RE: Bombers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Bombers (2/16/2016 4:37:41 PM)

I'm less concerned about base hits, it's the force ratio and the lopsided losses that drive me mad...



Lowpe -> RE: Bombers (2/16/2016 6:06:22 PM)

Petes on sweep, 10 percent, at 10K.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Bombers (2/16/2016 8:16:19 PM)

Countering nonsense with nonsense, so to say. Yes, that will surely put an end to losing Nicks - while still spoiling bomber aim to a degree. But it just doesn't "feel" right...



BillBrown -> RE: Bombers (2/16/2016 9:42:00 PM)

Maybe if you put green pilots in they will not close with the bombers but will disrupt them? If they
don't close they might not get shot down.



Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: Bombers (2/16/2016 9:42:39 PM)

In my PBEM we adopted a 50 plane (approximately) per target for night bombing.
and this really restricts damage to minimal inconvenient.

But what you are not seeing is that these bombing missions are also incurring losses to the Allies, you lose a few Nicks, so what, you can build 60 per month if you wish, any bomber lost is far more difficult to replace. And for each bombing night, under normal circumstances, I risk loosing anywhere between 1 to 3 bombers. This to AA, lucky interception or simple operational losses. Keeping this attrition really helps you



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Bombers (2/17/2016 8:38:36 AM)

Ed aka IdahoNYer and I have a (tentative, open to discussion) night-bombing house rule as well, 1 air unit per target in 1941/42, 2 in 43, 4 in 44 and no limits in 45 - IIRC. I have practically given up on night-bombing by myself - only losses to show for negligible to non-existent results. Of course, the Allied night-bombers obtain hits and destroy planes on the ground mot of the time, even in 0% moonlight and apparently with impunity - CAP, flak, radar notwithstanding. His Wellingtons in particular are a PITA - must be the bombload of 8xforgotwhatbombsize. Ed may chime in to correct me on the house rules and maybe also to comment on his bomber osp losses. I do not see where such ops losses - if any - could come from, given that his bombers are rarely damaged.



obvert -> RE: Bombers (2/18/2016 1:44:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
As Jocke says. This will help gameplay and I've used the same in several games to good effect. I even do this when playing H to H or against the AI from my side as it just makes more sense.

The last one is usually 31k for 44 and then it's kind of fine to let the doors open for 45 to any altitude, as this does help the Allies stay positive against most better Japanese models that have been pushed forward (and produced heavily). The P-47, P-51 and later Corsairs have higher ceilings than the Ki-84 and many other late war planes. If the Japanese end up with K-83, J7W and Ki-94 too early the Allies are screwed anyway. [:)]


Erik! [&o]

Glad to see you are still around at least sporadically. Any chance of a full blown comeback? [:)]


Work is more intense this year, so I'll only be in sporadically. Just on a week's break now so dipping in. Also playing H to H a bit in small scenarios. Still can't kick the habit. [:)]

I miss the community and checking in to things. Alas, so much happening it's hard to get caught up, which is great. Glad to see the same old avatars and even some resurrected games I thought were done.



JocMeister -> RE: Bombers (2/18/2016 2:34:06 PM)

Sadly a lot of the regulars have disappeared lately. [:(]

Was reading our old AARs over Christmas as I do every year. There is a lot of names in those that arnīt around any longer...



obvert -> RE: Bombers (2/18/2016 2:43:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Sadly a lot of the regulars have disappeared lately. [:(]

Was reading our old AARs over Christmas as I do every year. There is a lot of names in those that arnīt around any longer...


Time changes things. Good to see a few around though.



FeurerKrieg -> RE: Bombers (2/18/2016 5:10:17 PM)

Thankfully I see some new players here and there too.



John B. -> RE: Bombers (2/18/2016 7:28:07 PM)

LST, Scott and I have a house rule that allows any 2E bomber to go in when the moon is at 50% or more and any plane with radar (which includes the upgraded wellingtons) to go at any time. 4E bombers can only do city bombing or mining at night. My allied experience has been I shoot down a Nick now and then, he, less frequently shoots down a 2E, and I kill a plane on the ground 10% of the time. I can't say I notice any upsurge in attrition losses and I only use the non radar planes all at once or not at all as the most effective night bombing seems to happen when the Nicks finally run out of ops points and there is no interference. But, I keep at it since it seems like it burns a little bit of his supply and does a little bit of damage that I would not other wise do.

We tried the 4Es and they were blowing the Nicks out of the sky in unprecendeted numbers, I suspect because of the gun fire values and that's when we agreed to limit them to strat bombing at night.



crsutton -> RE: Bombers (2/19/2016 2:37:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I don't think India is self sufficient; I still send quite a lot of supply convoys from CT to Bombay


Yes, if there is heavy fighting in India then you will need to send supply from CT. In fact Viberpol has invaded and we have been fighting for a year head to toe. I have had to ship constant supply from CT with some coming from the US. Especially after losing Calcutta and the surrounding industrial cities.. However, if India is not a main theater then it should be fairly self sufficient. You only need to ship oil from Abadan.



crsutton -> RE: Bombers (2/19/2016 2:40:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Sadly a lot of the regulars have disappeared lately. [:(]

Was reading our old AARs over Christmas as I do every year. There is a lot of names in those that arnīt around any longer...


Time changes things. Good to see a few around though.



Some are popping back up. I see Miller has posted a few and Canoerebel (Dan) just could not stay away and is back in moderation. Good to see them.



IdahoNYer -> RE: Bombers (2/19/2016 2:59:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Ed aka IdahoNYer and I have a (tentative, open to discussion) night-bombing house rule as well, 1 air unit per target in 1941/42, 2 in 43, 4 in 44 and no limits in 45 - IIRC. I have practically given up on night-bombing by myself - only losses to show for negligible to non-existent results. Of course, the Allied night-bombers obtain hits and destroy planes on the ground mot of the time, even in 0% moonlight and apparently with impunity - CAP, flak, radar notwithstanding. His Wellingtons in particular are a PITA - must be the bombload of 8xforgotwhatbombsize. Ed may chime in to correct me on the house rules and maybe also to comment on his bomber osp losses. I do not see where such ops losses - if any - could come from, given that his bombers are rarely damaged.



Right on the money with the house rules. I think it works fairly well. Early on, night bombing is the only way to get bombers on target as the Allies, but limiting the number of squadrons per target keeps it a bit more realistic. With minimal squadrons involved, the results are usually minimal - one or two hits, sometimes lucky rolls bring in some more. Packed AFs or ports will generate a bit more. Allied bombers pack a good bomb load, and changing altitude of the bombers helps reducing bomber losses to fighters. And yes, each raid some planes come back damaged, and a few are lost every once in a while to fighters or flak. Those that are damaged take a long while to repair if 4E.


The best part about night bombing to me isn't the effects on target, but it kinda forces the defender to spread assets to cover both day and night - especially in Burma where numerous bases are viable targets.




obvert -> RE: Bombers (2/19/2016 5:22:58 PM)

These are the HRs from my most recent game with GreyJoy. We both thought them to work pretty well into 43 when the game was suspended.

Notice the 4E rule on ground bombing. Some of this was hard for the Allies, and I'd use something more similar to the night rule if doing it again. The Allies did use 4Es to bomb at night, and against ground troops, even in 42, but just not in the kind of large numbers possible in game.

We'd chosen 32k for the final years, which I'd forgotten. We didn't get there to see if that limited the craziness of the dive, but I think it slightly favors the IJ as opposed to a rule allowing unlimited ceiling in 45.

Some of this was to balance out the PDU-off.

The HRs are as follows:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Strat bombing:

manpower strikes allowed during daylight
manpower strikes allowed during night with sliding scale:

25 planes/target in 41
50 planes/target in 42
100 planes/target in 43
200 planes/target in 44
400 planes/target in 45-46.

CV strikes allowed for any strategic target at any time

Night bombing port/airfield:

50 planes/target for the entire war.

Aerial mining:

50 planes/target only at night for the entire war.

Altitude of CAP/sweep:

15k in 41
20k in 42
25k in 43
32k in 44-46.

Ground bombing:

No 4E ground bombing

Settings:

DBB scen 30 (with Symon's air mods), PDU OFF, Realistic RnD OFF, Replacements OFF, expand OFF, 7th Dec Surprise ON, Historical Start OFF, Auto Subs OFF, Advanced Weather ON



BBfanboy -> RE: Bombers (2/19/2016 10:23:15 PM)

I would never agree to NO 4-engine aircraft doing ground bombing, given that it was used to create the breakout from the bocage country in Normandy in 1944.

An altitude restriction of 10K would be appropriate. I think that AA has also gotten more effective since the time that you (Obvert) and Greyjoy started your match, so that should help reduce the effectiveness of ground bombing. As it is, carpet-bombing jungle with 4-E bombers only results in a few ringing ears ...



Lowpe -> RE: Bombers (2/19/2016 11:35:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
As it is, carpet-bombing jungle with 4-E bombers only results in a few ringing ears ...


No, it can be very hard on the troops, especially below 10K. Even at 10K,if that avoids all the flak,it is nasty.









obvert -> RE: Bombers (2/20/2016 4:23:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I would never agree to NO 4-engine aircraft doing ground bombing, given that it was used to create the breakout from the bocage country in Normandy in 1944.

An altitude restriction of 10K would be appropriate. I think that AA has also gotten more effective since the time that you (Obvert) and Greyjoy started your match, so that should help reduce the effectiveness of ground bombing. As it is, carpet-bombing jungle with 4-E bombers only results in a few ringing ears ...


Ahh, yes, but the game doesn't simulate the also historical friendly fire that wiped out a lot of unfortunate Allied troops as well.

AA was plenty tough in our match using DBB. using early 2Es I couldn't touch the Japanese stacks in India without horrendous losses.

The Allies did use 4Es occasionally against troops. After I started this I read a book about B-17s in the Pacific. Fortress Against the Sun. They hit troops around Buna several times as well as some other missions. They never got more than about 15-20 planes together for each mission though. So in game you can do a lot more than they were able or willing to put together, and the ability of the Allied player to move limitless supplies (including the abstraction of spare parts and upgrades for 4Es) gives us a lot more possibility to slam ground troops. Especially in the open.

Either way, I'm happy to use B-25s for hitting troops and keep the big boys for closing airfields and striking ports, hitting industry and such. It did help keep my pools up! [;)]



obvert -> RE: Bombers (2/20/2016 4:24:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
As it is, carpet-bombing jungle with 4-E bombers only results in a few ringing ears ...


No, it can be very hard on the troops, especially below 10K. Even at 10K,if that avoids all the flak,it is nasty.




Yes. Even if you don't knock troops out, the resulting disruption can change a lot of outcomes.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.812988