quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35

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....
[>:][>:][>:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Heeward

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

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.

43BG(H) B-17  
   64BS   12/10/42 - 08/11/42
   65BS   13/10/42 - 7/11/42
  403BS   15/9/42  - 22/10/42
90BG(H)  B-24
  319BS   13/11/42 - 2/2/43
  320BS   13/11/42 - 21/1/43
  321BG   19/11/42 - 10/2/43
  400BS   13/11/42 - 22/3/43

quote:

When the 90th Bomb Group arrived at Iron Range in November 1942, the two strips named Claudie and Gordon, were still unfinished and not sealed. Tents were pitched amongst the trees for accommodation. Conditions were primitive. Snakes, insects, scorpions, etc were prevalent. The men of the 90th Bomb Group described it as the worst airfield they were ever posted at during the war.

quote:

But, 100 bombers are only knocking out 4-6 planes on the ground and no pilots are lost so the raids are far less than devestating.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35

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....
[>:][>:][>:]

If you COULD think about all the flaws of the engine and probable exploits to game the game it would be a list longer than a mile.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

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.

quote:

But let the Allies start using their overabundance of B-17's and eveybody start's screaming for "House Rules".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35
Just don't wear your underpants so tight sometimes guys.[;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I think it is gamey. ... Didn't happen in 1942...

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I think it is gamey.  I've dealt with it in one of my current campaigns.  The Allies don't fly at bases where I have a lot of fighters because of the expected casualties so they attack at night with massed formations and drive me out that way.  Didn't happen in 1942... And did you as the Japanese use your BB's for "bombardment missions" all over the Pacific? That didn't happen in 1942 either..., only a couple of BC's were ever given the mission.

The doctrine argument holds some validity here.  The USAF was a 'precision daylight bombing tool.'  It REALLY didn't work out that way but that it how it was designed.  And the Japanese "battleline" was the "instrament of decision" to be conserved in home waters for "the Decisive Battle".

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski



There are several terms that have emerged on these forums that I refuse to enter into my lexicon. "Gamey" is one of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

"Oh! What will we tell the children!" - James T. "womanizer" Kirk


[image]local://upfiles/6977/0CFD79CF321C4FEFAC9E3A3C628F82B4.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I think it is gamey.  I've dealt with it in one of my current campaigns.  The Allies don't fly at bases where I have a lot of fighters because of the expected casualties so they attack at night with massed formations and drive me out that way.  Didn't happen in 1942... And did you as the Japanese use your BB's for "bombardment missions" all over the Pacific? That didn't happen in 1942 either..., only a couple of BC's were ever given the mission.

The doctrine argument holds some validity here.  The USAF was a 'precision daylight bombing tool.'  It REALLY didn't work out that way but that it how it was designed.  And the Japanese "battleline" was the "instrament of decision" to be conserved in home waters for "the Decisive Battle".

Why is it only "gamey" when the Allies use an asset in an ahistoric manner?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

"Oh! What will we tell the children!" - James T. "womanizer" Kirk


[image]local://upfiles/6977/0CFD79CF321C4FEFAC9E3A3C628F82B4.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid


Kirk was a Quaker compared to Captain Pike.

Pike really new how to pimp dee Orion beotches . . .