TO NIKADEMUS (part two)

TO NIKADEMUS (part two) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific

Message

Mike Scholl -> TO NIKADEMUS (part two) (2/15/2003 6:03:57 PM)
I'm in full agreement with you that even with the "fixes" in place currently, the results of Air- or Ship-to-Ground bombard- ments seem more like Hermann Goering"s promises before Dunkirque than the actual results. Before the patches UV was the Airman's Wet-Dream in this regard---and from the viewpoint of a "ground-pounder" the results are still a bit generous. The big point I'd make in improving the "Historical Accuracy" of the airfield attack results is that 2by3 seems to have missed the fact that it is a LOT easier to "Repair" a damaged Airfield than it is to "Build" a new one. True, bombs and shells make lots of nasty holes in runways and such---but a couple of bull- dozers, or a few hundred men with trucks, wagons, shovels and the like can (and did) fill those holes in a hurry. You don't even need to be an engineer to shovel crushed rock or coral. With any kind of "engineering" capability available, it should be almost impossible to "pound" an airstrip down to the point that it can't recover "overnight" to at least level one status. Meaning it could get "some" CAP into the air, and transfer out "some" of it's assets. Maybe if they just slipped in a few lines of code making engineers function at "x 5" (or whatever works)when doing repairs the whole problem could be solved without leaving the realms of reality. The attacker would still "limit" the base's effectiveness, and force the defender to maintain a high level engineering presence to keep it functioning---but he wouldn't get the "Bang..., You're Dead!" results currently in the game.

Hard Sarge -> (2/16/2003 10:58:01 AM)
Hi Mike not sure mate, you ever look at BDA photo's ? drop a few hunderd tons of bombs on a field and days later, that field is still ruined ? (I like the Impact books, copies of the AAF Mag was that was made during the war, to give out hints and show what the other forces had learned or tied in combat) {ah, great books for you skip bombing fans}[one tip, they talk about for the Photo guys, look at the caters, to see if any water is in them, if they got water, they are "old" caters and did not come from the recent raid] and since we did a lot of work with para fag's and I believed timed fag's, it is not always so easy, to just climb on out of the hole you are in and fill in the holes they just left which I am sure you could point out the damage done to Henderson field during the time frame of our game, but don't forget, for what ever reason, the JP, never did seem to see or understand that Fighter 1 and later Fighter 2 were also airfields and that by just pounding Henderson, would not knock out GC and of course, as I pointed out before, Rabaul, had at least 7 fields, not one, we could shut down some of them, but not all of them from what I have seen, the fields repair pretty fast as it is HARD_Sarge

Mike Scholl -> TO HARD SARGE (2/16/2003 7:39:09 PM)
Well I've spent a number of hours with the post-war "Strategic Bombing Survey", but I'll admit that I haven't given a lot of time to looking at "BDA" photos. Liked your observation on looking for water to spot old damage. And I think your point about the actual number of seperate air fields/strips at Rabaul and Lae and Guadalcanal actually helps my case. In virtually every game of UV I've played, I have either been able to "destroy" a base of my opponant, or had one of mine "destroyed"---sometimes both, and sometimes more than one. From various responses in the Forum, I gather this is not at all unusual. And I think "total destruction" with it's accompanying "pinning" of all squadrons on the base is simply too severe a result historically. Especially the "pinning". Even if a base is severely mauled it should be able to fly a steady stream of the "trapped" aircraft out to other friendly bases. My "druthers" would be a reverse of the pattern of building an airfield----with damage being progressively harder to inflict. By which I mean that in "bombing down" say a level 4 base it would be relatively easy to reduce it to a level 3 in capability, somewhat harder to reduce it to a level 2, harder still to take it down to level 1, and difficult to get it to level 0. This would make it almost impossible to totally destroy an airfield of level 6 or more; while still giving you a chance to "take out" a smaller field for at least a while. And I would make the "filp-side of this such that it was very easy to repair a base from a 0 back up to a 1 in a level 3 or less airfield; or up to a 2 in a larger complex. I'm quite sure the BDA photos are very impressive. I'm also sure that Air Forces have consistantly over-estimated the effects of bombing since the first pilot dropped a grenade in WW I. Human ingenuity always seems to find a way to get around the damage and keep going. Even in Iraq, with all our tech, we find out that we didn't do as well as we thought at the time. WW II is full of examples of air power not achieving it's promises. It was important, and could even be decisive, but it couldn't get around human ingenuity in the long run. Appreciate your thoughts..., and even moreso that they were expressed in the spirit of discussion and not with the "venom" or "name-calling" that seems to infect these sights on occasion. It sounds like you are another Aussie---which means we'll probably never have a chance to hash this out over a dozen pints in the manner it deserves. Too bad..., I think I'd enjoy that.

Hard Sarge -> (2/17/2003 12:08:47 AM)
Hi Mike LOL, sorry Mate (oops, there we go again) I fly flight sims alot, and as I work nights, most times I fly is when I get home in the morning, so a lot of my online friends are Aussies, so from the flight sims, Mate is very common I just a x Marine, frozen on the north coast (Ohio) I do like the idea of the backward damage airfields my games so far, I have never seen one of my bases shut down, and am not sure if I have ever really shut down one of the AI bases but, seeing that Shortland and Rebaul, are the main bases I hit with major forces, they both have tons of Eng types there and are bigger bases been hitting Rebaul, with between 50-150 runway hits a day, for the last 2 months now, it is only the last 2 weeks, that there has not been any Zero's in the air (hassle in game, them Zero's could be coming from another base and I would not know, and think they are from Rebaul) (which Rebaul is not flying now, and looks like the AI keeps trying to bring planes in, recon shows nothing there, but my sweeps are getting 4 to 10 planes a day on the deck, 3 squadrons of 39's can be impressive) and Shortland got to be low on supplies, and has no planes which, will say, both have been major Operations, would say, I got planes from 12 different bases being used vs those 2 targets HARD_Sarge

Hard Sarge -> (2/17/2003 12:41:09 AM)
LOL forgot I made some moves on my last turn, last night AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/20/43 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on Rabaul , at 21,28 Japanese aircraft Allied aircraft P-39D Airacobra x 91 Japanese aircraft losses A6M3 Zero x 8 destroyed A6M3 Zero x 1 damaged A6M2 Zero x 12 destroyed A6M2 Zero x 6 damaged Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 3 destroyed Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 1 damaged D3A Val x 3 destroyed D3A Val x 2 damaged H8K Emily x 2 destroyed H8K Emily x 1 damaged G4M1 Betty x 1 destroyed G4M1 Betty x 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses P-39D Airacobra x 1 destroyed P-39D Airacobra x 3 damaged Japanese ground losses: Men lost 589 5 SQUADRON SWEEP -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on Rabaul , at 21,28 Japanese aircraft Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 10 SBD Dauntless x 14 P-39D Airacobra x 84 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 6 destroyed D3A Val x 1 destroyed Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses SBD Dauntless x 3 damaged P-39D Airacobra x 3 damaged Japanese ground losses: Men lost 564 Airbase hits 2 Runway hits 5 5 SQUADRON SWEEP, with another base's attack -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on Rabaul , at 21,28 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 12 SBD Dauntless x 15 TBF Avenger x 16 no losses Japanese Ships CL Nagara, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage Japanese ground losses: Men lost 69 Airbase hits 1 Runway hits 12 Attacking Level Bombers: 16 x TBF Avenger at 5000 feet another base joins in -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on Rabaul , at 21,28 Allied aircraft B-17E Fortress x 12 no losses Japanese ground losses: Men lost 34 Attacking Level Bombers: 3 x B-17E Fortress at 11000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 11000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 11000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 11000 feet another base -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Air attack on Shortland Island , at 29,34 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 14 SBD Dauntless x 25 P-39D Airacobra x 48 P-40E Warhawk x 24 no losses Japanese Ships CA Kako, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage BB Kirishima, Bomb hits 1, heavy damage CA Kinugasa, Bomb hits 1, heavy damage Japanese ground losses: Men lost 58 39's and 40's on sweep, cats on excourt, SBD port attack -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on Shortland Island , at 29,34 Allied aircraft SBD Dauntless x 30 no losses Japanese Ships PG Nikkai Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage CL Kinu, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage DD Asagiri, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage Port supply hits 1 Munda SBD come in, port attack -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- hmm, I believe I count 37 losses here, end of day report shows 36 losses, so good day ! strange, before the day started Rebaul, showed 10 planes on the base, end of day, it shows 9, this is the first time I have seen Oscars on the base SO if the base is shut down, there may be a hassle with the AI trying to move forces to a shutdown base, to just be destroyed (or maybe it gambled, that the base was almost repaired ?) Love sweeps when they work HARD_Sarge

Mike Scholl -> To HARD SARGE (2/17/2003 12:41:54 AM)
Sounds to me as if there is a good chance that you have "shut down" one or both of those fields. Almost all of my play was PBEM, so I don't know what to tell you about finding out for sure. We could always tell from the level of "bitchin" coming from an opponant how successful we'd been. Ohio, eh? That's a different story. Any chance you make HISTORICON in the summer? I usually try, and they have quite a nice little bar right in the lobby of the hotel "where the beer flows free and the lies grow bold....." Don't know if you do any miniatures gaming or not, but if the chance arises I'll catch the first round.

Hard Sarge -> (2/17/2003 12:52:10 AM)
Hi Mike no never been there ? give some info, will see how it works out hehe, I remember when somebody tried to teach me miniatures a French charge into a Ville, I was to defend, I set up a L ambush in front of the Ville, and he charged right into the middle of it "you, you were suppost to be in the Ville !" "oh, sorry, you didn't tell me that part of the rules" :) my old club I was in, they were real HARD core about it, they would set up a battle, the others would bring in the troops, based on the size and strength given, then the troops would be inspected, if they did not have the right armor, weapons or paint job, they were tossed back, so some of these guys, may of brought a 3000 point army in, only to fight the battle with 1500 points worth of troops ! they had to bring all there resourses with them to a battle !!!!!! but no, never got into the details just used to watch a lot HARD_Sarge

Hard Sarge -> (2/17/2003 2:01:27 AM)
you misread, my statement, I said or meant (at least) that sweep works on all but ships send some 47's on sweep along with some 25's bombing, and you will make a total mess out of base HARD_Sarge > looks like I may of made a mistake here I did a recheck, to make sure, as I had seen something like this earlier, but had my groups mixed and could not be sure which squadron may of done what but on the recheck, every P-39 squadron I have is on Sweep/0 CAP (1 is on LRCAP over Shortland, but was out of range of this attack) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 25,27 Allied aircraft P-39D Airacobra x 18 no losses Japanese Ships AP Takunan Maru, Shell hits 40, Bomb hits 5, on fire, heavy damage Japanese ground losses: Men lost 287 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the other time I seen it, they sank the ship also, looks like a ToO attack for my sweeps, I am not seeing much hassle with getting my men tired, the men based at Buka have very low morale, and most times I am flying 3 of 5 squadrons on attack, 2 resting, the men based at Bruin, hitting Shortland, have great morale, but they are facing much worse AA, and while they are killing troops, the other squadrons are killing planes, so seems like something else is working on morale ? HARD_Sarge

Nikademus -> (2/17/2003 3:41:50 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by NAVMAN [B]. Nikademus; Are you addressing the first paragraph of your reply to me? Hope not, because the tone in that first paragraph is less than friendly. Something caused the P-47 to change from fighter-bomber in Pacific War to fighter in UV. All I would like to find out is why. I have noted in some posts that when someone asks a legitimate question, certain posts in reply have the "how dare you" tenor to them. Hopefully, yours is not one of those and a mutually beneficial and interesting discussion can continue. In any case, I'm not going to miss any sleep over it. [/B][/QUOTE] Nope. Wasn't addressed to anyone in particular nor was it meant to be in a less than friendly tone. I'm sorry you took it that way. Given some of the rounds tossed 2b3's way i simply felt it warrented to state the obvious. Most if not all of us know what planes fell where and given the online encyc, it seemed fairly obvious that 2b3 knew as well.

Nikademus -> Re: Re: Re: TO NIKADEMUS (2/17/2003 3:46:38 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown [B]You wouldn't happen to be referring to Lae now would you? ;) The 17's weren't able to fly last turn, so maybe you got it back up and running by now? Well, don't worry, they'll be back, soon. :D You might want to start a thread on this topic. I might do it, except it ain't my base that has been closed for the last month. ;) :p [/B][/QUOTE] Well i've been mouthing off about it on the forum for about a month now so i figured that 2b3 is aware of it but maybe your right. B-17's on the way again eh? Better ready Weapon "X". Whats Weapon "X" you say? ah...well that would telling... ;) quote: quoted by Drongo What are you, my PR manager now? For clarification, I only get "ornary" when I can't drink. I'll have you know I go through great lengths to ensure my posts are never insulting, degrading or could be mistaken as a personal attack in any way. Mind you, with so many overly sensitive morons out there in the forums, spouting ridiculously petty reasons why "this game is wrong", I shouldn't even bother. So get stuffed, you stupid poofta. Ah shut up and send me a turn. I long to shut down your airbases with my JDAM equipped medium bombers ;)

Hard Sarge -> (2/17/2003 4:03:54 AM)
Hi Mike don't know if you had seen some of the earlier posts, I happened to find this one when I was looking for something else I finally got my 2 P-47's squadrons, put them on sweep missions over Kavieng, haveing shut down the IJN and there supply runs are a mess, the major bases are out of suppy first sweep of the day, they nailed around 15 planes destroyed on the ground with close to the same damaged, and killed 2350 men, I was in shock the 2nd sweep came in, killing even more planes on the ground and scroll down the report and they claim 2700 men killed close to 30 destroyed planes and 5000 men, a very nice sweep one other sweep I had the report state 1900 men killed, and another one claimed 1100, but most were in the 200-500 range, not bad for 37 to 44 planes a sweep (of course, the bases being out of supply, weak to no AA, and no fighter cover, may help these numbers out) HARD_Sarge > so that is what I meant when I was saying it still works as a F instead of a FB, as it's title :)

Nikademus -> Re: TO NIKADEMUS (part two) (2/17/2003 4:07:01 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Scholl [B]I'm in full agreement with you that even with the "fixes" in place currently, the results of Air- or Ship-to-Ground bombard- ments seem more like Hermann Goering"s promises before Dunkirque than the actual results. Before the patches UV was the Airman's Wet-Dream in this regard---and from the viewpoint of a "ground-pounder" the results are still a bit generous. The big point I'd make in improving the "Historical Accuracy" of the airfield attack results is that 2by3 seems to have missed the fact that it is a LOT easier to "Repair" a damaged Airfield than it is to "Build" a new one. True, bombs and shells make lots of nasty holes in runways and such---but a couple of bull- dozers, or a few hundred men with trucks, wagons, shovels and the like can (and did) fill those holes in a hurry. You don't even need to be an engineer to shovel crushed rock or coral. With any kind of "engineering" capability available, it should be almost impossible to "pound" an airstrip down to the point that it can't recover "overnight" to at least level one status. Meaning it could get "some" CAP into the air, and transfer out "some" of it's assets. Maybe if they just slipped in a few lines of code making engineers function at "x 5" (or whatever works)when doing repairs the whole problem could be solved without leaving the realms of reality. The attacker would still "limit" the base's effectiveness, and force the defender to maintain a high level engineering presence to keep it functioning---but he wouldn't get the "Bang..., You're Dead!" results currently in the game. [/B][/QUOTE] Ironically, the earlier verisions of the game did have far more resiliant airbases. Unfortunately there were a number of beer guzzling morons out there (like moi ;) ) who complained that airbases were too resiliant in the face of air and to a lesser extend, shore bombardment and lobbied for a change. Now we're faced with the opposite extreme. Before, a player could stack mass engineer units at a base and repair 100% runway, 100% airfield service and 100% port damage in a fortnight. Now even with a fair number of units it can take many many days, made worse by the fact that repair in the game is sequencial in nature i.e. Port damage repairs first, then airfield. Certain unscrupilous PBEM players whose names i wont mention but who like to wear Caps and Gowns exploit this tendancy and bomb my ports in the hopes of slowing down airfield repair. :p This of itself is not totally bad, but the problem as i see it, ties closely with what you've said Mike...that there's a huge difference between repairing a runway, repairing the service facilities (which include repair shops, revertments, taxiways, etc etc etc), and repairing a port. I'm not sure if there are seperate repair rates for these 3 factors in the game nor am I convinced that the size of the airbase/port plays enough of a factor. Its supposed too but IMO doesn't play nearly enough of one. A size airbase/port 4 seems little harder to damage than a size 1 airbase/port, same with a size 9 beastie. I wouldn't have as much a problem with the longer repair times if it was very much harder to "get" them there, especially for a large base. Rabaul for example (size 9) should be very hard to damage seriously and it should take a long time with many raids. I could see a size 1 or 2 base damaged quickly and easily but not larger. Right now air attacks and shore bombardments are just too consistantly effective and bases too easy to badly damage, regardless of size So as with most things, a middle ground needs to be hashed out. Dont want to see a return of the unstopable airbase again but at the same time, this complete shutdown initiated when an airbase reaches 50% damage or more needs to be modified, and even at 100% a player should still be able to transfer out airgroups. Just tie in the probability for op losses and/or damaged airplanes that land (at the new airbase) with the damage level and other factors to represent the difference between taking off from an unsuppresssed/damaged base and one thats being pounded to varying degrees. Also, a clearer and more distinct repair/damage rate needs to be set in place for runway, service, and port factors, with size of said facilities a large part of it. runways should be easiest to repair, while port facilities, should be the hardest, the more so as size goes up. Nothing really new here, the manual stated from 1.0 that this was how it worked. It just doesn't work well enough. This post was written bereft of insult to any and all parties involved. Anyone who thinks differently is a lilly livered panzy waist who drinks light beer and thinks keesh is a preferable pub food to cheese covered nachos or hot chili. :D :p :D

NAVMAN -> (2/17/2003 2:06:49 PM)
Nikademus:It appears then, that the discussion has now come full circle, back to the on-line encycl, which was the object of my post initiating this thread. Perhaps you can shed some light on the reason that the P-47C, as referenced in the encycl, has bomb carrying capability, but the P47C in the game does not. Another post suggested that the encycl should only be used as a historical reference tool and not a mirror of the capabilities of units in the game. Is that your take?

Mike Scholl -> to HARD SARGE (again) (2/17/2003 6:52:46 PM)
So you're telling me that two "Sweeps" of about 40 planes each KILLED AN AVERAGE OF 2500 MEN EACH??? And you were NOT flying B-52's with Cluster Bomb Units? And the men killed were NOT on ships that sank? And you DON'T see a problem with this? Or maybe you do---but you're not hollaring about it. You described yourself as USMC ret...., do you remember any part of your training that said the proper response to an air attack was to "stand up and wave"? As a former "ground-pounder" I'm sure you are familiar with the doctrine of "keeping a hole handy for when the manure hits the rotary ocellator". So I find it hard to buy your acceptance of this "Air Force Wet Dream" of a combat result. More than any other branch of the Services, I would think a Marine would grant the Japanese the ability to "dig in". It was your predecessors that had to "dig out" most of them. Come on, Sarge..., somebody has to tell these folks that us "grunts" ain't that easy to git rid of...., and that such results are absurd.

Hard Sarge -> (2/17/2003 7:35:44 PM)
LOL Dude all I was showing, is that the P-47, as a Fighter, does a pretty good job of things, just think about what the outcome would of been if it had been bringing some bombs along for the ride also, don't forget, I said that was a old post, and may be part of the ammo, that got the amount of troops killed during airraids "fixed" in the last few patches for the numbers though, that was a base, with some 50 K in ground troops, and a good 40 K in support, on a little bitty island, so I like to think that they had ran out of good places to dig in anymore, and we just standing in line :) I have yet to see a 47 since the start of the 2.0 patches came out, but in the past, the plane is a total monster LOL, if we want to talk about wet dreams, lets get away from the air to ground war, and get into the ground to ground war ? we know that ground combat in the game is pretty much abstaped (sorry spelling) but that is okay, can't have everything, but let one bolt be out of place on a plane, and we complain and for that matter, why does the IJN have a better supply org then the US Navy ?, why do the Maru's carry more weight then the US ships ? (playbalance ?) let me stop before it starts looking like I am complaining HARD_Sarge

CapAndGown -> (2/17/2003 9:21:24 PM)
[QUOTE] why do the Maru's carry more weight then the US ships ? [/B][/QUOTE] :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Mike Scholl -> IS THIS TRUE? (2/17/2003 10:21:45 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown [B]:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: [/B][/QUOTE] If this is an accurate observation, it's a great question as Japanese Merchant Vessels were on average less than half the size of US/Allied Ships.

Hard Sarge -> (2/18/2003 12:12:55 AM)
more like the IJN tankers (some people, call any transport type JP ship a Maru) for the AP type ships, they carry as much as the US ships HARD_Sarge

Nikademus -> (2/18/2003 1:40:14 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by NAVMAN [B]Nikademus:It appears then, that the discussion has now come full circle, back to the on-line encycl, which was the object of my post initiating this thread. Perhaps you can shed some light on the reason that the P-47C, as referenced in the encycl, has bomb carrying capability, but the P47C in the game does not. Another post suggested that the encycl should only be used as a historical reference tool and not a mirror of the capabilities of units in the game. Is that your take? [/B][/QUOTE] Well like i said to Mike, I could only stab a guess as i'm not in with the coders, but i figured that the reason these Fighter Bombers were classified as "Fighters" as a balance issue within the game engine framework and possibly due to concerns about player abuse as well ( in the case of Fighters that were retro-fitted to carry bombs but not factory authorized) Almost every fighter in the game could in one way or another be made to carry a bomb. Given the current uber-ness of airpower vis-a-vis ground attack, naval attack, and airbase assault, I shudder to think of what would happen if many of the fighters also started lugging bombs along with the level bombers. Cap and Gown's nice picture essay of my Lae base comes to mind :) The "discrepancy" presented by the encyc is not one IMO, but simply a historical marker showing what the planes in question were capable of delivering but just because they could doesn't mean that they would be allowed to in the game. Japanese float planes for example could and did conduct CAP duties but are not given the option currently in the game (not talking about float-fighter planes like the Rufe, but actual seaplanes)

Mike Scholl -> to NAKADEMUS (2/18/2003 10:43:03 PM)
You're absolutely correct that "almost every Fighter in the game COULD carry a bomb." With some it was fairly small (in the 250-500lb range), while with others like the 2000 HP+ engined F6F, F4U, P-38, and P-47 could handle a ton or more. But the real key was that in ALL cases, the range and performance of the aircraft were badly degraded (often by as much as 50% from their "Fighter" stats). 2by3 seems to want to work around this by making the planes "Either/Or" instead of Both. They also seem to want to do this with many bombers which had duel roles (with different performance in each). I don't know why they want to do this, as it creates a LOT of problems historically. Either the aircraft cannot be used in one of their two roles historically---or they are given abilities they didn't have by being able to perform both roles using the same (and wrong for one role) stats for each.

NAVMAN -> (2/19/2003 8:18:42 AM)
Mike: Do you know why the P-47 was a fighter-bomber in Pacific War and then changed to a fighter in UV?

Mike Scholl -> To NAVMAN (2/21/2003 3:24:56 PM)
No..., I DON'T know why they did it that way. I could hazard a guess---but I don't claim to understand Gary's thinking. Historically, the P-38 and P-47 were originally America's "Long-Range Escort" designs. Most P-47's went to Europe because that's where most of the Heavy Bombers were going. Lack of decent drop tanks limited the P-47's range in this role until 1944---by which time the magnificent P-51 was available for the Escort mission and the P-47's were shifted to the "Ground Support" role which their rugged construction and large lifting capacity made them ideal. My guess is that Gary called them "Fighter-Bombers" for ease of coding in PACIFIC WAR---but shifted to "Fighter" for

Mike Scholl -> "....continued" (2/21/2003 3:36:20 PM)
....UNCOMMON VALOR because in the time frame of the game (1942-43) P-47's were primarily used as Fighters and Escorts--- P-51's weren't available yet. THE problem is that ALL these aircraft were used as BOTH!!! And instead of creating a code that would allow both uses, 2by3 went for simplicity. Which is OK for a high-end scale, like PAC WAR, or maybe even for a limited time scenario like UV---but for a detailed, full-war Campaign like WAR IN THE PACIFIC they his a snag. During the 3 years and 9 months of the Pacific Campaign virtually all of the "Multi-Role" aircraft were used extensively in ALL their roles---and the system breaks down. So I keep hoping they'll fix it.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.859375