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  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 12:08:01 AM   
Skyros


Posts: 1570
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Columbia SC
Status: offline 		If a B17 bombs from a historical altitutde 15,000 to 20,000 the CV will wait until bombs are dropped and then maneuver. The altitufde gives them time to dodge. This tactic is detailed in Shattered Sword. Now if they come in at 6,000 feet they might have a better chance.

_____________________________


(in reply to Tophat1815)
Post #: 121
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 12:14:49 AM   
hawker


Posts: 849
Joined: 6/25/2005
From: Split,Croatia
Status: offline
quote:

Ok, I almost posses Angelina Jolie. I was near....


So do i,but then in my dreams came B-17,B-29,Wellingtons and Angelina dissapears

_____________________________


Fortess fortuna iuvat

(in reply to Tophat1815)
Post #: 122
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 1:05:17 AM   
Dino


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

ORIGINAL: pauk

Ok, I almost posses Angelina Jolie. I was near....



If you were close enough, then is feasable... You should keep trying.

(in reply to pauk)
Post #: 123
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 2:30:00 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		"Sorry, but you aren't right and you know it. Arguing that B17 wasn't bad at naval attack with NEAR MISSES in one mission is funny."


His point was that only 8 bombers with extremely limited experience (only their second combat mission ever) came very close to hitting a Japanese CV that was maneuvering at speed. Are you trying to say that a lrger number of more experienced bombers had absolutely no chance to do any better? That argument doesn't compute...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Tophat1815)
Post #: 124
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 2:57:00 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

You sink those carriers becouse of stupid game engine when comes to 4E bombers. In RL you cant fine not ONE example of that.


In real life the KB never had to defend itself prior to the Battle of Midway. IRL it lost 18 Zeros in action in the first 6 hours of fighting, mostly against obsolete a/c with green flight crews. IRL it's flak brought down exactly 3 a/c: one of which was a overeager Zero that chased an attacking TBD too closely (the TBD wasn't shot down however).
IRL the KBs CAP was unable to prevent any of the unescorted attacking squadrons from at least deploying some of their antiship weapons. IRL when confronted with more than one squadron for the first time, its CAP completely failed.

In WITP the "STUPID GAME ENGINE" allows the Japanese to create the nearly invulnerable "CV Death Star" which has even less historical justification than the antiship capabilities allowed for Allied 4E bombers.

(in reply to Tophat1815)
Post #: 125
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 3:00:04 AM   
Tophat1815

 

Posts: 1824
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
What i'm trying to say are the following points:

1) The allies get too many Heavy bombers,too soon.

2) Said bombers then workover the japs and make the game more of an endurance contest than it already is.

3) Reducing the numbers of heavy bombers arriving would solve the problem of 200plus bomber raids in late 42'!

4) moses is always right........................

5) I'm afraid of Allied 4E bombers when playing japan

6) I want to get another game as the Allies so i can make my poor Jap opponent tremble in FEAR!!!!

7) Its a great Wargame not a realistic day by day historical review of WWII in the pacific!

8) Playability/challenge should be the mantra.

9) Heavy Bombers drop lots of bombs and make a great visual event in all periods of the war.

10) Is there really any argument? Other than some poor shellshocked jap player called someone an Allied fanboy? So we Heavy bomber envey................

And most importantly............Mein emporer.....there is a HEAVY BOMBER GAP!!!! Non-Dr.Strangelove fans don't reply.

< Message edited by Tophat1812 -- 1/18/2006 3:02:05 AM >

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 126
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 3:40:43 AM   
medicff

 

Posts: 710
Joined: 9/11/2004
From: WPB, Florida
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

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



I wouldn't have any problem with those historical notions but you have to play where the other player decides to play. If he concentrates in India, of course the US would have helped since the have nothing to do in the big blue pacific. It is all relative

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 127
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 4:33:26 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		Since there is already a restriction of co-ordinated strikes from Allied CV task force (rule 7.2.2.11 page 130), can one be used for 4-E type airplanes??

Just looking for possible solutions to the early war problem of massed B-17E's laying waste with over 100 plane raids.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I have not seen these possible solutions to the Allied 4-E problems like I will suggest.
1) To get the B-17's from Pearl and West Coast to India, they can only ferry thru size 4 AF's. The Allies had no size 4 AF in the Central and South Pacific for some time. If they go thru a size 1 or 2 then, operational losses are adjusted accordingly. That means Canton and Noumea need to be build up faster. Right now they get to India in about 10 days with the fragments catching up before Christmas.
2) Can the re-inforcement schedule be adjusted to change the rate of reinforcement/replacement of aircraft like the B-17E's to look like 10 per month to start and then have another line in later '42 or '43 to add another 10 per month or more. This way they increase in increments rather than just one flat rate??

Another issue is the ability to upgrade or downgrade planes to get them where they are needed. Example: downgrade P-40B's in Pearl or West Coast on day one and by day two they are available to the AVG in Burma/India. I guess Cap't Kirk and Sotty are in the Enterprise transporting them to one side of the world to another...



Wrong. As early as prior to May-June 1942 the Americans were using Tongatapu as an alternate staging area for aircraft on the South Pacific ferry route.

Source is "Inspection Report by South Pacific Advanced Base Inspection Board, Rear Admiral R.E. Byrd, senior member", page 263 of Volume IV, History of United States Naval Operations in World War II.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

I do not need a history lesson about my suggestion.

I was in the Navy from 1977 to 1983 and have been a student of WWII since around 1970. Many things IRL do not translate to WiTP. My suggestions was a way to prevent 4-E bombers getting across the pacific so easily in the beginning of the war

(in reply to medicff)
Post #: 128
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 6:02:43 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

It was flights of only 8 - 12 B-17s that demolished Rabaul. Not the 120+ it takes in game.


Sorry, Feinder. That is incorrect. During the period 12 Oct 43 through 10 Nov, the USAAF and RAAF launched several large scale raids on Rabaul in order to neutralize it. A short summary of the raids from the "Official History of the 5th US Army Air Force" follows:

12 Oct 43: 107 B-25s, 113 B-24s and 11 Beauforts with 94 P-38 escorts achieved surprise and attacked shipping and airfields in the Rabaul area. USAAF crews claimed 100 planes destroyed on the ground, 56 damaged and 26 shot down. They also claimed 3 DDs, 3 large AKs, 43 small AKs sunk and 70 other smaller ships sunk or damaged. Actual Jpanese losses were 59 destroyed on the ground and 160+ damaged with 9 fighters shot down. Actual ship losses were 1 DD, 1 small subtender, 2 small merchants and 1 large minesweeper sunk. Approximately 20 harbor craft were also lost. Several merchants were damaged including 2 badly. One was later scuttled after her cargo was salvaged.

13 Oct 43: 108 B-25s, 70 B-24s, 12 Beauforts and 47 P-38s launched for attacks against Rabaul but only 27 bombers actually bombed due to bad weather. Effects not observed but 7 fighters claimed shot down.

18 Oct 43: 8 squadrons of B-24s aborted due to weather but 115 B-25s attacked airfields in the Rabaul area. 3 B-25s lost and 17 others badly damaged. Claimed 41 destroyed on the ground and 12 shot down. Actual losses were 27 lost on the ground and 4 shot down. One 5000 ton merchant and one corvette claimed sunk. Actual losses were one 2100 ton merchant and one minesweeper badly damaged.

15, 17, 19 Oct 43: Strong Japanese air forces from Rabaul attacked Oro Bay and Finschafen in retaliation but without success.

19 Oct 43: 211 operational Japanese planes remain at Rabaul.

23 Oct 43: 100 P-38 and 57 B-24s attack Rabaul. 17 fighters claimed shot down and another 20 destroyed on the ground. Actual Japanese losses were 13 in the air and 26 on the ground.

24 Oct 43: 90 B-25s and 63 P-38s attack Rabaul. 48 Jap planes claimed destroyed on the ground and 45 shot down. 1 B-25 was lost. Actual Japanese losses amounted to 7 shot down and an 29 destroyed on the ground.

25 Oct 43: 61 B-24 and 81 P-38s launch against Rabaul but only 50 B-24s and 8 P-38s find the target due to weather. They claimed 17 fighters shot down for the loss of one B-24. Actual Japanese losses are unknown.

26 Oct 43: 82 B-25s abort a raid against Rabaul due to weather.

29 Oct 43: 46 B-24s attack Rabaul. Claimed 9 planes destroyed on the ground and 25 fighters shot down. Japanese records listed 9 shot down and 21 destroyed or damaged on the ground.

2 Nov 43: 80 B-25 and 80 P-38s attack Rabaul. USAAF lost 8 bombers and 9 fighters with 37 others damaged beyond repair. In return they claimed 68 fighters shot down, 16 destroyed on the ground and 10 float planes sunk. They claimed 3 DDs, 8 large merchants and 4 patrol boats sunk with 2 CAs, 2 DDs, 2 TKs and 7 large merchants damaged. Actual Japanese losses amounted to 26 aircraft destroyed on the ground and 21 fighters shot down. One large TK and 3 merchants of 8000 tons total, a minesweeper and 2 harbor boats sunk. 24 ships were damaged including 1 CA and 2 DDs. The remainder were mainly harbor craft.

Carrier aircraft also struck Rabaul from 4 Nov 43 through 7 Nov 43.

The Japanese lost well over 300 aircraft during this period, mostly on the ground. They decided to abandon Rabaul as an airbase after these attacks.

Chez





_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 129
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 7:07:43 AM   
pauk


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

ORIGINAL: Dino


quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

Ok, I almost posses Angelina Jolie. I was near....



If you were close enough, then is feasable... You should keep trying.


Hey, but i don't have enough political points to spend for her.


_____________________________


(in reply to Dino)
Post #: 130
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 7:14:53 AM   
pauk


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

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Sorry, but you aren't right and you know it. Arguing that B17 wasn't bad at naval attack with NEAR MISSES in one mission is funny."


His point was that only 8 bombers with extremely limited experience (only their second combat mission ever) came very close to hitting a Japanese CV that was maneuvering at speed. Are you trying to say that a lrger number of more experienced bombers had absolutely no chance to do any better? That argument doesn't compute...


Please be consistent. As i recall, the ASW was tweaked for "historical arguments" sake. Japs didn't have developed ASW so it doesn't matter if you double, triple your ASW effort - we have now situation that is extremely hard for Jap naval ASW to locate and attack enemy.

Ok, i'm fine with that and don't have objecitions. Same should aply for B17 on naval attack - they were bad at naval attack and that's it.

What annoys me most is that same agruments are OK for Allies, but not for Japanese...






_____________________________


(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 131
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 7:18:21 AM   
pauk


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

ORIGINAL: spence


quote:

You sink those carriers becouse of stupid game engine when comes to 4E bombers. In RL you cant fine not ONE example of that.


In real life the KB never had to defend itself prior to the Battle of Midway. IRL it lost 18 Zeros in action in the first 6 hours of fighting, mostly against obsolete a/c with green flight crews. IRL it's flak brought down exactly 3 a/c: one of which was a overeager Zero that chased an attacking TBD too closely (the TBD wasn't shot down however).
IRL the KBs CAP was unable to prevent any of the unescorted attacking squadrons from at least deploying some of their antiship weapons. IRL when confronted with more than one squadron for the first time, its CAP completely failed.

In WITP the "STUPID GAME ENGINE" allows the Japanese to create the nearly invulnerable "CV Death Star" which has even less historical justification than the antiship capabilities allowed for Allied 4E bombers.


Some things are not perfect, we all know that. But what Japs can do in early 1942, Allies can do in 1943 and on....

And btw, i'm using DS because the ridicilously overpowered 4E bombers....

_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 132
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 7:22:42 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		I stand corrected Chez. And frankly, I glad to be have been proven wrong in that regard.

Then again, the nay-sayers will refuse to acknowledge any documentation that you provide, and simply take pot-shots at your credability.

Highest Regards,
-F-

_____________________________

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


(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 133
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 9:41:06 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

Then again, the nay-sayers will refuse to acknowledge any documentation that you provide, and simply take pot-shots at your credability.


I don't mind if they question my credibility but they can hardly discredit official sources without undermining their own base of thought.

As far as this thread goes, I do believe 4Es are too potent against shipping at sea. Heavy bomber results were quite dismal in the main when attacking ships underway. And as to the ability of heavies to pound a base, I think that it is about right. A mass of 200 heavies is going to provide quite the wallop as I have experienced on numerous occasions in my PBEM.

So the question boils down to realism vs historical correctness. 200 heavies pounding a base is realistic but not historically correct in the Pacific. Bombing land bases with single squadrons (1/3 of a bombgroup typically) is both historically correct and realistic. Bombing ships at sea with 200 heavies is neither realistic or historical but doing so with single squadrons can be both.

The bottom line is that how 2 people choose to play their PBEM game is not my concern. I've enjoyed reading some of the Lunacy AARs. Not my style of play but still fun to read. I tend to play historically as Japan. That is I don't invade Russia, India or Australia. Nor do I go for Fiji and New Caledonia. I don't go crazy with the production system. I want to see if I can delay the Allies longer than what Japan did historically. I could care less about VPs for the most part. I use them only to judge relative success.

What is my concern is when people refuse to acknowledge that another person may have a differing point of view and instead use any means to discredit them. This forum has divided itself along fanboy lines and there are those who refuse to open their minds by even attempting to play as the other side. I think that is unfortunate as many on both sides have vaild points and concerns. We've become too interested in protecting our own little niche be it PBEM or a game vs the AI. Some simply want to tout their education. We should be promoting that which would improve the game in a realistic and/or historical manner.

I want the game to be realistic in its results yet provide a means of exploring alternative strategies for those who want to. In many ways, the game provides this when players use historical force levels. But as been said many, many times... don't expect historical results from ahistorical play. And don't expect realistic results from unrealistic play either.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 134
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 3:19:39 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Well said Chez.

I'm guilty of getting a little too wrapped up in this "discussion", so I think I'll let the matter rest. But I certainly appreciate your objective presentation.

-F-

_____________________________

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


(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 135
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 3:51:57 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		Chez I hope my comments have not been offensive to you. I have simply tried to assign the correct cause to percieved problems.

In this case I think we agree that the model works fairly well in that large raids on bases do fairly close to the historical damage. (At least my experiments with heavy bombers equate reasonably well with the data you provide. So in that sence they are "realistic".

They are not historical in that the numbers of bombers (I DO NOT BELIEVE) were available in 42. Please corret me if I'm wrong. All the data you provided was from late 43.

I suspect bombing on navel forces is "realistic" but who knows. There were no 200 plane raids on carrier forces. Certainly they are not historical in 42 as again I do not believe these huge armadas of bombers existed out in the Pacific.

People complain about uber-bombardments and blame the problem on many causes.

1.) The bombing model is screwed up
2.) The air model is screwed up
3.) Overstacked airfields
4.) PDU
5.etc.

My contention has been that it is much simpler than that. Its just that there are too many bombers in general. So no need to complain or argue about these other things. Just fix the replacement rates.

Perhaps I am incorrect but I have given ample opportunity for someone to provide examples of these huge bomber raids occuring in 42.

Again sorry if it was my posts that offended you.




(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 136
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 4:27:30 PM   
Mr.Frag


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

My contention has been that it is much simpler than that. Its just that there are too many bombers in general. So no need to complain or argue about these other things. Just fix the replacement rates.


The rate itself will not fix the problem by itself ... The problem is they last too long overall ... too many flight ready aircraft (on both sides of the fence). Driving the rate down just means people will build up longer, but in the end it will still be massive numbers in one attack.

Need that rot rate to deal with this one once and for all. Nothing else will really fix it, it just seems to move the issue somewhere else.

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 137
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 5:21:13 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

Chez I hope my comments have not been offensive to you. I have simply tried to assign the correct cause to percieved problems.


No worries there, Moses. You've done nothing to offend me.

I don't mind when people find errors in my data. It helps further my knowledge and often offers a view I hadn't yet considered. It's only when people call others stupid or uninformed, who insist theirs is the only correct view or attack me personally that I find offensive. Unfortunately, I don't always take the high road with these people and tend to fire back with full broadsides.

I agree that replacement rates for many aircraft are too high. I think that a big problem is also the ability to instantly replace losses in pilots and aircraft. If we had to bring these to the front (or the unit to the rear), it would go a long way towards correcting the issue.

Chez

< Message edited by ChezDaJez -- 1/18/2006 5:29:47 PM >

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 138
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 5:30:13 PM   
Mr.Frag


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

Unfortunately, I don't always take the high road with these people and tend to fire back with full broadsides.


Use 16"/50's ... they penetrate better

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 139
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 5:33:06 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

Use 16"/50's ... they penetrate better


I'm a Japanese player so I guess I'll have to use those 18 inchers instead!!!

BTW, did you get those save files I sent you?

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 140
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 5:37:45 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Last save I got was from Robert on Sat 14th ... if it was after that, I haven't seen 'em

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 141
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 5:40:23 PM   
moses

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

My contention has been that it is much simpler than that. Its just that there are too many bombers in general. So no need to complain or argue about these other things. Just fix the replacement rates.


The rate itself will not fix the problem by itself ... The problem is they last too long overall ... too many flight ready aircraft (on both sides of the fence). Driving the rate down just means people will build up longer, but in the end it will still be massive numbers in one attack.

Need that rot rate to deal with this one once and for all. Nothing else will really fix it, it just seems to move the issue somewhere else.



I agree with you here.

Its just that your fix (and the alternative way that I suggested) both would seem to require a code change. While you have given very slight indications that there might be some hope here others indicate that this is pretty much a closed issue. Since I have no contact with the developers I cannot evaluate if this is even a possibility.

I would love to see your idea implemented. I just don't know if its even on the table and probably never will until the patch is issued and I read the notes.

Changes to replacement rates on the other hand are much easier to implement and I almost wonder if it could even be done as some sort of optional mini-patch. i.e. If you want the lower rates download 1.8b and you got em. If not leave it alone.

Dropping all bomber replacements would seem to fix not all but at least the worst problems. i.e. harder to get MASS 4E bombardments and mass 4E navel attacks in 42 early 43.

You're fix would be better but is it on the table??

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 142
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 5:42:14 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Unfortunately, I don't always take the high road with these people and tend to fire back with full broadsides.


Use 16"/50's ... they penetrate better


Especially if you are Diehl quoting that........

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 143
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 5:57:12 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		I honestly don't know moses. If Mike likes it, he'll do it on his own when time permits.

One thing you can do (works fairly equally for both sides) ... group limit per base ...

Bombers:

size < 4 = no bombers beyond single engine

4 = 1 group max (squadrons 3x)

5 = 2 groups max

6 = 3 groups max

7+ = unlimited

Fighters:

1 group per every 2 points of airfield size

Others:

Unlimited

A lot of the problem also comes from the fact that overstacking units to a high enough level basically bypasses the intended penalty rule as we didn't think like that when we tested it.

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 144
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 6:19:34 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

Chez I hope my comments have not been offensive to you. I have simply tried to assign the correct cause to percieved problems.


No worries there, Moses. You've done nothing to offend me.

I don't mind when people find errors in my data. It helps further my knowledge and often offers a view I hadn't yet considered. It's only when people call others stupid or uninformed, who insist theirs is the only correct view or attack me personally that I find offensive. Unfortunately, I don't always take the high road with these people and tend to fire back with full broadsides.

I agree that replacement rates for many aircraft are too high. I think that a big problem is also the ability to instantly replace losses in pilots and aircraft. If we had to bring these to the front (or the unit to the rear), it would go a long way towards correcting the issue.

Chez


quote:

If we had to bring these to the front (or the unit to the rear), it would go a long way towards correcting the issue.


By severing the hard coded link between supply and resources we could accomplish this sufficiently despite the abstract nature of the model. Removing all this free front line supply and making the player ship it in would make it work.


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 145
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 6:52:55 PM   
Mr.Frag


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

Removing all this free front line supply and making the player ship it in would make it work.


What does Japan controlled free supply have to do with Allied Heavy bombers (which I might add destroy that supply faster then it is generated)

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 146
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 7:05:41 PM   
moses

 

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

While I would not mind some changes to supply it will not help this particular problem.


Allied bombers (the biggest issue here) will not really be effected by any supply changes unless they are extremely drastic.

Currently I sit with 3 Austrailian bases at 900,000 supply+. New Zealand and Numea are also stocked with several hundred thousand supply each. Ankerage has several hundered thousand. Of course my bases in India are as full as I want. And I stopped sending supply months ago. And I never did anything special before that. Its Oct 42.

It would take some drastic supply changes to stop my bombers this way.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 147
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 9:56:31 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Sorry, but you aren't right and you know it. Arguing that B17 wasn't bad at naval attack with NEAR MISSES in one mission is funny."


His point was that only 8 bombers with extremely limited experience (only their second combat mission ever) came very close to hitting a Japanese CV that was maneuvering at speed. Are you trying to say that a lrger number of more experienced bombers had absolutely no chance to do any better? That argument doesn't compute...

Pauk responded:

Please be consistent. As i recall, the ASW was tweaked for "historical arguments" sake. Japs didn't have developed ASW so it doesn't matter if you double, triple your ASW effort - we have now situation that is extremely hard for Jap naval ASW to locate and attack enemy.

Ok, i'm fine with that and don't have objecitions. Same should aply for B17 on naval attack - they were bad at naval attack and that's it.

What annoys me most is that same agruments are OK for Allies, but not for Japanese..."


I'm not quite sure where you're getting the inconsistency part of my argument. I was not involved in any arguments about Japanese ASW, as I don't have a lot of knowledge on that matter...

The fact is that B17s and other level bombers were used in anti-shipping roles. You may recall that B17s hit a Japanese destroyer during the warmup to the Guadalcanal landings. It has been pointed out earlier in this thread that the initial experiments with skip bombing in the SWPac area were done by B17s.

Personally, I feel that all level bombers are getting too many hits on moving shipping, but the game is consistent in offering that extra accuracy to both sides. Now, how the players use the bombers is up to them, and can cause quite ahistoric results.


_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 148
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/18/2006 11:41:29 PM   
Mr.Frag


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

You may recall that B17s hit a Japanese destroyer during the warmup to the Guadalcanal landings.


Memory serves, they were discussing just how unlikely it was that they could be hit when it happened

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 149
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/19/2006 12:05:09 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Removing all this free front line supply and making the player ship it in would make it work.


What does Japan controlled free supply have to do with Allied Heavy bombers (which I might add destroy that supply faster then it is generated)


I'm talking about the model generally. If the free supply was not there in equal proportion to resources, players would need to ship supply into the forward areas and build it up enough to regenerate TOE, thereby making the work. (think of the supply brought in as actual replacement aircraft etc). Presently it is obvious that this is basically not necessary because of all the supply generating every day in the forward areas and satisfying the TOE regeneration demands.


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   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  2 3 4 [5] 6   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

9.141