Bases in range of Allied heavy bombers?

Bases in range of Allied heavy bombers? (Full Version)

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

Message

rustysi -> Bases in range of Allied heavy bombers? (1/21/2020 3:03:06 PM)
To date I've only played against the AI, and I use certain precautions when I use such bases. TBH I doubt the AI 'cares' one way or the other. Specifically I'm talking about the port, and more specifically I'm talking about one out of fighter cover range. I understand a port attack against ships in port may be devastating. But in a PBEM game what opposition will unescorted bombers be expected to challenge? I also understand that experience and training of the attacking forces matter, as well as their units' leadership ratings. When I say opposition I mean AAA and CAP. When it comes to AAA I don't think it has any impact upon whether an attack occurs or not. I only expect it to affect the outcome to one degree or another. In the case of CAP though, I wouldn't expect enemy units to fly blindly into heavy opposition. So, I'm reaching out to players with far more experience in this matter than myself. What say ye?[:)]

Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: Bases in range of Allied heavy bombers? (1/21/2020 3:32:43 PM)
Ideally an Allied player wants to sweep and escort heavy bombers, that said, B-17 can take care of Japanese fighters on their own. In my Allied PBEM, I remember sending them without protection if needed.. in great numbers. I would say, against a human, you would need to put a lot of effort protecting your vulnerable bases, oil bases in particular. You will also want to build "groups" of bases protecting each other, so that if one of your bases gets closed, you can still protect it from nearby

BBfanboy -> RE: Bases in range of Allied heavy bombers? (1/21/2020 9:44:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury Ideally an Allied player wants to sweep and escort heavy bombers, that said, B-17 can take care of Japanese fighters on their own. In my Allied PBEM, I remember sending them without protection if needed.. Did any of them get slapped with paternity suits after? Or get sick and have their tails fall off? [image]local://upfiles/35791/A2BB0031EC25469096C0B5D4971B3681.gif[/image]

Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: Bases in range of Allied heavy bombers? (1/21/2020 10:38:41 PM)
it was too late for them anyway [image]local://upfiles/41287/2D6025D16C724645A2F8C8BE897E1AF2.jpg[/image]

RangerJoe -> RE: Bases in range of Allied heavy bombers? (1/21/2020 10:54:20 PM)
Herpes, the gift that keeps on giving.

Barb -> RE: Bases in range of Allied heavy bombers? (1/22/2020 12:29:48 PM)
AI targeting works on "Calculating raids" - that usually target bases with low/no CAP - so a big mistake is to rest your CAP on a frontline base hoping the enemy wont target it. AI sees no active CAP = great target. Human player works in much different pattern so they can target even heavily CAPed base with his heavy bombers if the reward is high enough (e.g.disbanded KB). I doubt AAA enters into target calculation, just into the raid execution. Also light/medium/jap bombers have some sort of self-preservation - in seeing "unescorted bombers withdrawing" or something message you can see number of bombers returned early. US Heavy bombers ignore such option.

Macclan5 -> RE: Bases in range of Allied heavy bombers? (1/22/2020 12:59:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Barb AI targeting works on "Calculating raids" - that usually target bases with low/no CAP - so a big mistake is to rest your CAP on a frontline base hoping the enemy wont target it. AI sees no active CAP = great target. Also light/medium/jap bombers have some sort of self-preservation - in seeing "unescorted bombers withdrawing" +1 Very nice accurate summary. @ rustysi Great question / Loaded question. Depends on where you are in the campaign. Earlier is actually sometimes harder than latter. I am certainly no expert - I have 3.5 GCs under my belt on various levels of difficulty. To the points above - never have one isolated base - in my humble opinion. Don't invade unless you have sufficient forces to take and develop at least 2 (perhaps 3) interlocking bases within range of one another. i.e. Guadalcanal - bring enough for both bases same time i.e. Tarawa / Makin - ditto i.e. Ailinglaplap / Roi - ditto i.e. Guam / Rota or Siapan / Tianin - ditto i.e. Hollandia / Weewak i.e. Iwo Jima / Chi Chi Jima etc My rationale is (i) Fighter cover / escort should overlap (ii) in early development split bomber groups between them Once any 2 bases is sufficiently developed with 'enough bomber squadron' - they are generally'always in range' of next target. Even if next target is a substantial jump - you should be able to get some P38's with drop tanks to support the bombers as early as 1942. Early in the game this can actually be more challenging in someways. Marshaling enough overwhelming forces to take 2 targets not 1 Marshaling enough shipping to unload quickly and overwhelm Your early Carrier support is limited / precious In 1942 - Wake / Midway / Ndeai / Guadalcanal 'seem a long way away' from Pearl / Noumea / Suva In 1944 - with the equivalent of TF58 and 'dozens of Escort carriers' nothing seems to far away depending on circumstances.

rustysi -> RE: Bases in range of Allied heavy bombers? (1/24/2020 4:28:16 PM)
quote: Also light/medium/jap bombers have some sort of self-preservation - in seeing "unescorted bombers withdrawing" or something message you can see number of bombers returned early. US Heavy bombers ignore such option. Highlighted statement is incorrect. I've seen it happen plenty on times in my AI games.

alanschu -> RE: Bases in range of Allied heavy bombers? (1/24/2020 7:51:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi quote: Also light/medium/jap bombers have some sort of self-preservation - in seeing "unescorted bombers withdrawing" or something message you can see number of bombers returned early. US Heavy bombers ignore such option. Highlighted statement is incorrect. I've seen it happen plenty on times in my AI games. Would US Heavy Bombers be a bit more willing to attempt things based on having more durability and local machine gun fire? I am not disputing your comment (I think I've seen it too), but at times it seems like my B-17s can be pretty persistent.

RangerJoe -> RE: Bases in range of Allied heavy bombers? (1/24/2020 9:14:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: alanschu quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi quote: Also light/medium/jap bombers have some sort of self-preservation - in seeing "unescorted bombers withdrawing" or something message you can see number of bombers returned early. US Heavy bombers ignore such option. Highlighted statement is incorrect. I've seen it happen plenty on times in my AI games. Would US Heavy Bombers be a bit more willing to attempt things based on having more durability and local machine gun fire? I am not disputing your comment (I think I've seen it too), but at times it seems like my B-17s can be pretty persistent. Allied Heavy Bombers tend to have better pilots and better leaders allocated to them. This should increase the chance that they will get favorable rolls for them to make it to the target.

rustysi -> RE: Bases in range of Allied heavy bombers? (1/27/2020 7:58:28 PM)
quote: Allied Heavy Bombers tend to have better pilots and better leaders allocated to them. This should increase the chance that they will get favorable rolls for them to make it to the target. Agreed. Again remember I'm playing an AI game. It happens 'all the time' due to the AI ignoring bad morale, low experience, poor leaders, etc. In a PBEM game, I'm sure that with better prep, it is much less likely to occur.

Ian R -> RE: Bases in range of Allied heavy bombers? (1/28/2020 3:08:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury You will also want to build "groups" of bases protecting each other, so that if one of your bases gets closed, you can still protect it from nearby The allied bomber fleet can close any IJ airbase, if it is willing to take the initial losses. So this is an important point.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

7.312012