Bombed While Flying ?

Bombed While Flying ? (Full Version)

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

Message

Distiller -> Bombed While Flying ? (6/29/2006 9:45:24 PM)
A Brief Description: (playing Japanese, July '42) During a massive ground campaign in China, i was able to take Chengtu (Chungking and the rest still in allied hands, but neutralized by my airforce) and set up shop. Unfortunately, this put me squarely in range of Indian bomber bases (esp. Mandalay), so i took heavy ground and, to a lesser extent, aircraft losses from 200+ bomber raids of B17 and B24. So, i transferred all my entire Sally and Helen force (approx 200 of them along with ~120 A6M2 as escort and 90 Oscars as CAP - i had a AF HQ there) to Raheng and prepared a counter attack, which, fortunately wasn't detected... The result: my opponent went for Chengtu again, while i bombed his airfield. you'd think that only a few bombers were on the ground at that time, but no, he lost a whooping 162 B24 and B17, (along with his entire CAP of ~100 Hurricanes, 15 on the ground, and his night fighters squdns). While this result my be an overwhelming success for me, the bombers really shouldn't be available as targets while they're performing a mission. higher ops losses on landing? sure, divert (like carrier squdns of lost ships) maybe, but they can't be in several places at the same time, can they? Just my 2c.

rtrapasso -> RE: Bombed While Flying ? (6/29/2006 9:49:17 PM)
Ya know, when someone named Distiller makes a post about "Bombed while flying", i had expected something different... [:D]

dtravel -> RE: Bombed While Flying ? (6/29/2006 10:01:01 PM)
Are those loss numbers from the combat report or the Intelligence screen? The combat report numbers are probably inflated while the Intelligence screen numbers will be correct.

Feinder -> RE: Bombed While Flying ? (6/29/2006 10:43:35 PM)
Are you sure his missions at his home base weren't cancelled. While I'm not positive, it appears that the game is pretty good about mitigating losses to aircraft that are supposedly on a strike while their base is attacked. If his base was soc'd in tho, all those planes were definately on the ground. Yes, it's possible for your strike to his his base while his planes are grounded. It doesn't happen all that often, but it does occasionally. Then again, it could be (and likely is) that, Mandalay was VERY overstacked. His strikes were suffering the 25 - 50% penalty for overstacking, and there were lots of planes on the ground, even with half his planes in the air. Gawd tho, that many heavies in Burma is a bit of a waste tho (maybe not, if he's trying to support China). Jeez that's a lot of bombers (I usually fly two 48x plane groups of heavies in Burma, but he's probably got 6 - 8 there). I'm surprised he posted that many planes in range of your own bombers (or rather, bombers w/ escorts). My heavies sit at bases bases that are out of escort range. If you want to try to bomb them, fine, but your bombers are flying alone. Oh well. -F-

rtrapasso -> RE: Bombed While Flying ? (6/29/2006 10:44:38 PM)
Another possibility is that he forgot to set CAP and some other missions...

Nikademus -> RE: Bombed While Flying ? (6/29/2006 11:11:19 PM)
I've yet to see massive bomber losses when they fly a mission the same turn their home base is bombed. Odd result.

Distiller -> Plausibility (6/29/2006 11:15:42 PM)
75 Hurricanes were shot down by 116 Zeros, so his CAP fought but lost, turns out he had more bombers than i thought, though and only like 100 of his LB flew that mission, checked combat report again.. a case of attrition, because the average raid was much heavier. It starts to make more sense now, with less planes in the air and perhaps more planes in total, but i have a hard time recovering data, because my opponent quit after the attack... must have been ~300 LB if the losses are remotely valid, dunno, only Rabaul and China were regularly attacked, so it's theoretically possible. Thanx for the replies.

Feinder -> RE: Plausibility (6/29/2006 11:24:52 PM)
Distiller - Thanx for the replies. Politeness has no business here. This is an internet forum. People are free to make all sorts of comments behind the anonymity of the internet. [;)] -F-

Nikademus -> RE: Plausibility (6/29/2006 11:35:14 PM)
B-17 fanboy

Feinder -> RE: Plausibility (6/29/2006 11:59:33 PM)
I've been called worse. [;)] -F-

Ursa MAior -> RE: Plausibility (6/30/2006 12:07:33 AM)
A B-29 fanboy maybe?[:D]

RAM -> RE: Plausibility (6/30/2006 1:01:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Distiller It starts to make more sense now, with less planes in the air and perhaps more planes in total, but i have a hard time recovering data, because my opponent quit after the attack... . are you saying that, because he blewed it and got caught ,and chewed, because his own fault, he has quit your game? now, that is BAD from him whoever he is...

Distiller -> Quitting (6/30/2006 10:23:14 AM)
W reduced a/c reinforcements to more historical levels, so, after long, drawn-out episodes of air combat, he was out of P40s, B17s , B.24s, possibly Hurricanes and British pilot reinforcements. the game is not much fun without an appropriate amount of toys, right? my playstyle was rather defensive, too so i can imagine it was a bit boring (esp. considering most of my useful ships were in the dock for repairs..).

pauk -> RE: Bombed While Flying ? (6/30/2006 4:51:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Distiller So, i transferred all my entire Sally and Helen force (approx 200 of them along with ~120 A6M2 as escort and 90 Oscars as CAP - i had a AF HQ there) to Raheng and prepared a counter attack, which, fortunately wasn't detected... The result: my opponent went for Chengtu again, while i bombed his airfield. you'd think that only a few bombers were on the ground at that time, but no, he lost a whooping 162 B24 and B17, (along with his entire CAP of ~100 Hurricanes, 15 on the ground, and his night fighters squdns). Feinder is right again (hate to say, but this B-17 fanboy[;)] is almost always right[:D] - except in PH effiency attack)... I believe that there is no enemy AF bigger than lvl 4 in Burma. So that mean he overstacked AF (lvl4 can support 200 planes without penalty)... In short he got what he deserved. And it is very immature (sp?) to quit the game after that. He gambled with AF size exploit and he lost.....

Dino -> RE: Bombed While Flying ? (6/30/2006 5:30:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pauk I believe that there is no enemy AF bigger than lvl 4 in Burma. So that mean he overstacked AF (lvl4 can support 200 planes without penalty)... In short he got what he deserved. And it is very immature (sp?) to quit the game after that. He gambled with AF size exploit and he lost..... Mandalay AF can be built up to lvl 6, Lashio and Myt to lvl 5, etc...and they are all FRIENDLY...[:D] Everything else you said, I agree...[:)]

TheElf -> RE: Bombed While Flying ? (6/30/2006 7:08:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pauk quote: ORIGINAL: Distiller So, i transferred all my entire Sally and Helen force (approx 200 of them along with ~120 A6M2 as escort and 90 Oscars as CAP - i had a AF HQ there) to Raheng and prepared a counter attack, which, fortunately wasn't detected... The result: my opponent went for Chengtu again, while i bombed his airfield. you'd think that only a few bombers were on the ground at that time, but no, he lost a whooping 162 B24 and B17, (along with his entire CAP of ~100 Hurricanes, 15 on the ground, and his night fighters squdns). Feinder is right again (hate to say, but this B-17 fanboy[;)] is almost always right[:D] - except in PH effiency attack)... I believe that there is no enemy AF bigger than lvl 4 in Burma. So that mean he overstacked AF (lvl4 can support 200 planes without penalty)... In short he got what he deserved. And it is very immature (sp?) to quit the game after that. He gambled with AF size exploit and he lost..... Agree 100% if you are going to try and tempt fate in your favor by using gamey overstacking tactics and LB nuke blasts be prepared to suffer the consequences. The unfortunate thing is whoever this guy is he'll probably blame the game for such a negative result when in fact it seems more likely it was player error...

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.765625