RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports



Message

GreyJoy -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/6/2012 6:45:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: princep01

House Rules.  Comment:  I am interested in why the 4Es cannot bomb ground units.  They did it frequently in the war.  I recall the PzLehr being practically destroyed in Normandy by B-17 carpet bombing.  We ground attack all the time with 4E, but it is usually in jungle or rough/jungle and does not seem overly productive.  Catch them in the open and YES!, that unit is going to be smacked hard (and should).  But, something in your experience makes this a particularly troublesome rule.  What was it?

We limit 4e naval attacks to no lower than 8K.  It works well.  IRL, the B-17, B-24 attacked naval units quite a bit, but with very limited success.

Our rule for preventing the stratosphere dive is to limit CAP (including LRCAP) and Sweep to no higher than 5K over the plane's best fighter band.  It works and is easy to remember.  Escorts may be no higher than 3K above the highest bomber group planning to enter the hex (no fudging by sending a 3 bomber HQ unit in at 20K and then all the rest at 10K).  It has worked very well.

I don't have a problem with the IJ making more than one port attack on turn 1 as they sure could have done PH and Manila Bay had they chosen that course.  They did strike Davao along with PH.  However, I insist (really, insist!) that they get only one crack at PH.  The game gives them a free pass to get there and launch the attack; therefore I think it only fair that they should also be saddled with the historical decision to retire after that strike.  Sure, they can come back. They have to go to a 4 level port first in our rule.  But, it is a little harsh to saddle the Japs with only one port attack on turn 1. 

Otherwise, those rules look good.

Has Mr X been publically identified yet?  Surely you aren't dragging Nemo out of retirement are you, you cunning little imp?


Hi My Master!

I know 4Es did do that job. But in this game, with the pace of operations that can be kept by the 4Es (service rating too low?), the 4Es are simply gonna smash everything on the ground...look at what is doing Crackeres in his AAR...too much imho, too unrealistc. It unbalances the game (imho obviously). The allies have tons of 2Es for that job too and they can do a good work.

4Es on naval should be imho limited to the Navy units just because, even if they don't hit a damn thing, 100 4Es on naval strike could know out any CV CAP, becoming something like a sweep over CVs....

the one port strike for me is a must. Attacking Manila and PH at the same time would really unbalance the game. Jap has to chose: the BBs or the SSs...
Yes, only one ride at PH...i agree even if not HRed it... i'll be very cautious with my air force so be sure that i won't impale my pilots like Rader did[:)]

still thinking about the 50 engines x level AF.... sounds too low... what would be a better HR to prevent overstacking?



cantona2 -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/6/2012 7:42:15 AM)

Cant see the logic behind the ban on 4E's attacking ground units. It neuters the Allied range range effort in 1942 when they have the legs to hit from inland Australian bases while the KB rampages at will. As the Allied player I would disagree with this one for sure. Though I agree with 4E naval attacks only by naval Libs

Ramon (Fletcher) and I used the no night bombing with <50% moonlight before 1943. Seemed realistic with lack of radar on planes at the time and it worked well as a good low level night strike can kill a lot of planes on the ground, very useful if all Blenheims are concentrated in Burma and your Oscars are caught on the ground.



JocMeister -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/6/2012 7:59:39 AM)

I´m not too sure about the "no 4E bombing of ground units". If you go with a rule like that I think you have to implement something to counter the Jap side aswell.

I don´t think its a specific problem with 4Es but rather a air vs ground problem. All bombing do insane amount of damage. Look at what the Jap player can do in China with a few hundred Sallys. As princep01 says 4Es in Europe atleast was used on many occations to directly bomb ground troops. Effects are debatable though.

But 4Es where used to smash communications, depots, roads, railroads, assembly areas and such. Something the game doesn´t simulate at all. I guess one could imagine it as disruption caused by bombing in wich case 4Es should definetly be allowed to bomb ground troops.

Its a pretty big HR to use and I don´t think its easy to predict how it will effect the game.

Also, if you are playing DBB mod I understand they have fixed the non existant AAA from the stock game which might balance out the air vs. ground issues that are in the stock game.

My 2 lire :)



aztez -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/6/2012 8:53:17 AM)

There absolutely no reason whatsoever to limit 4E bombers from ground targets.

That pretty much sums it up [:)]



obvert -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/6/2012 10:09:16 AM)

While I agree that 4Es hit harder against ground troops than they should, especially against small units hidden in jungles, to completely limit this function seems unfair. I've even had an entire division behind level 3 forts in a jungle hex go from 10% disruption to 75% in one day of bombing by 80 4Es. That said, the IJAAF can annihilate the Chinese in the same way through sheer numbers in 42, and there is no limit to daily bombing runs.

A better rule would be to limit raids in some way. I'm not sure how to do this, but maybe something like 4Es on ground raids must use 40% rest, while 2Es on ground raids must use 20% rest. This way each side gets something, but it doesn't take away the ability to use these as a player would like to use them.

You may also find that in Babes the ground bombing has been reduced significantly as well as the flak being increased. I've not played it, but this is what I've heard.



GreyJoy -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/6/2012 12:18:55 PM)

Well, it seems that nobody here agrees on the 4Es HRs.... mmm.... i took this HR from another well known AAR...don't remember which one.... and i thought it would have been a good and balanced HR.
First because this rule should give back to the allied 2Es their true role.
Secondly because without this rule we're gonna see 2/300 4Es being always used to imbalance the ground warfare. We've wacthed in many AARs that the allies, when they advance in Burma for example, rely (alomost) only on the uninvincible strenght of these crazy formations, that fly day after day with impunity.

However, i firmly trust the judgment of this forum, so i'll try to discuss with Mr.X which could be a different HR that could "defend" the multi-role of the 4Es without having the downsides of it...

Thanks guys, as always!



JocMeister -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/6/2012 12:46:49 PM)

GJ,

The allies doesn´t really get that many 4Es until mid 43 as you know. Up until then the Jap has a free reign more or less to do what they want in the air. Not much the allied player can do against masses of Tojo while you are stuck with P39s and P40s. Up until the allies start getting some good airframes in late 43 the 4Es are pretty much the only thing the allied can play with.

Arn´t you playing with the DBB mod?




princep01 -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/6/2012 1:11:06 PM)

Ser Greyjoy of the Drowned Man, one other comment:  The 50 plane per AF level is a rule we have used in all 4 of my PBM games.  It works well and SEEMS to be more realistic though I cannot statistically support that sense of realism.  I would use it but with this caustion:  Doesn't the game version, DBBs (?), you are using have stacking limits for AF/planes built into the system?  I know stock WitP has a limiting effect correlating air units at a base and base size.  One can overstack, but only a limited number of groups will actually operate based on base size.

Nonetheless, unless there is something unique to DBBs, I would encourage use of that rule.



BBfanboy -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/6/2012 2:03:09 PM)

I like the rule that 4E bombers cannot ground bomb in the same hex that has friendly troops. Given their 5 - 10 mile spread in bomb pattern IRL, there was a huge risk of hitting own troops. That actually happened in the Normandy carpet bombing referred to earlier.
For hexes without Allied troops, you could limit altitude of the 4E bombers in other ways - like no lower than 10K, or 15K. IRL I think 4E bombers did not want to get down into range of 20mm multibarrel AA [I forget the German term for their "Whirlwind" flak gun but all Allied airmen feared it.]



jeffk3510 -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/6/2012 2:17:44 PM)

You may see an unbalance and think it is unfair....however, the destructive power from the air of the Allies in WW2 was incredible.



Canoerebel -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/6/2012 2:40:01 PM)

Solution:  Don't use House Rules.



Historiker -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/6/2012 3:34:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: princep01

Ser Greyjoy of the Drowned Man, one other comment:  The 50 plane per AF level is a rule we have used in all 4 of my PBM games.  It works well and SEEMS to be more realistic though I cannot statistically support that sense of realism.  I would use it but with this caustion:  Doesn't the game version, DBBs (?), you are using have stacking limits for AF/planes built into the system?  I know stock WitP has a limiting effect correlating air units at a base and base size.  One can overstack, but only a limited number of groups will actually operate based on base size.

Nonetheless, unless there is something unique to DBBs, I would encourage use of that rule.

I think such a stacking rule is not needed.
It pays well off not to send too many planes per airfield when the enemy sends a bombardment group or flys attacks on the airfield. Also, the percentage of those flying is going down with every group over the hardcoded rules.

I think it is perfectly done here. You can do mroe, but there's a price to pay.



witpqs -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/6/2012 3:55:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Solution:  Don't use House Rules.

Ban house rules! [&o]



jeffk3510 -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/6/2012 5:04:00 PM)

Call me crazy.. but what is the thought from our Jap industry gurus...

Why not build nothing but Zeros, Oscars, Kates, Vals (or next best DB), Betties, Anns, and one type of heavy bomber that can maximize using the smallest engine variety (not having to build 15 different types of engines).... and just produce the crap out of it from day one... no RnD... or am I crazy?

Hundreds and hundreds of AC... quantity vs quality... and staff them with avg to below avg pilots in 43 on...



GreyJoy -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/6/2012 5:12:01 PM)

Ok guys, i hear you complaints [:D].
I'm still not fully convinced but i started a discussion with my future opponent to see what he thinks about it...i don't wanna unbalance the game the other way around giving the japs too many advantages cause i KNOW how much pain the allies have to go through and suffer during the first 2 years of war....
At the same time i don't know the effects that the DBB scenario gives to the AA or to bombing performance...nor i don't know how the ground stacking limits will impact the game...so i'm proceeding blind, by attempts!

I think a good solution (in medio stat virtus) could be to leave the 50 engines * AF level limitation and to leave the chance for 4Es to pound the troops freely...the mix of the two of them should provide the right balance (hopefully).

Anyway, whatever rule we chose, if we see that a change is needed in the HRs i really hope to start a discussion and to be able to agree on a changement....as me and Rader did in our last match



GreyJoy -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/6/2012 5:13:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

Call me crazy.. but what is the thought from our Jap industry gurus...

Why not build nothing but Zeros, Oscars, Kates, Vals (or next best DB), Betties, Anns, and one type of heavy bomber that can maximize using the smallest engine variety (not having to build 15 different types of engines).... and just produce the crap out of it from day one... no RnD... or am I crazy?

Hundreds and hundreds of AC... quantity vs quality... and staff them with avg to below avg pilots in 43 on...


I was thinking exactly the same...but it seems that our ignorance in Japanese things is absolute [:D]



Crackaces -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/6/2012 5:21:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

You may see an unbalance and think it is unfair....however, the destructive power from the air of the Allies in WW2 was incredible.


My opponent is going nuts in repsonse to my ground bombing campaign. [sm=Christo_pull_hair.gif] [:D] But I see a problem.

I might propose at least three factors in delivering an area type weapon. The lethality radius of the device, the circular error probability of the delivery platform, and the density/protection of the target. Results seem reasonable until a low densoty target like 1,000 troops meets up with 300 Heavy Bombers ... even in clear terrain I would expect surviors .. but I am able to completely depopulate atolls and clear hexes at will. Instead of a graduated result depending on target density I am seeing results that stupify the imagination .. I wish that the developers at least understood this part of the equation ... thus usign 200 HB's against such a target would have compaiable diminshing returns ... What I have been doing is cutting back on sorties rather than increase altitudes ..



GreyJoy -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/6/2012 5:24:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces


quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

You may see an unbalance and think it is unfair....however, the destructive power from the air of the Allies in WW2 was incredible.


My opponent is going nuts in repsonse to my ground bombing campaign. [sm=Christo_pull_hair.gif] [:D] But I see a problem.

I might propose at least three factors in delivering an area type weapon. The lethality radius of the device, the circular error probability of the delivery platform, and the density/protection of the target. Results seem reasonable until a low densoty target like 1,000 troops meets up with 300 Heavy Bombers ... even in clear terrain I would expect surviors .. but I am able to completely depopulate atolls and clear hexes at will. Instead of a graduated result depending on target density I am seeing results that stupify the imagination .. I wish that the developers at least understood this part of the equation ... thus usign 200 HB's against such a target would have compaiable diminshing returns ... What I have been doing is cutting back on sorties rather than increase altitudes ..


Yup, that's exactly what i implied (thus expressed in an absolutely better english [:)]).
Your game shows clearly what the 4Es can do to ground troops, no matter the terrain or the forts... that's why i was concerned....



Prydwen -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/6/2012 5:39:20 PM)

Hi,
quote:



I was thinking exactly the same...but it seems that our ignorance in Japanese things is absolute

Although quantity has a quality all of it's own, I think it best to remember quality has a quality all it's own too. Remember how well those Spitfires did? I'd have to look back in your AAR but if I remember correctly they arrived about 6 months before you ordinarily would have gotten them. Pick a Japanese airplane. If you want to pay the industrial price, Japan can have it at least 6 months early. It all depends on what you want to have to play with. With that said, I do agree with you. If the choice is between two very similar aircraft it's probably more efficient to choose the one that it's easiest to adapt your economy to. It's why I've never really used the Tony.

Joe



crsutton -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/6/2012 6:12:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

-Just one Port attack on turn one (no matter if conducted by CVs or
LBA - i don't like the mutli port attack rule used ny John III for
example)
-Reliable torps off, allied damage control on
-Para units must be whole before paradroppping (not fragments all over)
-Landing or paradrops only on base or dot-base hexes
-Must pay PPs to cross borders that start *friendly* (e.g., Manchuria
-> China, or India -> Burma). Note that you can cross borders that
start out enemy (e.g., Kwangtung units can move into Russia or Thay
Army to Burma).
-1 week russian activation if Japan decides to invade.
-Thai units can move into the Burma panhandle and Indochina.
- No 4Es on ground bombing mission allowed (this is a must for me
imho, cause the 4Es can really unbalance the late war allied advance
and the allies got plenty 2Es for that job)
- Only 50 engines for each AF level (level 0 AF can have 25 engines
anyway). This should slow down a lot the pace of the game, along with
the DBB's aviation support limitations
-4Es on naval attack only from PBY4s (or Navy 4Es anyway) but only from 15k feet
- What about night bombing? I saw someone proposed only during night
with at least 50% moonlight....
- No strat bombing before 1943 .
-No Allied Air or naval units in Russia are allowed, even if Russia is
activated.
- No Mersing Gambit on turn 1
- SWEEP and CAP altitudes.... this is a very important rule imho cause
i hate the stratosphere sweep.... i've used the 2nd mnvr best altitude
in my last match and it seemed to work fine.... i've also seen that
someone else used a fix altitude: 20k for 1942. 25k for 1943, 30k for
1944 and no limits for 1945... what do you think?

- no 1 ship TF


these are the HRs i suggested....what do you think?


A few suggested modifications

-Must pay PPs to cross borders that start *friendly* (e.g., Manchuria
-> China, or India -> Burma). Note that you can cross borders that
start out enemy (e.g., Kwangtung units can move into Russia or Thay
Army to Burma).

This is a severe penalty on the Allies if they are honoring the system and paying retail to buy out units. I voluntarily tried this in my long standing game with Viperpol but it is unworkable as you simply can't afford to buy out enough Indian units even in late 44 for a sustained attack into Burma. And if China is going down (as it will) the Allies need a chance to counter in Burma. A more reasonable suggestion is to use this rule but require it of the Allies in India/Burma until 1/44 but release the Allies from this obligation after that date. Also, I would exempt any base connected by road to India (Akyab) from this rule at all times.

- No 4Es on ground bombing mission allowed (this is a must for me
imho, cause the 4Es can really unbalance the late war allied advance
and the allies got plenty 2Es for that job)

Think carefully about this. The Allies are very short of medium bombers until early 44. This gives a heavy bonus to Japan as Japan is never short of mediums. I would restrict ground bombing by 4Es to 10,000 feet. Quite frankly, the greatest Allied asset in mid to late war was total air superiority. But in game what should be the Allied greatest asset (close ground support) does not really exist as using fighters and bombers to attack at low levels is not very effective at all. In my opinion the over strength of the 4Es really just serves to compensate for this.


-4Es on naval attack only from PBY4s (or Navy 4Es anyway) but only from 15k feet

I have the most problem with this as this completely removes the PBY liberator from its historical role-naval interdiction at low altitude. In our game we allow PBYs to low level naval attack but limit it to one squadron set to naval attack per base. This works almost perfectly as you do not get massed naval attacks but small interdiction attacks and the PBYs rarely attack a well capped TF. Do this instead.



GreyJoy -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/6/2012 6:13:37 PM)

But i do have a precise plan for my Air force. I don't wanna do like Rader who sent nearly 40k pilots to death in less than 4 years... i'll be very aggressive initially, being ready to sacrifice some of my crack pilots in order to get the initial conquests needed by my Empire, then i'll try to save them and keep a very strong CAP airforce, using the recruits for escort missions....

However i'd like to concentrate my production on the really usefull planes (so to say George, N1K, KI-83 and the Frances), leaving the rest for when they will be arriving in stock dates.



GreyJoy -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/6/2012 6:21:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

-Just one Port attack on turn one (no matter if conducted by CVs or
LBA - i don't like the mutli port attack rule used ny John III for
example)
-Reliable torps off, allied damage control on
-Para units must be whole before paradroppping (not fragments all over)
-Landing or paradrops only on base or dot-base hexes
-Must pay PPs to cross borders that start *friendly* (e.g., Manchuria
-> China, or India -> Burma). Note that you can cross borders that
start out enemy (e.g., Kwangtung units can move into Russia or Thay
Army to Burma).
-1 week russian activation if Japan decides to invade.
-Thai units can move into the Burma panhandle and Indochina.
- No 4Es on ground bombing mission allowed (this is a must for me
imho, cause the 4Es can really unbalance the late war allied advance
and the allies got plenty 2Es for that job)
- Only 50 engines for each AF level (level 0 AF can have 25 engines
anyway). This should slow down a lot the pace of the game, along with
the DBB's aviation support limitations
-4Es on naval attack only from PBY4s (or Navy 4Es anyway) but only from 15k feet
- What about night bombing? I saw someone proposed only during night
with at least 50% moonlight....
- No strat bombing before 1943 .
-No Allied Air or naval units in Russia are allowed, even if Russia is
activated.
- No Mersing Gambit on turn 1
- SWEEP and CAP altitudes.... this is a very important rule imho cause
i hate the stratosphere sweep.... i've used the 2nd mnvr best altitude
in my last match and it seemed to work fine.... i've also seen that
someone else used a fix altitude: 20k for 1942. 25k for 1943, 30k for
1944 and no limits for 1945... what do you think?

- no 1 ship TF


these are the HRs i suggested....what do you think?


A few suggested modifications

-Must pay PPs to cross borders that start *friendly* (e.g., Manchuria
-> China, or India -> Burma). Note that you can cross borders that
start out enemy (e.g., Kwangtung units can move into Russia or Thay
Army to Burma).

This is a severe penalty on the Allies if they are honoring the system and paying retail to buy out units. I voluntarily tried this in my long standing game with Viperpol but it is unworkable as you simply can't afford to buy out enough Indian units even in late 44 for a sustained attack into Burma. And if China is going down (as it will) the Allies need a chance to counter in Burma. A more reasonable suggestion is to use this rule but require it of the Allies in India/Burma until 1/44 but release the Allies from this obligation after that date. Also, I would exempt any base connected by road to India (Akyab) from this rule at all times.

- No 4Es on ground bombing mission allowed (this is a must for me
imho, cause the 4Es can really unbalance the late war allied advance
and the allies got plenty 2Es for that job)

Think carefully about this. The Allies are very short of medium bombers until early 44. This gives a heavy bonus to Japan as Japan is never short of mediums. I would restrict ground bombing by 4Es to 10,000 feet.


-4Es on naval attack only from PBY4s (or Navy 4Es anyway) but only from 15k feet

I have the most problem with this as this completely removes the PBY liberator from its historical role-naval interdiction at low altitude. In our game we allow PBYs to low level naval attack but limit it to one squadron set to naval attack per base. This works almost perfectly as you do not get massed naval attacks but small interdiction attacks and the PBYs rarely attack a well capped TF. Do this instead.



Very wise suggestion mate!

I fully agree on the PBYs! Done!
For the ground bombing...10k feet is enough to prevent the "total annihilation in one run" effect? I'm not so sure...
About the PPs...mmm....you're right. PPs are always short for the allies...i know that.... hopefully the hex-stacking-limit would be enough to prevent the "russian masses" we see in Burma in some games.... What do the others think about that?



Cribtop -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/6/2012 6:52:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces


quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

You may see an unbalance and think it is unfair....however, the destructive power from the air of the Allies in WW2 was incredible.


My opponent is going nuts in repsonse to my ground bombing campaign. [sm=Christo_pull_hair.gif] [:D] But I see a problem.

I might propose at least three factors in delivering an area type weapon. The lethality radius of the device, the circular error probability of the delivery platform, and the density/protection of the target. Results seem reasonable until a low densoty target like 1,000 troops meets up with 300 Heavy Bombers ... even in clear terrain I would expect surviors .. but I am able to completely depopulate atolls and clear hexes at will. Instead of a graduated result depending on target density I am seeing results that stupify the imagination .. I wish that the developers at least understood this part of the equation ... thus usign 200 HB's against such a target would have compaiable diminshing returns ... What I have been doing is cutting back on sorties rather than increase altitudes ..


Ahh, the linear Gary Grigsby rears his head again.

I think banning 4Es against ground forces is the wrong balance, but the ability to depopulate clear terrain is unrealistic. Some limits on number of air groups employed may be advised.



GreyJoy -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/7/2012 8:14:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces


quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

You may see an unbalance and think it is unfair....however, the destructive power from the air of the Allies in WW2 was incredible.


My opponent is going nuts in repsonse to my ground bombing campaign. [sm=Christo_pull_hair.gif] [:D] But I see a problem.

I might propose at least three factors in delivering an area type weapon. The lethality radius of the device, the circular error probability of the delivery platform, and the density/protection of the target. Results seem reasonable until a low densoty target like 1,000 troops meets up with 300 Heavy Bombers ... even in clear terrain I would expect surviors .. but I am able to completely depopulate atolls and clear hexes at will. Instead of a graduated result depending on target density I am seeing results that stupify the imagination .. I wish that the developers at least understood this part of the equation ... thus usign 200 HB's against such a target would have compaiable diminshing returns ... What I have been doing is cutting back on sorties rather than increase altitudes ..


Ahh, the linear Gary Grigsby rears his head again.

I think banning 4Es against ground forces is the wrong balance, but the ability to depopulate clear terrain is unrealistic. Some limits on number of air groups employed may be advised.


Hi Crib, don't you think that, with the HR that limits the max a/c per base to "50 engines*AF lvl" should be enough to prevent any depopulation 4E campaign?
i mean, with this rule into a level 9 AF you could only base 150 4Es and 50 fighters....which is already a lot i know, but we know the coordination penalities that are already present in the system.... so that the allies will be forced to coordinate their strikes using multi supporting AFs in order to give to their air force organization a good CAP cover, a sweeping force and a striking one (with decent escort). Thinking about it i now realize that the anti-Af overstacking rule is really enough.
I'll propose to delete the no-4Es on ground strike HR.




Now, talking a bit about strategy....




FatR -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/7/2012 11:40:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

I understand Seille, but so where should i be more conservative? Less Kates and Vals maybe?

I don't think that conservativeness in early air production is a good idea and particularly in Scen 2 which gives Japan a metric ton of extra supply to use on production. Against a good Allied opponent I would want at least 90 Zeros and about 120-150 Oscars per month, and at least 70 of both Betties and Sallies (in addition to light bomber/Nell production) per month. While A6M2 upgrade line is discouraging (it does not actually lead to A6M3 and other upgrades but to Sen Baku fighter bomber, so you actually might be more cautious with expanding A6M2 factories), there is no reason not to expand production of Oscars - later you can upgrade the factories to Ki-43-IIb/IIIa and produce them until the end of war for your kamikaze needs. And if production numbers will turn out to be excessive, it is much less painful to just turn off a factory for a time, than be stuck with a lack of planes on the frontline. As about Vals/Kates production, 35 of each was enough for me, but I'm cautious with my carriers. Of course, when you later in the game will need to refit carrier strike squadrons with new types, a much higher production is recommended unless you want this process to take forever. Also, I'd recommend to expand E13A production to 45-50 and H6K4 to at least 25.



JohnDillworth -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/7/2012 12:25:14 PM)

GreyJoy, a quick note on pilots. You get lots. Raeder managed to keep decent pilots in the air so you only have to be a little careful. Not so for the IJN pilots. I think he ran that pool dry. I believe he did that through some massive over-aggressiveness in the SW pacific.
Actually, a question. I also have Windows 7 64. Did you get tracker working and if so how?



Cap Mandrake -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/7/2012 3:50:57 PM)

I am to understand this is a 3 page AAR about a future AAR? [:D]



Gridley380 -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/7/2012 4:06:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I have the most problem with this as this completely removes the PBY liberator from its historical role-naval interdiction at low altitude. In our game we allow PBYs to low level naval attack but limit it to one squadron set to naval attack per base. This works almost perfectly as you do not get massed naval attacks but small interdiction attacks and the PBYs rarely attack a well capped TF. Do this instead.


A nit: the PBY Catalina is a twin-engine flying boat. The PB4Y Privateer was the Navy designation for the B-24 Liberator. The PB4Y doesn't show up until 1943. Both aircraft were principally used for naval search, then ASW, and naval attack only third.

The B-17 was developed with one of its official missions being coast defense, and in fact the US tried using it for naval strikes repeatedly... with very poor results.

Just some historical information to bear in mind when deciding on your house rules.

A suggestion on the airbase thing: I've noted that it appears the current version of Babes (all version of the game?) will let you run a Lvl9 airbase with only 250 aviation support, no matter how many planes are there. All lower-level airfields seem to be treated fairly reasonably in terms of limited groups/engines operational. I contend that the only thing that is broken is the Lvl9's. Two fixes: first, mandate that you can NEVER have aircraft at a base (possibly excluding those in reserve) in excess of the number of aviation support present. This should limit a lot of abuses. Second, cap the number of engines at Lvl9's, although I strongly suggest capping it at something like 100-200 engines per level rather than 50 (math again - that's 450 engines, or 100 4E's and 50 1E's, AKA two mid-war bomb groups and two pursuit squadrons for the USAAF - at that density for 1600 square nautical miles the 8th AF couldn't have fit in southern England.

Remember that a Lvl9 can usually only be built in a hex that is mostly land and really represents multiple actual airfields. I 100% agree they are overpowered by the game engine limits, but I think you're nerfing them too much.

Edit to add: if you want to nerf early/mid war 4E abuses, perhaps require that 4E bomb groups be kept together (they usually were), and can only fly strike missions out of bases that have one US Army Air HQ per group (using the limited number of unrestricted USA HQa to represent the limited supply of the highly specialized 4E ground echelons)?



witpqs -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/7/2012 5:32:37 PM)

Neither Babes nor any other scenario has control over how much air support is required per plane. That is strictly a code issue. It was posted a couple of months ago by the developers that the initial intention was to remove the 250 air support ceiling but that was erroneously omitted when AE was released. AFAIK it is planned to fix that (remove the 250 ceiling) in the next patch. At that point 1 sir support will be required for each plane no matter how many are present.

As far as an operational limit on level 9 air fields, that would be a separate issue.



Cap Mandrake -> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) (7/7/2012 5:41:41 PM)

Do you guys mean to say that folks are using massed PBY raids for naval attack?

That is seriously gamey.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.078125