P-47C & P-38G Loadout Data

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

P-47C & P-38G Loadout Data

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 >> P-47C & P-38G Loadout Data

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

P-47C & P-38G Loadout Data - 2/8/2003 1:03:38 PM

NAVMAN

Posts: 436
Joined: 12/31/2002
Status: offline

On the main aircraft data base it states that both of these aircraft are capable of carrying 2x500lb GP bombs.Yet, when I access the aircraft data screens for induvidual groups at my bases,the screen does not show these aircraft of being capable of carrying bombs. Also, the option for attack missions does not appear for these groups, only escort,sweep, etc. What am I missing?Thanks.

Post #: 1

- 2/8/2003 7:37:14 PM

Drongo

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

UV classifies the P38G and P47C as fighters not fighter-bombers. I'd say it was simply a design decision as to what type of role they would fulfill in the game. IIRC, both types were primarily used as fighters in the Pacific in '43, so if you had to choose one role for the a/c, it would be that. Not sure why the P47D isnt a F/B though.

As fighters, the P38G and P47C have a load out of drop tanks (as described on their aircraft data screen of the squadron display). I assume that if UV classified them as fighter-bombers, their range would be reduced (bombs instead of drop tanks).

Someone from Matrix might give you the exact reason.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 2

- 2/9/2003 2:28:47 AM

NAVMAN

Posts: 436
Joined: 12/31/2002
Status: offline

Drongo:Thx for the reply.My question really concerns the discrepancy between what is shown in the data base,the capabilty to carry bombs, vis-a-vis the induvidual squadron data screen(s) which do not show this capability. I think that the main data screen and squadron data screens should have the same info as far as capabilities, etc. Also think the P-47 should be classified as a fighter bomber.

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 3

- 2/9/2003 8:09:36 AM

Drongo

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

I was actually trying to address your question.

The a/c loadout shown in the "Plane and Weapon Database" lists the a/c's potential loadout as both fighter and fighter-bomber.

The a/c loadout shown in the squadron screen lists the actual weapons carried for it's designed UV role.

If an aircraft is designated as a fighter (P47C/P38G) in UV, it will never be equipped with bombs when operating in the game, even when attacking ships on a sweep.

I'd just treat the "Plane and Weapon Database" as a historical reference only and not as an indication of what the a/c can carry in the game.

Food for thought - due to persistent protests by members of the Aussie forum contingent (and some foreigners too), the Beaufighter was changed from a level bomber into a fighter bomber. If you make enough noise, you might achieve a similar change for the P47.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 4

- 2/9/2003 11:39:26 AM

D Delo

Posts: 4
Joined: 1/8/2003
From: Seattle/Tacoma
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo
[B]UV classifies the P38G and P47C as fighters not fighter-bombers. I'd say it was simply a design decision as to what type of role they would fulfill in the game. [/B][/QUOTE]

As in real life, the role an aircraft filled should have more to do with doctrine than arbitrary labels assigned by the game. Air power is inherently flexible, the role an aircraft is used in has more to do with the current political/economic situation rather than what label it carries.

Case in point - B-17s where used in the tactical role during Operation Cobra and the P-38s used to kill Yamamoto were used to achieve a strategic outcome

I feel that other aircraft designated as "Fighters" in the game should be able to execute "Fighter-Bomber" missions

P-40s, P-38s, P-47s, F4Fs, and F-4Us all had the ability to carry, and drop bombs

Off hand I�m not sure of Japanese aircraft, but I am willing to bet there are a few that fall in to this category as well

Just because historically they where not used in this role is irrelevant to the fact that each of these aircraft possessed the ability to execute missions other than those assigned in the game to a "Fighter"

If I choose to use my best air-to-air platform to drop bombs, when there are other more suited assets available, than I am a fool

If I choose for my best air-to-air platform to drop bombs when I am against the ropes, and my adversary is looking for a knockout punch, then I am using all of the tools in my toolbox to survive and keep fighting another day

Right now the game, by not allowing some aircraft to drop bombs, is defining my doctrine.

This is not true regarding the use of other weapons ships, subs troops ect.

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 5

- 2/9/2003 11:58:26 PM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by D Delo
[B]As in real life, the role an aircraft filled should have more to do with doctrine than arbitrary labels assigned by the game. Air power is inherently flexible, the role an aircraft is used in has more to do with the current political/economic situation rather than what label it carries.

Case in point - B-17s where used in the tactical role during Operation Cobra and the P-38s used to kill Yamamoto were used to achieve a strategic outcome

I feel that other aircraft designated as "Fighters" in the game should be able to execute "Fighter-Bomber" missions

P-40s, P-38s, P-47s, F4Fs, and F-4Us all had the ability to carry, and drop bombs

Off hand I�m not sure of Japanese aircraft, but I am willing to bet there are a few that fall in to this category as well

Just because historically they where not used in this role is irrelevant to the fact that each of these aircraft possessed the ability to execute missions other than those assigned in the game to a "Fighter"

If I choose to use my best air-to-air platform to drop bombs, when there are other more suited assets available, than I am a fool

If I choose for my best air-to-air platform to drop bombs when I am against the ropes, and my adversary is looking for a knockout punch, then I am using all of the tools in my toolbox to survive and keep fighting another day

Right now the game, by not allowing some aircraft to drop bombs, is defining my doctrine.

This is not true regarding the use of other weapons ships, subs troops ect. [/B][/QUOTE]

Several points:
1. when stating that these types 'could' all drop bombs, when was that capability realised (early ear types often had this retrofitted as a capability), and hence wouldn't apply for most of UV. Are you using 20:20 hindsight in knowing this was a good option?
2. Were the crews trained in the techniques?
3. Supply is abstracted in the game (1 pt supply mutates into whatever is needed when used). Did the supply chain (in RL) have the capabilty to support FB (in numbers)?

Thus, it is NOT just a question of defining your doctrine. The overall balance and historical accuracy of the game needs to be considered as well. We all know that lots of things done early war were stupid, and could have been done better, but in giving the player free reign to change things, you depart from a historical game into fantasy if you are not careful.
And Finally:
4. what are you doing that you need US fighters to be used as FB? Not sinking enough shipping?

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 6

- 2/10/2003 1:39:19 AM

juliet7bravo

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline

I think Joel Billings answered this a long while back. Generally, I think the gist was that making them F/B's would be a "Really Bad Thing" due to programming constraints and the way air missions/combat are resolved.

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 7

- 2/10/2003 2:44:36 AM

D Delo

Posts: 4
Joined: 1/8/2003
From: Seattle/Tacoma
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HMSWarspite
[B]Several points:
1. when stating that these types 'could' all drop bombs, when was that capability realized (early ear types often had this retrofitted as a capability), and hence wouldn't apply for most of UV. Are you using 20:20 hindsight in knowing this was a good option?[/B][/QUOTE]
P-40E, P-47C, P-38F, F-4F all where delivered from the factory with bomb shackles, and used this capability from the start of their service life.

For US aircraft the issue was not the ability to drop bombs, but the ability to hang external fuel tanks. Some of these aircraft, specifically the P-40, used the factory installed bomb shackles to hang external tanks after receiving field mods which added plumbing to the hard points allowing the use of external fuel tanks.

The pre-war Air Force (USAAC & USAAF) was mesmerized by the thought actualizing Douhet's theories of strategic bombing and did not see the need develop long-range fighter aircraft. Most pre-war fighters did not posses the capability to carry external fuel tanks. The early P-40 was only able to carry drop tanks after receiving a field mod plumbing factory installed bomb shackels for external fuel.

Yet the game allows this type to use drop tanks without penalty

[QUOTE][B]2. Were the crews trained in the techniques?[/B][/QUOTE]
Early war aircrews were not as specialized as their late war brethren. These men had a degree of training in air-to-ground operations at the start of the war. Survival in war require a great deal of flexibility and adaptability. When these men were tasked with dropping bombs they figured it out pretty quickly. This facet is already covered in the game mechanics with the experience levels. The more experienced a crewmember is, the more flexible they tend to be. This allows them to carry out a far greater range of mission types with better results than inexperienced crews.

[B][QUOTE]3. Supply is abstracted in the game (1 pt supply mutates into whatever is needed when used). Did the supply chain (in RL) have the capability to support FB (in numbers)?[/B][/QUOTE]
Supply in the game [I][B]IS[/B][/I] abstract. The additional stress on the logistical trail is minimal and falls well within the game's gross abstraction. However, in real life these aircraft [I][B]DID[/B][/I] execute air-to-ground operations and the real life logistics trail [I][B]DID[/B][/I] support them.

[B][QUOTE]Thus, it is NOT just a question of defining your doctrine. The overall balance and historical accuracy of the game needs to be considered as well. We all know that lots of things done early war were stupid, and could have been done better, but in giving the player free reign to change things, you depart from a historical game into fantasy if you are not careful.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
Maybe you missed part of my original post so here it is again
[Quote]Originally posted by D Delo
If I choose to use my best air-to-air platform to drop bombs, when there are other more suited assets available, than I am a fool

If I choose for my best air-to-air platform to drop bombs when I am against the ropes, and my adversary is looking for a knockout punch, then I am using all of the tools in my toolbox to survive and keep fighting another day[/quote]
Historically these aircraft [I][B]DID[/B][/I] execute air-to-ground operations and are not a fatasiful idea on my part. Since these aircraft types [I][B]DID[/B][/I] execute these mission types in [I][B]REAL LIFE[/B][/I] I hardly see allowing aircraft the ability to execute mission types that they flew in real life as allowing the player to "depart from historical game into fantasy," but instead allowing the player a wider range of [I][B]HISTORICALLY ACCURATE OPTIONS[/B][/I]

If the game denys me the ability to execute mission types that were flown in real life, then the game itself is artificially affecting its own overall balance and historical accuracy

[B][QUOTE]And Finally:
4. what are you doing that you need US fighters to be used as FB? Not sinking enough shipping? [/B][/QUOTE]
If you do not agree with my points and ideas then please limit your comments to countering them, but your personal attacks on my game skills and me only reduce the weight and validity of your arguments

David Delo
Major, USAF

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 8

- 2/10/2003 4:05:30 AM

NAVMAN

Posts: 436
Joined: 12/31/2002
Status: offline

David:Your points are well taken. The historical record shows that
all these aircraft,including the Corsair, were used extensively in the air-ground role. The P-47 was used to great effect by 9th AF in the ETO,and by the Air Commandos under Corchoran in Burma. Corsairs were used by the Marines as the centerpiece of the close support role they performed in the Pacific.
The AVG used the P-40 in the ground attack role to repulse a Japanese attack over a river. Many other examples abound. Therefore, it is historically accurate to give these aircraft an air-ground capability. Doing so would in no way put this game into the realm of "fantasy",as some one else suggested. The fact that the data base for the P-47 gives the airplane this very capability
belies any such criticism. It needs to be changed.

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 9

- 2/10/2003 4:17:02 AM

NAVMAN

Posts: 436
Joined: 12/31/2002
Status: offline

Drongo:Thx for the further elaboration. It looks like I stirred up something I had not intended to. I'll take the data base as just something for basic reference.

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 10

- 2/10/2003 9:20:12 AM

Drongo

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

Posted by NAVMAN
[QUOTE]Drongo:Thx for the further elaboration. It looks like I stirred up something I had not intended to.[/QUOTE]
:)

Most threads have a habit of taking on a life of their own.

Posted by D Delo
[QUOTE]Just because historically they where not used in this role is irrelevant to the fact that each of these aircraft possessed the ability to execute missions other than those assigned in the game to a "Fighter"[/QUOTE]

Yes, both sides could and did use many of the "fighters" as "fighter-bombers" (field mods can do amazing things). There are plenty of accounts around like the aussie P-40s, carrying bombs, playing a major role in wrecking the Japanese attempt to capture Milne Bay in late '42.

I wondered, when I first got the game, why all the fighters with a listed "payload" were not designated as F/Bs (since F/Bs can still perform all the missions of a fighter). As Juliet7bravo indicated, there may well have been other design reasons involved, beyond that of a "doctrine" choice from 2x3 Games.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 11

WHOLE PROBLEM - 2/12/2003 1:17:24 AM

Mike Scholl

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by juliet7bravo
[B]I think Joel Billings answered this a long while back. Generally, I think the gist was that making them F/B's would be a "Really Bad Thing" due to programming constraints and the way air missions/combat are resolved. [/B][/QUOTE]

So the real problem is that 2by3 made a poor coding choice in
how these aircraft would be handled. Rather than allow them
to function as FIGHTERS on some missions, and FIGHTER-BOMBERS on others at the descretion of the player---2by3 made the choices for everyone when writing the code. Too bad for
everyone. Score: "Coding ease"= 1/ Reality = 0

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 12

- 2/12/2003 7:52:38 AM

Deathifier

Posts: 362
Joined: 6/17/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

I believe it may have been a choice made for simplicity and time reasons.

Certainly it'd be nice to have the option, and that option default to their current settings, especially if it expands the strategic depth (more varied choices of action in any given situation) and allows for better historical modelling.

However when you consider how infrequently this option would be used, and add to that the mental load of remembering the setting of yet another little option on the aircraft screen (something that mostly affects casual players) then it's not really worth the programming effort to implement if there are more important features to complete or bugs to fix.

I wouldn't think that adding the option would take exceptionally long, but then it has to go through QA and be tested for exploitation. That's a lot of hassle just so some people can drop a couple of bombs from select fighter groups!

- Deathifier

(Removed and added parts regarding historical uses due to misunderstanding the historical uses of these aircraft, thanks for clearing it up a bit NAVMAN).

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 13

- 2/12/2003 8:14:02 AM

NAVMAN

Posts: 436
Joined: 12/31/2002
Status: offline

Deathifier:I do not believe the issue to be one of enabling some people to drop a few bombs from certain aircraft. I believe the issue to be one of historical accuracy. I do not know what the programming issues would be, as my experience is limited to programming in RPG. In any case, if the game purports itself to be historically accurate, within reasonable limits, the change to make certain aircraft have capabilities reflecting the historical operations of same, does not seem unreasonable. To each his/her
own.

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 14

For Mike Scholl - 2/13/2003 5:51:49 AM

MemoryLeak

Posts: 491
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Woodland, CA USA
Status: offline

I see you are still taking cheap shots at 2by3 and their programmers. Who do you work for Microsoft?

Open and constructive dialog will improve the product. But just slamming them with wild statements is childish.

It's easy to criticize, but much harder to produce results. If your so talented, publish your own game.

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 15

- 2/13/2003 6:12:23 AM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Hi Delo
have you ever sent out a sweep using P-47's ?

in game terms, it does not matter, if the plane is a FB or a F, the P-47 will hammer a target, may not be the best idea to send them agaisnt shipping, but by the time they come out, you shouldn't have to use them that way

for the most part, the only thing a FB does that a F does not, is attack barges

(for some of you who posted plane types, did any of you look at what they are ?, the F4u1 is a Fighter, the F4U4 is a Fighter bomber, gee, maybe they did do some modeling)

(for Code, going back to BTR, FB's had a hassle with being able to fight, the system, just don't let them, maybe when they say, there were Code reasons to list the planes as Fighters, may still have something to do with that part of the code)

you also made a statement about the how an experence Crew is Flexable, I strongly disagree, with that statement and that kind of thinking, an Experenced Man knows what works and what does not, and will not do the unworkable, instead, useing his experence to do the right thing

and in fact, is that not the reason for training, in the first place, to get somebody to do what they have to do,when they have to do it, with out haveing to tell them, or for them to have to think it though

All in all, I think you are just picking nit's, the plane works, the game works, the title on the plane is wrong

Later Gaters

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 16

Re: WHOLE PROBLEM - 2/13/2003 6:52:06 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Scholl
[B]So the real problem is that 2by3 made a poor coding choice in
how these aircraft would be handled. Rather than allow them
to function as FIGHTERS on some missions, and FIGHTER-BOMBERS on others at the descretion of the player---2by3 made the choices for everyone when writing the code. Too bad for
everyone. Score: "Coding ease"= 1/ Reality = 0 [/B][/QUOTE]

Mike, if we did everything to make reality score high and easy coding score low we'd never get a game this complicated finished and published. Yes reality suffered in this case. Of course reality suffers whenever we allow players to do things that were totally against doctrine, but most people don't complain about that, and in the end it is a game.

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 17

Re: Re: WHOLE PROBLEM - 2/13/2003 2:11:01 PM

Mike Scholl

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]Mike, if we did everything to make reality score high and easy coding score low we'd never get a game this complicated finished and published. Yes reality suffered in this case. Of course reality suffers whenever we allow players to do things that were totally against doctrine, but most people don't complain about that, and in the end it is a game. [/B][/QUOTE]

JOEL .... I'm certainly willing to grant you that it is quicker and
easier to "lift" as much code as possible from previous efforts
in building a new game. I just think "realism" deserves at least
equal consideration in a game that aims to reproduce an historic
event. Virtually all Fighter aircraft produced by the US were also
used as Fighter-Bombers with minor "field modifications". These
were the same aircraft and the same pilots; but the aircraft had
different performance charicteristics depending on the role. One
terrific example is the late-war F6F's. They were so good in both
roles that Carrier Air Group composition was changed to make
best use of them. Gave American Carriers huge fighter compliments to deal with air threats (Kamikazes) that could be
used the following day as huge compliments of "dive bombers"
for ground support or naval attack.

The Japanese weren't as committed to this "duel purpose" capability---which is one of the reasons US fighters generally
had stronger (and heavier) airframes and more powerful engines.
I think it is a significant historic capability that ought to be represented in the game. I'm just sorry you and Gary don't feel
that way.

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 18

- 2/14/2003 5:01:51 AM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Hi Mike
not sure I follow your thinking, we are talking and playing a game set in 1942-43, but you are bring up 1945, and then saying shame on them for not modeling the planes right ?

I do think there are trade off's in the game, the Allies got more then enough firepower as it is, with out making every fighter, able to carry bombs

and as they have said, they had there reasons

still say, if you want to hurt a ground target, send out some 47's on sweep, they do more damage then a BG will

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 19

SARGE - 2/14/2003 7:30:07 AM

Mike Scholl

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

I brought up the F6F usage of 1944-45 because it was an
excellent example of what I was speaking of, not the only
one. And as 2by3 seems determined to use the same code
for WAR IN THE PACIFIC, I didn't think a late war example
was out of line.

Mostly my comments are motivated by the fact that 2by3
have in hand about 85% of the best historical simulation
of the period and place ever assembled---and it's driving
me nuts that they are so close and still willing to let it slip
down the toilet for "ease of coding". However they release
WitP, it will probably eat up the market for such games for
another 10 years, and I'm not getting any younger. If they
don't get it right, I might not live to see it done right. And
that annoys me, because I want to play an historical simu-
lation much more than another "game" that settles for "well
enough". Does that answer your question?

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 20

- 2/14/2003 8:55:15 AM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Hi Mike
well I not 2by3 or what not, so can not speak for them, but for me, no it does not

have they not supported UV way beyound what is to be normally expected of a Game ?

hasn't the other games that have been worked on by the staff here, been supported, updated

complaining that they are taking the easy way out, is just not right

if it is a case that they think the planes should be fighters instead of fighterbombers, then it is our job to let them know we would rather have FB instead, not complain about there choice of coding work

LOL, you know long it took to get the data base for the P-61 fixed ? and that goes back to BTR (which it may already of been in there from BOB, lots of planes that are not in the game are in the DB)

give em some time, if it is fixable or doable or should be done, they will get it :)

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 21

- 2/14/2003 9:43:07 AM

NAVMAN

Posts: 436
Joined: 12/31/2002
Status: offline

I had no idea that I would be causing such a discussion when I made my original post. At the risk of putting more oil on the fire, I would like to ask a couple of more questions:
To Joel Billings:Joel, just for the heck of it, I pulled out my rule book for Pacific War and noted that the P-47 was classified as a
fighter-bomber. Can you provide some insight as to why the classification was changed to fighter? Also, if you have the opportunity,can you provide some insight as to the methodology and thought process that is involved in the classification of a weapon system, in particular aircraft?
To Hard Sarge: You have mentioned that if one chooses "sweep"
as a P-47 mission, the aircraft will attack ships. My understanding of the "sweep" mission was that it was to engage enemy aircraft
and not sea or land targets. Will this mission setting cause the P-47s to attack both land and sea targets? Also,since the aircraft cannot carry bombs, the only weapon of attack will be machine guns?
Thx.

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 22

- 2/15/2003 3:50:04 AM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Hi Navman
you misread, my statement, I said or meant (at least) that sweep works on all but ships

send some 47's on sweep along with some 25's bombing, and you will make a total mess out of base

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 23

- 2/15/2003 4:21:27 AM

Nikademus

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

2b3 is well aware of what catagory each plane fell into. The online encyc is all one needs to see that. However there were other considerations involved that warrented some fighter bombers being "classed" in-game as fighters.

Wont pretend to know the exact reasons why, however from the viewpoint of one who has intimate knowledge of how the game engine playes out "on the sharp end", I can stab a guess.

Mike, you are passionately (some though might say "lambasting") pushing for a more historically accurate game. As many betas have shown, what might seem on the surface to be a "more historically correct" move can sometimes, nay often somtimes, produce results in-game that are far more a-historical in nature.

Mine and sub-warfare are probably the two best examples. In the later the decision to halve IJN ASW appears to be "historically" correct, however when coupled with the pre-2.30 sub routines, it began producing an effect all out of preportion to the actual capabilities of Japanese ASW.

I think a similar thing is involved here with the FB issue. Most players agree in varying amounts that level bombers and fighters tend to be a bit overpowering in the game against land targets. Enough that in the patch history of the game, casualties from air attack have been reduced (particularily straffing). Things are much better now, though they still tend to be a bit overeffective in general. Same goes for airbase attacks. Right now just using conventional bombers its fairly easy to completely shut down even a large airbase in a ridiculously short period of time (which btw, completely grounds the airforce there and prevents any transfer of trapped air units)

historical? not according to accounts from the SoPac campaign. Casualty figures for entrenched troops from airattack are murky at best. All we know for sure was that it took thousands of sorties, tens of thousands of pounds of bombs, a sustained effort and after all that the ground pounders still had to go in to clear out the 'infestation' for want of a better word.

Likewise with air campaigns against airbases, at least against the larger, better maintained ones. a sustained and powerful effort to keep airbases either down or mostly down.

Given that environment.....would adding more planes capable of lugging bombs make UV a more "historical" simm, or a less "historical" sim

Many have commented that operational tempo is already too fast in the game. Though unlimited supply plays a part here, i believe the air to ground interaction also plays its part

Just my .02 cents. For all i know it may be entirely a coding issue. But then again, maybe not :)

Either way, i dont see this issue as one of "simple" black and white historical accuracy, because its not simply a matter of what was a FB or a F. Most of us already know what went there. It gets more complicated though when you have to include the dynamics of the game they are being fitted into.

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 24

TO NIKADEMUS - 2/15/2003 6:18:50 AM

Mike Scholl

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

Thank you for a thoughtful and well-reasoned reply. I am fully
aware that my enthusiasms sometimes get the best of me, and
will accept that "lambasting" label has been deserved on
occasion. The "Fighter vs. Fighter Bomber" issue IS one of the
less important historical problems in the game, and is the kind
of thing one could live with. I mention it because it shouldn't be
that big a problem to correct. The aircraft for which it is an issue
are all one type (Fighters) on both sides. But their performance
charicteristics change significantly when they are tasked with
"surface attack" missions as Fighter-Bombers. Ranges decrease,
as does speed and manueverability. Both are legitimate uses
for these aircraft. 2by3 has the specs for both types of missions.
So why not a "toggle" on the squadron chart to designate which
mission (and specs) the player want's to use?

You have a good point on the subs. Historically, Japanese ASW
was pretty poor---but so was US sub doctrine and equipment
in 1942. Pre-war US "exercises" had convinced a large number
of our submarine Captains to be extremely cautious---and the
equipment left much to be desired as well. If it wasn't for a few
hot-headed and aggressive skippers like "Dinty" Moore and
"Mush" Morton US subs wouldn't have achieved much of anything
in 1942. Probably the REAL problem with the design as it stands
today is not the halving of Japanese ASW---but the failure to
halve the effectiveness of most US sub skippers. By '43 most
of the real "do-nothings" were being weeded out and repalaced
with younger and more aggressive men. Which made it even
more obvious that there were equipment problems as well. It
was almost 1944 before the US had the combination of "dashing"
CO's, good boats and doctrine, and working torpedoes to be
effective. When they finally did, they "sank" Japan. Being an
historian at heart, I knew this and used US subs accordingly in
UV---meaning primarily to lay mines and scout, which in 1942
were their most productive roles. So I didn't notice most of the
things others complained about.

But having seen others analysis, and done some of my own---
I'd say the problem was that 2by3 fixed only half the problem.
The got Japanese ASW reduced to historical levels, but not US
Submarine effectiveness. It should start pretty poor as well,
and gradually improve as the War continues---as should US
ASW. It was always better than the Japanese---but by the
second half of 1943 was twice as good as at the start of the
War, and getting better as the lessons learned against the
U-Boats made their way to the Pacific.

I'm not going to demand that 2by3 "dot every i and cross every
t" in the name of historical accuracy before I'll buy their game.
I think I've said enough times the the most frustraiting thing
about it is how close it comes to being superb. I just want to
see them make every effort possible to give the games players
the same "tools and tactics" to work with as the people they
are portraying. When I see a player's comment about how he
"landed on the US West Coast and stayed there for 2 years" I
keep wondering what he's talking about. Not even the most
optimistic real-world Japanese Leader thought that was possible,
because they had to fight their War with real-world constraints.
I have no beef with "Fantasy".., I just don't think it belongs in an
"Historical Simulation". That said, I'm all for honest Historical
"what-if's and could-have-been's" as options because they make
the game more interesting.

I know some players (and maybe a designer or two) think I'm
being a "royal pain-in-the-***" about this. But is it really THAT
wrong to see something so close to greatness and want to
"push it along" in that direction?

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 25

- 2/15/2003 7:23:57 AM

NAVMAN

Posts: 436
Joined: 12/31/2002
Status: offline

Hard Sarge; Thx for the amplification.
Nikademus; Are you addressing the first paragraph of your reply to me? Hope not, because the tone in that first paragraph is less than friendly. Something caused the P-47 to change from fighter-bomber in Pacific War to fighter in UV. All I would like to find out is why. I have noted in some posts that when someone asks a legitimate question, certain posts in reply have the "how dare you" tenor to them. Hopefully, yours is not one of those and a mutually beneficial and interesting discussion can continue. In any case, I'm not going to miss any sleep over it.

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 26

Re: TO NIKADEMUS - 2/15/2003 7:26:00 AM

Nikademus

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Scholl
[B]I know some players (and maybe a designer or two) think I'm
being a "royal pain-in-the-***" about this. But is it really THAT
wrong to see something so close to greatness and want to
"push it along" in that direction? [/B][/QUOTE]

Nope. I've been known to be a little bit "passionate" myself regarding pushing certain aspects, historical and game wise that i feel would improve a great game and make it better so I can relate :)

However given the high level of support Matrix and 2b3 has shown, and given their proven and continuous record of listening to player input and comments, it does tend to make regulars here be a bit ****ley when someone, anyone comes on in what may be perceived as too strong a manner or one perceived as derogatory (not that i think you meant it to be that way)

So ya just gotta be careful....there are lions out there, especially that guy Drongo. Watch out for him. He's ornary after he's had a couple beers. (comes with drinking weak Aussie ones)

Ok seriously....yes I agree to change the designation from F to FB would be simplicity in itself (remembering thats the opinion of a non coder type :) ) However to reitterate my earlier point, my major fear would be the effect it might unintentionally have on the game as a result.

Unless the air-ground routines are tightened up a bit (mainly in terms of power/accuracy ....i'd also like to see some "unsuccessful" attacks too, such as from missing the target...that kind of snafu...ship bombardments too) I have grave concerns over the effect such an innocent change might wreap and how players might find ways to exploit it :eek:

The Japanese player in particular may find it near impossible even from an earlier time frame to keep their airbases in operating condition under the current set of rules.

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 27

Re: Re: TO NIKADEMUS - 2/15/2003 7:58:11 AM

CapAndGown

Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]The Japanese player in particular may find it near impossible even from an earlier time frame to keep their airbases in operating condition under the current set of rules. [/B][/QUOTE]

You wouldn't happen to be referring to Lae now would you? ;) The 17's weren't able to fly last turn, so maybe you got it back up and running by now? Well, don't worry, they'll be back, soon. :D

You might want to start a thread on this topic. I might do it, except it ain't my base that has been closed for the last month. ;) :p

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 28

- 2/15/2003 11:53:16 AM

Drongo

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

Posted by Nik
[QUOTE]So ya just gotta be careful....there are lions out there, especially that guy Drongo. Watch out for him. He's ornary after he's had a couple beers. (comes with drinking weak Aussie ones)[/QUOTE]

What are you, my PR manager now? For clarification, I only get "ornary" when I can't drink.

I'll have you know I go through great lengths to ensure my posts are never insulting, degrading or could be mistaken as a personal attack in any way.

Mind you, with so many overly sensitive morons out there in the forums, spouting ridiculously petty reasons why "this game is wrong", I shouldn't even bother.

So get stuffed, you stupid poofta.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 29

- 2/15/2003 5:45:30 PM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by D Delo
If you do not agree with my points and ideas then please limit your comments to countering them, but your personal attacks on my game skills and me only reduce the weight and validity of your arguments

David Delo
Major, USAF [/B][/QUOTE]

I am sorry you took my comments personally, they certainly were not intended that way. The point I was trying to make it that we must be careful when we pick on a single event/capability/piece of equipment, and comment that the game doesn't handle it, and it should. The overall effect on the game is the key thing, not the exact modelling of the one feature. There are many issues that have been raised in this forum about things that are not modelled to the last degree, for example mid turn intercept for surface ships (and subs, but now under test for that), the various TF loading contraints, details of aircraft capabilty (B17, the mediums, etc), how airgroups on damaged carriers in port are handled etc. Some have little or no effect on the game, some have work arounds or are being patched. All I am trying to point out is that there are several tests that need to be set before an issue should be deemed a problem. For example, using the FB question (and ignoring that fact that some q's have already been answered elsewhere:
- is the evidence there that the capabilty existed (OR COULD HAVE EXISTED, i.e. it was not done by choice only, rather than capabilty)
- was the infrastructure there to use it, supply, training, or could it have been implemented within the existing constraints (number of ships, pilot training rate, and indeed Joint Chiefs policy etc.). To give an example here, say it was felt that an independant US Air force would have aided the Solomons campaign. Should this be done in the game? Certainly could have been physically in RL, but in the 'political' environment of 1942, this is not realistic to include it in the game.
- are there any limitations on its use that were there in RL, that are also not in the game (good example here is the evolution of mining in the game, treat mines as any other 'supply', and you get too many fields laid, hence the additional 'artificial' restriction to pick up only at Truk etc.)
- does the lack of the capability affect the game at all? And will including it AS IT CAN BE CODED solve that issue?
- is the game balance going to be affected by including it (there may be a counter/complementary capabilty the other side hasn't got that would be exposed, and need to be embodied to restore the game to 'balance')

I could go on, but I think this is the jist of it.

Finally, I repeat I did not intend my previous post personally, and my final comment about why you would need the capabilty was aimed at the general perception that the game goes too fast and the air and sea power is too effective (and I do not mean individual attacks, I mean the 'effect per month' level, which is probably down to too many attacks being launched). Certainly not at you, or your style of play, about which I know nothing. If I had written 'we' maybe it would have come over better.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to NAVMAN)

Post #: 30