Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

For F4F whiners - some assorted Jap handicaps

 
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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> For F4F whiners - some assorted Jap handicaps Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
For F4F whiners - some assorted Jap handicaps - 8/18/2002 10:57:45 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Well, since F4F thread refuses to die, I want to give all of you just a short "counter-example" from the other side. I mostly play as Japanese (for one reason only - because it's more challenging that way).

Here is small assortment of my "favorite" Jap handicaps, re air units:

1.) One of my opponents is terrorizing me using his B17s level bombers for (no, not skip bombing from 100ft) bombing from 33.000 feet. Operational ceiling of Zero in this game is set to 32.860 feet or something like that, so my CAP Zeros orbit like 100 feet (!!!) below his B17s, unable to hurt them. I receive the message that the "bombers are too high", and they go on to make their bombing run unmolested. I can't do jack **** to them. Oh, and the number of hits they manage to get in these bombing runs is ridicolously high too.

Were there any evidences of using B17s in Pac theatre to go on such bombing runs and Zeros UNABLE to reach them at all? I doubt it. Unhistorical? Certainly. Legal under game rules? Unfortunatelly for me - yes. I don't complain!

2.) Morale of my fighters oftenly gets atrociously low for no apparent reason. F1 Tainan Daitai or whatever is called (the unit where Sakai was) in one of my games is currently around 15. No, they did not have any unusal losses. No they are not extremely fatigued. Maybe their morale drop when they realised those B17 are 100 feet above them and they cannot get to them? :o/ Playing from allied side, I observed such low morale only in infamous Wirraway units. Again - this is certainly unhistorical, but personally I am READY to accept the rules designer of this game set, and I am READY to ACCEPT the possibility that even the F1 Tainan Daitai morale could have (maybe?) dropped that low under some circumstances. Maybe I am doing something wrong? Maybe the Allied player is using his units better?

As player of this game, I accept this as just another CHALLENGE I, as operational commander, must deal with.

(Now compare this to mdiehl and F4F complainers, and their *undying* monster thread.)

3.) As already metnioned in separate thread - Vals carry 60 kg firecrackers when going to extended range missions.

Now actually this is the only handicap that I'd really like to see changed in future versions, as I believe is completely ridicolous.

Why I am posting this? Well, first, to show Allied players and *unrelentless* F4F whiners that Japs DO have their set of air handicaps, and that they are mostly way like *WAAAAY* more serious than infamous F4F "issue" they so much like to whine about.

Another reason for posting this is the attitude I think players must take when they meet with such handicaps.

Basically, I CHOOSE to trust the designers of this game and not to complain to every ahistorical use or tactical result. I am NOT "officially" complaining to Matrix or 2by3 for above issues (except for #3 which IMO should be fixed), I am ready to accept the rationale designers had when making this game and I'll survive those additional challenges thrown my way.

I am going to post this ONCE, for everyone to see. If designers deem issues #1 and #2 need changing - fine by me (#3 needs chaning anyway IMO). If they see this is OK and does not need changing - again, fine by me, I am ready to accept those additional challenges, EVEN if such usage of B17s (and morale drop of Zero fighters) NEVER occured in "real history". WTF, it, unfortunatelly for me, occured in "my" little history.

I hope I do get my point accross, especially for F4F bunch in their undying fight...

O.
Post #: 1
- 8/18/2002 11:33:31 PM   
Wilhammer

 

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline 		As a Japanese player only kind of guy, I can confirm all of what Oleg says.

I am playing scenario 7, and after getting into a scrap, all my naval air units seem stuck at low morale levels, like in the 25-60 range.

They did not suffer much, It seems recovery is very slow for no reason.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 2
B17's rule the sky at 33K feet - 8/19/2002 3:16:13 AM   
IndyShark


Posts: 303
Joined: 7/7/2002
From: Indianapolis
Status: offline 		Oleg, thanks for the tip. B17's are a lot of fun when you set them to attack at 33K feet. The zeros can not intercept them and historically the Japanese had real difficulties intercepting heavy bombers at high altitude.

I may keep my bombers up there just for the sheer fun of it! They appear to be killing a lot of planes on the ground and those twin engine torpedo bombers are my worst nightmare!

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 3
Bettys and Nells? - 8/19/2002 3:38:21 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Indy maybe we could share tips :)

...because I find my twin engine bombers to be very much unusable! What does your opponent (human or AI) use Bettys and Nells for?

I find them to be barely adequate for the job (ANY job) and very fragile. Even if I am willing to accept losses to get the job done - pilots themselves don't seem to share my opinion, as with mounting losses their morale drops significantly. So I end up with both my bombers and fighetr pilots morale in low teens, famed Tainan Daitai set the current record at 10 (!!!). Mind you - these are Jap pilots of 41 vintage - the guys that would gladly volunteer for kamikaze missions if needs be. Well not here.... they seems to be afraid to fly in the dark, afraid to fly in the rain, afraid to fly over sea, afraid to fly with fighter escort (whose morale is well... 10). No suicide missions for their lazy asses for sure. They'd be waving white flags from open canopies of their planes at the first sight of US DD.

Back to Nells and Bettys, they are way to fragile to be used for airbase bombing for 3 turns in a row, and they are not very willing to attack shipping.

I am thinkink of transferring them to Lae or Gili, alltogether with their HQ and base support guys. Has anyone tried it? Rationale is that then they'll be close to PM-Cairns sealane and more willing to actually attack something.

O.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 4
- 8/19/2002 4:34:36 AM   
ciril


Posts: 32
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Split, Croatia
Status: offline 		1) It is quite reasonable that the Zeros can't reach the B-17s.

Although the Zero's ceiling is 32.860 ft in UV, your CAP can't be assumed to hover at 100 feet below the bombers. One, every plane has an absolute maximum altitude it can reach - 100 or 10000 ft short, the result is the same, otherwise you could go to Jupiter and beyond. Two, it takes a long time and a lot of fuel to get to the plane's ceiling in the first place, and the plane can't stay there very long.

As for the historicity, it is perfectly historical. The Zero was hardly a high altitude interceptor. You need FW-190s for that kind of work.

2) Page 81 in the manual says the air groups' morale suffers when their field gets bombed. That might explain it.

Continuing with terror from way up high,

_____________________________


(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 5
FW190 interceptors - 8/19/2002 4:46:45 AM   
IndyShark


Posts: 303
Joined: 7/7/2002
From: Indianapolis
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by ciril
[B]1) It is quite reasonable that the Zeros can't reach the B-17s.

Although the Zero's ceiling is 32.860 ft in UV, your CAP can't be assumed to hover at 100 feet below the bombers. One, every plane has an absolute maximum altitude it can reach - 100 or 10000 ft short, the result is the same, otherwise you could go to Jupiter and beyond. Two, it takes a long time and a lot of fuel to get to the plane's ceiling in the first place, and the plane can't stay there very long.

As for the historicity, it is perfectly historical. The Zero was hardly a high altitude interceptor. You need FW-190s for that kind of work.

2) Page 81 in the manual says the air groups' morale suffers when their field gets bombed. That might explain it.

Continuing with terror from way up high, [/B][/QUOTE]

Just to be clear, the radial engined FW190 (A,F &G) was not a good high altitude interceptor since it lost power quickly above 20K feet. The late war FW190D had an inline engine with excellant high altitude performance but she was not available in numbers until mid 1944.

The Bf109 had good high altitude performance, but weak firepower. Guns could be added, but performance suffered and allied fighters caused numerous causulties.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 6
Betty bombers - 8/19/2002 4:49:10 AM   
IndyShark


Posts: 303
Joined: 7/7/2002
From: Indianapolis
Status: offline 		Oleg, I find them to be outstanding torpedo bombers, especially when they are escorted to the target. You need large number to be effective, so I would not waste them on low value targets or targets with good CAP (carrier task forces being the exception to the rule. If you can hit them with a good sized and escorted strike, do it!)

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 7
There'll be hell to pay - 8/19/2002 5:14:36 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Hehe, Ciro, I'd be putting some local Croat curses because that's what you deserve, but then others would not understand...

As I said in my first post - I am not complaining. It is kinda ridicolous, and most probably at least slightly unhistorical, but I accept it. Anyone has evidence that Zeros hovered like exactly 140 feet (or 14000 feet doesn't matter) below B17s unable to catch them? Anyway, the case is closed as far as I am concerned.

Drop 'em bombs while you can. You'll be payin' when the time comes. Kaga, Musashi and other baddass biggies are on the way, and when they get you don't you go on crying about any F4Fs...

As for morale, it's not the bombed group that has low morale. Low morale guys are in Rabaul for the last XY turns.

O.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 8
- 8/19/2002 5:15:58 AM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		If you guys are looking for a balanced discussion the title calling your opponents whiners is not really going to get you one. The only people who will post here will just support your position. The others have valid points and should not not be examined just because you do not agree with it. As was said earlier, please be civil, and remember that people have opinions that just simply cannot be changed no matter what you say, and they definitely won't modify their theories if you maintain aggressive conversation.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 9
........ - 8/19/2002 5:32:18 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Indy and others, how to "make" Nells and Bettys escorted?

Seems to me they expect the escort from the same base when attacking ships. When attacking land units, they coordinate strikes with escorting fighters from other bases but not so when attacking ships!

If I put Nells/Bettys in Rabaul, and Zeros too, Nell/Betty will attack only in the Zero range so as to be escorted. That means they'll go as far as PM and few hexes to the south. OK, fine. But I want to cover sea all the way up to Australia with them. So I leave Bettys/Nells in Rabaul (their range is OK) and move Zeros to forward fighter bases (Gili, Buna, Lae, whatever). Now, when attacking ground units, Rabaul Nells coordinate strikes with Zeros from forward bases as to be escorted, but they still never ever attack ships, as if they can't get escorts with them! Well, shouldn't they be using Zeros from froward bases as escorts? As I said, works when attacking ground units, but not when attacking ships. Maybe this is intended (I'd understand that, it's much harder to coordinate strike to ships than it is to ground targets) but I don't remember reading it in the manual.

So, what remains is transferring BOTH Zeros and bombers to forward bases which is a bit of a problem, as Japs lack the aircraft support personnel in forward bases. It seems to be the only solution.

Comments?

PS. Jeremy, when someone continues the "discussion" as per F4F thread, and refuses to stop for like aeons then he's a whiner to me. Sorry. As much as the one who cheats is a cheater, and the one who quits is a quitter. Not politically correct but I don't care.

O.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 10
- 8/19/2002 5:53:47 AM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		While I personally don't agree with mdiehl's position, when I step back from the discussion that I realize he is defending, and sticking to, his position. Just because he is not caving into popular conceptions and sticks to his theories does not make him a whiner. I noticed a lot of repetition on both sides, which basically told me that neither side really read the other's arguments, as they have already made up their minds and are merely spouting their own unchanging versions.

While I did say that I don't agree with his position, I also do not disagree. Nobody can really say why the kill ratios are the way they are.

Are they due to the game missing a true reflection of tactical combat?

Are they due to players changing enough strategy that historic kill rates are affected by this?

It is really hard to say, and in my mind, impossible for either to claim absolute correctness without first researching, and then actually playing the game to see what happens. And even if the results do not appear to be the same, possibly something unconsidered was not done?


I also don't feel that closing/deleting threads (unless some wacko starts posting pictures glorifying the holocaust, like what happened on the Combat Mission BB a long time ago). All that it does is to feed anger between two different extremes of camps resulting in further discussions becoming heated much more quickly. The best way to keep posts civil is to ban those who become abusive to others. Of course, then people do complain that they have a right to say whatever they want (free country spew, an excuse to abuse). However, moderators are not out to make friends, but to keep moderation, and if that requires banning abusive characters, then go ahead (most moderators understandably don't want to do this). It will keep the BB free from abuse, amd make conversation a lot more constructive.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 11
- 8/19/2002 6:58:34 AM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline 		First - you got it Jeremey! That´s exactly what I think either about all this discussions in all these games!

Second B-17s were really quite good for high alt - zero´s weren´t and no matter what there exact cailing was - these planes could hardly fly in this alt., not mentioning fighiting a B-17 in this paper fighter. The real problem is they are far too accurate. And when I say far - I mean far. Often forces of 200 US B-17 bombers attacking from 27K failed to score any real damage to german factories 4 times the size of Rabaul AF. Moreover flying in any other weather than clear (over target) makes it defienetely impossible to hit Rabaul. A few bombs could propably land far off - perhaps Kavieng or Gasmata :D !

Jap pilots should really get better moral. If the japs had one advantege (except torpedoes) throughout the entire war than it was their excelletn moral. These moral calculations were taken over from Bombing the Reich and they defeinetly not fit to the Japs. The japs sometimes are real cowards in this game - they never were even in 45 when their AFs got pounded every day and their cities were rubish. I think this doesn´t need further explanation - I can´t tell why they designed it like that - that´s defientely a BUG or a very bad idea.

The best weapon of the Japs against enemy AFs aren´t Nells/Betties! Their´s are named 16",14",8" and 18,1". The bombers are useless - I find this to be realistc. Jap bombers lacked good bombsights and had a woeful payload. But what I don´t find realitic is that they often suffer such tremenduos operational losses. I often let them fly only when they are very good rested. They attack a light defended target - like Gili Gili in June 42 and I loose 4 of 40 planes by operational losses (a question - is the pilot lost either - because that´s what counts - I hope someone can tell me). 10% with no enemy fighter or significant FlaK oppostion. - just opertional losses.

Moreover is the fatigue accumulation for search missions slightly to high (slightly!).

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 12
- 8/19/2002 7:02:09 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
[B]Nobody can really say why the kill ratios are the way they are.

Are they due to the game missing a true reflection of tactical combat?

Are they due to players changing enough strategy that historic kill rates are affected by this?

It is really hard to say, and in my mind, impossible for either to claim absolute correctness without first researching, and then actually playing the game to see what happens.[/B][/QUOTE]

I couldn't agree with you more. I have tried to suggest in a few over-the-top threads in the past that UV is a GAME that can model history - and historicity - only to a certain limited extent. Many good points (and not-so-good points) have been made about the relative characteristics of aircraft types, pilots, strategies, doctrine, and on and on. Maybe, in the fullness of time, we will have enough material to agree TOGETHER on further improvements.

I will say this. Research I have done (including reference to a number of works cited in these forums) leads me to conclude this:

-the F4F and A6M series were far different aircraft from each other.
-they were conceived to perform the same mission (air superiority) and succeed and failed to a certain extent due both to inherent strengths and weaknesses and to external factors, such as pilot training and skill and tactical doctrine.
-one did not dominate the other in design strengths, combat effectiveness, or numbers to a degree that unbalanced the historical situation so much as to make that aircraft type the single most important factor in victory or defeat.

That said, a few months of playing UV both solitaire and PBEM leads me to the same conclusions within the context of the game.

So, let's play the game and come here to converse as colleagues who respect and understand not only what we are doing for our enjoyment, but who also respect and understand each other.

Let's catch our breath, learn a little more, and revisit "improvements" only in the light of enlightenment. Please. The whole thread-closing and moderation-management thing is a little ugly, isn't it? Don't we have only ourselves to blame for having caused it to be invoked?

And gimme dat next patch PRONTO!

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 13
.................... - 8/19/2002 7:04:41 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Jeremy I feel you're trying to make this thread more "extreme" then it is, and than it's intended.

I did not want to insult anybody. I did not want to go into prolonged discussions either. And I certainly do not want the repetition of F4F thread "from the other side".

I did merely two things:

1. Pointed out several frustrating handicaps from Jap player POV. I said repeatedly that I do NOT complain to them, and do not insist they must be changed (except Val issue). If developers see theserules as fitting, I readily accept those rules as they are. Allied players may take them as good tips which some of them did.

2. Offered what I believe is the appropriate course of action in these situations, and that is not to post zillions of complaining messages into neverending zombie thread (ie. whine) but to basically accept what the game engine throws at you, as "difficulties in the life of the operational commander" and continue playing. (Outright bugs and disapperaing units are something else of course.)

After that whole thread went off the track (as it oftenly happens) with me finally piggybacking on "my" own thread to try to get some tips as to how to use twin engine bombers. (Yes, OK; maybe this deserves another separate thread.)

Now you're piggybacking this thread again, and want to turn it into ANOTHER F4F vs. Zero thread? Please don't! Puhleeeze!

If anyone sees this thread as insult - please accept my apologies. I did not want to insult, I just pointed out (with example) how operational commander in this game should grind his teeth and accept whatever is thrown at him, even if it seems sorta unhistorical at the moment. OK?

Now, with "five minute diplomacy" hopefully resolved, lets move on.

O.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 14
- 8/19/2002 7:35:44 AM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline 		BTW Oleg it ain´t possible to coordinate naval strikes with fighters from other bases. Naval strikes need to be quickly executed - especially long range... as they are often spotted and reported at noon or later (due to long flying time of recon), therefore is time short and not to be wasted for long coordination attampts. Naval strikes agaisn tsuch remote targets are very difficult - as targets move - recon information is often very inacurate and pilots have to make inertia navigation, as they only see sea sea and water for loooooooong time.
I´ve play games like Complete Carriers at war and Carrier strike and felt how hard it even was to get a well coordinated strike done at a target some 250 miles away (from CVs!). Even when you do everything right, you still need luck for it to work. So feal mercy with your commanders when they don´t allways achieve everything. Just shoot them for cowardice! ;)

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 15
- 8/19/2002 7:39:06 AM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		You were the one who added the connection between this and the other thread purely by the title itself (F4F whiners). You could easily have started discussion about stories of IJ annoyances, or something totally unrelated, but you did try and start something by insulting others for their consistent beliefs, and their tenacity (SP) of defending them. I saw stubborness on both sides on the other thread, not just those who wanted to change air combat, but those who didn't.

If you didn't want connection between threads then why did you use F4F's and talk about those in another thread in the title?

Lets get over the petty bickering and get back to the issues at hand. The only way we can see wether or not these are problems is through repeated playtesting while playing as historic as possible strategically to see if there is a problem. You can argue in the theoretical only so long, eventually someone has to do something about it. That goes with almost every 'problem' experienced in the game. It might be a problem in the game, or it might be a problem in the player refusing to do the same historic blunders.

In regards for operational losses for IJN Bombers, what were the types? What level of airbase were they flying from? What was the range of flight? Possibly basing these bombers in larger bases, more to forward bases (cut the range of travel down), or at different altitudes might lower the level of attrition that your aircraft are experiencing. Possibly your recon of the enemy base was faulty and their AA was heavier than thought?

The Japanese did have good morale, but they were not robots. They suffer due to lack of support units just as much as the Allies do. Accounts of frustration were ripe in the Japanese army and air forces due to their inability to win against the Americans, and by the fact tha the American's were not fighting a fair war (i.e., not fighting on Japan's terms! :) ). I think that the concept of morale is a little wider than just the pilot's actual morale, but their personal state of mind. When put up against something that you have no control over frustration, not cowardice, can shock even the toughest of units. Also, there might be other, invisible, reasons why these airgroups are suffering morale penalties. Look at all avenues of possibility are important at finding out what is going on. Say this was 'changed' by another patch, but then it is realized that some other factor influenced low morale, and you will end up with too high morale.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 16
Never - 8/19/2002 9:11:19 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		I find the statement 'never' very self serving.
Far more Zeros drowned at Midway than were shot down.
If Wildcats are so hot, why didnt they shoot the first wave
to pieces?

Even if the statement were true, (which is suspect) that doesnt mean that it had to be that way. if thirty wildcats encounter
300 Zeros, they can only lose 30 Wildcats. If you get my drift.

I am getting very tired of Eric B. being used as the defining
authority on the planes. I have read his books, he wasnt that convincing. He didnt even include a historical narrative
of the flow of the campaign. Annecdotes ae fine. I hear alot
of them at football time.

The Zero WAS a classic fighter, for the same reason that the
BF-109 was: It was cheap, and could be produced in numbers by the country that needed it. Were there better planes? YES,
and so what? There is a war on!! Hindsight is great if you have that luxury. If ramming got rid of a B-17, I say do it!

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 17
Re: .................... - 8/19/2002 9:46:41 AM   
XPav

 

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko
[B]I did not want to insult anybody.
O. [/B][/QUOTE]

Question: then why did you call the thread "F4F Whiners"?

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 18
too late! - 8/19/2002 9:57:21 AM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline 		Ohhh poor Oleg, though I know how you meant it, it seems that you´ve thrown a hand grenade into an ammo depot!:rolleyes:

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 19
Re: For F4F whiners - some assorted Jap handicaps - 8/19/2002 3:41:35 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko
[B]Well, since F4F thread refuses to die, I want to give all of you just a short "counter-example" from the other side. I mostly play as Japanese (for one reason only - because it's more challenging that way).

Here is small assortment of my "favorite" Jap handicaps, re air units:

1.) One of my opponents is terrorizing me using his B17s level bombers for (no, not skip bombing from 100ft) bombing from 33.000 feet. Operational ceiling of Zero in this game is set to 32.860 feet or something like that, so my CAP Zeros orbit like 100 feet (!!!) below his B17s, unable to hurt them. I receive the message that the "bombers are too high", and they go on to make their bombing run unmolested. I can't do jack **** to them. Oh, and the number of hits they manage to get in these bombing runs is ridicolously high too.

Were there any evidences of using B17s in Pac theatre to go on such bombing runs and Zeros UNABLE to reach them at all? I doubt it. Unhistorical? Certainly. Legal under game rules? Unfortunatelly for me - yes. I don't complain!

2.) Morale of my fighters oftenly gets atrociously low for no apparent reason. F1 Tainan Daitai or whatever is called (the unit where Sakai was) in one of my games is currently around 15. No, they did not have any unusal losses. No they are not extremely fatigued. Maybe their morale drop when they realised those B17 are 100 feet above them and they cannot get to them? :o/ Playing from allied side, I observed such low morale only in infamous Wirraway units. Again - this is certainly unhistorical, but personally I am READY to accept the rules designer of this game set, and I am READY to ACCEPT the possibility that even the F1 Tainan Daitai morale could have (maybe?) dropped that low under some circumstances. Maybe I am doing something wrong? Maybe the Allied player is using his units better?

As player of this game, I accept this as just another CHALLENGE I, as operational commander, must deal with.

(Now compare this to mdiehl and F4F complainers, and their *undying* monster thread.)

3.) As already metnioned in separate thread - Vals carry 60 kg firecrackers when going to extended range missions.

Now actually this is the only handicap that I'd really like to see changed in future versions, as I believe is completely ridicolous.

Why I am posting this? Well, first, to show Allied players and *unrelentless* F4F whiners that Japs DO have their set of air handicaps, and that they are mostly way like *WAAAAY* more serious than infamous F4F "issue" they so much like to whine about.

Another reason for posting this is the attitude I think players must take when they meet with such handicaps.

Basically, I CHOOSE to trust the designers of this game and not to complain to every ahistorical use or tactical result. I am NOT "officially" complaining to Matrix or 2by3 for above issues (except for #3 which IMO should be fixed), I am ready to accept the rationale designers had when making this game and I'll survive those additional challenges thrown my way.

I am going to post this ONCE, for everyone to see. If designers deem issues #1 and #2 need changing - fine by me (#3 needs chaning anyway IMO). If they see this is OK and does not need changing - again, fine by me, I am ready to accept those additional challenges, EVEN if such usage of B17s (and morale drop of Zero fighters) NEVER occured in "real history". WTF, it, unfortunatelly for me, occured in "my" little history.

I hope I do get my point accross, especially for F4F bunch in their undying fight...

O. [/B][/QUOTE]

I "feel for you" Oleg... :-(

BTW, I think that Max aircraft altitudes are way off in UV.

In order not to clutter this thread I started new one with just that discussion:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=24569


Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 20
Morale loss for no apparent reason - 8/25/2002 12:32:41 PM   
Toast Master

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Belcamp, Maryland
Status: offline 		I'm experiencing the same bizarre loss of morale for the F1 Tainan Datai that Oleg mentions (currently it's at 43). There seems to be no reason for this morale drop. There is ample aviation support and plenty of supply at their base; only 2 or 3 losses to 6 kills; the base is undamaged; fatigue has never been over 30 (and is usually around 0 as the unit has not flown much at all). So why is their morale in the toilet?! :confused:

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 21
- 8/25/2002 12:52:38 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Toast Master,

What's the squadron leader like? I've had perfectly good squadron suffer severe depression when their commander dies and the new guy inspiration and leadership stat's are so bad he couldn't host an accountant's convention.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 22
- 8/25/2002 6:42:02 PM   
Toast Master

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Belcamp, Maryland
Status: offline 		It's the original leader, Kozono; leadership 64; inspiration 70 (or values very close to those; I'm going from memory here). These values don't sound too low, so I don't think that's the problem.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 23
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> For F4F whiners - some assorted Jap handicaps Page: [1]
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

1.965