|
wga8888 -> B17s/B24s vs naval? (5/14/2012 5:51:39 PM)
|
Bob and I just finished our second short training game, to move onto a third before trying a WITP/WITP-AE guadacanal scenario before playign the big campaign game for years. As the latter will take actually years to finish, we are each testing what the actual capabilties of each sided assets are in the program.
-
Both of us are new to UCV and have only played two games of the early months. As the UCV and basic WITP forums are idle, I wanted to ask all of you that I have been playing or discussing UCV with. Everyone else has more experience than I. I assume this translates to AE but who knows
-
Allied B17s operationg out of Austrailia the B17s, ignored the crippled IJN CVs between PM and Australia and instead pounded the stationary IJN transports at Buna with success. Adding it up, B17s made 63 sorties, dropped 816 bombs (assume 12x500#), achieved 14 hits with a number of sinkings, while attacking at 22000+ altitude. Bob did some research and found historically B17s/B24s sank 12 ships in 11 months. The discussion is are the B17s are too effective in this games.
-
We are presently to start the game considering the following house rules between us. B17s cannot select Naval Attack as a primary mission or Naval Attack/Port attack as a secondary mission. This is based on the assumption they are too effective in the initial small numbers, and a major threat to shipping when available in large numbers [if conserved] in 1943. The counter questions are does this tie the Allies hands too much given the inability of Allied LBA to hurt IJN CVs flying CAP. The likelihood the USN will win a ‘Midway’ result in a 4 CV vs 4 CV battle seems unlikely per the previous AAR. The trend is the USN navy is sunk and the IJN sweeps the map.
-
We have both found LBAs (Bettys/Nells/various Allied bombers) typically do not attack CV TF that have CAP and cannot be counted on to attack other TFs in general. They will more successfully in striking fixed land targets.
|
|
|
|
