Ahistorical usage of B17s in early war

Ahistorical usage of B17s in early war (Full Version)

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

Message

Knaust -> Ahistorical usage of B17s in early war (5/11/2006 1:13:03 PM)
I have never heard of such a devastating usage of LRBs in early stage of war[:(] Am I wrong? Moreover, if the Jap player plans retaliation attacks, the Allied player, planning second, has a look on the planes based in Jap airfields and starts a devastating airfield attack. This seems highly frustrating for Jap player, above all if all this is ahistorical[:-]

XENXEN -> RE: Ahistorical usage of B17s in early war (5/11/2006 1:56:26 PM)
A house rule saying that 2E bomber can't be upgradet to 4E bomber can help alot

Sneer -> RE: Ahistorical usage of B17s in early war (5/11/2006 2:27:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Knaust I have never heard of such a devastating usage of LRBs in early stage of war[:(] Am I wrong? Moreover, if the Jap player plans retaliation attacks, the Allied player, planning second, has a look on the planes based in Jap airfields and starts a devastating airfield attack. This seems highly frustrating for Jap player, above all if all this is ahistorical[:-] knowledge which airfield was reinforced during my planning turn was used against me the same turn once or twice - i hate it too

Arkady -> RE: Ahistorical usage of B17s in early war (5/11/2006 2:40:56 PM)
if you know how your opponent react on massive reinforcement of front line airfield you can use it against him. Put there few transport units (mouse hover intelligence report over enemy base mixes bombers and auxiliary planes) to absorb those damage from planes that get through And defend the base with 100+ crack forces (with Zero planes if bonus still active)...you will not encounter B-17 for few weeks or months [;)]

rtrapasso -> RE: Ahistorical usage of B17s in early war (5/11/2006 3:37:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Knaust I have never heard of such a devastating usage of LRBs in early stage of war[:(] Am I wrong? Moreover, if the Jap player plans retaliation attacks, the Allied player, planning second, has a look on the planes based in Jap airfields and starts a devastating airfield attack. This seems highly frustrating for Jap player, above all if all this is ahistorical[:-] How about this rule: no ahistorical Allied air bombardments in return for no ahistorical Japanese naval bombardments (i.e. - you get ONE bombardment of an Allied base per year if no substantial Japanese ground forces are present. This would probably give you 4x as many as actually occurred in the war (only one AFAIK).)

Sneer -> RE: Ahistorical usage of B17s in early war (5/11/2006 5:03:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arkady if you know how your opponent react on massive reinforcement of front line airfield you can use it against him. Put there few transport units (mouse hover intelligence report over enemy base mixes bombers and auxiliary planes) to absorb those damage from planes that get through And defend the base with 100+ crack forces (with Zero planes if bonus still active)...you will not encounter B-17 for few weeks or months [;)] not valid if it is within range of 100+ allied fighters too

Big B -> RE: Ahistorical usage of B17s in early war (5/11/2006 5:10:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: ORIGINAL: Knaust I have never heard of such a devastating usage of LRBs in early stage of war[:(] Am I wrong? Moreover, if the Jap player plans retaliation attacks, the Allied player, planning second, has a look on the planes based in Jap airfields and starts a devastating airfield attack. This seems highly frustrating for Jap player, above all if all this is ahistorical[:-] How about this rule: no ahistorical Allied air bombardments in return for no ahistorical Japanese naval bombardments (i.e. - you get ONE bombardment of an Allied base per year if no substantial Japanese ground forces are present. This would probably give you 4x as many as actually occurred in the war (only one AFAIK).) I agree - it's just one of several things in the game that are ahistorical...but it kind of balances the BS for the allied player. I don't care for the way it is - but unless the Japanese player is willing to sit down and negotiate restrictions - all's fair in war. B

Nemo121 -> RE: Ahistorical usage of B17s in early war (5/11/2006 6:38:06 PM)
What about the view that the various historical inaccuracies tend to cancel out? The Japanese get very powerful battleline bombardments while the Allies get four-engined bombers. Both are instruments which must be massed in order to achieve any operationally or strategically decisive effect and, once massed, they are vulnerable. Certainly their very concentration gives them excellent defensive strength but it also allows counter-concentrations. It is true that the four-engined bombers are more renewable than the japanese battleline but this very renewability tends to cause Allied players to use them for unimportant attritional missions in several missions across the front instead of as an operationally decisive hammer at a strategically vital point at a crucial point in time. Really I think it will all balance out. Of course one of the ways this balances out is that the battleline can stage from anywhere ( including mid-ocean... with a suitable replenishment fleet and CV cover) while the bombers can only stage from certain, predictable airfields. If you feel four-engined bombers are going to be operationally and strategically decisive weapons systems then your operations and overall strategy should be aimed at eliminating this potential. I believe that with an appropriate focus and committment of resources this can be done, even into 1943.

rtrapasso -> RE: Ahistorical usage of B17s in early war (5/11/2006 7:16:21 PM)
Right!! Either except the game as it is (a game, not terribly historically accurate (imo)) - or NEGOTIATE a set of rules you can live with (i.e. - you want historical accuracy, negotiate for it, not demand it).

bradfordkay -> RE: Ahistorical usage of B17s in early war (5/11/2006 7:30:59 PM)
Or play either the CHS or RHS with more realistic numbers for the aircraft.

ckk -> RE: Ahistorical usage of B17s in early war (5/11/2006 9:25:16 PM)
or Nik's Mod[8D]

mjk428 -> RE: Ahistorical usage of B17s in early war (5/11/2006 9:33:07 PM)
After WWII the world finally realized the value of the BB. Thats' why we see so many battleships today and air power was phased out.

Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: Ahistorical usage of B17s in early war (5/12/2006 2:18:23 AM)
Well I think that actually USA in ninetys had more BBs than 4 non-jet engine bombers...

Bearcat2 -> RE: Ahistorical usage of B17s in early war (5/12/2006 4:36:15 PM)
The plan for B-17's in the Phillipines upon declaration of war was to hit the Japanese airfields on Formosa at daylight. This was to hit the Japanese planes as they were getting ready for takeoff. Like every thing else on the first day in the Phillipines, they screwed it up. They had some effective measures for a Japanese attack, but didn't execute them, instead the Japanese, basically, destroyed the American air force as a cohesive force on day 1.

MkXIV -> RE: Ahistorical usage of B17s in early war (5/12/2006 8:38:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos Well I think that actually USA in ninetys had more BBs than 4 non-jet engine bombers... Or 4 engine jet bombers for that matter

Wolfie1 -> RE: Ahistorical usage of B17s in early war (5/12/2006 11:05:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MkXIV quote: ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos Well I think that actually USA in ninetys had more BBs than 4 non-jet engine bombers... Or 4 engine jet bombers for that matter Disagree - the B1 Lancer has 4 jet engines, and don't forget the B-52 (ok 8 I know)

Terminus -> RE: Ahistorical usage of B17s in early war (5/12/2006 11:11:35 PM)
Or the B-2...

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.96875