Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn

Doesn't the (Japanese) AI get extra help with aircraft?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn

Doesn't the (Japanese) AI get extra help with aircraft?

Yup, but I guess human player can get this "help" also (maybe in other form), with BRAINS Ah, and I think both AIs get this help from what I read here......

I was really frustated with the Betty+Oscars plague, so I sound a bit "pro Allies" sorry if I offended with this ...... Consider you find 300+ Jap planes in Rangoon in mid 42. Even if in this phase the Allied air get´s better it´s still pretty hard to get them somehow. So the RN in this area is pretty much useless as the Japs will sink anything that floats even from small fields like Port Blair.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Guys, I've read a LOT about B-17s, and I find the game models them very accurrately. Subaro Saki himself lamments how difficult it was to bring one down, and he flew mainly against the c and D models. They were extremely rugged, and well armed. The Japanese would have entire squadrons taking turns on a B-17 , and litterally run out of ammo without bringing one down. And the B-17e was an even greater nightmare, as their previous tactics (tail attacks) were very , very dangerous. B-17 pilots had back and side armor, and bullet resistant glass. If a B-17 group employed "combat box" tactics, it took a very couregous pilot to attack , and a even more skill full one to survive. What the game also accurately models is the damage that B-17's took .It didn't take much to cause them to scrub the mission. Martin Caidan and others describe B-17 engines having entire cylinders shot out and still running. Japanese planes while very maneverable, were lightly armed and very fragile.

The Germans seldom did any damage to a B-17 with less that at least one 20mm cannon. But then again their guns were heavier (20,and 30mm) and they carried more of them, and much more ammunition. Plus being radar and ground controlled vectored, they generally had a higher concertration of planes in the right place, with pilots trained to shoot down B-17s (often using captured B-17s from KG 200).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I agree with crsutton-in the name of gameplayability, I'm willing to take my lumps as the IJ with what I believe to be an unrealistically aerial offensive platform because of all the other cliche goodies that I get or can develop.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Guys, I've read a LOT about B-17s, and I find the game models them very accurrately. Subaro Saki himself lamments how difficult it was to bring one down, and he flew mainly against the c and D models. They were extremely rugged, and well armed. The Japanese would have entire squadrons taking turns on a B-17 , and litterally run out of ammo without bringing one down. And the B-17e was an even greater nightmare, as their previous tactics (tail attacks) were very , very dangerous. B-17 pilots had back and side armor, and bullet resistant glass. If a B-17 group employed "combat box" tactics, it took a very couregous pilot to attack , and a even more skill full one to survive. What the game also accurately models is the damage that B-17's took .It didn't take much to cause them to scrub the mission. Martin Caidan and others describe B-17 engines having entire cylinders shot out and still running. Japanese planes while very maneverable, were lightly armed and very fragile.

The Germans seldom did any damage to a B-17 with less that at least one 20mm cannon. But then again their guns were heavier (20,and 30mm) and they carried more of them, and much more ammunition. Plus being radar and ground controlled vectored, they generally had a higher concertration of planes in the right place, with pilots trained to shoot down B-17s (often using captured B-17s from KG 200).

Yes, but this does not discuss the OFFENSIVE firepower capabilities of the Allied heavy bomber, Steve.

Can they take a lot of damage? No question. Is the return fire from the Allied heavies unrealisitically accurate in the game? I'm convinced it is.

Is using Allied heavies without escort to intentionally 'sweep' fighter aerodromes gamey? You bet your bippy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


There's a comment I've often heard WW2 Army aircrew men make that addresses this issue. Many , many times I've heard the B-17 called "The best 4 engine fighter of the war". It had between 10 and 15 heavy machine guns Andre. They flew in a pack, as big as they could. That's a heck of a lot of guns aimed at one fighter made mostly out of aluminum foil. Whats so hard to understand? You go stand in a aluminum garden shed while fifty to a hundred of me and my friends shoot at it with 50 calibur guns. Then tell me that it's unrealistic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


There's a comment I've often heard WW2 Army aircrew men make that addresses this issue. Many , many times I've heard the B-17 called "The best 4 engine fighter of the war". It had between 10 and 15 heavy machine guns Andre. They flew in a pack, as big as they could. That's a heck of a lot of guns aimed at one fighter made mostly out of aluminum foil. Whats so hard to understand? You go stand in a aluminum garden shed while fifty to a hundred of me and my friends shoot at it with 50 calibur guns. Then tell me that it's unrealistic.

I don't think this argues particuarly for the accuracy of turret weapons, quite the reverse if you think about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Is using Allied heavies without escort to intentionally 'sweep' fighter aerodromes gamey? You bet your bippy. "

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Is using Allied heavies without escort to intentionally 'sweep' fighter aerodromes gamey? You bet your bippy. "

So... is every time a 4E bomber mission is sent without escort to be considered to be a "gamey sweep" mission? Are the allies supposed to just ignore their only long ranged weapons platform?

In most of 1942 there are no long ranged allied fighters, and a good Japanese player will establish his defensive perimeter outside of standard allied fighter range. In that case, the only offensive missions that the allies can send will be either unescorted bombers or carrier raids.

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

....
I really think this discussion should be about how to slow down the use of the 4E bomber. As I pointed out earlier, we are not constrained by the "facts" of 1942. There were plenty of bombers for the AAC to use in the pacific. They were sitting on the West Coast and PH. They were used as patrol planes in the South Pacific. The players would be screaming bloody murder if they were forced to do this. Another fact is the IJN/IJA fighter pilots did not know deal wih the bombers in 42 and their planes had a very hard time shooting them down. Now thats a fact and its something that should not be changed as far as the game mechanics go. Here is another fact, 1942 10th AF sent B-17's to India.
On paper there were 17 bombers, but the reality was it was closer to 8. Over the following months they were able to fly missions of 2 and 3 planes. and it could take up to a week to get that many in the air. They also flew at night...... Perhaps what we need to look at is changing how many planes a squadron can get into the air. On a side note, one day light raid of 2 planes was attacked by 10 fighters. Not sure the type but they could have been Oscars or even Nates. One of the planes was shot down the other badly damaged. Another mission 4 Bombers attacked shipping @3500 ft. Between AAA fire and fighter attacks 2 were damaged. It was almost 2 weeks before they could put 3 planes up for another raid. If I searched information about Kenny's AF I have a feeling I would find similar data. The point I am trying to make is instead of changing combat and all the problems it could lead to, change how the bombers are handled.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Is using Allied heavies without escort to intentionally 'sweep' fighter aerodromes gamey? You bet your bippy. "

Good thing your "bippy" isn't worth anything, because that bet is a sure-fire loser. Until the P-51 arrived in strength in the Spring of 1944, virtually ALL B-17 raids were unescorted. Against the Germans this was a tough proposition, but in the Pacific it worked just fine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Is using Allied heavies without escort to intentionally 'sweep' fighter aerodromes gamey? You bet your bippy. "

So... is every time a 4E bomber mission is sent without escort to be considered to be a "gamey sweep" mission? Are the allies supposed to just ignore their only long ranged weapons platform?

In most of 1942 there are no long ranged allied fighters, and a good Japanese player will establish his defensive perimeter outside of standard allied fighter range. In that case, the only offensive missions that the allies can send will be either unescorted bombers or carrier raids.

bradfordkay,

No-every time a 4E bomber mission is sent w/o escort is not a gamey sweep mission. The Allies are welcome to use heavy bombers escorted or unescorted to bomb naval/ground/strategic whatever, as they did IRL. Escort was not available for most of the useage of heavy bombers IRL so they went it alone. I get that and have no beef with it.

I don't believe that the Allies made use of heavy bomber sweeps where the predetermined role of the bomber was to go in there, guns blazing, without bombs, to explicitly shoot down airborne enemy fighters as a means to an end.

The issue is INTENT. If the B17s, in the conduct of their recon/bombing/search roles encounter enemy fighters, then go right ahead and shoot 'em down. If it's intentional use of an ahistoric program / coding / game loophole just to kill more Jap fighters as a proxy workaround, now I've got a problem.

Another analogy: There's nothing amiss about an Allied CL/DD SCTF intercepting and destroying a Japanese transport TF of xAKs, xAPs and let's say PB escorts. I would be disappointed by the loss (as the IJ player), but stuff happens. I would not intentionally sail my transport TF into the waiting jaws of the allied SCTF in this example, as I can't fathom a rationale for why this would be done IRL. Sure, if the transports were dropping off supply or transporting something that's OK.

Now-let's say that I take my transport TF and intentionally sail it to 'intercept' your waiting SCTF. Only this time, I'm doing it intentionally to run the Allied ships out of main gun ammo prior to next turn, where I send Yamato and friends into the same hex to meet your ammo-less SCTF.

Any difference? Can't I, as the Japanese player, use my xAKs and transport ships the way I choose to in the game? I'm sure that I can cobble up some damage a Jap trawler conveyed to an Allied submarine IRL as a rationale for my argument for how all Jap xAKs and PB TFs can be used in this offensive capacity.

The B17s intentionally, explicitly as fighters strikes me the same way.

Hope this clarifies.

quote:

Even if the weapons are not accurrate (I personally belive that they are) a very large percentage (waiste,radio and nose are not turret), many many guns firing at the same target are bound to produce a significant number of hits. Frankly, I wasn't arguing for or against the turret----that depends more on the marksman than the weapon.

But I do defy anyone to tell me that having dozens and poetenitally hundreds of heavy machine guns firing at one target at a time isn't devastating.

quote:

So how do you decide if your opponent is using them explicitly as fighters or just trying to run a bombing campaign?

The problem with your analogy is that B17s were (erroneously) designed to perform unescorted missions, so using them as such is not a violation of USAAF doctrine (at least not in the early war).

This complaint seems to be based more on user intent than on the action itself, and as such is never going to be resolved - but is likely to ruin otherwise decent gaming partnerships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
So how do you decide if your opponent is using them explicitly as fighters or just trying to run a bombing campaign?

The problem with your analogy is that B17s were (erroneously) designed to perform unescorted missions, so using them as such is not a violation of USAAF doctrine (at least not in the early war).

This complaint seems to be based more on user intent than on the action itself, and as such is never going to be resolved - but is likely to ruin otherwise decent gaming partnerships.

quote:

I imagine that I would 'decide' the same way I would in my transport TF analogy. If something seemed amiss, I would ask my opponent how they were using this in the game. If it was unintentional, s'OK. If it was intentional, again sticking with my transport TF analogy, then we've a problem in the game that we need to address.

I'm sorry I'm not being clear about the use of unescorted bombers on bombing missions. I think I've said twice now that I've no problem with that approach, erroneously or otherwise.

Lastly, I'm not sure about the 'ruining decent gaming relationships' comment. I never said this was a showstopper or something folks in 'good' relationships couldn't be talked out of. It is a point of discussion, like most other odditities, bugs and quirks with this game.

quote:

Unfortunately he tends to kick my sorry buns far too often!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Maybe big ones or any planes should not fly at all when there's severe storms...

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Is using Allied heavies without escort to intentionally 'sweep' fighter aerodromes gamey? You bet your bippy. "

Good thing your "bippy" isn't worth anything, because that bet is a sure-fire loser. Until the P-51 arrived in strength in the Spring of 1944, virtually ALL B-17 raids were unescorted. Against the Germans this was a tough proposition, but in the Pacific it worked just fine.

Except that wasn't my quote...

quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg

I'd like to throw in my results, which may be a-typical.  Playing scenario 2 as japs and I took koepang...my opponent started a 4e campaign against it starting mid-jan 42.  Japs have high starting pilot quality, but because I don't like losing high quality pilots in the early part of the war, I pulled roughly 30% of the top pilots out of all my air squadron into tracom and reserve and replaced with replacement pilots, so they aren't near top quality squadrons.  Average experience is probably low to mid-60s. 

When he started this, I was taking zero losses, but I moved AA btns (4), engineer companies, air support (more than I need) and 4 zero squadrons to the base.  He was initially attacking with roughly 30+ bombers and a few 2Es...he's abandoned the campaign.  It's early Feb now and he's lost 70 B-17Es and B-17Ds... I haven't lost even half that amount of zeroes..possibly only a quarter.

Looking at that, one has to wonder if durability is king or # of planes and pilot quality, plus AAs help a bit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

quote:

I imagine that I would 'decide' the same way I would in my transport TF analogy. If something seemed amiss, I would ask my opponent how they were using this in the game. If it was unintentional, s'OK. If it was intentional, again sticking with my transport TF analogy, then we've a problem in the game that we need to address.

I'm sorry I'm not being clear about the use of unescorted bombers on bombing missions. I think I've said twice now that I've no problem with that approach, erroneously or otherwise.

Lastly, I'm not sure about the 'ruining decent gaming relationships' comment. I never said this was a showstopper or something folks in 'good' relationships couldn't be talked out of. It is a point of discussion, like most other odditities, bugs and quirks with this game.

How many players would man up and admit to using heavy bombers in a sweep role? Since running a bombing campaign unescorted is legit, why would any player admit to doing something others consider gamey when they can just as easily claim to be using a legitimate tactic?

This is where I see a problem with your statement, and why I think that following such a line of thought could end up ruining an otherwise decent gaming relationship. EG: you think that your opponent is pulling something gamey and ask him about it. He sincerely believes that his ops are legit, and is now affronted at the thought you would think that he would stoop to something so cheesy. The result is that you don't know if you trust his response (and therefore any future response) while he is now concerned that he will be accused of gamey tactics whenever he tries something different. The relationship is now soured... and will take a long while to recover, if it can.

I am happy to have had a great gaming partner over the last several years. I don't think that we have ever felt the need to question each others methods - and he has shown great patience with my plodding strategies... Unfortunately he tends to kick my sorry buns far too often!