Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

quote:

I imagine that I would 'decide' the same way I would in my transport TF analogy. If something seemed amiss, I would ask my opponent how they were using this in the game. If it was unintentional, s'OK. If it was intentional, again sticking with my transport TF analogy, then we've a problem in the game that we need to address.

I'm sorry I'm not being clear about the use of unescorted bombers on bombing missions. I think I've said twice now that I've no problem with that approach, erroneously or otherwise.

Lastly, I'm not sure about the 'ruining decent gaming relationships' comment. I never said this was a showstopper or something folks in 'good' relationships couldn't be talked out of. It is a point of discussion, like most other odditities, bugs and quirks with this game.

How many players would man up and admit to using heavy bombers in a sweep role? Since running a bombing campaign unescorted is legit, why would any player admit to doing something others consider gamey when they can just as easily claim to be using a legitimate tactic?

This is where I see a problem with your statement, and why I think that following such a line of thought could end up ruining an otherwise decent gaming relationship. EG: you think that your opponent is pulling something gamey and ask him about it. He sincerely believes that his ops are legit, and is now affronted at the thought you would think that he would stoop to something so cheesy. The result is that you don't know if you trust his response (and therefore any future response) while he is now concerned that he will be accused of gamey tactics whenever he tries something different. The relationship is now soured... and will take a long while to recover, if it can.

I am happy to have had a great gaming partner over the last several years. I don't think that we have ever felt the need to question each others methods - and he has shown great patience with my plodding strategies... Unfortunately he tends to kick my sorry buns far too often!

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Maybe big ones or any planes should not fly at all when there's severe storms...

Due to the wonky weather in Storms in the Pacific that would mean nobody would fly ever...

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I have only one question for those who feel that this aspect of the game is flawed....in all the time this game, and it's predecessor, War in the Pacific has been released, has this point ever been raised before? Is there any other threads out there on this same question? I couldn't find any. If you do find one, please link it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

quote:

I imagine that I would 'decide' the same way I would in my transport TF analogy. If something seemed amiss, I would ask my opponent how they were using this in the game. If it was unintentional, s'OK. If it was intentional, again sticking with my transport TF analogy, then we've a problem in the game that we need to address.

I'm sorry I'm not being clear about the use of unescorted bombers on bombing missions. I think I've said twice now that I've no problem with that approach, erroneously or otherwise.

Lastly, I'm not sure about the 'ruining decent gaming relationships' comment. I never said this was a showstopper or something folks in 'good' relationships couldn't be talked out of. It is a point of discussion, like most other odditities, bugs and quirks with this game.

How many players would man up and admit to using heavy bombers in a sweep role? Since running a bombing campaign unescorted is legit, why would any player admit to doing something others consider gamey when they can just as easily claim to be using a legitimate tactic?

This is where I see a problem with your statement, and why I think that following such a line of thought could end up ruining an otherwise decent gaming relationship. EG: you think that your opponent is pulling something gamey and ask him about it. He sincerely believes that his ops are legit, and is now affronted at the thought you would think that he would stoop to something so cheesy. The result is that you don't know if you trust his response (and therefore any future response) while he is now concerned that he will be accused of gamey tactics whenever he tries something different. The relationship is now soured... and will take a long while to recover, if it can.

I am happy to have had a great gaming partner over the last several years. I don't think that we have ever felt the need to question each others methods - and he has shown great patience with my plodding strategies... Unfortunately he tends to kick my sorry buns far too often!

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


I might add that is is mainly my policy to send my heavy bombers in first with no escort. Yes, it may be called a bit gamey but I find that any sort of coordination of fighters in the game is almost impossible, and fighter escort no matter the quality just get creamed. In addition uncordianted fighter sweeps into large CAP can itself lead to disaster. The virtual absence of coordination also causes severe loss to my mediums which I find I just cannot replace. So, my formula is to hit first with heavies then sweep with fighters. Once the opposition is cleared out, I use my mediums to keep pressure on and keep the airfield damaged. But it is the heavies that go in first. I wish it could be otherwise but the shortfalls of the game mechanics dictate the need.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea
Looks like Allied bombing 101 to me. Players of the Japanese side are able to make improvements using historical hindsight but when an Allied player does it , it's wrong?

I heavy bomb the heck out of any airfield I can get to and mix in sweeps and medium bombers when the field is damaged to my liking.

If you come within 7 hex's of my level 9 airfields expect lots of steel raining down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Also by using your heavies to bomb the hell out of an opponent removes them from other duties such as recon or naval search.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Also by using your heavies to bomb the hell out of an opponent removes them from other duties such as recon or naval search.

You can use medium bombers for those. Recon, especially, I leave to B25s.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Which reduces the ammount of mediums you can use for ASW duty. See?

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
yeah and they would have a high chance to come in after the bombers (which in the end would be not bad anyway as the bombers would sweep the enemy). It was a common mission for P-38 to escort bombers in the Pacific and they did VERY well on escort.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

You said recon and naval search.

And my point is, if you use a plane or anything else for a specific goal for which it
was not exclusively intended you either remove or reduce its use for other historical areas of operation.

Simple as that.

So if you use heavy bombers for ground pounding exclusively, go ahead. As long as you don´t forget
that you have to cover other areas of operations in which those planes where used, or as long as
your opponent does not find a way to exploit it youre fine.

quote:


Just in case that was not clear: this equally applies to a Japanese player who thinks
that overproducing Tojos is the road to salvation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea
Looks like Allied bombing 101 to me. Players of the Japanese side are able to make improvements using historical hindsight but when an Allied player does it , it's wrong?

I heavy bomb the heck out of any airfield I can get to and mix in sweeps and medium bombers when the field is damaged to my liking.

If you come within 7 hex's of my level 9 airfields expect lots of steel raining down.

This.

Also by using your heavies to bomb the hell out of an opponent removes them from other duties such as recon or naval search.
Why do I have the feeling that Allied players who use 4eng bombers for land bombing and "fighter sweeps" exclusively, are the same who
complain most about their patrol plane losses and the fact that Japan has loads of fighters and elite pilots later in the war?

By using your bombers on a very confined part of the game you remove them from other vital missions.
As a Japanese player I would not complain about it but start thinking about how to exploit this.


WitPAE provides limited ressources for a wide range of tasks. Concentrating on one task removes or limits your ability to accomplish another.
I wonder why so many consider KB as a strategic platform which should be used in combination with speed, strenght and surprise and
consider covering its position vital for mission success, but at the same time are convinced that does not apply to other areas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana
Well, statement of the obvious. If you use asset A on mission B, then it cannot be used on mission C.

The bit of interest is what is the best use of asset A.

quote:


The Tojo situation is rather different, as those factories have only a finite number of uses. If you got a factory and it can be used to make Nates, Tojos, Oscars or Zeroes, what would you pick? All Tojos, obviously, as many as the number of Tojo squadrons effectively allows you to use. IRL the Japanese made Zeroes throughout the war, in game you want to cut that to a minimum when better planes come along, and the game does let you do that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
My question would be: What is the best use for asset A in situation X in Fall 194Y.

quote:

The training system encourages specialisation, true, but this does not automatically imply that specialisation
is the best way to train.

quote:

By what you wrote alone, you artificially limit yourself to choose between four different fighter types which is not neccesary

quote:

Thats very similar as an Allied player who uses all his heavies on land bombing missions.

You can be successful, but only if your opponent does not ask himself what you are sacrificing with your strategy
and comes up with a good counter exactly where your sacrifice leaves an empty space.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Also by using your heavies to bomb the hell out of an opponent removes them from other duties such as recon or naval search.

You can use medium bombers for those. Recon, especially, I leave to B25s.

Which reduces the ammount of mediums you can use for ASW duty. See?

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

IRL the Japs built substandard planes well into the war. Why build a Zero when you can build a Tojo? Theres no point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

IRL the Japs built substandard planes well into the war. Why build a Zero when you can build a Tojo? Theres no point.

According to my readings, Japan was forced to rely on obsolete planes because for the new-and-improved designs their industrial production techniques, their quality control, just wasn't good enough. Too many duds. Not for all things, but for too many things. A modern economy in some respects, but the old traditional economy in others. Mass production vs. cottage industry. They faced some hard choices.

In strictly game terms, there may be no point to keep building Zeros. But if you favor "historical" game play, it's just one more house rule.

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

According to my readings, Japan was forced to rely on obsolete planes because for the new-and-improved designs their industrial production techniques, their quality control, just wasn't good enough. Too many duds. Not for all things, but for too many things. A modern economy in some respects, but the old traditional economy in others. Mass production vs. cottage industry. They faced some hard choices.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Why build a Zero when you can build a Tojo? Theres no point. Tojo or nothing, if you got enough Tojos.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Why build a Zero when you can build a Tojo? Theres no point. Tojo or nothing, if you got enough Tojos.

Have you ever try Japanese side? Tojo is an army plane, not navy. Only army squadrons can use Tojos. Zero is only carrier capaple plane, and most of the IJN squadrons can use only Zeros (or late war A7M Sams), PDU on/off doesn't matter.

So Tojo can't replace Zero...

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis


Have you ever try Japanese side? Tojo is an army plane, not navy. Only army squadrons can use Tojos. Zero is only carrier capaple plane, and most of the IJN squadrons can use only Zeros (or late war A7M Sams), PDU on/off doesn't matter.

So Tojo can't replace Zero...

I speak from the experience of being on the receiving end - I think 2/3rds of all fighters I meet are Tojos now, so I think it pretty much can - not on the carriers, admittedly. I'm assuming the Allied CVs will have a qualitative edge when they get Hellcats.

But I don't see IJN CVs much away from the shores where the Tojos lurk. My foe is cautious.

My foe also told me he's making 200+ Tojos a month, which is about double the useful Allied fighter rate, which probably explains why this flood of top notch fighters isn't going to be dammed until the P47 arrives. The only Allied a/c demonstrably better than a Tojo is the Corsair, and I find it frankly useless with service rating 3 and a short range - their up time is terrible, 50% is above average I find. Not good enough.


Just had a particularly busy day in my game in SOPAC - looks to me like he had ~40 Tojos in the air over Choiseul Bay, ~120 Tojos escorting, and about 50 non-Tojo fighters making an appearance. Clearly the Tojo is doing the bulk of the fighting where it matters. In any case that is a lot of Tojos!

If you wanna wade through a report and see the Tojo versus other distribution, here it is.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Vella Lavella at 110,133

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 42 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 22
G4M1 Betty x 18
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 42



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 10
P-40K Warhawk x 13
F4F-3 Wildcat x 7
F4U-1 Corsair x 4


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Vella Lavella at 110,133

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 52 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 4
B5N1 Kate x 37
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 31




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Vella Lavella at 110,133

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 5,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 40 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 4
Ki-21-Ic Sally x 9
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 21
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 21



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Vella Lavella at 110,133

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 23 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 4
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 31
Ki-48-IIb Lily x 20


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Vella Lavella at 110,133

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 23 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 4
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 10
Ki-48-IIb Lily x 16


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Vella Lavella at 110,133

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 2,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 4
A6M3a Zero x 10
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 31
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 12


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Vella Lavella at 110,133

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 5,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 4
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 10
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 8

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
So I think your opponent don't have that much Tojos. It's minor a bug.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
So I think your opponent don't have that much Tojos. It's minor a bug.

You're seeing some twice because of morning and afternoon attacks, and a lot of them are the 40 Tojo CAP over Choiseul Bay, which you see again and again as the Allies attack it, again and again.

But even given that, look at the Japanese strikes on Vella Lavella. Possibly some Tojos are managing to escort the same raid twice in one phase, not sure.