframe, then distance to target, then Anti Aircraft, then altitude - but I am guessing.

I tend to agree, so many variables that a definintve result would require the statistical analysis of thousands of runs.

So where does that leave us? Obviously with a model that is quite close to reality IMHO. We are talking about optimization here, not gross overhaul. Given the data, just as you present it, I would think that the tweaking that needs to happen is with respect to the 4E pilot experience.

By '45, where the lightly or unescorted raids happen, pilot/crew training and exp was at very high levels for the US. What this translates into are tight formations with strict fire rules enforced maximizing defensive firepower and limiting the attack angles to only a few vectors. On the flip side, JAP pilot exp has eroded, resulting in un coordinated attacks at sub-optimal vectors. Translation: impact of pilot skill probably could be adjusted.

What I'm seeing is that 4E planes are performing too well too soon. If I was able to make adjustments, I would take the current 70's pilot exp outcomes for 4E pilots and shift that up by about 10 %. Meaning, it would take an additional 10% exp to get the results that are now being attained in game. As US, you can get a pretty good pool of pilots up to exp = 70 pretty easy in a few months. Getting to 80 exp though is quite a bit harder in my games.

I think with this change, you would see the large 4E formation being used effectively put off for another 6 months or so. More important is that IF the JAP can score a couple of major successes against them even in mid-game, the US will have trouble replacing those high exp pilots right away. EDIT: Thus introducing a modicum of caution for the US player.

Again, I wish to reitereate here that I am splitting hairs here. What I see in my games and in the AAR's is that the 4E's are being used a bit too effectively in '42. I think a slight adjustment to push that out to '43 would be appropriate.

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 4/21/2010 2:33:15 PM >

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to topeverest)

Post #: 5

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 3:30:08 PM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

LoBaron,

I like the idea that you have realised the huge lacuna in the WITP:AE engine of the absence of factoring in crew numbers. However I cannot support your particular "solution" for these reasons.

(1) Crew affects all aircraft types. If implemented only for Allied 4E, why not for 2E. The A-20 series had a much smaller crew requirement than the B-25s and that was one significant reason why they remained in production. Looking at the game stats, not too many players would see the A-20 as being competitive with the B-25. The need to incorporate crew numbers would also greatly impact on the current attractiveness of Japanese planes. So where would you draw the line?

(2) There is a much more pervasive lacuna in the game engine which your proposal does not address and therefore fundamentally does not solve anything. Money! The true cost of any item is simply not captured by the game engine (a feature captured by most engines). Sure there is a rudimentary cost structure imposed, more obvious on the Japanese side with the "cost" of Heavy Industry expenditure, but also the consumption of supply for both sides in conducting operations, but this is only a very simplistic solution. Again if you look at the game stats, you would have to wonder why the B-25 was produced in such numbers and not the B-26. Yes I know that it reflects the actual historical record of both plane types in the PTO but the real reason why that occurred was that the per unit $US cost to the Treasury of the B-25 was considerably less than the B-26. The only real reason why the P-40 remained in production up to late 1944, well after better planes had entered production, was that it was cheap. Once you attempt to factor monetary cost in a semi realistic manner then you run into problems of taxation, home population morale/productivity, capital pricing models, inflationary modeling etc - clearly far beyond what the game engine is capable of and most unlikely to be greeted with any enthusiasm by players who already are daunted by the micromanagement in the game.

(3) To penalise pilot experience as a result of plane damage strikes me as being quite counterintuitive. It is just as valid to increase pilot experience (as currently happens now) to account for lessons learned in flying the mission. Also it imposes a hidden penalty on the better aircraft designs which incorporate armour, better defensive layout of guns etc, factors which are currently captured by the durability and armour ratings. Again, as per point 1 above, why limit this to Allied 4E, why not 2E and Japanese planes?

(4) An unintended byproduct of your proposal would be the value of flak. Why should damage from flak not be treated similarly to that from A2A?

Now if I might be allowed to try to be constructive rather than negative, I would much prefer, within the context of the existing game engine, to tweak the consumption of supply to address the problem. Currently strike missions by level bombers consume supply on the basis of their assigned load carrying capacity. Why not increase supply consumption for all strike missions (both Allied and Japanese) to be the current supply cost x number of engines. Thus, to give a theoretical example, a 4E plane rated at 4000 lb bomb load would consume double the supplies as a 2E plane with the same bomb load, and four times as much as a single engine plane with the same bomb load.

Alfred

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 6

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 4:13:05 PM

sfbaytf

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline

Japan already gets nuclear subs that are far more capable and effective than they were in real life. They also have CD batteries that can hammer battleships and cruisers. Japan can pump out far more pilots than was possible IRL.

In addition the allied have to deal with dive bomber and torpedo planes manned by pilots that can't hit squat till late 43 and the new pilots that appear on carriers in 44 and 45 are as green and useless at hitting anything. The Allieds get very inexperienced B-29 pilots that are forced to operate out of bases in Saipan that are already restricted by design.

You don't get enough B-29s to launch the type of raids that ocured in real life. The bases at Saipan and Tinian are not expandable to the size required anyway.

You may not shoot down as many 4Es as you'd like, but you'll damage plenty of them and opertional losses will cause losses.

If you want to start limiting the allies 4E, then we may as well throw in restricting Japans nuclear subs, CD batteries and pilot pools and increasing the effectiveness of allied carrier and land based dive bombers and torpedo planes so they too can approximate historical results.

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 7

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 4:29:55 PM

Grit

Posts: 142
Joined: 4/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Japan already gets nuclear subs that are far more capable and effective than they were in real life. They also have CD batteries that can hammer battleships and cruisers. Japan can pump out far more pilots than was possible IRL.

In addition the allied have to deal with dive bomber and torpedo planes manned by pilots that can't hit squat till late 43 and the new pilots that appear on carriers in 44 and 45 are as green and useless at hitting anything. The Allieds get very inexperienced B-29 pilots that are forced to operate out of bases in Saipan that are already restricted by design.

You don't get enough B-29s to launch the type of raids that ocured in real life. The bases at Saipan and Tinian are not expandable to the size required anyway.

You may not shoot down as many 4Es as you'd like, but you'll damage plenty of them and opertional losses will cause losses.

If you want to start limiting the allies 4E, then we may as well throw in restricting Japans nuclear subs, CD batteries and pilot pools and increasing the effectiveness of allied carrier and land based dive bombers and torpedo planes so they too can approximate historical results.

That answers my question.

The game is designed historically to give Japan every advantage in the first few years, which is great. Why not give the Allies the same advantage they had in 45 to bomb every Japanese city into oblivion.

_____________________________

(in reply to sfbaytf)

Post #: 8

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 4:50:43 PM

CarnageINC

Posts: 2208
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: Rapid City SD
Status: offline

Bombers have degraded attacks while under attack from CAP correct? IF you were to change this value to degrade bombers more, it would have to effect the whole spectrum of bombers wouldn't it. How would this effect the other bombers...dive and torpedoes. I'm just throwing my thoughts out there to see if this might be a better direction to take the argument since it seems to be IMO, easiest ways to change the model of things.

_____________________________

(in reply to Grit)

Post #: 9

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 4:55:13 PM

CarnageINC

Posts: 2208
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: Rapid City SD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Japan already gets nuclear subs that are far more capable and effective than they were in real life. They also have CD batteries that can hammer battleships and cruisers. Japan can pump out far more pilots than was possible IRL.

In addition the allied have to deal with dive bomber and torpedo planes manned by pilots that can't hit squat till late 43 and the new pilots that appear on carriers in 44 and 45 are as green and useless at hitting anything. The Allieds get very inexperienced B-29 pilots that are forced to operate out of bases in Saipan that are already restricted by design.

You don't get enough B-29s to launch the type of raids that ocured in real life. The bases at Saipan and Tinian are not expandable to the size required anyway.

You may not shoot down as many 4Es as you'd like, but you'll damage plenty of them and opertional losses will cause losses.

If you want to start limiting the allies 4E, then we may as well throw in restricting Japans nuclear subs, CD batteries and pilot pools and increasing the effectiveness of allied carrier and land based dive bombers and torpedo planes so they too can approximate historical results.

You do bring up a lot of great points sfbaytf, enough to almost make this discussion invalid. But discussions like these sometimes bring about better changes for the game.

_____________________________

(in reply to sfbaytf)

Post #: 10

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 5:03:59 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

I can't support changing it. It's very tough to shoot down a 4E, but that's also history. The only thing I might support is tweaking the service ratings.

4Es have come a loooong way from WITP, where they were way too effective

_____________________________

(in reply to CarnageINC)

Post #: 11

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 5:05:44 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

The Allieds get very inexperienced B-29 pilots that are forced to operate out of bases in Saipan that are already restricted by design.

You don't get enough B-29s to launch the type of raids that ocured in real life. The bases at Saipan and Tinian are not expandable to the size required anyway.

Amen! The Tinian and Saipan base restrictions are punitive and a historical. The experience levels are ridiculous. The only thing B-29's become good for a re a-Bombs and naval search. Both of which they excel at. Otherwise a waste of time. No point in a full Central Pacific campaign because the Mariana's represent only the point value. As airbases they are almost useless against the home islands. B-29's and overwhelming aircraft production by Japan really are the low points of an otherwise great game.

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to CarnageINC)

Post #: 12

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 5:13:36 PM

Nikademus

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

you don't need many bombers to wipe out industries in the game. You don't even need 4E's. (except when range is a factor)

_____________________________

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 13

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 5:19:57 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

you don't need many bombers to wipe out industries in the game. You don't even need 4E's. (except when range is a factor)

I have to disagree. An effective, hsitorical, strategic bombing campaign is not possible in the game. By July 1945 the USAAF B-29's had run out of targets and were rarley challanged in daylight by fighters. Has anybody ever been able to reproduce this situation in AE?

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 14

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 5:22:32 PM

Nikademus

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

Strategic (aka "City") attack in the game is so ridiculously easy many players institute house rules regulating it as Joe and I did in our game with Rob and Tony (Aussies and Amer's AAR) You can "strategic bomb" with 1E's in the game effectively, and at night with an accuracy and consistancy that would make Bomber Harris weep.

_____________________________

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 15

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 5:25:34 PM

Grit

Posts: 142
Joined: 4/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

The Allieds get very inexperienced B-29 pilots that are forced to operate out of bases in Saipan that are already restricted by design.

You don't get enough B-29s to launch the type of raids that ocured in real life. The bases at Saipan and Tinian are not expandable to the size required anyway.

Amen! The Tinian and Saipan base restrictions are punitive and a historical. The experience levels are ridiculous. The only thing B-29's become good for a re a-Bombs and naval search. Both of which they excel at. Otherwise a waste of time. No point in a full Central Pacific campaign because the Mariana's represent only the point value. As airbases they are almost useless against the home islands. B-29's and overwhelming aircraft production by Japan really are the low points of an otherwise great game.

How could something so important be overlooked in the game? The B29 program was the largest expenditure by the U.S. in the entire war. I was really looking forward to this part of the game.

_____________________________

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 16

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 6:06:39 PM

Zemke

Posts: 642
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline

I was under the impression Tinian and Saipan could operate at higher levels given proper HQ support.
Also, wouldn't an easier solution be to tweak the durability ratings or gun effectiveness ratings?

_____________________________

"Actions Speak Louder than Words"

(in reply to Grit)

Post #: 17

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 6:18:20 PM

sfbaytf

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline

I've found myself using my 4E in a tactical role much like the Luftwaffe did as opposed to a strategic role like the allieds did. Bombing airfields,ports and using them as flying artillery to support the ground troops is what they end up doing most of the time. Because of the mechanics of carrier operations that make use of carrier based air support of ground forces problimatical - mainly having hundreds of carrier based fighters flying sweeps over useless targets when you have your carrier based planes fly ground support, I usually end up sending the heavies to support invading ground troops.

With the limited B-29's and small airfields a concerted strategic bombing campaing may be difficult to perform. I did some firebombing of cities, but had to switch to bombing airfields to neutralize the potential threat of Kamikazies to my fleet operating near the Home Islands. I also needed them to mine home island ports and need 1 or 2 squadrons for naval search missions. Also targets of opportunity like ships in ports will also take up 4E squadrons. If you want good results you're going to have to go in daylight and under 15,000 feet and that means losses. Once he Japanese pilots begin ramming your bombers the losses will increase.

(in reply to Grit)

Post #: 18

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 6:19:38 PM

Nikademus

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

They do, but the general AE rules make it hard to stage the really huge strategic bombing raids as seen over Japan and Germany. They tend to get broken up, which makes it easier for CAP's to do their work. Its hard to make a wargame cover every situation. General rules don't always cover every situation. These are the complaints as I understand them, but as i pointed out, this is balanced in more than large part by how easy it is to damage industries and resources in the game. I also havn't seen any feedback on large scale night time raids. I've done these using 2E's and had massive success but not B-29's (yet)

_____________________________

(in reply to Zemke)

Post #: 19

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 6:31:54 PM

sfbaytf

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline

Large scale, low level night bombin by B-29's will net you lots of points. I have about 7000 points from torching Osaka, Kobe, Nagoya and Tokoyo. Night bombing at 5000k against ports will hit a few ships, but if you want real results you're going to have to go in daylight and low. I've tried daylight at 10,000 feet, but it's better at 5000 feet. Just be prepared for he losses from flak, balloons and fighters-some of which will ram bombers.

If you want to really hurt the airfields then daylight and low is the only way to get it done quickly.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 20

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 7:11:39 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

How could something so important be overlooked in the game? The B29 program was the largest expenditure by the U.S. in the entire war. I was really looking forward to this part of the game.

Forget it. Take a look at the Tinian base size Size 7 max. In 1945 Tinian was the largest airfield in the world in 1945. To quote the website of one of the 112th seabee unit that built the place "Approximately 450 B-29's could now be efficiently launched on a mission from Tinian in 70-80 minutes." That can not be reproduced in the game ever, it can never happen. In AE you could not have 450 B-29's take off in a week. Someone will tell you if you put the headquarters there you can take advantage of over stacking. That is true but you will never be able to launch more than 100 bombers and with the operational losses you can probably only do that once a month.

"They built six huge B-29 bomber strips, each a mile and one half long and a block wide, along with miles of taxi ways with "hardstands" sufficient to park 400+ aircraft. The SeaBees dug and moved eleven million cubic yards of earth and coral on Tinian . Piled on flat ground, this would form a cube 6700+ feet in height."

Yup, that is a level 7 airfield!

http://www.112thseabees.com/history/tin_hist.htm

_____________________________

(in reply to sfbaytf)

Post #: 21

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 8:05:46 PM

Grit

Posts: 142
Joined: 4/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

How could something so important be overlooked in the game? The B29 program was the largest expenditure by the U.S. in the entire war. I was really looking forward to this part of the game.

Forget it. Take a look at the Tinian base size Size 7 max. In 1945 Tinian was the largest airfield in the world in 1945. To quote the website of one of the 112th seabee unit that built the place "Approximately 450 B-29's could now be efficiently launched on a mission from Tinian in 70-80 minutes." That can not be reproduced in the game ever, it can never happen. In AE you could not have 450 B-29's take off in a week. Someone will tell you if you put the headquarters there you can take advantage of over stacking. That is true but you will never be able to launch more than 100 bombers and with the operational losses you can probably only do that once a month.

"They built six huge B-29 bomber strips, each a mile and one half long and a block wide, along with miles of taxi ways with "hardstands" sufficient to park 400+ aircraft. The SeaBees dug and moved eleven million cubic yards of earth and coral on Tinian . Piled on flat ground, this would form a cube 6700+ feet in height."

Yup, that is a level 7 airfield!

http://www.112thseabees.com/history/tin_hist.htm

I hate to make a big deal out of this as I am really enjoying learning and playing WITP-AE. But it is a little disheartening that you put that much effort into playing all the way to 1945 and you don't get to launch one of the largest campaigns of the war. This changed the war, many men died so we could put airfields close enough for B29's.

I think I even read in the manual that if you use the Atomic Bomb you get penalized.

_____________________________

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 22

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 8:53:00 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

I hate to make a big deal out of this as I am really enjoying learning and playing WITP-AE. But it is a little disheartening that you put that much effort into playing all the way to 1945 and you don't get to launch one of the largest campaigns of the war. This changed the war, many men died so we could put airfields close enough for B29's.

With Guam, Tinian and Saipan I think the most bombers I ever got in a single raid was 170. And it took my almost a month to repair the bombers from that raid. One would be hard pressed to get 3 100 bomber raids a month and the historical number of aircraft will make that hard to sustain. The best way to get points with B-29's is to damage and then destroy industry. The only way to destroy industry is with A-Bombs or by firestorm. The only way to create firestorms is to conduct many consecutive low level air attacks against population. There is no way to conduct these kinds of continuous attacks with the B-29 and Marinans airfield model. Once I got some of China and Okinawa I could bring in B-24's and B-25's I managed to pull it off but I have not been able to pull it off with just B-29's.

_____________________________

(in reply to Grit)

Post #: 23

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 9:26:06 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

I hate to make a big deal out of this as I am really enjoying learning and playing WITP-AE. But it is a little disheartening that you put that much effort into playing all the way to 1945 and you don't get to launch one of the largest campaigns of the war. This changed the war, many men died so we could put airfields close enough for B29's.

With Guam, Tinian and Saipan I think the most bombers I ever got in a single raid was 170. And it took my almost a month to repair the bombers from that raid. One would be hard pressed to get 3 100 bomber raids a month and the historical number of aircraft will make that hard to sustain. The best way to get points with B-29's is to damage and then destroy industry. The only way to destroy industry is with A-Bombs or by firestorm. The only way to create firestorms is to conduct many consecutive low level air attacks against population. There is no way to conduct these kinds of continuous attacks with the B-29 and Marinans airfield model. Once I got some of China and Okinawa I could bring in B-24's and B-25's I managed to pull it off but I have not been able to pull it off with just B-29's.

B-29s and the Marianas are on my list for the editor pre Game-2. I don't know yet what I can do to the bases, but the B-29 is going to--somehow--be able to fly more than two days a month. I just don't know which boxes to change yet. It's going to be fun to tweak all the things that drove me crazy in Game-1 (like 50 PPs a day), and then play one of the harder scenarios, with variable reenforcements.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 24

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/21/2010 9:33:44 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

B-29s and the Marianas are on my list for the editor pre Game-2. I don't know yet what I can do to the bases, but the B-29 is going to--somehow--be able to fly more than two days a month. I just don't know which boxes to change yet. It's going to be fun to tweak all the things that drove me crazy in Game-1 (like 50 PPs a day), and then play one of the harder scenarios, with variable reenforcements.

Andy Mac has had more success and thinks the level 7 is OK. I disagree but he outranks me

as I am just a humble user. The point has been made elsewhere that after 1944 the allies could pretty make any place they wanted a level 10 base so any modifications would seem fair. I think you have to bump all of the Mariana's. The largest B-29 raids of the war were in July 45 and they had about 750 bombers. And I think there were only 2 of those should that should be the absolute max.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 25

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/22/2010 8:24:27 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Thanks for all the comments. Good discussion.

Sad, I think the general opinion is correct and its not such a good idea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

(4) An unintended byproduct of your proposal would be the value of flak. Why should damage from flak not be treated similarly to that from A2A?

Now if I might be allowed to try to be constructive rather than negative, I would much prefer, within the context of the existing game engine, to tweak the consumption of supply to address the problem. Currently strike missions by level bombers consume supply on the basis of their assigned load carrying capacity. Why not increase supply consumption for all strike missions (both Allied and Japanese) to be the current supply cost x number of engines. Thus, to give a theoretical example, a 4E plane rated at 4000 lb bomb load would consume double the supplies as a 2E plane with the same bomb load, and four times as much as a single engine plane with the same bomb load.

Alfred

Alfred thanks for your detailed response. I agree with the points you raised against my proposal.
I thought about flak too, you are correct that this alone would make this at least difficult to implement if not impossible.

Was also thinking about increasing supply consumption in proportion to capacity. The drawback of this is that supply
is too abstracted. Since you need time to build up bases to 4eng levels anyway you should have enough time to prepare enough
supplies at the forward bases. Also, considering the current way overland logistics are handled, this would reduce the impact of
the change to zero in theatres like India or Australia.

My original idea was to increase the impact of damaged bombers to force the use of escorts.
The problem is not that its not realistic. The real drawback is that unescorted raids agaisnt high CAP have no drawbacks
for the attacker except that maintenance levels force you to implement high numbers.
The result is that they don�t need an escort.

Neither higher maintenance levels nor higher supply cost would force the Allied player to escort heavies to target. The drawback
of losing fighters and fighter pilots is simply greater than the advantage of less damaged bombers.

Increasing maintainence levels would be a solution in theory but isn�t it that you would have to increase that to a-historcal levels
to have an impact?

Still thinking of another way around this problem...

How about: Increasing the negative impact on bombing accuracy for bombers under attack as is already the case a bit like
CarnageINC said?

Everybody who likes to contribute please note the following:

I am not dissatisfied with 4eng bombers strenght! Its very close to historical and I don�t like to have something implemented that
weakens them as a whole.

What I want to achieve is to force the Allied player to use escorts over contested airspace.

Current situation: Unescorted 4eng has advantages (escept for some really rare occasions) over escorted raids.
Desired situation: Escorted 4eng raid has advantages over unescorted raids.

This is the only detail that I percieve as a bit weird in the current model.

_____________________________

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 26

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/22/2010 2:03:03 PM

morganbj

Posts: 3634
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

you don't need many bombers to wipe out industries in the game. You don't even need 4E's. (except when range is a factor)

I have to disagree. An effective, hsitorical, strategic bombing campaign is not possible in the game. By July 1945 the USAAF B-29's had run out of targets and were rarley challanged in daylight by fighters. Has anybody ever been able to reproduce this situation in AE?

No, in fact, I called off my strat bombing campaign as it was very ineffective. Thos B29's were just not getting it done. With a service rating of 3,245 (well it seems so), they spent only about one day every two weeks in the air anyway. I'll use them for pinpricks on various ports, naval search and recon, and the like. What a waste.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 27

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/22/2010 2:50:55 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

They do, but the general AE rules make it hard to stage the really huge strategic bombing raids as seen over Japan and Germany. They tend to get broken up, which makes it easier for CAP's to do their work. Its hard to make a wargame cover every situation. General rules don't always cover every situation. These are the complaints as I understand them, but as i pointed out, this is balanced in more than large part by how easy it is to damage industries and resources in the game. I also havn't seen any feedback on large scale night time raids. I've done these using 2E's and had massive success but not B-29's (yet)

Yes, but wasn't one of the major complaints from WITP Vanilla the fact that the 4Es were too effective and actually made it too easy for the allies to obliterate the Japanese players economy? Both sides complained about this IIRC...

Be careful what you ask for...

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 28

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/22/2010 3:36:40 PM

Rob Brennan UK

Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline

hi all , interesting discussion.

I'll add my experience using the 4E bombers in my PBEM (guadlcanal scen)

There beasts seem to gobble up supply like ever hungry vacuum cleaners, given the limited supply in this scenario using the 4E is a compromise vs saving up supply for invasions. so the player is forced into making sacrifices to use them regularly.

Damage to 4E bombers seems to fall into 2 categories (this is just a gut feeling by the way) wear and tear damage seemt to repair pretty fast, 1-3 days on average. however if some are damaged by flak or CAP then down time can be upto 20 days in the repair shop. so while CAP may seem to be pretty ineffective in actually killing them, for the allied player they rapidly become depleted with a lot of hanger queens.

Continuous operations can be sustained if you have the planes to completely fill up a squadron i.e 12 plane unit with 16 a/c and max pilots will run at about 1/2- 2/3ds strength on a daily basis and do not accumulate much fatigue . teens max and usually 10 ish. Flying at extended range adds to the wear and tear so you'll have more planes under maintainance (look in the air unts button labelled planes for a breakdown on times etc.).

Effectiveness - Bombing japanes troops behind goos forts levels i.e tassaforonga will rarely do any damage to the units even at 6k feet and good crews, i'm hopeing that they add disruption/fatige but only my opponenent can answer that one. this is with max recom too 10/10 on DL. I used them for a couple of months early game on naval search and didnt hit a thing. I dont use them often for naval attack as they cant hit the broadside of a barn , even my trained up (3 months on naval attack training) 2E bombers can't hit much that floats either but my opponent can been careful covering his shipping.

any extra supply requirements would cripple the allis in this scenario , as supply is barely adequate anyway. Personally i feel they are working out ok but do not have any late war experience to add.

so do they need tweaking ? not as far as i can tell, more data is needed as the opinions seem rather split which usually suggests that things are working out ok. time will eventually tell though.

TTFN

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 29

RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/22/2010 4:12:38 PM

Grit

Posts: 142
Joined: 4/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

They do, but the general AE rules make it hard to stage the really huge strategic bombing raids as seen over Japan and Germany. They tend to get broken up, which makes it easier for CAP's to do their work. Its hard to make a wargame cover every situation. General rules don't always cover every situation. These are the complaints as I understand them, but as i pointed out, this is balanced in more than large part by how easy it is to damage industries and resources in the game. I also havn't seen any feedback on large scale night time raids. I've done these using 2E's and had massive success but not B-29's (yet)

Yes, but wasn't one of the major complaints from WITP Vanilla the fact that the 4Es were too effective and actually made it too easy for the allies to obliterate the Japanese players economy? Both sides complained about this IIRC...

Be careful what you ask for...

So many games fall into this problem. Do we make the game for single player or player vs player? Obviously the Allies have been neutered so the Japanese player can have a chance when playing a human.

What probably should have been done especially since the game is sold as being very historical. Make it a toggle, Historical B29's and Airfields On/Off, Historical Allied Carrier Planes On/Off, and Historical Japanese Plane Production ON/Off. That way if players wanted to play historically they could and if they wanted to have a really good fight right to the end, they could.

I can see a lot of people wanting to play the game historically and try mimic the Admirals on both sides. Right now that's impossible. As other people said who are much more familiar with the game than me. (Paraphrasing) "What is the sense of taking Islands close to Japan other than points?" Think about it, that was the entire thrust of the U.S. campaign, get airfields close to Japan.

_____________________________

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 30