Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

surviving the heavies

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> surviving the heavies Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
surviving the heavies - 1/14/2006 9:08:48 PM   
alfrake

 

Posts: 70
Joined: 9/6/2005
Status: offline 		What does Japan do, in the early game, against Allied heavy bombers? For example, last turn combat report:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/29/42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Rangoon , at 29,34

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 69

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 53
LB-30 Liberator x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 8 destroyed, 17 damaged
A6M2 Zero: 6 destroyed
Ki-15 Babs: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 4 destroyed, 45 damaged
LB-30 Liberator: 2 destroyed, 15 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
551 casualties reported
Guns lost 10

Airbase hits 3
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 19

Aircraft Attacking:
26 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 6000 feet
6 x LB-30 Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
1 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 6000 feet
4 x LB-30 Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I interecepted him with basically as many fighters as he sent bombers but I took more losses in air-to-air combat. He still got enough bombs through to kill 500 guys on the ground, plus another 7 planes. Obviously I can put my zeros on CAP as well, but I think that's just asking to get my elite pilots shredded. I wouldn't mind the air-to-air loses if I could actually reduce the bomb damage, but that doesn't seem possible.


PBEM, scen 15, latest official version (1.62?)

PS I know this has to get talked about a lot, but I couldn't find anything really on point. You can call me dumb and give me a link if you want. :)
Post #: 1
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/14/2006 9:14:52 PM   
wild_Willie2


Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline 		Play a mod....

NIKMOD is a very nice mod. it reduces the effect of heavy's in the game and increases the effect of japanese fighters.

_____________________________

In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.

(in reply to alfrake)
Post #: 2
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/14/2006 9:37:03 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		In short, you can't.

If you're Japan, just expect any base within 13 hexes a size AF(5) or better, to be demolished.

I say size 5, because the losses flying massed 4e formations from a AF(4) is -very- prohibitive (usu on the order of 60% damages). And for what it's worth, if you -do- see lots of B-17s flying from AF(4), that is definately an invitation to bomb the place, I can guarentee half them damaged.

And of course, ye olde massive BB TF works very well too.

I'd bet he's flying from Dacca and Calcutta (exactly what I do). Your BBs can't shoot 120 miles inland, so that's out. But yes, Burma is crater just waiting to happen. You can write off anything north of (and including) Tavoy.

You can't win Burma. You can take Burma as Japan. But he's going to bomb the snot out if and every plan you put there.

For the Allies, the best way to kill a Zero is on the ground. Same for Japan, the best way to kill a B-17 is on the ground.

-F-

< Message edited by Feinder -- 1/14/2006 9:40:04 PM >

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to wild_Willie2)
Post #: 3
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/14/2006 9:56:48 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline 		One thing you CAN do is make it expensive for the Allies.

Stop using Oscars Ibs to try and stop bombers - they have 1 x 7.7 mm mg and 1 x 12.7 mm machine gun, while you are facing something like 8 x .50 caliber and a 1 x .30 cal MGs from a B-17E, and 10 x .50 cal MG on B-24s. B-17s and B-24s are heavily built. Oscars apparently were constructed from bailing wire and tissue paper. Guess who is going to suffer more when Oscars try to take on Allied heavies in equal number?

It sounds like you are playing with PDUs ON. If so, Japan can produce all kinds of fighters. Make something more useful than an Oscar to take on the heavies. Tonys are good at this. Zeroes are armed with 20 cannon and can take down heavies (although they will suffer while doing so). Check what aircraft you can produce with heavy armament, and good dur, and forget Oscars. They are woefully underrated in WITP imo.



< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 1/15/2006 2:45:21 AM >

(in reply to alfrake)
Post #: 4
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 2:38:43 AM   
hawker


Posts: 849
Joined: 6/25/2005
From: Split,Croatia
Status: offline 		You must understand that in this game 4E bombers are weapons from the future. No way you can repel them,maybe with stingers,but just maybe.


_____________________________


Fortess fortuna iuvat

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 5
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 4:29:44 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		But again and again here is what noone seems to understand.

You didn't take 551 casualties. Forget what the combat report says. What happened was you had about that many troops moved from the ready catagory to the disabled catagory. These will recover. And the only reason you took that many is because I suspect you're base is overstacked and at a low fortification level.


Look at what really happened. 75 heavy bombers hit an overstacked airbase defended by obsolete fighters. They did very minor damage to the airfield. (3 base hits 19 runway). I would guess that the engineers had everything pretty much cleaned up by the start of the next turn. This is not armagedon.

Get some zero's flying over the base and those unescorted bombers will not be so scary.

I would agree that it would be good or 4E replacement rates to be dropped in the stock scenario. IRL if 75 B17's hit you're airbase you're in big trouble. Shouldn't be 75 B17's in Jan 42.

(in reply to hawker)
Post #: 6
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 5:36:19 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		This thread is going to heat up. But I hate to break it to you, but 4e bombers -were- that effective at AF suppression in the Pacific historically. Daily flights of (only) 8 - 12 B-17s demolisheded "Fortress Rabaul" in the space of about 4 weeks.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to moses)
Post #: 7
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 7:51:58 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline 		THere is no way you should be getting clobbered as the Japanese player in 1/42. Move in 100 zeros and 100 BEttys. Let the Zeros take on the 4Es and Send the Bettys in to hit his airfield with a decent escort. In a few days he will either have to pull the bomber units out or they will be decimated

(in reply to alfrake)
Post #: 8
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 9:16:23 AM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

Get some zero's flying over the base and those unescorted bombers will not be so scary.




I agree. You still have Zero bonus. Move 4 Zero Daitais there and prepare ambush for him there... trust me he will stop attack Bankok.

(http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=970358&mpage=2)...

But once when your Zero bonus expires and Allies start getting new groups etc... yes, you are doomed....

_____________________________


(in reply to moses)
Post #: 9
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 3:04:36 PM   
worr

 

Posts: 901
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline
quote:

He still got enough bombs through to kill 500 guys on the ground, plus another 7 planes.


Casualties aren't deaths.

Worr, out

(in reply to alfrake)
Post #: 10
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 4:49:33 PM   
Przemcio231


Posts: 1901
Joined: 10/11/2005
From: Warsaw,Poland,EU:)
Status: offline 		Try some House Rules like heavis can only fly from Lv 6 AF and no US 4E's BG's in India , and DEI...

(in reply to worr)
Post #: 11
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 5:11:36 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

B-17E Fortress x 53
LB-30 Liberator x 24


Try something better, a house rule that says NO USA aircraft in India ... until a naval convoy path is established

I really wish we got that AV support rule coded that only allowed base units to support their own to put an end to this silliness.

Can you honestly see the US government releasing their best aircraft to parts unknown when they were starving for them personally. Can see it now, sorry boys, you don't get your planes this month, we gave them to those silly Brits in India instead ... nevermind the fact that we can't get there from here

(in reply to Przemcio231)
Post #: 12
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 5:35:23 PM   
Dino


Posts: 1032
Joined: 11/14/2005
From: Serbia
Status: offline 		And the AVG would have been so much more useful on the West Coast ???

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 13
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 7:19:05 PM   
Przemcio231


Posts: 1901
Joined: 10/11/2005
From: Warsaw,Poland,EU:)
Status: offline 		Mr Frag maybe that rule could be inputed via some path

(in reply to Dino)
Post #: 14
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 7:26:43 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

This thread is going to heat up. But I hate to break it to you, but 4e bombers -were- that effective at AF suppression in the Pacific historically. Daily flights of (only) 8 - 12 B-17s demolisheded "Fortress Rabaul" in the space of about 4 weeks.

-F-



Agree. The problem is not with the bombers being too effective. The problem is that there are way too many of them way too early. 4E bomber replacement rates should be reduced.

Based on my current games I do not think a 50% reduction in bomber replacement would be all that constraining. It would however prevent players from being able to convert multiple groups to 4E as early as Jan 42 and begin these early bomber offensives.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 15
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 8:25:45 PM   
Przemcio231


Posts: 1901
Joined: 10/11/2005
From: Warsaw,Poland,EU:)
Status: offline
quote:

The problem is that there are way too many of them way too early. 4E bomber replacement rates should be reduced.


Yep that could be the thing... remeber most of the B-17's was send to Europe to bomb Hitler&Co

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 16
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 8:27:55 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

remeber most of the B-17's was send to Europe


which is pretty much why you would NEVER see them in India

(in reply to Przemcio231)
Post #: 17
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 8:51:45 PM   
Przemcio231


Posts: 1901
Joined: 10/11/2005
From: Warsaw,Poland,EU:)
Status: offline 		So you see something like that could be added to the Next Patch or not

_____________________________



Pinky: Hey Brain what are we goeing to do this evening?
Brain: The Usual Pinky we will try to take over the World;)

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 18
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 9:39:49 PM   
Dino


Posts: 1032
Joined: 11/14/2005
From: Serbia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

remeber most of the B-17's was send to Europe


which is pretty much why you would NEVER see them in India


So, how come there are some groups that are actualy ASSIGNED to SEAC ?

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 19
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 9:44:09 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		the bombers are too effective because there are too many of them (4E) and because they can blitz your airbase from very low altitude.


Frag is right from the historical angle. India/Burma was the bottom end of the logistical food chain. The British did send a few Liberators eventually, based out of Calcutta where the facilities were adequate to service them.

_____________________________


(in reply to moses)
Post #: 20
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 10:01:40 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		I've never been able to understand why every Japanese player seems to think they should be able to run willy-nilly thru the Pacic until 1943.

Hm.

Japanese player captures Singapore in Janary, fully a month ahead of the historical time-table.
Japanese player captures Manilla in February, two months ahead of the histroical time-table.
Japanese player captures Burma in February, fully two months ahead of the historical time-table.
Japanese player captures Port Moresby in January, fully... Oops, that never happened.
Japanese player captures Midway in March, fully... Oops, that never happened.
Japanese player captures Canton Island in January... Oops, that never happend either.
Japanese player captures Noumea in March... Gawd, where is the "history" coming from?
Japanese player conqures China in July... I'm not finding that in the book either.
Japanese player invades India... Nope, still looking for that one too...
Japanese player captures the Hawiian Islands in March... Glad that one didn't happen either.

Allied player demolishes Rangoon with 4e bombers.

And you're upset because...?



-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 21
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 10:08:08 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		I fail to see how talking about the heavies and bombers in general is suddenly equated with the Japanese player running willy nilly through the Pacific. In the case of "too many 4E's" this is nothing but historical fact. In the case of blasting airbases....it works both ways for both sides. Since bomber loads favor the Allied side, the ability to blast bases 24/7 from low altitude is a major advantage for the Allies. I should know....i'm in 4/43 and all but one outer bases are being blasted daily by mass hordes of Allied bombers at low altitude....all without nary a loss to them.



_____________________________


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 22
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 10:29:01 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline 		My method is to use concentration and never, repeat never, ground AC in range of Allied AC. Flying 90% CAP means fatigue will remain between 5 and 10 and that is OK for flying every king of mission, including long-range escort.

Then I have main bases (Rangoon in Burma, Kendari in DEI), that can only be reached by unescorted bombers and have 100-200 fighters at 90% CAP, 300+ AV, 1-2 AA Bns, an air HQ, 100+ engineers and 50 000+ supplies. They are capable to deal with raids of 125 B-17E. Some will get trough and bomb but damage are repaired in some hours and the losses are bigger on the Allied side than on the Japanese side.

By the way I am finding Nates more efficient than Oscars Ib against heavies... Using IJAAF units is a good thing because they engage first, and will suffer the most losses, but you have both the pilots and the AC to replace them, then the Zero units will attack tired Allied crews and damaged bombers and shot tens of them.
Each of my main base has 1 Oscar unit, 1 Nate unit and 4 Daitais of Zeroes.

The rest of the Japanese bases in the area are defended by AA and bad weather. All airfield are occupied by recon units flying 80% naval search + recon, that usually means that no AC is on the ground and Allied raids hit almost nothing, at least ops and AA losses are far heavier than ground Japanese losses. Then from time to time 50 Zeroes will move north to lay an ambush or fly a sweep over a weakly defended Allied base, chasing Buffaloes, Mohawks and so on...

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 23
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 10:38:23 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I've never been able to understand why every Japanese player seems to think they should be able to run willy-nilly thru the Pacic until 1943.

Hm.

Japanese player captures Singapore in Janary, fully a month ahead of the historical time-table.
Japanese player captures Manilla in February, two months ahead of the histroical time-table.
Japanese player captures Burma in February, fully two months ahead of the historical time-table.
Japanese player captures Port Moresby in January, fully... Oops, that never happened.
Japanese player captures Midway in March, fully... Oops, that never happened.
Japanese player captures Canton Island in January... Oops, that never happend either.
Japanese player captures Noumea in March... Gawd, where is the "history" coming from?
Japanese player conqures China in July... I'm not finding that in the book either.
Japanese player invades India... Nope, still looking for that one too...
Japanese player captures the Hawiian Islands in March... Glad that one didn't happen either.

Allied player demolishes Rangoon with 4e bombers.

And you're upset because...?



-F-






_____________________________


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 24
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 10:40:59 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		yes, pretty much my strategy for pre 5.0 games - concentrated CAP beyond effective fighter escort range.....and leave the airbases in range empty save for recon forces. I also built up all the level 4 capable airfields so that my opponent can't concentrate all his bombers on one airbase and keep it shut down. If an invasion comes...i'll have airpower available that can choose from multiple launching points to assist my ground forces.

One exception is PM in a current game. Its within fighter escort range but i have so many fighters there that i can bloody him something good. Sometimes i would move in a big bomber force and stage a quick counter attack. I've nailed a good number of fighters and bombers on the ground that way. Course now that we are in mid 43 there's not much point.

_____________________________


(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 25
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 10:42:15 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I fail to see how talking about the heavies and bombers in general is suddenly equated with the Japanese player running willy nilly through the Pacific. In the case of "too many 4E's" this is nothing but historical fact. In the case of blasting airbases....it works both ways for both sides. Since bomber loads favor the Allied side, the ability to blast bases 24/7 from low altitude is a major advantage for the Allies. I should know....i'm in 4/43 and all but one outer bases are being blasted daily by mass hordes of Allied bombers at low altitude....all without nary a loss to them.




...not exactly ahistorical is it, however.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 26
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 10:47:38 PM   
jolly_pillager

 

Posts: 206
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline 		I disagree that I should not be allowed to base B-17's in India for the fact that I paid the PP costs to transfer them to SEAC.

IMO the whole point of the PP system is to model the political capital I (as CinC PTO) would have to expend to convince FDR/the Pentagon that my plan to base heavy bombers in India to safegaurd it against invasion is a better idea than leaving them to cover Hawaii or the West Coast.

s far as their effectiveness is concerned, what is apparantly being ignored here is the damage that they took in that raid. Did no one notice that nearly EVERY bomber on that mission came home with holes in it? Also the morale of those three groups went from the mid fifties into the high teens afterwards.

Also in response to Nik...these 3 groups represent my ENTIRE inventory of 4E bombers (minus the 13 B-17C's that escaped from the PI)...surely you are not saying that the US didn't have 96 B-17's and 48 Liberators in the entire PTO at the end of January 1942? The difference is that I have chosen to mass them in a descisive place (and spent the PP's to make it "legit" even though CentPac is not a restricted HQ). This is no different at all from the Japanese players changing what they from what was historically done...e.g. Alfrake has stationed large numbers of Japanese submarines in my shipping lanes as commerce raiders, not something the Japanese Navy would actually have done.

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 27
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 10:53:56 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

...not exactly ahistorical is it, however.


actually...it is, because its too fast, too bloodless and too easy.

_____________________________


(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 28
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 10:56:39 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

...not exactly ahistorical is it, however.


actually...it is, because its too fast, too bloodless and too easy.


P-38s got a 10 to 1 kill ratio in 1943 IIRC.

In any case, there is far more 'too fast', 'too bloodless' and 'too easy' on the Japanese side of the game it seems to me, as Feinder neatly points out. There is plenty the Japs can do and often do which was outright impossible IRL.

Like the conquest of China, utterly, utterly ridiculous.

< Message edited by EUBanana -- 1/15/2006 10:58:34 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 29
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 11:05:03 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jolly_pillager

Also in response to Nik...these 3 groups represent my ENTIRE inventory of 4E bombers (minus the 13 B-17C's that escaped from the PI)...surely you are not saying that the US didn't have 96 B-17's and 48 Liberators in the entire PTO at the end of January 1942?


without going into Fortress Against the Sun, about 195 B-17E's served in the Pacific in 42. However as Frag pointed out recently, this number represented a total commitment, not an availability. There is also the need for a proper logistcal setup to support large numbers of heavies which didn't exist in India or Oz in early 42. B-17 replacements into the Pacific theater were a mere trickle and often couldn't keep up with attrition mostly caused by wear and tear. In my mod, i simply reduced B-17 rates to compy with the actual numbers that served there, in trickle fashion. This doesn't stop the Allied player from massing them.....it just takes him alot longer to mass them, hence, no 1/42 mass 4E raids on multiple points on the map which is totally unrealistic

_____________________________


(in reply to jolly_pillager)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> surviving the heavies Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.016