RE: surviving the heavies

RE: surviving the heavies (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room

Message

pauk -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/16/2006 9:49:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana And as a further point, if anything is out of whack its Japan, not the Allies. The games that have gone on to the bitter end seem to end in 1944 or 1945, so it looks like the Allied counterattack is pretty much historical timewise. You see people taking Tarawa in mid 43, for example, landing on the PI in 1944... You dont see the Allies romping into Tokyo at the end of 42 or anything. So I would say the Allies are functioning more or less, with the caveat that this is a game not WW2-in-a-box, pretty much fine. On the other hand, we have Japan invading India, beating down China in a space of a couple of months, invading Pearl Harbor or New Zealand, sawing off the USSR... all sorts of fun things which are far more dicy. Excuse me, but you are completely wrong. I surrended in July 42 after i lost Rabaul and Kendari. Of course this was my first game, but take a look in AAR section and you will see that quite a lot PBEM games where Allies advance faster then historical. And no, i'm not talking about recruit's games (Gen Hoepner, PzB?). It all depends on players play stile, but statement like yours means that it is impossible for Allies faster than historical which is certainly not truth. I could agree on house rules to not attack India, Australia...etc if Japan is given slightly chance to defend (i'm talking about A2A combat where 90 exp pilots means nothing in 1943!) but with current model Japan have to attack such targets if he want to stay alive in 1944. Just my thoughts, anyway....

Sneer -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/16/2006 10:41:56 AM)
Pauk is right I went after india when I saw what bombers from dacca and calcutta can do with burma- it is a place that is mass grave and cann't be held for long. I don't want to loose malaya in early 43 so I took east India to buy time

Dino -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/16/2006 12:33:30 PM)
There is nothing wrong IMO with Japan attacking India if: 1. You don't knock the Brits completely out of the war. This is PHYSICALY unrealistic. 2. The allies are allowed to respond with any means they feel appropriate, including heavy US involvment. If you can agree with point 2, then point 1 might be irrelevant. Not much to do with the original question, but the subject persists...

Barbarigo -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/16/2006 1:36:31 PM)
I think possible fixes to the problem of uber bombers could be: 1) Higher ratio of damaged planes and more time to fix 4Es given their logistic complexity 2) Each 4E need 2 point of A/C support. Higher penalties for overstacking. Each 4E destoyed gives 2 victory points. 3) Coordination penalties for big bomber formations in '42 and '43. One of the reasons you did not have mass bombing early in the Pac is that coordinating masses of bombers over a target, especially a relative small target like a strip in the jungle was extremely difficult. You would have groups missing the targets, collisions in mid-air, groups becoming detached. 4) Increase the effectiveness of AA fire and fortifications. Even if jap AA was never as deadly as the german, big concentrations of AAs should have an effect, and fortification should reduce bombing effectiveness (air and naval) substantially (never seen an Okinawa in WiTP). This could also help to slow down the jap juggernaut in the beginning and give a more historical pace to the game . B.

EUBanana -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/16/2006 4:25:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dino There is nothing wrong IMO with Japan attacking India if: 1. You don't knock the Brits completely out of the war. This is PHYSICALY unrealistic. 2. The allies are allowed to respond with any means they feel appropriate, including heavy US involvment. If you can agree with point 2, then point 1 might be irrelevant. Not much to do with the original question, but the subject persists... I don't disagree with this... the only thing I disagree to is reassigning a command to SEAC so the whole lot goes to India with minimal PP cost. [;)]

moses -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/16/2006 5:12:01 PM)
Back on topic: Here are some selected replacement pool numbers from my current game in 11/42. SBD 1,125 A20 732 B25 633!!! Beufort VI 451 B24D 375 These are planes that I cannot use because there are just no empty groups. It should be noted that I am niether reckless not particularrly conservative in my use of bombers. Will anyone argue that these numbers of aircraft just lying around is historical? It rather appears that we are getting every aircraft produced by the allies in all theaters including European.

Dino -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/16/2006 5:53:46 PM)
Sorry to stray from the topic again... quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana the only thing I disagree to is reassigning a command to SEAC so the whole lot goes to India with minimal PP cost. [;)] The "whole lot" can be shipped to India at NO PP cost anyway. All i'm doing is giving them a different route and paying some PPs to avoid micromanagment. Othervise, the things would be just overpriced...[;)] As for the topic, i'll vote with the majority, whatever that might be...

Feinder -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/16/2006 6:22:41 PM)
Moses, I'm also curious about the pool numbers of like Japanese workhorses like A6M2, the Betty/Nell, the Oscar, Kate/Val. For all of my opponents, they have all indicated that "air-frames" are not a problem. It seems to me that the production rates for Allied aircraft is overstated, just as japans abilty to produce them is overstated. Being advised that, part of the rates is, how fast they are intially implemeneted. Sure by March '43, the USN will be swimming in Avengers. But if you reduce the rate from 50(?) to 30, it also means that Avengers won't be in sufficient quantities to replace the TBDs until October or November, instead of August/Sept. I guess an example for Japan would be replacing the Oscars with Tonys (or whatever that path is). If you made it harder to produce an airframe, so that essentially you reduced the pools, it also pushes out the operational date. The solution would be to still lower the replacement rates, but make the "start" date earlier, so that you could accumulate a pool of aircraft to replace your squadrons at the proper operational timeframe. Just something to consider. And a note on the B-24D. Without PDUs, this plane is only used by LB-30 groups (which also has an inflated replacement rate). I think there are only two in game. So having a bunch of B-24Ds is irrelevant (except, like the LB-30, these 2 groups will never run out of replacements). But the B-17s upgrade to B-24Gs I think (but I know they don't go to Ds). I almost said that the "bloodiness" of the combats is too high, and you thus need the higher pools. But that's not entirely true, because obviously whatever game date you're in, you have plenty of planes in the pool.

Kereguelen -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/16/2006 7:07:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sneer Pauk is right I went after india when I saw what bombers from dacca and calcutta can do with burma- it is a place that is mass grave and cann't be held for long. Well, it seems that most complains about the effectiveness of Allied heavies is related to the Burma theatre. While the abundance of Allied heavies ostensibly is part of the problem, a simple solution for this problem could be to simply reduce AF sizes in Burma (Imphal, Jorhat, Ledo). Don't know if the heavy bombers of 10th Airforce ever used Imphal (there were six airfields in the Imphal plain - is that the reason for making it a level 6 airfield buildable spot?); as far as I know the major bases for US heavies were near Asansol and at Dum Dum (Calcutta hex). By reducing AF sizes at spots like Imphal (max build 1, thus giving it a effective buildable max of 4) the heavies would only be able to employ reduced loads and give less massive strikes. Would be a better and (as far as I know) more historical plausible solution. Could also be done with other airfields, reducing both loadouts and strike sizes... K

Nikademus -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/16/2006 7:45:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: moses I would prefer to know where the disagreement is. You appear to agree fully that there are too many bombers. (based on other threads and the fact that you are reducing them in your mod.) Yes. quote: Do you disagree that there are too many first line operational aircraft in general??? If so then the rest of my argument can be disputed. But I just don't remember 100 plane on 100 plane battles occuring all over the pacific especially in 42 and in isolated area's. No, there are too many first line aircraft in general. I was disagreeing with the EUBanana's statement that the issue of bombers and their impact in the game vs. bases is OOB based only (i.e. simply too many bombers) quote: If you agree to the above do you disagree that reducing the numbers of aircraft available would help alliviate : 1.) the "problem" of uber-bombers? 2.) the "problem" with large air battles? 3.) the "problem" with overstacked airfields? 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. Yes By itself, reducing numbers IMO won't solve the issue completely. quote: See I am staying on topic[:D] But just curious while I await a PBEM turn. you troublemaker you. [;)]

Nikademus -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/16/2006 8:00:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder Nik, Why is it that when you are happy to use "Fortress Against the Sun" when it suits you, but then completely discount it as "subjective" and "single source" when there it also contains copius supstantiated accounts of the utter destruction enemy airbases (with far fewer aircraft than need int WitP), B-17s regularly conducting successful anti-shipping strikes, and the fact that the Allied 4e bombers were indeed -very- effective against Japanese fighters? There are others of us in the peanut gallery who also own it, and we didn't just read the captions under the pictures. -F- Because the allegedly "substantiated" accounts of the "utter" destruction of enemy airbases with only a few 17's, the "allegedly" successful anti-shipping strikes, and the "fact" that 4E's were shooting down enemy fighters left and right are not in fact, substantiated. I cross refrenced the above situations with other sources and found they were not in aggreement. Further, the author appears to be basing the claims against enemy fighters on the claims (confirmed or not) of the gunners, not on Japanese records. Thats why cross-referencing sources is important Feinder. It has nothing to do with what "suits" me. For example the book prints Kenney's claim that the 17 raid on Rabaul destroyed dozens of aircraft on the ground during WATCHTOWER's initial landings and "plastered" the base......records from other sources including Lundstrom and Bergerud indicate that not a single aircraft was destroyed and that the runway was repaired before the bombers came home. So much for plastered. Where 'FatS' is valuable, is in documenting how many B-17's fought in the Pacific. It is also valuable in documenting how tough it was to service and keep running the 17's in the harsh environment of the South Pacific. (which helps explain why they weren't simply accumulated in mass and attacked with en-mass....the attrition rate was horrible just from wear and tear alone) and on a lesser note (a lesser note because i didn't need a book like it to confirm this aspect) documents how tough the 17's were in the air vs. both A2A and against enemy fighters. However anyone who believes for one minute that the 17's were shooting down all the fighters the gunners were claiming after nearly each battle might as well read through the USAAF's logsfor a feel good session on the self defending bomber theory. (if true the 17's would have shot down more Zeros than were in the entire theater) FatS in other words is less valuable as a source of actual B-17 effectiveness. I have said this in the past and actually recommended to others that if possible they should pick it up used like i did. Its not worth the purchase new though it was worth it for the $ i paid just to get the OOB info for the 17s given all the argument surrounding their numbers whoops! looks like i did more than just read the pictures. Shattered Sword has the same problem.....too few pictures....need to get out my hooked on phonics books! [8\|]

Tom Hunter -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/16/2006 9:19:29 PM)
Switching back to the particular battle at hand I think you did pretty well. You shot down some of the bombers and damaged a very large number of the remaining planes. The bomber moral has certainly dropped, one or two more fights like this and it will be below 50. Your airbase stayed open, which means you can shoot him up again if he comes back tomorrow. 500 casualties means nothing, they are not dead. Truth is except for the planes you lost all the damage done by the attack can be repaired completely in a day or two. I would get more and better fighters into the base to push the bomber attrition up even more. Also personally I have noticed that the Japanese seldom bomb my airfields, if I were playing Japanese I might try a counter strike to see what I can get. The bomber strikes that most people are reacting to in this thread are 200 and 300 plane attacks, and it is true that if one of those comes your way your out of luck. But 60 planes is a number you can handle, but your not going to defeat them in a day. The real Japanese could not do that either.

moses -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/17/2006 12:04:18 AM)
quote: Original Nikademus By itself, reducing numbers IMO won't solve the issue completely. I agree but its the major part of the problem. You simply can't make PDU work if you are giving the allies 4 or 5 times the historical production. Then you reduce numbers of aircraft further using either Frags idea of converting a small % of damaged planes to destroyed each turn. Or the simpler idea of increasing op loses by a % or two.

moses -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/17/2006 12:11:29 AM)
quote: a simple solution for this problem could be to simply reduce AF sizes in Burma (Imphal, Jorhat, Ledo). No this is a terrible solution!!!!!![:D][:D]No offense but it has to be said[:D][:D]You are just transfering the problem elsewhere. Instead of fixing the problem you're just trying to make it more difficult to exploit. i.e. we'll give the allied player 1000 heavy bombers in 42 but just make sure there is no way to use them. It is the natural impulse of players to try and use the assets given to them. Why try and frustrate this desire. Just make the replacment rates somewhere close to correct.

moses -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/17/2006 1:04:11 AM)
quote: Original Feinder: Moses, I'm also curious about the pool numbers of like Japanese workhorses like A6M2, the Betty/Nell, the Oscar, Kate/Val. For all of my opponents, they have all indicated that "air-frames" are not a problem. It seems to me that the production rates for Allied aircraft is overstated, just as japans abilty to produce them is overstated. I am not currently playing as Japan. I played several before but I think the most recent was under patch 1.3. Maybe JohnIII , my current opponent could enlighten us on japanese airframes. I compiled my 4E bomber data last turn. This is combined B-17, B-24, and LB-30. I have lost 600 planes, I have 503 planes active on the map, and 641 in my replacement pool. So as of late Oct 42 I have had access to 1744 heavy bombers. Accurate??????????How many planes were even operating in Europe in this time frame?

Redd -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/17/2006 1:35:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: moses quote: a simple solution for this problem could be to simply reduce AF sizes in Burma (Imphal, Jorhat, Ledo). No this is a terrible solution!!!!!![:D][:D]No offense but it has to be said[:D][:D]You are just transfering the problem elsewhere. Instead of fixing the problem you're just trying to make it more difficult to exploit. i.e. we'll give the allied player 1000 heavy bombers in 42 but just make sure there is no way to use them. It is the natural impulse of players to try and use the assets given to them. Why try and frustrate this desire. Just make the replacment rates somewhere close to correct. Once again I have to agree with moses. The number of aircraft in the game is way too high.[X(] This should be changed first, and then a few games run to check out the results. This will make some of the other problems go away too (for instance, if I don't have enough B-17's to fill out my squadrons, I'm not gonna even think about swapping out my mitchels). Methinks I'm gonna go check out CHS. For those of you familiar with it, would running a CHS game (with it's goal of greater historical accuracy) help to prove any of this? In other words, (besides the map, obviously) does CHS change anything other than trying to get the OOB and replacements corrected?

Nikademus -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/17/2006 1:44:44 AM)
problem with increasing the op losses is that they'll kill pilots.....annoying for the Allied player who wishes to retain his veteran pilots....critical to the Japan player who will get crap replacement pilots in the process. I agree that for the 4E's the 'biggest' problem in stock is the replacement rate. 4E's are the most power bombers in terms of yield loadout....having so many of them allows mass attacks from multiple points on the map. However, after that there are other issues.

Nikademus -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/17/2006 1:49:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: moses quote: a simple solution for this problem could be to simply reduce AF sizes in Burma (Imphal, Jorhat, Ledo). No this is a terrible solution!!!!!![:D][:D]No offense but it has to be said[:D][:D]You are just transfering the problem elsewhere. Instead of fixing the problem you're just trying to make it more difficult to exploit. i.e. we'll give the allied player 1000 heavy bombers in 42 but just make sure there is no way to use them. It is the natural impulse of players to try and use the assets given to them. Why try and frustrate this desire. Just make the replacment rates somewhere close to correct. Changing AF sizes, like bomber rates alone won't do anything but move the problem elsewhere. For example, the Allied player will just base the bombers at Calcutta. Now....in my latest mod version, i did reduce the AF sizes for the frontier bases so that 4E's won't operate there at full efficiency. Reason why was because logistically, Calcutta had the location and resources to support them but also to ease the effect of the abstraction of airbases in the game in Burma. Because there are only 4-5 locations the JAAF can use it makes it pretty easy for the Allied player to smother them by turning all the frontier bases into major bases capable of supporting everything up to but excluding B-29's.

ny59giants -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/17/2006 1:52:24 AM)
I have not seen these possible solutions to the Allied 4-E problems like I will suggest. 1) To get the B-17's from Pearl and West Coast to India, they can only ferry thru size 4 AF's. The Allies had no size 4 AF in the Central and South Pacific for some time. If they go thru a size 1 or 2 then, operational losses are adjusted accordingly. That means Canton and Noumea need to be build up faster. Right now they get to India in about 10 days with the fragments catching up before Christmas. 2) Can the re-inforcement schedule be adjusted to change the rate of reinforcement/replacement of aircraft like the B-17E's to look like 10 per month to start and then have another line in later '42 or '43 to add another 10 per month or more. This way they increase in increments rather than just one flat rate?? Another issue is the ability to upgrade or downgrade planes to get them where they are needed. Example: downgrade P-40B's in Pearl or West Coast on day one and by day two they are available to the AVG in Burma/India. I guess Cap't Kirk and Sotty are in the Enterprise transporting them to one side of the world to another...[X(] [&o][X(]

moses -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/17/2006 2:14:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus problem with increasing the op losses is that they'll kill pilots.....annoying for the Allied player who wishes to retain his veteran pilots....critical to the Japan player who will get crap replacement pilots in the process. I agree that for the 4E's the 'biggest' problem in stock is the replacement rate. 4E's are the most power bombers in terms of yield loadout....having so many of them allows mass attacks from multiple points on the map. However, after that there are other issues. Which is why Mr Frags idea to have just a certain % of damaged planes convert to destroyed each turn. This simulates the wear and tear on aircraft in the Pacific theater. And the key advantage of his idea is that it does NOT kill pilots. This percentage need not be very large and would not likely even be noticable in the short run. But 3 or 4 planes per day (both Japan and allied) would make quite a difference over the course of a year. Coupled with large reductions in replacement rates of all allied bombers (to something close to historical levels) would make PDU work fine.

Nikademus -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/17/2006 2:19:04 AM)
Frag's idea is an interesting one though i'd rather it was a roll vs. a sustained rate else we get too many planes becoming unavailable. There are other ways to address things though without code changes which are unlikely at this point.

Mr.Frag -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/17/2006 2:44:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus Frag's idea is an interesting one though i'd rather it was a roll vs. a sustained rate else we get too many planes becoming unavailable. There are other ways to address things though without code changes which are unlikely at this point. Only way I see of dealing with it without a code change is for player agreed rule withdrawing units back to USA/Japan to be rebuilt (new pilots/new aircraft) ... ie: NEVER turn replacements on unless you are in home country. Same kind of deal with upgrades. You want 'em, ship the group home and bring it back once upgraded. It will not reduce the number of aircraft, but it will limit the number at the front line.

Bombur -> Idiot question (1/17/2006 2:44:48 AM)
-Do you guys know if heavy bombers have a higher supply comsumption than two engined ones (which in turn need less supply than fighters and light bombers?)

Mr.Frag -> RE: Idiot question (1/17/2006 2:55:33 AM)
quote: -Do you guys know if heavy bombers have a higher supply comsumption than two engined ones (which in turn need less supply than fighters and light bombers?) Yep, supply use is based on loadout ... heavies eat more supply.

moses -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/17/2006 2:59:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus Frag's idea is an interesting one though i'd rather it was a roll vs. a sustained rate else we get too many planes becoming unavailable. There are other ways to address things though without code changes which are unlikely at this point. What do mean "roll vs. a sustained rate"?? I'd assume this would be some kind of dice roll for each damaged aircraft. Can you make the planes die faster in the editor?? Without losing the pilots? Whats wrong with code changes??[:D] How long after publication was the last change made to WIR?? Bombing the Riech??? Aren't they still occasionally screwing around with these games even today. Of course I would like to see the civil war and new Russia game someday.[:D][:D][:D]

Nikademus -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/17/2006 3:35:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag Only way I see of dealing with it without a code change is for player agreed rule withdrawing units back to USA/Japan to be rebuilt (new pilots/new aircraft) ... ie: NEVER turn replacements on unless you are in home country. Same kind of deal with upgrades. You want 'em, ship the group home and bring it back once upgraded. It will not reduce the number of aircraft, but it will limit the number at the front line. That is true.....recently read about that very fact in Vol III of Bloody Shambles. The Japanese transfered all their Burma based Nate sqaudrons back to Japan in order to convert them to Ki-43 (and work them up) In the game, its alot easier even with the delay imposed of repairing the entire group up to strength (which takes about a week)

Nikademus -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/17/2006 3:37:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: moses Can you make the planes die faster in the editor?? Without losing the pilots? Not really...that was why op losses were toned down in the first place quote: Whats wrong with code changes??[:D] your right! code changes are EASY! just ask Ron..... [;)] [:'(]

moses -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/17/2006 3:39:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus Frag's idea is an interesting one though i'd rather it was a roll vs. a sustained rate else we get too many planes becoming unavailable. There are other ways to address things though without code changes which are unlikely at this point. Only way I see of dealing with it without a code change is for player agreed rule withdrawing units back to USA/Japan to be rebuilt (new pilots/new aircraft) ... ie: NEVER turn replacements on unless you are in home country. Same kind of deal with upgrades. You want 'em, ship the group home and bring it back once upgraded. It will not reduce the number of aircraft, but it will limit the number at the front line. This would only really hurt the allies as it is often difficult to transfer planes to and from US/Austrailia. Wouldn't hurt japan much at all. All it would do it make the game a lot more work. In the end you have the same problem. Way too many aircraft. No matter how you cut it giving the players way more than the historical number of aircraft is going to cause problems. Think of it this way. What if the game gave Japan 20 extra carrier replacements in 1942. Now think of a rule to fix this. or.........you could just remove the extra carriers.

alfrake -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/17/2006 6:03:59 AM)
An update on the original question.... There were a couple pieces of actual advice in between the discussion of how the game is flawed. I put some Zeroes on CAP and put more Oscars up. I may get some Nates as well, but they are all in China or Japan itself so it takes a while. Bombing his airfields does not currently interest me as all my bombers are currently in use. AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 02/05/42 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Rangoon , at 29,34 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 19 Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 76 Allied aircraft B-17E Fortress x 56 LB-30 Liberator x 32 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 5 destroyed, 20 damaged Allied aircraft losses B-17E Fortress: 10 destroyed, 36 damaged LB-30 Liberator: 9 damaged Aircraft Attacking: 3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Six days after the first big raid. My Zeroes got half the actual kills. Many of his bombers turned back as their friends got shot up, the 3 brave pilots that pressed on merely bombed the ocean (and 2 of them got hit by flak!). My problem the first time may largely have been the initially decent morale of the bomber squadrons. Then they pressed on despite loses with no one turning back. Their edge has been blunted in that regard now.

mickbeau1 -> RE: surviving the heavies (1/17/2006 3:50:55 PM)
As the Allied I would gladly trade some 4E bombers for some 1E army fighters early in the war. I was wondering how much does changing bombing altitudes affect accuracy? Perhaps a house rule limiting the minimum height the HB's can bomb at?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.34375