Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: surviving the heavies Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 11:07:31 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline 		I think India was bottom of the food chain partly because it wasn't really of much interest to Japan. If the allies historically faced the same situation as WiTP,i.e. it is the only way to get Brittish reinforcements it would have been a different story.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 31
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 11:10:46 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jolly_pillager

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.


AGREE 100%. Ever since arriving on this forum i have the Jap Fanboys whine endlessly about the 4Es. That's because its the only thing that really can cause them much damage in '42.

If realism is what we're concerned about here there should be a hard coded rule that no base anywhere can be attacked unless preparation levels for the units are involved are at least at 25 points. The Japs running around and invading all these bases with nearly no preparation is ridiculous. It's like they all got on a boat and said. "Where should we invade todays boy Karachi or Palembang."

< Message edited by niceguy2005 -- 1/15/2006 11:15:22 PM >

(in reply to jolly_pillager)
Post #: 32
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 11:13:34 PM   
Nikademus


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

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

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.


No offense, but your post is a prime example of why these discussions careen out of control and polarize around US vs Japan bullshit.

Why are we suddenly mentioning estimated P-38 kill raitos in 43? why are we suddenly talking about China? What do these have to do with discussing "surviving the heavies" Why is discussing the heavies suddenly an exercise in "Japanese fanboy-ism? When i said, "Too fast, too easy and too unbloodly" i was referring to the bases themselves and their ability to defend themselves (either side). A player.....both Japanese or Allied, can only defend a base against mass bomber attack at low altitude with equally massive numbers of fighters. Have i mentioned lately that i'm saying both Japanese and Allied? Historically the Americans were able to shut down Japanese airbases through a concentrated and sustained attritional battle. However this does not equate to a 1 or 2 day 6000 foot attack, forcing the defending player to evac the base before his air forces are even atritted.

I'm not picking on B-17's, or 4E's in general, or trying to make it "easier" for the Japan player. For this thread i don't give a whit about any other issue...(china) i'm just discussing bomber vs base interactions for both sides.

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 1/15/2006 11:23:08 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 33
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 11:17:49 PM   
Nikademus


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

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

I think India was bottom of the food chain partly because it wasn't really of much interest to Japan. If the allies historically faced the same situation as WiTP,i.e. it is the only way to get Brittish reinforcements it would have been a different story.


I would disagree with that because at the time, the UK couldn't have known about the politics going on at the time within Imperial GHQ. Also, the issue of an Indian adventure didn't die a stillborn death till around 3/42. Up to that point India was still a potential target and the UK were very anxious about it. However they were also heavily committed in Africa at the time and were hard pressed to meet the threat.

That leaves the US which were loath to commit troops or assets to a theater they didn't feel was vital to their own plans for dealing with Japan. I'm not saying it should be house ruled unless both players agree to it. WitP is after all, all about exploring possibilities. I do wish however that av-points worked a little differently. Basing support on the number of engines would go a long way towards placing a neutral govenor on how bombers can be both massed and deployed.



_____________________________


(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 34
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 11:26:49 PM   
jolly_pillager

 

Posts: 206
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline 		I can agree with that...a number of mechanics equal to the number of engines would not be unrealistic IMO.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 35
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/15/2006 11:48:08 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		yes....its rather easy to mass bombers (of any type) as well as fighters at one base and create gestault raids. Av point ratio to repair is also rather lax i've found. Lastly, I dislike the 250av point cap. (yikes....I thought i was a "company man!"

Yikes...just processed a turn....my last fighter bastion on the outside perimeter just got obliterated. over 180 heavies + 100 fighters. 60 planes lost in the air....110 destroyed on the ground (typical 6000 foot attack) no losses caused by AA.



_____________________________


(in reply to jolly_pillager)
Post #: 36
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 12:00:57 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline 		YEs, but what would have happened had the Japanese actually attacked India? Would the US and UK simply left it to them? Would that have been strategically wise?

I agree that it is clear the US would have been loathe to commit troops half a world away when they were concerned still about defending the west coast. However, such rapid advances by the Japanese are also gamey. There is no regrouping, planning or suppression of native population that really in WitP, as there was for the Japanese in real life.

SO, if the Japanese are going to go all out after India, the only response the allies could have is to reinforce with other allied units, something I think the US would have done if it was clear that most of Imperial Japans assets were aimed at India and Churchills back was to the wall. I don't think FDR would hesitate to send in heavy reinforcements, including air or ground.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 37
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 12:01:18 AM   
tabpub


Posts: 1019
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area
Status: offline 		A sequence of events that shows the trend in air warfare in Burma in Jan.’43.
Granted, that we aren’t talking ’42 anymore though, but I have restrained myself from doing the “bomber mass”. Right now, there are 2 American BG(H), 1 FS in Dacca and 2 American BG(M), 1 FG in Akyab. The rest of the planes in theater are British, who are just getting Lib VI planes, enough to equip 2 squadrons.
All other bomb groups are assigned to their original theaters; although I do let myself temporarily attach groups to neighboring commands, ala CentPac to SouPac, during lulls in one sector.

Akyab was recaptured months ago and has weathered some attacks and bombardments, one cost ¼ of the English fleet one night trying to stop it. But, I waited for the next Japanese major effort over Akyab; it came on the 14th:

01/14/43
Day Air attack on Akyab , at 30,29
Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 28
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 59
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 69
Ki-21 Sally x 47
Allied aircraft
Hurricane II x 29
Spitfire Vb x 34
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 18 destroyed
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 30 destroyed
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 10 destroyed, 5 damaged
Ki-21 Sally: 6 destroyed, 9 damaged
Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane II: 23 destroyed
Spitfire Vb: 21 destroyed
B-25C Mitchell: 3 destroyed
Catalina I: 1 destroyed
Beaufort I: 1 destroyed
Allied ground losses:
18 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 12
Aircraft Attacking:
Ki-21 Sally bombing at 8000 feet
Lots of carnage in the skies, and plenty of damaged planes; noted that Rangoon was originating base, set the counterattack in place. Weather delayed it to the 16th:
01/16/43
Day Air attack on Rangoon , at 29,34
Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 14
Allied aircraft
Beaufort V-IX x 15
P-40E Warhawk x 57
B-25C Mitchell x 104
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 19 destroyed
Ki-21 Sally: 11 destroyed
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 11 destroyed
L2D2 Tabby: 3 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
Beaufort V-IX: 3 destroyed, 3 damaged
B-25C Mitchell: 21 damaged
Japanese ground losses:
223 casualties reported
Guns lost 10
Airbase hits 24
Airbase supply hits 13
Runway hits 128
Aircraft Attacking:
B-25C Mitchell bombing at 9000 feet
2 Groups of Mitchells savaged the airstrip with the cover of the 24th FG. Who needs heavies?

01/16/43
Day Air attack on Rangoon , at 29,34
Japanese aircraft
no flights
Allied aircraft
Liberator VI x 16
B-17E Fortress x 32
B-24D Liberator x 48
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 2 destroyed
B5N Kate: 1 destroyed
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 5 destroyed
Ki-21 Sally: 2 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
Liberator VI: 3 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 1 damaged
Japanese ground losses:
163 casualties reported
Guns lost 2
Airbase hits 18
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 162
Aircraft Attacking:
All bombers attacking at 7000 feet
The heavies churn up the wreckage some more.
The next non storm day is the 18th. Suspect that CAP from supporting bases is up, based on recon flights, so P38 squadron sent in early morning sweep to soften up the opposition:
01/18/43
Day Air attack on Rangoon , at 29,34
Japanese aircraft
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 11
Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 23
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 4 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
P-38G Lightning: 1 damaged
Only one B25 group is ready for this attack, the other is gassed at morale in the 30’s and stood down. Attack shows fewer targets on the ground, but most every plane generates a hit on the strip.
01/18/43
Day Air attack on Rangoon , at 29,34
Japanese aircraft
no flights
Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 61
B-25C Mitchell x 32
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 3 destroyed
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 2 destroyed
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 1 destroyed
L2D2 Tabby: 1 destroyed
B5N Kate: 1 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
B-25C Mitchell: 1 destroyed, 10 damaged
Japanese ground losses:
52 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 31
Aircraft Attacking:
24 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 9000 feet
7 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 9000 feet
The heavy groups come down again, with the Brits working on the port facilities now; The American groups find the bomber revetments and do some damage, though diminishing returns are setting in.

01/18/43
Day Air attack on Rangoon , at 29,34
Japanese aircraft
no flights
Allied aircraft
Liberator VI x 25
B-17E Fortress x 37
B-24D Liberator x 43
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 12 destroyed
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 2 destroyed
L2D2 Tabby: 4 destroyed
B5N Kate: 1 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
Liberator VI: 1 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 3 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 4 damaged
Japanese Ships
AK Hyuga Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
Japanese ground losses:
121 casualties reported
Airbase hits 4
Runway hits 88
Port hits 4
Port supply hits 2
Aircraft Attacking:
All set to bomb at 7000 feet

01/19/43
Day Air attack on Rangoon , at 29,34
Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 18
No Allied losses
The final attack runs show the tiredness of the force. Only about ½ of the groups are flying now due to fatigue and damages; and the results are not as good as the intial strikes.
01/19/43
Day Air attack on Rangoon , at 29,34
Japanese aircraft
no flights
Allied aircraft
Liberator VI x 24
B-17E Fortress x 28
B-24D Liberator x 34
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 2 destroyed
Ki-21 Sally: 2 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
Liberator VI: 2 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 2 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 3 damaged
Japanese Ships
AK Hyuga Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
Japanese ground losses:
66 casualties reported
Guns lost 2
Airbase hits 3
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 28
Port hits 1
Port supply hits 8
Aircraft Attacking:
All set to bomb at 7000 feet

Now, these are with groups that are not overstacked in any fashion, are for the most part all groups that were assigned to SEAC and have been used in a reasonable fashion throughout ’42. The 19th BG is the only Fortress group that has a majority of its crews over 50 missions, as it has been in constant action from the PI, through Java then evacuated to India; where it has mainly done ground support missions to impede the Japanese advance on Mandalay/Lashio. The only non-original SEAC planes would be the 2 squadrons that left PI in their P26’s and 35’s; they converted to the P39->38 and P40E respectively. Their presence has been needed to counterbalance the Japanese effort here for the last 6 months, where in air to air combat, over 600 Spitfire and Hurricane losses have been suffered from constant combat over Akyab-Mandalay area, which at one point drove the Brit pilot pool down to sub 20 level.

I don’t know if this will contribute anything at all to the discussion here, other than to highlight again the need for the IJNAF/IJAAF to operate from more than one base in any particular operation, or be prepared to defend it quite heavily or suffer the consequences.



_____________________________

Sing to the tune of "Man on the Flying Trapeze"
..Oh! We fly o'er the treetops with inches to spare,
There's smoke in the cockpit and gray in my hair.
The tracers look fine as a strafin' we go.
But, brother, we're TOO God damn low...

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 38
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 12:03:12 AM   
EUBanana


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

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

No offense, but your post is a prime example of why these discussions careen out of control and polarize around US vs Japan bullshit.


Well, the post that sparked this thread is 4 engine bombers hitting Rangoon in a not particularly huge strike (200 runway hits, 50 aircraft destroyed on the ground - now you are talking ).

My counter point is that the 4 engine bomber deal is small beer. Its not an issue of mechanics really - it may well be an issue of OOB.

And as a further point, if anything is out of whack its Japan, not the Allies. The games that have gone on to the bitter end seem to end in 1944 or 1945, so it looks like the Allied counterattack is pretty much historical timewise. You see people taking Tarawa in mid 43, for example, landing on the PI in 1944... You dont see the Allies romping into Tokyo at the end of 42 or anything. So I would say the Allies are functioning more or less, with the caveat that this is a game not WW2-in-a-box, pretty much fine.

On the other hand, we have Japan invading India, beating down China in a space of a couple of months, invading Pearl Harbor or New Zealand, sawing off the USSR... all sorts of fun things which are far more dicy.


_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 39
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 12:08:12 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		I don't agree that the issue of bombers vs bases is 'small beer' Thats why i did something about it. The rest of what you wrote i won't address in this thread. Off topic.



_____________________________


(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 40
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 12:10:24 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		Looks like a typical low alt result.


_____________________________


(in reply to tabpub)
Post #: 41
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 12:15:41 AM   
EUBanana


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

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I don't agree that the issue of bombers vs bases is 'small beer' Thats why i did something about it. The rest of what you wrote i won't address in this thread. Off topic.




I consider it to be smaller than Japan being able to conquer China... which is definitely feasible, even likely, when coupled with a strategic bombing campaign aimed at Chinese resources.

Whereas even with bombers functioning as they do, the Allies tend to advance at a historical pace.

< Message edited by EUBanana -- 1/16/2006 12:16:00 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 42
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 12:17:21 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		I've yet to see anyone disagree that bomber replacements should not be reduced. It just seems so easy to do and I wonder why it is not simply done in the stock scenario.

The actual model does not seem out of kilter. In reality if 100 heavy bombers hit your air base the airbase is out of action. WWII showed pretty clearly that large formations of heavies could not be stopped from reaching their targets. 60 zero's are hardly going to stop 100 bombers.

The problem is that there are so many heavies around. And as your replacement pool is overflowing their is no great concern about bomber losses.

Cut all bomber replacement rates in half. Then do as Frag suggested in another thread and increase op losses or alternatively cause some % of damaged planes to be destroyed each turn(perserving the pilot). Both actions reduce the number of planes on both sides to more historical levels.

In addition to solving the bomber problem you also to a great extent solve the analogous fighter problem. This causes problems since I think it is agreed that the air combat model is not at its best with large air combats.

To illustrate:

In my current game I have several B-24 groups(around a 120 planes) at Ankerage. My opponant, to counter this has some hundred or so (at least) zero's and tony's at Dutch Harbor. Both are unrealistic as niether side historically is likely to be able to field so many first line aircraft in any theater. But you do what you must. Now if I send my bombers over we get the dreaded large air combat and who knows what will happen.

The recommended changes also help with the problem of overstacking of airfields. Why is this a problem?? Because players have non-historical inventories of front line aircraft.

So reduce numbers of aircraft through the suggested mechanisms and you fix the Bomber problem, the large air combat problem and the overstack problem. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.

< Message edited by moses -- 1/16/2006 12:20:27 AM >

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 43
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 12:21:54 AM   
Nikademus


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

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

YEs, but what would have happened had the Japanese actually attacked India? Would the US and UK simply left it to them? Would that have been strategically wise?



My personal opinion mind you, but i feel that the UK would have screamed their heads off and begged the US to assist them in defending India. I also feel the US joint chiefs would have remained firmly against committing at the very least their ground troops. The Joint Chiefs were almost fanatic about not being seen as supporting what they called "colonialism" in any form. Thats part of why they didn't commit ground troops to Java or Sumatra. They might deploy airpower but i doubt it would have been heavies because we were busy turning the UK (a much more developed platform) into the world's biggest airbase capable of supporting and sustaining large numbers of heavy bombers.
Now, the counter to the above would be the China card...the UK could play that in order to get teh JCS to change their minds.....that was after all what eventually brought the 10th air force and some ground troops to NE India to help Stillwell build the Ledo road.

quote:


I agree that it is clear the US would have been loathe to commit troops half a world away when they were concerned still about defending the west coast. However, such rapid advances by the Japanese are also gamey. There is no regrouping, planning or suppression of native population that really in WitP, as there was for the Japanese in real life.


This is an old argument i agree, one that goes both ways. Of itself i don't consider invading India "gamey" as the Japanese did consider it and there was serious unrest in India at the time, however if the Allied player doesn't over commit in Burma he has enough forces to make it a fight. The game does allow rapid advances and part of the reason is the airpower factor. I have found that the ability of Japan to advance is more severely restricted in my mod because one of the angles i sought to adjust was how airpower works and interacts with ground assets.

quote:


SO, if the Japanese are going to go all out after India, the only response the allies could have is to reinforce with other allied units, something I think the US would have done if it was clear that most of Imperial Japans assets were aimed at India and Churchills back was to the wall. I don't think FDR would hesitate to send in heavy reinforcements, including air or ground.


Thats one strategy.....this question has been asked in a current thread. Another possibility would be to start a major Allied offensive elsewhere while the Japanese are busy in India. They are not strong enough to both adequately defend the Pacific and invade India at the same time.




_____________________________


(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 44
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 12:23:01 AM   
Bombur

 

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:


Why are we suddenly mentioning estimated P-38 kill raitos in 43? why are we suddenly talking about China? What do these have to do with discussing "surviving the heavies" Why is discussing the heavies suddenly an exercise in "Japanese fanboy-ism? When i said, "Too fast, too easy and too unbloodly" i was referring to the bases themselves and their ability to defend themselves (either side). A player.....both Japanese or Allied, can only defend a base against mass bomber attack at low altitude with equally massive numbers of fighters. Have i mentioned lately that i'm saying both Japanese and Allied? Historically the Americans were able to shut down Japanese airbases through a concentrated and sustained attritional battle. However this does not equate to a 1 or 2 day 6000 foot attack, forcing the defending player to evac the base before his air forces are even atritted.


How effective historically were USN raids on Rabaul? Feinder is arguing that 8-12 B-17´s/day destroyed the base in 4 weeks. Is that correct? I have the impression that it took a lot of time to supress Rabaul and it was caused more by isolation and loss of planes in air to air combat than to base demolition, but it´s possible I´m wrong.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 45
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 12:25:36 AM   
Nikademus


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

ORIGINAL: moses

So reduce numbers of aircraft through the suggested mechanisms and you fix the Bomber problem, the large air combat problem and the overstack problem. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.


Reducing the inventory is part of the answer i agree. However more steps are needed. I did a major scrub of Allied production. I'm not sure if it was too much....awaiting feedback.



_____________________________


(in reply to moses)
Post #: 46
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 12:32:27 AM   
Nikademus


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

ORIGINAL: Bombur

How effective historically were USN raids on Rabaul? Feinder is arguing that 8-12 B-17´s/day destroyed the base in 4 weeks. Is that correct? I have the impression that it took a lot of time to supress Rabaul and it was caused more by isolation and loss of planes in air to air combat than to base demolition, but it´s possible I´m wrong.


Rabaul was severely disliked by the bomber crews as a target because the Japanese turned it into a flak city. However Rabaul was not only facing a much augmented 5th Air Force but also Halsey's air assets as well. All in all they were outnumbered 2:1 in the air and the quality issues was worse still. Rabaul was made untendable in matter of weeks but it was a sustained blitz well supported by fighters (the latter of which Bergerud said were vital to the operation's success)

You won't see this in WitP...instead you just need to stage one good low alt gestault raid and boom....the base is immediately untendable


_____________________________


(in reply to Bombur)
Post #: 47
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 12:33:46 AM   
Nikademus


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

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Whereas even with bombers functioning as they do, the Allies tend to advance at a historical pace.


not in the games i've played.



_____________________________


(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 48
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 12:36:17 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline 		I agree completely with what Moses said above.

As I said, its not a matter of mechanics, possibly one of OOB however.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 49
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 12:38:59 AM   
moses

 

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

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

So reduce numbers of aircraft through the suggested mechanisms and you fix the Bomber problem, the large air combat problem and the overstack problem. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.


Reducing the inventory is part of the answer i agree. However more steps are needed. I did a major scrub of Allied production. I'm not sure if it was too much....awaiting feedback.




I'm mainly interested in the stock scenario and not mods. Just my personnel preference.

This just seems like a very simple solution to a number of fairly serious problems. I don't see the counter-argument to fixing it in the stock scenario or at least in a PBEM only version of the stock scenario.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 50
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 12:39:21 AM   
Nikademus


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

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I agree completely with what Moses said above.

As I said, its not a matter of mechanics, possibly one of OOB however.


I don't agree, but one can always agree to disagree.


_____________________________


(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 51
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 12:45:20 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

I think India was bottom of the food chain partly because it wasn't really of much interest to Japan. If the allies historically faced the same situation as WiTP,i.e. it is the only way to get Brittish reinforcements it would have been a different story.


Hmm, lets see. Prior to WWII, England has this pretty substantial list of colonies including India. The Axis get all nasty and start the war. India agrees to provide a pretty substanial army (huge in comparison to the British Army) to assist the British. They don't want much in return. Hmm, lets see. They want their independence. The British get much needed Indian assistance but lose a colony they had for a bunch of years. Is it really surprising that India was at the bottom of Britian's food chain? I don't think so.

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 52
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 12:54:41 AM   
moses

 

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

I don't agree, but one can always agree to disagree.


I would prefer to know where the disagreement is.

You appear to agree fully that there are too many bombers. (based on other threads and the fact that you are reducing them in your mod.)

Do you disagree that there are too many first line operational aircraft in general??? If so then the rest of my argument can be disputed. But I just don't remember 100 plane on 100 plane battles occuring all over the pacific especially in 42 and in isolated area's.

If you agree to the above do you disagree that reducing the numbers of aircraft available would help alliviate :

1.) the "problem" of uber-bombers?
2.) the "problem" with large air battles?
3.) the "problem" with overstacked airfields?

See I am staying on topic But just curious while I await a PBEM turn.


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 53
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 12:59:30 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Nik,

Why is it that when you are happy to use "Fortress Against the Sun" when it suits you, but then completely discount it as "subjective" and "single source" when there it also contains copius supstantiated accounts of the utter destruction enemy airbases (with far fewer aircraft than need int WitP), B-17s regularly conducting successful anti-shipping strikes, and the fact that the Allied 4e bombers were indeed -very- effective against Japanese fighters?

There are others of us in the peanut gallery who also own it, and we didn't just read the captions under the pictures.

-F-

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 54
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 1:33:16 AM   
moses

 

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

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Nik,

Why is it that when you are happy to use "Fortress Against the Sun" when it suits you, but then completely discount it as "subjective" and "single source" when there it also contains copius supstantiated accounts of the utter destruction enemy airbases (with far fewer aircraft than need int WitP), B-17s regularly conducting successful anti-shipping strikes, and the fact that the Allied 4e bombers were indeed -very- effective against Japanese fighters?

There are others of us in the peanut gallery who also own it, and we didn't just read the captions under the pictures.

-F-


I take great umbrage at your insults. Were I to own "fortress against the Sun" I would defend my right to read only those portions which support my views along with captions.

I prefer to argue points which can be easily defended with only a little actual historical knowledge. Anything beyond this should be the province of historians and not game developers or players.

But come on I have 500 4E bombers in my replacement pool and its only 11/42!!!!!! There are way too many planes in the game. Does any book contradict this. Does anybody contradict this.

I believe that this fact is a direct cause of several other game problems. Namely overstacked airfields, large air combats, uber-bombardments and bombers.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 55
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 1:54:46 AM   
Bombur

 

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:


Rabaul was severely disliked by the bomber crews as a target because the Japanese turned it into a flak city. However Rabaul was not only facing a much augmented 5th Air Force but also Halsey's air assets as well. All in all they were outnumbered 2:1 in the air and the quality issues was worse still. Rabaul was made untendable in matter of weeks but it was a sustained blitz well supported by fighters (the latter of which Bergerud said were vital to the operation's success)

You won't see this in WitP...instead you just need to stage one good low alt gestault raid and boom....the base is immediately untendable


-What about losses for both sides and use of twin engine bombers by US forces? It seems to me that B-25´s were largely used against Rabaul too. And what made the base untenable? Losses of fighters in A2A or losses of planes in the ground or damage to instalations?

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 56
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 1:55:08 AM   
Redd

 

Posts: 203
Joined: 7/22/2005
From: Livermore,CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: moses


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Nik,

Why is it that when you are happy to use "Fortress Against the Sun" when it suits you, but then completely discount it as "subjective" and "single source" when there it also contains copius supstantiated accounts of the utter destruction enemy airbases (with far fewer aircraft than need int WitP), B-17s regularly conducting successful anti-shipping strikes, and the fact that the Allied 4e bombers were indeed -very- effective against Japanese fighters?

There are others of us in the peanut gallery who also own it, and we didn't just read the captions under the pictures.

-F-


I take great umbrage at your insults. Were I to own "fortress against the Sun" I would defend my right to read only those portions which support my views along with captions.

I prefer to argue points which can be easily defended with only a little actual historical knowledge. Anything beyond this should be the province of historians and not game developers or players.

But come on I have 500 4E bombers in my replacement pool and its only 11/42!!!!!! There are way too many planes in the game. Does any book contradict this. Does anybody contradict this.

I believe that this fact is a direct cause of several other game problems. Namely overstacked airfields, large air combats, uber-bombardments and bombers.



I believe in this instance Feinder was "flipping off" Nick, not you Moses.

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 57
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 2:09:52 AM   
Redd

 

Posts: 203
Joined: 7/22/2005
From: Livermore,CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

quote:

I don't agree, but one can always agree to disagree.


I would prefer to know where the disagreement is.

You appear to agree fully that there are too many bombers. (based on other threads and the fact that you are reducing them in your mod.)

Do you disagree that there are too many first line operational aircraft in general??? If so then the rest of my argument can be disputed. But I just don't remember 100 plane on 100 plane battles occuring all over the pacific especially in 42 and in isolated area's.

If you agree to the above do you disagree that reducing the numbers of aircraft available would help alliviate :

1.) the "problem" of uber-bombers?
2.) the "problem" with large air battles?
3.) the "problem" with overstacked airfields?

See I am staying on topic But just curious while I await a PBEM turn.





I think that you are totally hitting the nail on the head here. There are just too many aircraft. With the way that supply is abstracted (and I have no problem with supply as it is. I don't want it any more complicated. There's just too much hardware lying around.) we need to make sure that the pools are representative of what the theatre commanders were capable of drawing upon.

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 58
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 2:15:00 AM   
moses

 

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

I believe in this instance Feinder was "flipping off" Nick, not you Moses


I know I was joking. thats why I put the . And I thought my whole first paragraph was sort of a joke.

He can't be flippin Nik off anyway. Who would do that.

(in reply to Redd)
Post #: 59
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/16/2006 2:28:42 AM   
Redd

 

Posts: 203
Joined: 7/22/2005
From: Livermore,CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

quote:

I believe in this instance Feinder was "flipping off" Nick, not you Moses


I know I was joking. thats why I put the . And I thought my whole first paragraph was sort of a joke.

He can't be flippin Nik off anyway. Who would do that.



Sorry, I've seen all too many good threads go south lately, not withstanding. I've noticed over the last few weeks that your posts tend to be not only well thought out and informative, but very reasonable amongst the polarization that seems to sometimes occur. Keep up the good work.

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  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 >> RE: surviving the heavies Page: <<   < prev  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

2.297