obvert
Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crsutton
quote:
ORIGINAL: obvert
quote:
ORIGINAL: crsutton
quote:
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Have to admit to a bit of a whine with the previous turn. Dan landed a Chindit unit at Taung Gyi, Burma and I wasn't too worried. Forts 3, an Engineer unit, and a Paratroop Inf unit holding the base. They LOOKED great until Dan used about 150 B-24s at 8-9,000 Ft to blast them off the map.
Wasn't happy.
B-25s? OK.
B-26s? Fine.
A-20s? Good
Useless British Bombers? Great.
4EB??? 
I wrote him "let us all hear it for the most effective GROUND attack weapon in the game right now--the B-24! Not…"
Well, it is a trade off. You are eating B24s now but remember that for most of 1942 and 43 the Allies just get no sort of bomber production. The Allies could never afford to put together a massive bombardment attack but it is not problem for Japan to stitch together a couple of hundred bombers to support an attack in the early years. Now is it different and it is time to pay the piper...
As Japan we also get planes that do things they didn't in the war, so it's a balance. A fun balance, too. I'd say getting Georges on CVs is a pretty good trade-off, considering 4Es did actually bomb ground forces in the war and Georges were incapable of flying from CVs. 
Agreed plus the George while good was never as good as it now is in game. I would be happy to have them if I were playing Japan. I am losing a lot more heavy bombers this campaign with the enhanced AA, George, and Jack. (I know the Jack is not in this game). We do have a HR preventing 4E from bombing troops in the open. That was a bit out of whack so I agreed to it. Not to much of a problem as any Allied attack bomber will tear up troops in the open. My opponent knows his stuff and used massed Japanese bombers to drive his sword home in the early years. I got no sympathy for him now...
Exactly. We don't scrimp on our use of IJAAF 2E early against the hapless Chinese, Indians and Philippine troops, so it all comes around. Playing the Allies I asked for an HR self-imposing a restriction on 4E bombing ground troops only because I felt it was too easy in the clear hexes to mass them, but that was me choosing to restrict myself.
The HR I find more of a necessity is massed night bombing against fields/ports. The capacity of the time simply didn't allow accurate night bombing without extreme planning and training, and even then wasn't what happens in game. So best not to get either side frustrated and limit it to say 50 bombers set per target, or something similar.
< Message edited by obvert -- 12/12/2016 4:04:26 PM >
_____________________________
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
|
Printable Version
RE: Thanks - 
). And I don't post in AAR's much for various reasons. I will point out that B-24's were in fact used against troops in the PI, Iwo Jima, the Marianas, and Okinawa that I am familiar with. The reasons were usually range, and eminent attack. Also, there were smaller numbers of heavy bomber squadrons available, and different platforms were being used for Strategic missions. It didn't happen a lot, but it did happen. 
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