castor troy
Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
quote:
ORIGINAL: castor troy
quote:
ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
quote:
ORIGINAL: castor troy
quote:
ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
quote:
ORIGINAL: castor troy
quote:
ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
quote:
ORIGINAL: castor troy
and here a photo during an attack with lots of smoke, still the two ships are perfectly visible IMO, why should you miss them if itīs so easy to hit such a "small" target?
just look at the splashes! Those bomber crews were probably drunk to miss those sitting ducks... 
Yes - it really looks like they are bombing from 6000 feet, doesn't it? 
So? And why didnīt they?
Because flak would have eaten them up. German flak was much more intense (by all accounts i've seen) than that seen in the Pacific Theater of Operations.
I bet 10 AA regiments (Japanese) at one place would have been a LOT more effective than what the Germans had at Brest.... you know what it looks like in the game to place a dozen AA regiments somewhere... poof poof.... 100 flak guns disabled... 100 hits on ships in port...
and to come back to what the thread started about, IMO itīs essential to have a house rule about those 4Es, because even if their hit rate would be modeled realistic (which surely isnīt), everything else is far off so IMO you need to see that as a trade off.
Yes, well then maybe there should be a house rule about concentrating IJA AA regiments as well.
Let us also point out ONCE AGAIN that the most effective use of 4 EB against shipping by the Allies IRL is not modelled in the game (night attacks using radar). So, why is THAT not a trade off?? This always seems to be ignored in "4 EB hit too often" arguments - whereas, if you put this into the equation, maybe Allied EB's don't hit enough.
sorry, but this makes me smile!  Yeah, letīs have a house rule about not stacking more than 1 AA regiment per base (which sounds realistic). It doesnīt matter for the Japanese and itīs only a disadvantage for the Allied. A dozen AA regiments does the same like one AA regiment - NOTHING... NOTHING against 4E bombers coming in in hundreds at 6000 ft at broad daylight to bomb ships anchored in port. Then they achieve a hundreds hits for losing two or three bombers with another dozen damaged.
Lol, hope you can smile too. Your comparisons are not something I can understand...
Let's reverse this for your argument: No Allied 4EB on naval strike and the Japanese can put 10 AA regiments in a hex... does this make sense??
no, this makes no sense at all IMO. I never said "no 4EB on naval strike". Never... Though, I said (and whatīs this thread about) you have to think about either a number of 4Es on naval strike, a number of 4Es at a base, a min alt for 4Es on naval attack, only 4Es with min exp. of x on naval strike and so on...
The argument about the 10 - or 20, 30, no matter how much AA regiments is not worht discussing as they donīt do ANYTHING. Iīm only getting pissed off when playing the Jap side to see what a dozen AA regiment or a dozen base forces can do... Nothing. As an Allied player I shake my head when Iīm told how many AA guns were at that base I just bombed to dust from 10.000 ft while losing one or two of my 120 attacking B-24.
My point is (again) IF you want compromise - you must offer something to compromise with. So far, it has been in terms of game construction "compromises":
(1) Allied 4 EB are not allowed night radar patrols.
If you take ALL those super duper night radar attacks on ships together of the whole war, perhaps this would be the same as allowing ONE bomber group in the game do day light attacks on shipping?
(2) Allied 2 EB are not allowed to attack at skip-bombing levels at under 60 exp., and even then it doesn't work until they get into 70s experience, they have high losses, and they take huge morale hits (see prev. notes on actual skip bombing attacks).
70 exp? You donīt have problems to get your bombers to 70 exp, do you? They start out at 60 (stock, many mods) and reach 70 within 25-35 missions. Never had any problems at all having high exp. bomber squadrons. I donīt need and donīt do skip bombing, B-25, B-26 are soooo effective at 6000 ft that Iīm extremely happy with that - really happy.
(3) Japan can outmanufacture the Allies fighters.
If my opponent wants to produce 1000 Tojo, Tony, Jack, George, I have no problem with that. P-51, Corsair, Spit, Hellcat and THUNDERBOLT (IMO best US fighter in the game, even better than Corsair) eat them all. If I only would have P-40 and Hurris, okay that would be different, still my fighters are achieving kill rates far better than in real life. Add to that the thousands of planes the 4Es destroy on the ground and you probably have a kill rate that is 2-4 times higher than in real life. The more the Japanese produces, the higher the losses.
(4) Japan can field fighters they only had as prototypes.
thatīs true. Though the only two that have "some" effects are the Reppu and the Shinden. Both are in late 45 where the game is lost anyway and most games will never get there at all as the Japanese will quit most times in late 44, early 45 at the latest as thereīs no sense in playing on if you havenīt done as good as PzB for example (taking out China AND India).
(5) Japan can switch over production lines without pause to new types (whereas it took months and months in reality)
correct, what should I say about that? Put the arrival dates back two or three months? Didnīt the designers read some books on when those planes should arrive? Something for the mods (which they do anyway).
(5) Japan can use 100's of Bettys, Nells for torpedo strikes (while as has been recently noted elsewhere on the forum, they had neither the training nor the torpedoes to do so.) Exactly how many ships were torpedoed by Bettys and Nells in reality? How does that compare to the number of ships bombed by Allied 4 EB?
that doesnīt compare to 4Es. How can you compare that. It isnīt a matter of comparison. We are talking about 4E bomber alt against ships to achieve results you can look at without having to  . I have to do that if I see 100 4Es coming in achieving 50 hits.
Now the Betty/Nell problem. Yeah, itīs the same bullshit! I donīt know how often I wanted restrictions for torpedoe availability. Iīm not a designer of this game. Tell them, you are in the team now, arenīt you. Then there has just to be a rework on all the damage routines on ships, fires, flooding, damage by bombs... as a side note, as deadly as those Betties are in 41/42, going through the years the 4Es are dozen times more deadly against ships due to their numbers, the bomb load... and again, I love to see tac bombers going in at ships, Iīm looking like this: when I see those "strategic bombers" going against ships. I never ever had a problem with 2E bombers (of any side) attacking ships at ANY alt.
(6) No intel as to where/when IJN intentions and ships would be (no, the SigInt in the game really is not anything like the intel MAGIC provided.)
no it isnīt! Itīs far better than MAGIC ever was. Perhaps itīs always like this: Iīm playing the Japanese side, Iīm always hitting bad die rolls. Iīm playing the Allied side, Iīm always getting super die rolls. There hasnīt been a major invasion that I didnīt know of before as the US. If the Japanese want to go serious about a base / area and they have to prep their troops you get ample numbers of sigints about that. And then I donīt need CV Akagi heading for Midway, because when I see a dozen IJA divisions prepping for India / Australia then CV Akagi will be there also to cover those invasions - most likely. If not, say good bye to the invasion and say good bye to your Japanese opponent also, as he might quit after loosing a hundred ships and 100.000 men.
(7) Japan gets around 1 Million tons in extra shipping;
etc. etc. etc.
correct, again, tell the designers to read a book before going to work on a game like this. Why not having a house rule to have a given number of AKs at Osaka. 1 million would be 150 big AKs, wonder how much are in the game.
But - the Allied player should NOW additionally compromise the use of 4 EB on naval strike because THAT is unrealistic?? Of course, none of the other compromises are unrealistic???... What do the Allies get in return for such a compromise??
In games, one makes compromises with one's opponents in terms of house rules. i think that is the way it will be for the forseeable future.
I have and had games where I had a dozen of house rules that would be called as a disadvantage for me, while only one or two that would be an advantage for me. Result was that I liked the game far more than some of those hey ho, Iīm the American Santa Clause and Iīm coming to get you with my 500 B-24 I have just stationed on Kwajalein. Please bring up the 50 planes on cap (out of 100) so the 700 escort fighters have some fun also... ho ho ho...
EDIT: In as far that you can not see my points (as you have stated), then there really is no point for further argument on my part.
All you say is nice and mostly true. But itīs like telling me not to throw a cherry pit at you because that is unrealistic while you throw a rock back which would be unrealistic too.
Again, there is NOTHING that effects the game as much as Allied 4E bombers. Nothing. Not everything that is wrong on the Japanese side together would equal up the ability of those planes.
< Message edited by castor troy -- 7/31/2007 6:40:16 PM >
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 
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