Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

So what happened to all those guys willing to die for the emperor?

Did they?

Combat reports leave so much to be desired.

Set us up with great anticipation waiting to see what happens and.........(crickets chirping)...................NOTHING!

What altitude did they go in at? I have always operated under the general forum wisdom of dive bombing needing to be set between 10k-14k. I set mine at 12k typically.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x D4Y4 Judy releasing from 10000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
4 x D4Y4 Judy releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb

Banzai! - Kawakubo I. in a D4Y4 Judy is willing to die for the Emperor
Banzai! - Matsuyama I. in a D4Y4 Judy is willing to die for the Emperor
Banzai! - Shiga E. in a D4Y4 Judy is willing to die for the Emperor
Banzai! - Kamisaka S. in a D4Y4 Judy is willing to die for the Emperor

What is up with the crazy high altitude drop?

I hadn't noticed that! I'd have to watch again, but those were probably it by flak, and maybe it gives that message when they convert to Kamis after being hit at 10k?

Or on the approach they just got hit and dropped from there?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
A high EXP pilot is more likely to pass the rolls to "ride the bomb down" to a lower altitude before releasing the payload, and thus have higher bomb accuracy. A lower EXP pilot is not as likely to have the nerve to go the extra 7k feet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
A high EXP pilot is more likely to pass the rolls to "ride the bomb down" to a lower altitude before releasing the payload, and thus have higher bomb accuracy. A lower EXP pilot is not as likely to have the nerve to go the extra 7k feet.

Would be funny if the pilots chickened out dropping from 10k, and then had a surge of righteousness and kimikazed

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
A high EXP pilot is more likely to pass the rolls to "ride the bomb down" to a lower altitude before releasing the payload, and thus have higher bomb accuracy. A lower EXP pilot is not as likely to have the nerve to go the extra 7k feet.

Would be funny if the pilots chickened out dropping from 10k, and then had a surge of righteousness and kimikazed

My understanding is that that transition is linked to damage.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4629061

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

July 31, 1945

---

The Allies get a bit frustrated with Manila CAP and decide to use strategic assets here. Not a lot I can do when B-29s are hitting outlying bases at night. This is why I dislike night bombing in game (either side). He sneaks under the 50 plane HR we have on night bombing airfields and ports, but with B-29s it doesn't really matter. The Allies manage to hit for about 50 airframes and 80+ hits to the fields in thunderstorms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

July 31, 1945

---

The Allies get a bit frustrated with Manila CAP and decide to use strategic assets here. Not a lot I can do when B-29s are hitting outlying bases at night. This is why I dislike night bombing in game (either side). He sneaks under the 50 plane HR we have on night bombing airfields and ports, but with B-29s it doesn't really matter. The Allies manage to hit for about 50 airframes and 80+ hits to the fields in thunderstorms.

Petes on night CAP. What do you have, like 22 night fighter squadrons?

Looks like there was pretty good AA there.

I saw a HR with Mr. Kane/Wargamer where no 4E night bombing of runways and ports. Not sure what I think of that....might want to give an exception to the Soviets and the British. Haven't really thought on it too much.

One of the worst results of night bombing is the dispersal of Japanese fighter defenses.

I agree there should be a bigger weather penalty, or more frequent cancellations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
The dark days are upon us, and winter is coming.

quote:

ORIGINAL:


It's August. It's 1945. The A-bombs are coming. Tokyo? Osaka?

quote:

This is why I dislike night bombing in game (either side). He sneaks under the 50 plane HR we have on night bombing airfields and ports, but with B-29s it doesn't really matter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

quote:

ORIGINAL:


It's August. It's 1945. The A-bombs are coming. Tokyo? Osaka?

I think after those massive fires, we can rule out Sapporo.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

This is why I dislike night bombing in game (either side). He sneaks under the 50 plane HR we have on night bombing airfields and ports, but with B-29s it doesn't really matter

I've done a 180 degree turn on night bombing.

quote:



You don't need to house-rule night bombing, you just need sufficent investment in night-time CAP. Not just dedicated NF either, but as robust a CAP as you'd put up in the day-time. That always is a sore point for resource scarce Japan, but it's the case.

This is the Allied counter-move to massed IJ air assets concentrated at a few major airbases. It's the right move to make.

Fighting the B-29s on airbase attack as Japan is difficult, but it should always be done. You know yourself that the B-29 is a temperamental airframe to keep operational through combat. You'll never straight up trade 1:1 on B-29s, but you dont need to. Ops takes it toll, and a damaged B-29 isn't going to be operational for weeks.

The damage B-29s can do is extreme, but it's only as such when unopposed. If there is the same emphasis on night air combat as night air combat, such extreme results would be rare. The Allies can throw enough B-29s to make a base unusable, but better that they fly at night. Some get lost, some don't fly, some crash. Others miss the target or get disrupted by flak or night CAP. All of these are positive outcomes for Japan when the Allies decide to deploy their most flexible air asset.

Fighting B-29s (and night bombing in general) is all about that tactical loss for a strategic gain. Sure, your tactical position on the frontline was degraded, but that's an Allied asset that isn't targeting a strategic one for the next week or so.

quote:

I have no problem with night bombing most things. Only airfields and ports. And then I think it's fine if limited.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

I have no problem with night bombing most things. Only airfields and ports. And then I think it's fine if limited.

As I said, night bombing is the counter the Allies have to entrenched IJ air power. Limiting that severely upsets the tactical options the Allies have to break down IJ airpower.

"Death by B-29" for ports and airbases is unfortunate, but it can be avoided with diligent planning and deployments. Taking that from the Allied toolbox and it stalls the air war in a way that heavily favours Japan.

The fact that the Allies night bomb at all is a net win for Japan, given the massive decrease to sorties that results from night operations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

The few times I have tried bombing airfields with B29s have resulted in abysmal performances.

Heck, I can't even get them to hit individual strategic targets like distinct factories with any degree of accuracy.

They only seem to be good at area bombing hitting manpower.

What are these other players doing to get such accuracy out of them?

My vote goes with MMs take on the air war.

Your argument in response cuts both ways. The Japanese never had the capability to have a huge operational air force with quality pilots in the late war period either so descrying an a-historic ability on the Allied side that counters that is a bit disingenuous. No offense intended.

quote:


Feb 1, 1945

---

you are so much better :-)

(in reply to obvert)

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

I have no problem with night bombing most things. Only airfields and ports. And then I think it's fine if limited.

As I said, night bombing is the counter the Allies have to entrenched IJ air power. Limiting that severely upsets the tactical options the Allies have to break down IJ airpower.

"Death by B-29" for ports and airbases is unfortunate, but it can be avoided with diligent planning and deployments. Taking that from the Allied toolbox and it stalls the air war in a way that heavily favours Japan.

The fact that the Allies night bomb at all is a net win for Japan, given the massive decrease to sorties that results from night operations.

I completely understand your position. I simply disagree.

The air war is not stalled. With the HR we are using he can strike with all of those B-29s to hit many bases every turn, just not 350 on one base. Results become unmanageable for either side with large numbers, as is true for many aspects of the game design.

I am not a player who plays for historical accuracy, but I like it when the tools used in game do reflect some of their actual period capability. A bit skewed is fine, but since neither side actually got results bombing airfields or ports at night in any part of the war, this seems like one part of the game that can be given a limitation. The limitation still allows for unhistorically damaging night bombing. Just not catastrophically unhistorical night bombing.

If the Allies could night bomb with this kind of accuracy they would never have risked daylight bombing at all. None of Rabaul's field should have lasted more than a few weeks, and every ship in the port would have been sunk in a few B-17 raids. Kamakazes would have never been an issue because all of the fields would have been closed and the planes destroyed on the ground at night.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

The few times I have tried bombing airfields with B29s have resulted in abysmal performances.

Heck, I can't even get them to hit individual strategic targets like distinct factories with any degree of accuracy.

They only seem to be good at area bombing hitting manpower.

What are these other players doing to get such accuracy out of them?

My vote goes with MMs take on the air war.

Your argument in response cuts both ways. The Japanese never had the capability to have a huge operational air force with quality pilots in the late war period either so descrying an a-historic ability on the Allied side that counters that is a bit disingenuous. No offense intended.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

B-29s (and strategic bombers in general) were not used in penny packets. They were the big hammer.

quote:



I think that your chosen methods of getting "historical damage" forces very bizarre use of B-29's that seriously hampers Allied options in air strategy.

quote:



My take is that this is 1945, the Allies are using one of the most technologically advanced airframes in existence, ram packed with gizmos, including radar.

If the Allies want to smash a port, airbase or city by night, then they throw a couple hundred B-29s at it. No questioned asked. The Japanese role is to extract a sufficient toll as to make it unsustainable for the Allies long-term.

quote:


This was the dynamic of all air forces defending against strategic bombing efforts - you find methods to make it so expensive to inflict damage that the opposing side stops, or you lose.

quote:

As shown by results, 50 B-29s is a big hammer! I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but this doesn't limit using B-29s or any other bomber each turn. Only how many can hit each base.

quote:

Again, (repeating), I'm not interested in playing history. This simply is about historical parameters for a game based in a historical era. If you're playing a Civil War game you're not suddenly going to add night vision goggles to the infantry equipment.

quote:

All true, except that during the war they didn't do that!! They threw them en masse against strategic targets and carpet bombed cities! There is no interest on my part in limiting those options because if anything the game is a bit underpowered there.

Strategic. This is the point. Bombing airfields/ports is tactical. Not strategic. It simply didn't happen in the war except in very critical isolated and extremely well-planned situations. Even those were not aways effective.

quote:

What you're missing here is that the Allies are not suffering for not being able to use more than 50 planes per target per turn to bomb ports or airfields. They're suffering for lack of well-defended targets. This Manila strike was one of the first he's tried within the HR parameters and it worked really well for him. So what's the prob?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

As shown by results, 50 B-29s is a big hammer! I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but this doesn't limit using B-29s or any other bomber each turn. Only how many can hit each base.

Except that it's a rare occasions that 50 planes will actually hit a base, once all the dice rolls are considered.

That deflates damage caused, and makes it increasingly unlikely for Allied night bombing to reach its milestone of closing a IJ airbase for the following turn.

quote:

Again, (repeating), I'm not interested in playing history. This simply is about historical parameters for a game based in a historical era. If you're playing a Civil War game you're not suddenly going to add night vision goggles to the infantry equipment.

Except what you're doing in this scenario is preventing the Union from using Henry Rifles because they perform better in a night action than the muzzle loaders of the Confederacy.

quote:

All true, except that during the war they didn't do that!! They threw them en masse against strategic targets and carpet bombed cities! There is no interest on my part in limiting those options because if anything the game is a bit underpowered there.

Strategic. This is the point. Bombing airfields/ports is tactical. Not strategic. It simply didn't happen in the war except in very critical isolated and extremely well-planned situations. Even those were not aways effective.

There were extensive heavy bomber raids conducted on Japanese airbases in the run up to Okinawa to destroy kamikaze airframes on the ground.

I think you're missing the point. You're throttling the effectiveness of night attacks on targets that you consider tactical. At this point, the major strategic stumbling block for CR to attain victory is the IJ Air Force. He is impaired from prosecuting a strategy to break IJ Air Power due to HR's protecting what you consider tactical-level targets. To CR, the airbases contain planes and squadrons, so degrading them is a strategic target.

quote:

What you're missing here is that the Allies are not suffering for not being able to use more than 50 planes per target per turn to bomb ports or airfields. They're suffering for lack of well-defended targets. This Manila strike was one of the first he's tried within the HR parameters and it worked really well for him. So what's the prob?

I disagree, I think they're suffering terribly.

Emphasis mine.

As the current rule-set overwhelmingly favours the defender. You're going to see at most 50 planes during the night phase. That allows you to get a 1-1 ratio of defending CAP to attacking bombers by using one or two fighter squadrons (assuming average IJ fighter squadron size is 27-49 planes).

Most critically, there's little the Allies can do little to overcome concentrated IJ air power at large inland airbases.

On top of that, with that low limit on Allied attacking aircraft, you can effectively "nickel and dime" the assets IJ dedicates to night CAP. If a base has no major industry, then a single squadron on night CAP can provide an efficent counter to night bombing and not overstress the IJ's daytime efforts.

No ability to concentrate B-29s on airbase attack means that it is near impossible to attrition IJ air concentrations.

It's fair to pick at CR for tactically misusing some assets, but I've been following a while and I think that a large part of his difficulty in progressing in the air war is down to the pretty restrictive HR's on B-29s hitting airbases. You're not going to dispense with the HR, but I'd suggest upping the limit to 100 B-29's, or even better 150. That would go a long way to keeping night bombing a viable route to prosecute against large IJ air concentrations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

As shown by results, 50 B-29s is a big hammer! I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but this doesn't limit using B-29s or any other bomber each turn. Only how many can hit each base.

Except that it's a rare occasions that 50 planes will actually hit a base, once all the dice rolls are considered.

That deflates damage caused, and makes it increasingly unlikely for Allied night bombing to reach its milestone of closing a IJ airbase for the following turn.

quote:

Again, (repeating), I'm not interested in playing history. This simply is about historical parameters for a game based in a historical era. If you're playing a Civil War game you're not suddenly going to add night vision goggles to the infantry equipment.

Except what you're doing in this scenario is preventing the Union from using Henry Rifles because they perform better in a night action than the muzzle loaders of the Confederacy.

quote:

All true, except that during the war they didn't do that!! They threw them en masse against strategic targets and carpet bombed cities! There is no interest on my part in limiting those options because if anything the game is a bit underpowered there.

Strategic. This is the point. Bombing airfields/ports is tactical. Not strategic. It simply didn't happen in the war except in very critical isolated and extremely well-planned situations. Even those were not aways effective.

There were extensive heavy bomber raids conducted on Japanese airbases in the run up to Okinawa to destroy kamikaze airframes on the ground.

I think you're missing the point. You're throttling the effectiveness of night attacks on targets that you consider tactical. At this point, the major strategic stumbling block for CR to attain victory is the IJ Air Force. He is impaired from prosecuting a strategy to break IJ Air Power due to HR's protecting what you consider tactical-level targets. To CR, the airbases contain planes and squadrons, so degrading them is a strategic target.

quote:

What you're missing here is that the Allies are not suffering for not being able to use more than 50 planes per target per turn to bomb ports or airfields. They're suffering for lack of well-defended targets. This Manila strike was one of the first he's tried within the HR parameters and it worked really well for him. So what's the prob?

I disagree, I think they're suffering terribly.

Emphasis mine.

As the current rule-set overwhelmingly favours the defender. You're going to see at most 50 planes during the night phase. That allows you to get a 1-1 ratio of defending CAP to attacking bombers by using one or two fighter squadrons (assuming average IJ fighter squadron size is 27-49 planes).

Most critically, there's little the Allies can do little to overcome concentrated IJ air power at large inland airbases.

On top of that, with that low limit on Allied attacking aircraft, you can effectively "nickel and dime" the assets IJ dedicates to night CAP. If a base has no major industry, then a single squadron on night CAP can provide an efficent counter to night bombing and not overstress the IJ's daytime efforts.

No ability to concentrate B-29s on airbase attack means that it is near impossible to attrition IJ air concentrations.

It's fair to pick at CR for tactically misusing some assets, but I've been following a while and I think that a large part of his difficulty in progressing in the air war is down to the pretty restrictive HR's on B-29s hitting airbases. You're not going to dispense with the HR, but I'd suggest upping the limit to 100 B-29's, or even better 150. That would go a long way to keeping night bombing a viable route to prosecute against large IJ air concentrations.

Dude. He can use as many as he wants!!

1. Use 1,000 and hit a Strat target. NF gone after a few rounds regardless of the amount I've got in place.

2. Bomb adjacent targets with 50/each. He can hit an island worth of bases and rough up ALL of the fields. He can hit night and then day! (which he hasn't tried in combo much at all. I can think of about 20 different things I'm afraid he'll try but hasn't, and all of them would work within the parameters of this rule.

You're simply not thinking creatively about this, and ignoring the fact that it couldn't be done at this level at night during this era. (Plee drop me a list of night bombing raids on Okinawa if you have them, as I've never found anything that resulted in anything but sporadic losses unless it was a one-off well planned raid.

3. This isn't just about the Allies late. This is about the entire game, and before NF are online, BOTH sides will suffer from ridiculous large losses on airfield/port strikes. This about achieving a good game throughout and the capability of the B-29 (especially the B-29B) make the rule almost a non-factor late.

If he thinks it's a factor, great!! I love that he isn't trying out different ways of making use of what he has and continuing to simply milk-run the most obvious target most days while completely ignoring strategic options.

This rule has nothing to do with Strat bombing any base and he simply hasn't decided to do that regularly, or explore targets to see what the defenses are with smaller packages or even up to the 50/per target for airfields and ports. He can do it. I know he can because I'm sitting here looking at what I have, but I'm trying my damndest to make sure he sees a wall of resistance everywhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
1. Strategic bombing doesn't damage the airbase, or have any impact on the planes at the airbase that aren't flying night CAP.

quote:


2. As I said above, the 50 aircraft limit favours the defender excessively (IMO). I also think you're underestimating the capability of the USAAF at this time.

quote:



3. I disagree. I'd welcome being shown what you consider inflated losses on airbase/port attack so that I have a reference point to see what you consider ridiculous. I'm more flexible - if you've 300 ships in a port or planes at an airbase, night bombing should take a toll as punishment for not properly dispersing assets.

I also fundamentally disagree that the B-29 makes your rule a non-factor.

I'll be as reductionist as possible. My issue is this

- the major barrier to CR's progression is your air force.
- HR's exist limiting the use of his most flexible asset (B-29's) to attack airbases at night to trivial levels.
- said HR allows min-maxing of IJ squadrons on night CAP to the benefit of the defender.
- this has serious implications to CR's ability to close airbases and degrade IJ airpower.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
1. Strategic bombing doesn't damage the airbase, or have any impact on the planes at the airbase that aren't flying night CAP.

We can go around and around if you want, but please read what I'm writing first.

If he flies 500-1,000 at a base that has a big airfield and lots of NF, he can add 50 on airfield strikes while being able to overwhelm the defenses with the majority on Strat bombing. The NF only last so long and the airfield strikes will degrade any daytime CAP for the next phase when the airfield can then be obliterated.

quote:


We can go around and around if you want, but please read what I'm writing first.

If he flies 500-1,000 at a base that has a big airfield and lots of NF, he can add 50 on airfield strikes while being able to overwhelm the defenses with the majority on Strat bombing. The NF only last so long and the airfield strikes will degrade any daytime CAP for the next phase when the airfield can then be obliterated.

quote:

quote:

A while ago when having this same conversation with Bullwinkle he pulled out a very good example of a night strike on Wewak. This did do some damage, and also degraded the day CAP so that when the main daylight strike arrived there was less resistance, and the low flying B-25s were able to take out virtually all of the remaining aircraft on the base.

My problem with historical examples of night strikes is that they were incredibly rare, not very effective against any pinpoint target (RAF estimated their strikes could not get better than 5 miles to target accuracy) and did not close airfields.

The USAAF was the most advanced Air Force in the world in the era and they chose to use their strategic assets almost exclusively in area bombing as pinpoint target bombing was found to be largely ineffective. They did hit airfields, did close them in the day, but not at night as far as I've been able to find. Maybe they didn't have to, but there is no evidence (I can find ) that they could either.

quote:

As you've seen the "trivial level" is quite effective, and could be in any base on map if he chose to employ it with some preparation.

quote:

I'm not highly inclined to consider changing any rules that pre-exist his part in this game to make things easier.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

........................

You're simply not thinking creatively about this, and ignoring the fact that it couldn't be done at this level at night during this era. (Plee drop me a list of night bombing raids on Okinawa if you have them, as I've never found anything that resulted in anything but sporadic losses unless it was a one-off well planned raid. We all know that whatever those raids accomplished, they didn't stop Kamis from being effective
..............................