dgaad
Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001 From: Hockeytown Status: offline
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by emorbius44 [B] This game is supposed to reflect operations AS THEY HAPPENED. that is to say a number of paremeters are not player controlable and should reflect historical practice. Perhaps you can provide me with how many combat vessels were successfully attacked and repeatedly hit by B-17's prior to midway? I read another post where B-17's blew through a carrier CAP and hit a CV with four bombs. Bob [/B][/QUOTE] 1. As you well know, there is no example of B-17s attacking a carrier group at low altitude during the war. Does this mean a game rule or tweak should prevent it? 2. B-17s were first used at low altitude to attack enemy craft in October 1942, after spending months of training on a hitherto unheard of and unused technique termed "skip bombing". This was well after Midway. What are the rules / tweaks you are suggesting exactly? The Japanese never used Kamikazes until October, 1944. Do you think it would be a good rule to impose on a game that the Japanese could not use Kamikazes until that date? What if the Allies are really successful and invade Okinawa in November, 1943 (first use of Kamikazes was Leyte Gulf 1944)? Point is : a good simulation provides the framework with realistic capabilities and realistic results. It avoids placing special rules to prohibit operational uses that were not known or discovered until a certain date. Instead, good simulations focus on "conditional allowance" = once the historical conditions forced the recognition of a certain tactic, then in the game when a similar set of conditions the tactic is "discovered" or "allowed". UV does this by making skip bombing far less effective for airgroups which have experience under 75, and dangerous to the pilot if their experience is under 55. Most allied bombing airgroups start with experience ratings of around 60. (all of the above is IIRC). I think the designers of UV were aware that B-17s did skip bombing, and were also aware of the several months of training they did before they used the tactic in real combat. So, they fashioned rules to reflect these conditions. And, they work well. If you want a game that straight-jackets players into only historical play, this game is probably not for you. Players tend to jump right in on skip bombing because of these forums, or their knowledge of history, or sometimes even beccause of their lack of knowledge of history, game mechanics. I played Japanese in one game, and sent transport down to Buna very early in the game. Predictably, I got hit with B-17s at low level. However, since I protected the group with heavy CAP, half of the B-17s were destroyed, the rest damaged, and very few hit my ships. The Allied player was no doubt surprised, since he said something to the effect "It will be some time before I try that again." The problem players have with this tactic is their own play. Never send any TF into LBA range without protection adequate to nullify or reduce the enemy air threat. If you get attacked by B-17s, persist in good tactics until the 17s are all sitting damaged at an airbase. Remember the Allied player gets NO 17 replacements until IIRC October, 1942. He cannot sustain a low level bombing campaign against your TFs if they are protected, and will pay a heavy price later since all of his B-17 groups will be understrength for the rest of the game. If you do it right, you should thank your lucky stars when you find an allied player fool enough to use his 17s aggressively in the opening phases of the campaign. It will help you later. You have much more to worry about from Mitchells, Marauders, Havocs, Beauforts and Wirraways. Having to recommend the above tactics is just another reflection of the high simulation value of the game. And I hate giving recommendations to Japanese players, I really think they should do some thinking and find this stuff out of their own brilliant strategic repetoire.
_____________________________
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)
|