Is 4e night bombing gamey? (Full Version)

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



Message


TommyG -> Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/5/2008 4:08:57 PM)

In my PBEM game with Jeff (CHS) it is Oct 42 and, as the allied player, I have marshalled every 4e I can get at Cooktown for night bombing raids on PM. Cooktown is level six, well supplied, and my air commander is excellent. I am getting about 50% participation on the raids, so maybe 100 planes a night. My erstwhile opponent is objecting, arguing that the AA and night fighter capabilities of the IJA are broken, so it is an unfair advantage for me. Flying at angels 7000, I am knocking out a half dozen or more ac on the ground each night with only minor damage to my planes. He wants to limit night bombing to one squadron only per mission. I think this is too limiting, but would agree to some restriction. My bombers are only in the 50s experience wise and I have no long range escort yet, so I get slaughtered anywhere and everywhere in daylight.
Since the IJ have no defense, are large scale night bombing raids gamey? If so, what are reasonable HRs?




Przemcio231 -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/5/2008 4:25:43 PM)

Well ask him about Night Bombing of Japan with B-29's...




Nikademus -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/5/2008 4:29:24 PM)

a distant patch did attempt to tone down night bomber effectiveness in general but players can still overcome the tweak to a signifigant degree via large numbers and low altitude settings. A typical HR used or suggested by a number of PBEM'ers is to limit the max # of BS's and/or 4E BS's that can be set to attack a particular base at night. IIRC in the the last PBEM i did the HR was no more than 2 x BS of 4E max.





jwxspoon -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/5/2008 4:35:27 PM)

Przemcio - fire bombing of an area target at night from 30,000+ feet (a la B29's over Japan) versus 100 B24's hitting a pinpoint airbase at 7K feet are two differnt animals, in my opinion.

jw




tocaff -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/5/2008 4:48:41 PM)

The B-29s went in low and without defensive armaments (removed for speed) and to the airmen's relief they were in & out before the Japanese even kew what had hit the.  Of course this was a new tactic for them as the plane was designed for high altitude (1st pressurized cabin & discovery of the jet stream) bombing.




Mike Scholl -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/5/2008 5:29:04 PM)

"My erstwhile opponent is objecting, arguing that the AA and night fighter capabilities of the IJA are broken, so it is an unfair advantage for me."

Ask your opponant to back up his claims with some historical fact.  Japanese Night Fighters and Flak weren't very effective at all during the war..., so if he's not accomplishing anything he's getting accurate results.




mdiehl -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/5/2008 5:33:26 PM)

It is not gamey because the USAAF did use low-altitude 4eBs in the SoPac theater. What you are doing is historically reasonable both by virtue of historical precedent and because it was one of several operational tools in the USAAF's kit. USAAF pilots trained at it well enough that all 4EB crews could conduct a night raid as a matter of course. It was, however, as others have noted already, not (one might say "not hardly") as accurate as daylight bombing. 




hawker -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/5/2008 5:35:06 PM)

Yes,few hundred 4E bombers above Japan base in 1942 at night is historically accurate and not gamey[8|]

If not patch,HR must deal with that.[;)]




mdiehl -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/5/2008 5:35:50 PM)

quote:

Ask your opponant to back up his claims with some historical fact. Japanese Night Fighters and Flak weren't very effective at all during the war..., so if he's not accomplishing anything he's getting accurate results.


Basically I agree. A bomber here and there but no significant strategic effect from Japanese flak at targets flying medium to high altitude and no significant strategic or operational effect from night fighters. That is why most of the deeaaaadly J1N1-S ended their careers as kamikazes; they weren't useful in their "intentions as built" role.




mdiehl -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/5/2008 5:38:18 PM)

quote:

Yes,few hundred 4E bombers above Japan base in 1942 at night is historically accurate and not gamey


I don't understand. You're one of the guys who constantly argues that one should not be wedded to replicating history. At the operational level, I and Mike Scholl agree with you. That is why nobody objects in principal to the Japanese invading places that they never invaded (like Port Moresby) or cruising around for three years with the Kido Butai death star, or massing hundreds of aircraft at Rabaul and other bases that rarely housed more than a hundred planes of all types.

(Although, I would add, if the game did a reasonable job simulating how difficult it was for Japan to establish a good logistical position in a hurry, it would be a rare thing to see hundreds of Japanese LBA operating from any base or base complex in the SoPac).

If consolidation of his bomber fleet is "gamey" then so is consolidation of Japanese LBA and Japanese carrier aviation.




hawker -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/5/2008 5:54:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Yes,few hundred 4E bombers above Japan base in 1942 at night is historically accurate and not gamey


I don't understand. You're one of the guys who constantly argues that one should not be wedded to replicating history. At the operational level, I and Mike Scholl agree with you. That is why nobody objects in principal to the Japanese invading places that they never invaded (like Port Moresby) or cruising around for three years with the Kido Butai death star, or massing hundreds of aircraft at Rabaul and other bases that rarely housed more than a hundred planes of all types.

(Although, I would add, if the game did a reasonable job simulating how difficult it was for Japan to establish a good logistical position in a hurry, it would be a rare thing to see hundreds of Japanese LBA operating from any base or base complex in the SoPac).

If consolidation of his bomber fleet is "gamey" then so is consolidation of Japanese LBA and Japanese carrier aviation.


Yes,you can do wonders with KB in 1944,just like with 4E bombers[8|]




pompack -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/5/2008 5:59:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TommyG

In my PBEM game with Jeff (CHS) it is Oct 42 and, as the allied player, I have marshalled every 4e I can get at Cooktown for night bombing raids on PM. Cooktown is level six, well supplied, and my air commander is excellent. I am getting about 50% participation on the raids, so maybe 100 planes a night. My erstwhile opponent is objecting, arguing that the AA and night fighter capabilities of the IJA are broken, so it is an unfair advantage for me. Flying at angels 7000, I am knocking out a half dozen or more ac on the ground each night with only minor damage to my planes. He wants to limit night bombing to one squadron only per mission. I think this is too limiting, but would agree to some restriction. My bombers are only in the 50s experience wise and I have no long range escort yet, so I get slaughtered anywhere and everywhere in daylight.
Since the IJ have no defense, are large scale night bombing raids gamey? If so, what are reasonable HRs?


In Europe by mid-43, a trained night-bombing force with highly sophisticated electronic aids could usually find the aiming point in the correct city within three miles on most nights as long as the weather was good. Expecting crews trained for daylight precision bombing to find and hit within a half-mile of a jungle airbase at night without electronic aids would be highly optimistic.

I consider night bombing of point targets on land to be gamey. Firebombing cities (manpower target) is historical and gives reasonable results (i.e. generally poor with 100 exp 55 B-29s and devestating with 500 exp 75 B-29s in my experience).




mdiehl -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/5/2008 6:05:14 PM)

quote:

Yes,you can do wonders with KB in 1944,just like with 4E bombers


We're talking about 1942-1943 are we not?

The real Japanese immediately divided up KB into its component carrier divisions after Pearl Harbor and they operated extensively in pairs, only combining to four fleet class CVs for the Indian Ocean and Midway ops.

In the end the point of a consim is to allow players to make different (ahistorical) operational choices using the same forcesthat were historically used (both with respect to numbers and to accurate modeling of capability with these assets).

Massing 4EBs for night raids in 1942 is not gamey because.
1. In 1939 the USAAF was training bombing crews for that sort of thing.
2. In 1942 night bombing missions were flown in the SoPac by the USAAF and using 4EBs.

The only "open question" here seems to be whether or not their effectiveness in the subject of this thread is accurately modeled.




mdiehl -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/5/2008 6:08:04 PM)

quote:

Expecting crews trained for daylight precision bombing to find and hit within a half-mile of a jungle airbase at night without electronic aids would be highly optimistic.


Agreed. I think the results would vary greatly based on visibility. The problem isn't that a B-17 or 24 was less accurate at night but rather that a bombsight is only as good as it's ability to see the target. We may presume that the Japanese did not leave navigation lights on for B-17s to use, just as we may presumed that American airbases did not regularly broadcast American bandstand at 100kW to aid the navigation of mythical Japanese carrier-based night strikers.




hawker -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/5/2008 6:15:50 PM)

Night bombing with few hundred 4E bombers in 1942 is gamey and far from be historically accurate.
4E is real death star not KB.





Nemo121 -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/5/2008 6:58:59 PM)

Hawker, why is it gamey?

I don't see it as being something the Americans didn't do on a smaller scale ( small-scale night bomber raids certainly did happen ) and it CERTAINLY isn't something they couldn't have done ( the Americans could easily have used the B-17s and B-24s as night-bombers with the appropriate support and a doctrinal switch ).

If the Japanese can keep KB together in a manner that the real-war Japanese didn't and can mass their fighters and bombers in a manner the real-life Japanese didn't then I don't see any problem at all when the Allies do the same to them ( using weapons in a manner which was possible but non-doctrinal during the war ).

Sorry but I just don't get the "it's gamey" argument. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.( but then again I don't really restrict PTs or four-engined bomber attacks on naval targets either ).




Przemcio231 -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/5/2008 7:01:44 PM)

Well Japan Outproducing Allies is not to historically accurate either...




JeffroK -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/5/2008 10:45:37 PM)

Complaining about approx 100 Bombers, boy have you got some shocks coming.

I have tweaked the accuracy & effect values for all bombs. They dont seem to be causing quite as much damage, but its only late 42 and the large numbers aren't hitting yet.

I also halved the accuracy of all torpedos, still saw 2 BB's sunk at Pearl, plus Houston, Boise, tromp & 4 DD's smashed near Balikpapan by KB's bombers.

Possibly the counter to your concentration would be for japan to mass similar numbers of Betty/Nell at Rabaul and counterattack your bomber base.




LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/5/2008 10:53:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Massing 4EBs for night raids in 1942 is not gamey because.
1. In 1939 the USAAF was training bombing crews for that sort of thing.
2. In 1942 night bombing missions were flown in the SoPac by the USAAF and using 4EBs.

The only "open question" here seems to be whether or not their effectiveness in the subject of this thread is accurately modeled.


AFAIK those night-bombing missions were mostly single-plane missions or a squadron at most. Unless someone can provide an example of massed 4EB night raids in 1942 in the Pacific, I consider them gamey in WITP, since apparently some factor is missing in WitP which in the real war did prevent the Allies to fly those massed raids at this time.




pasternakski -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/5/2008 11:00:50 PM)

You know, these discussions frequently get far too emotional. I think it may be because various posters have an attachment to one side or the other, and lose sight of objectivity in their chauvinistic rush to triumph.

With that in mind, and figuring that this would also be in keeping with how accurately this game depicts the historical situation in the Pacific theater anyway, I suggest that the names of the countries involved be changed. That way, there's less danger of people becoming too "patriotic" (in the same sense that lab scientists are now using lawyers instead of rats in their experiments, because there is far less danger of lab personnel becoming emotionally attached to a lawyer).

Let's see. We could have Fredonia and Grand Fenwick as the primary agonists, with such minor contributors as Erewhon, Brobdingnag, and Lilliput.

4E bombing, day or night, has always been weird in WitP. It ain't gonna change, so there's no use talking about it. If it's possible to do something in a game, you gotta let your opponent do it, unless you have established house rules up front.

Otherwise, fageddaboudit.




hawker -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/5/2008 11:16:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Hawker, why is it gamey?

I don't see it as being something the Americans didn't do on a smaller scale ( small-scale night bomber raids certainly did happen ) and it CERTAINLY isn't something they couldn't have done ( the Americans could easily have used the B-17s and B-24s as night-bombers with the appropriate support and a doctrinal switch ).

If the Japanese can keep KB together in a manner that the real-war Japanese didn't and can mass their fighters and bombers in a manner the real-life Japanese didn't then I don't see any problem at all when the Allies do the same to them ( using weapons in a manner which was possible but non-doctrinal during the war ).

Sorry but I just don't get the "it's gamey" argument. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.( but then again I don't really restrict PTs or four-engined bomber attacks on naval targets either ).


It is gamey, night bombing with 300+ 4E night after night,day after day for months.
It is not gamey,it is super "gamey" in 1942

That scale of attacks was highly unlikely in 1942 with or without doctrine.

Crew fatigue- hm hm
Aircraft mainteance- funny
Level ### AF- Who needs that

Massive attacks of 4E bombers against ships at 6000 or less feets and their precise hits is,hmmmmmm,very silly if they dont have laser guided bombs or something like that. Why use Dauntless when you have 4E dive bombers with better hit percentage[8|]

On the other hand,japanese player can also be "gamey" and mass hundreds of toni and tojos in late 1942.
Also,i consider gamey massing nell-betty torpedo bombers(200+) against ships.
For KB,it is not "gamey" to keep 6 CVs together in 1942.

But, there is always house rules[;)]





Cuttlefish -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/5/2008 11:47:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

You know, these discussions frequently get far too emotional. I think it may be because various posters have an attachment to one side or the other, and lose sight of objectivity in their chauvinistic rush to triumph.

With that in mind, and figuring that this would also be in keeping with how accurately this game depicts the historical situation in the Pacific theater anyway, I suggest that the names of the countries involved be changed. That way, there's less danger of people becoming too "patriotic" (in the same sense that lab scientists are now using lawyers instead of rats in their experiments, because there is far less danger of lab personnel becoming emotionally attached to a lawyer).

Let's see. We could have Fredonia and Grand Fenwick as the primary agonists, with such minor contributors as Erewhon, Brobdingnag, and Lilliput.

4E bombing, day or night, has always been weird in WitP. It ain't gonna change, so there's no use talking about it. If it's possible to do something in a game, you gotta let your opponent do it, unless you have established house rules up front.

Otherwise, fageddaboudit.


I think your words are wise, Pasternakski. I'm betting on Brobdingnag, I think they have the horsepower to win.

But I still can't resist offering my opinion on why I think a house rule governing this is a good idea. The OP is getting good results with pilots with experience in the 50s; once those pilots get to experience 70+ night bombing pretty much means game over for Japan.

Airfields and all their planes on every base within their considerable reach will be annihilated; AA and coast guns will be completely destroyed; and any ships in port are pretty much doomed. Hawker's comment about laser-guided munitions isn't that far off the mark, and the Japanese player has no defense at all.

I won't use such tactics when playing the Allies and I hate being subjected to them as the Japanese. I will leave the debate about which side could have done what historically to others; all I know is that taken to its limit this tactic pretty much breaks the game.




Nemo121 -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/5/2008 11:49:18 PM)

Unlikely and not fitting in with the doctrine of the time isn't, to me, necessarily gamey.

KB operating together as a 6CV force for months on end is unlikely and not fitting with Japan's demonstrated strategic and operational plans at the time ( Japan just LOVED to split forces up on the strategic and operational level ) BUT we see it in-game all the time.


Sorry but if Japan can employ its forces in a manner which real-life Japan didn't ( but could have with the necessary doctrinal and leadership changes ) then I just don't see a problem with the Allies doing the same with their bombers.




pasternakski -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/6/2008 12:23:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cuttlefish
But I still can't resist offering my opinion on why I think a house rule governing this is a good idea. The OP is getting good results with pilots with experience in the 50s; once those pilots get to experience 70+ night bombing pretty much means game over for Japan.

Airfields and all their planes on every base within their considerable reach will be annihilated; AA and coast guns will be completely destroyed; and any ships in port are pretty much doomed. Hawker's comment about laser-guided munitions isn't that far off the mark, and the Japanese player has no defense at all.

I won't use such tactics when playing the Allies and I hate being subjected to them as the Japanese. I will leave the debate about which side could have done what historically to others; all I know is that taken to its limit this tactic pretty much breaks the game.

Not a thing wrong with house rules. What consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business.




Mike Scholl -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/6/2008 12:44:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cuttlefish
I won't use such tactics when playing the Allies and I hate being subjected to them as the Japanese. I will leave the debate about which side could have done what historically to others; all I know is that taken to its limit this tactic pretty much breaks the game.


I'd agree with this, but only if you apply it to both sides. The game is open to being "broken" by either player..., just look at the string of AAR's with Japan over-running China, Russia, India, Australia, etc. Historically the tactics/strategies leading to such occurances range from far-fetched to outright impossible. Have you ever heard a Japanese player complaining about getting Tony's 8 months early? But let the Allies start using their overabundance of B-17's and eveybody start's screaming for "House Rules".






spence -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/6/2008 12:53:11 AM)

The game system permits what were really logistically improbable if not impossible concentrations of aircraft. I am quite sure that the Allied commanders would have massed their 4E bombers if it had actually been possible just as the Japanese commanders would have massed their G4Ms (and infinite supplies of torpedoes) if that were really possible.

Thus both the massed 4E's and the massed G4Ms are gamey. But it would completely unfair to allow one side to game the imperfect system while restricting the other for no better reason than the opponent doesn't like what the system permits.




morganbj -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/6/2008 1:18:19 AM)

My dad was a 4E crewman in England 43-45 and he said that he was bombed most nights.  So, I guess then answer is no.  Well, ... maybe it is.




Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/6/2008 1:21:06 AM)

the question was "it is gamey".
Not "it is also gamey that x or y is done in the game"

We do not know if they have houserules for other things. So everybody (here mostly allied fanboys with deep social complexes) blaming his opponent for gamey use of the japanese possibilities do it only for his fanboyhood or flamewar.

The question "is it gamey" is easy to answer
Yes

Also, with rising experience, the allied player do not need anymore ships, strategy or tactics.
Just nightbomb every base with 4mots.

Okay, if the japanese player counter with wiping out the russians, chinese and india, please do not ask if this is gamey too.
If the japanese player do mine your harbors with betties in 1943, you could be in a stupid situation, cause the game does not react correct to this threat (mining planes have no troubles with cap at all)

It is for you and your opponent to make houserules. If you would be my opponent, using 4mots in this way, i would "cheat" as the japanese also. Certanly, you would loose interest in that game.

WitP has many flaws. If the player do not accept houserules (allways the two guys who play the game) the game will end quickly.

For the historical comments:
the us airforce couldnīt hit anything at night in 1942-1944. So they let the brits do this - and they (the brits) do a lousy job, talking about precesision bombing.
So even if you would attack with 2000 4mots, your results should be lousy. Sadly, the game do it different. So it is gamey (cause using a bug/bad programming routine is gamey). Like preproducing 500 Franks or concentrating 2000 Betties to give your navy a warm welcome (cause concentrating as much planes is way to easy). Or your subs can be scuttled cause every sub in a range 8 from a armybomber-base is dead meat.
Or you "produce" 100 PTs to "defend" atolls (and feel good with it - but only if YOU do it. If your opponent do it, it is gamey [;)])




Gem35 -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/6/2008 1:26:01 AM)

How many threads do we need concerning gamey tactics and they almost always end up with allied bombers being gamey.
pbem games never have been considered for me because more than likely I'll get an oponent with a house rule list a mile long.
Good Grief.[8|]
Where is my pillow, I am so sleepy....
[>:][>:][>:]




Heeward -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/6/2008 1:35:58 AM)

Due to the small number of B17's / B24's and LB30's in the early war 100 plane raids should not be feasible by 4 engine bombers till mid(?) 1943.

Therefore your solution maybe to turn off player defined upgrades and / or reducing the number of replacements aircraft.

I also suspect that your opponent is using them in a non-historic manner
1. Making a significant effort to limit losses.
2. Creating additional B17 / B24 squadrons.
3. Concentrating his heavy bomb groups in one or two locations and not spreading them out as they were historically.

I suspect it is no more gamey then the Jappanese runing the equivalent of the Bay of Biscay Offensive in the Ducth East Indies from 1942 on.

A good book on early Pacific War B-17 operations is Fortress Against The Sun: The B-17 Flying Fortress In The Pacific.




Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1