Charles2222 -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/5/2004 7:50:39 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge Hi Charles I thought it was 28 (IIRC) so 29 sounds like the same ballpark, and maybe a different way of counting losses I can agree with the amount of Flak damage may seem high, but, that is how the game runs Flak, combat, landing, take off, anything, is going to be much higher then what most of us see, in our books or reports or files sorry DBS/Charles, think my reply came across much hasher then I had intended it to be HARD_Sarge Your point of 'that's how the game runs' is somewhat my very point. If you have a surprise option, which grants the Japanese twice the losses, is it really a surprise option at all? I bring this up because I'm guessing they thought of limiting Allied aerial response but not flak. The flak probably did much better than the aerial element historically, but then again it didn't knock 50 or more planes from the sky either. If this were just like any other turn, I would expect PH to fall into the fluke category, but then again you would think a surprise option would be catered very well for that one event, since it's an option to do just that from what I can tell. My reaction to your reaction (the smiley with the finger doesn't exactly help any) is considerably based on the premise that I might be getting a fanboy reaction, or, rather, that I'm expecting a fanboy reaction. It's only one crummy battle, but if I see 4 squadrons not attacking, still subject to flak, and frequently double the air losses it should be corrected. As it stands it's less of a surprise option and more of a lack-of-Allied-aerial-response option. And what's up with those last 4 bomber squadrons not attacking too?
|
|
|
|