Re: Just the facts baby...

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: Just the facts baby...

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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Re: Just the facts baby...

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Re: Just the facts baby... - 7/17/2003 4:57:40 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dwesolick
[B]According to Kenneth Werrell in "BLANKETS OF FIRE: US Bombers over Japan During WWII", Iwo Jima was taken, not so much as a figher base, but as a safe haven for B-29s returning from Japan. According to Werrell, 82% of 29s landing on Iwo did so for fuel, not reasons of damage.

Further, of 513 B-29s lost by XX Airforce, only 148 were attributed to "enemy action" (flak, fighters, rammers). The rest were mainly due to operational causes. The Japanese air defenses (fighter and flak) were so inadequate that Lemay felt quite comfortable stripping the guns from the planes and sending them in at low level (as to whether the CREWS felt comfortable with this, well..... :) ) [/B][/QUOTE]

By late war, the loss ratio from combat/op loss ("accidents") had flip flopped entirely due to the distintigration and degredation of the Japanese air forces so the period makes for a poor example on bomber effectiveness.

Also the B-29 suffered numerous teething troubles after it's debut which created signifigant op loss issues. As such the figures posted above dont suprise me at all. I would expect such a battered airforce to be able to put up not much of a 'conventional' defense. Hence the need for "special" air corps like the Kamakaze

Same thing happened to the Luftwaffe, only slower.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 151

B-17 - 7/17/2003 5:29:17 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, I lose over a 100 B-17 every game (Scen 19) I don't fly in bad weather. I don't fly morale below 80. I don't fly fatigue over 10.
And I provide escorts when and where possible. (So my groups tend to fly once every 10 days)I fly at 9k (or higher) I don't lose 100 B-17 to operations. I lose them to enemy fighters and AA.

As Japan I shoot down B-17's (just never enough)

But I'll agree with Chineng on a few points.

I dont think well ever see
Warrant Officer Kiyomi Katsuki match his actual war record. (He shot down a B-17 while flying a Pete float plane off Chitose)(near Guadalcanal)
He finished the war with 16 confirmed kills (2 in Bi-plane) He shot down PBY, B-25 (He seems to have had a knack for shooting down scout/recon planes and flying boats and these things are not easy to shoot down)

The main use of the B-17 for me is to scare the Japanese out of using bases in range. (Don't let my recon spot ships in port in range of my B-17) Also they are very usefull for hitting airfields in range of where I intend on moving a TF.

When I first began playing PBEM it was an automatic that Zuikaku or Shokaku would be hit by a LBA strike. (The culprit then was usally a Hudson) I had a bad habit of lowering my CAP when I thought I was in secure waters. They never sank one of my carriers but for 3-4 PBEM in a row I always was sending one back to Japan before Aug 42. (I still get caught at least once a game no matter what side with my CAP down.)(Flying CAP also uses OP points and slows the TF down. When I'm on a high speed run I keep all aircraft in the hanger)

Erik R tore me apart with B-17's in our last game (pre fix) I wrecked the IJN trying to bombard the bases they were at.

(I did shoot a few down but often the airfield was so damaged I could never get enough fighters in the air.) It stinks when you have a group of Zeros with 27 ac and only 8-9 are flyable and B-17's are pounding you every turn. (This was the game that convinced me it was folly to build any airfield in range of B-17. You just trap your support units and airgroups for nothing. Now I build a cluster of smaller bases rather then the large monster base.

For awhile I was convinced the B-17 unbalanced the game.
Then I played 20 PBEM games Scenario 19 200 percent Japanese 100 percent USN all as USN. Since I don't employ the B-17 in the manner that I felt was unfair I was interested in seeing how large an impact it would make. (Since I thought I lost because of B-17, I assumed the Japanese would roll over me. Thats why I began so many games. I did not think they would last long.
I lost 3 out of 20. (The first one where Arto showed me how fast Japan can move) (Bosun to a surprise attack on Brisbane in Nov 42 Where he closed the airfield and sat with all his CV 1 hex away to keep the USN away. I had just ordered the garrsion to move to Rockhampton since another Div was coming in.)(Note to self. Increase scout planes in Rockhampton/Brisbane area)

Now the other games I did not win because the B-17 ruled the waves. It was because the Japanese do not have the staying power to engage in a slugging match for 19 months. They run out of stuff. (And many humans throw alot of stuff away for nothing) Now I guess if you add an allied player who uses B-17 to the mix it can make you angrey. But the B-17 are most likely not the real reason for Japan getting beat. (In the game with Erik I over reacted and threw my long range plan out the window and went on the hoof against him and lost the units I needed to win.
I should have prepared a lot more. (I ordered transports that were simply moving troops forward between my bases to sail to try to take Koumac. The escort and protection was Ad Hoc and failed so when it was over I had lost a lot of material for no purpose at all. (He always had time to see what was coming and since he was closer could react faster)

Oh Well. Just wanted to let Chiteng know that I do understand where he is coming from. I've been there. I've played a lot of PBEM since I first learned to hate the B-17. Now I see it is just part of a much larger monster. You have to win before the B-17 grow into Godzilla (I mean at start there are only 20 B-17 on map and no replacements. They can't destroy you) Kill them in the egg.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 152

Re: B-17 - 7/17/2003 6:08:46 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, I lose over a 100 B-17 every game (Scen 19) I don't fly in bad weather. I don't fly morale below 80. I don't fly fatigue over 10.
And I provide escorts when and where possible. (So my groups tend to fly once every 10 days)I fly at 9k (or higher) I don't lose 100 B-17 to operations. I lose them to enemy fighters and AA.

As Japan I shoot down B-17's (just never enough)

But I'll agree with Chineng on a few points.

I dont think well ever see
Warrant Officer Kiyomi Katsuki match his actual war record. (He shot down a B-17 while flying a Pete float plane off Chitose)(near Guadalcanal)
He finished the war with 16 confirmed kills (2 in Bi-plane) He shot down PBY, B-25 (He seems to have had a knack for shooting down scout/recon planes and flying boats and these things are not easy to shoot down)

The main use of the B-17 for me is to scare the Japanese out of using bases in range. (Don't let my recon spot ships in port in range of my B-17) Also they are very usefull for hitting airfields in range of where I intend on moving a TF.

When I first began playing PBEM it was an automatic that Zuikaku or Shokaku would be hit by a LBA strike. (The culprit then was usally a Hudson) I had a bad habit of lowering my CAP when I thought I was in secure waters. They never sank one of my carriers but for 3-4 PBEM in a row I always was sending one back to Japan before Aug 42. (I still get caught at least once a game no matter what side with my CAP down.)(Flying CAP also uses OP points and slows the TF down. When I'm on a high speed run I keep all aircraft in the hanger)

Erik R tore me apart with B-17's in our last game (pre fix) I wrecked the IJN trying to bombard the bases they were at.

(I did shoot a few down but often the airfield was so damaged I could never get enough fighters in the air.) It stinks when you have a group of Zeros with 27 ac and only 8-9 are flyable and B-17's are pounding you every turn. (This was the game that convinced me it was folly to build any airfield in range of B-17. You just trap your support units and airgroups for nothing. Now I build a cluster of smaller bases rather then the large monster base.

For awhile I was convinced the B-17 unbalanced the game.
Then I played 20 PBEM games Scenario 19 200 percent Japanese 100 percent USN all as USN. Since I don't employ the B-17 in the manner that I felt was unfair I was interested in seeing how large an impact it would make. (Since I thought I lost because of B-17, I assumed the Japanese would roll over me. Thats why I began so many games. I did not think they would last long.
I lost 3 out of 20. (The first one where Arto showed me how fast Japan can move) (Bosun to a surprise attack on Brisbane in Nov 42 Where he closed the airfield and sat with all his CV 1 hex away to keep the USN away. I had just ordered the garrsion to move to Rockhampton since another Div was coming in.)(Note to self. Increase scout planes in Rockhampton/Brisbane area)

Now the other games I did not win because the B-17 ruled the waves. It was because the Japanese do not have the staying power to engage in a slugging match for 19 months. They run out of stuff. (And many humans throw alot of stuff away for nothing) Now I guess if you add an allied player who uses B-17 to the mix it can make you angrey. But the B-17 are most likely not the real reason for Japan getting beat. (In the game with Erik I over reacted and threw my long range plan out the window and went on the hoof against him and lost the units I needed to win.
I should have prepared a lot more. (I ordered transports that were simply moving troops forward between my bases to sail to try to take Koumac. The escort and protection was Ad Hoc and failed so when it was over I had lost a lot of material for no purpose at all. (He always had time to see what was coming and since he was closer could react faster)

Oh Well. Just wanted to let Chiteng know that I do understand where he is coming from. I've been there. I've played a lot of PBEM since I first learned to hate the B-17. Now I see it is just part of a much larger monster. You have to win before the B-17 grow into Godzilla (I mean at start there are only 20 B-17 on map and no replacements. They can't destroy you) Kill them in the egg. [/B][/QUOTE]

That doesnt solve the problem, and it ignores historical reality.
Fixing the model would be a better way.

WitP is not an isolated theater. If they actually have production,
REAL production, the artificial limit in UV (ie you run out of B-17)
wont apply. Every US player will simply jack up B-17 production
to match his losses.

Take the board game (SPI War in the Pacific) the B-17 effectiveness is the same as the Spitfire (in air to air combat)

in UV you can actually shoot down a Spitfire.

The whole point is that LBA are over emphasized. The CV are supposed to be the fearsome weapons of destruction.
NOT 9 lousy B-17 operating from a dirt strip.

_____________________________

�It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.�

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 153

- 7/17/2003 6:35:36 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

[B]The difference between the B-17 in the game and reality is that the B-17 in REALITY did get shot down. Not mysteriously fall apart during flight. Not get lost on the way home, but get damaged enough that the plane could no longer fly. It happened to the B-29 also. In fact it happened enough that the Navy invaded Iwo Jima to secure a base close enough for
fighter escorts. THAT is the reality Snigbert, you simply chose to ignore it. Just like you choose to ignore the other posters that complaining about LBA as well. I wonder what the total B-17 lost to enemy action is. Anyone have a source?
As for performing to your satisfaction, when I get a public apology
I will consider it. Until then....[/B]

Alright, since you are subtley shifting your complaint about the B-17 from their accuracy at hitting targets (which you have yet to provide any data or links to data for) to their survivability rate...do you intent to provide any data demonstrating that they have too high a survivability rate compared to historical losses? Or do you expect us to hunt down the data to support your argument for you? B-29 is a different plane which isn't in UV, so I dont see the relevance of the Iwo Jima argument.
I also dont see anyone else jumping to your defense (on the subject of B-17s being too accurate, or their survivability) in this thread or the previous one. Do you expect me to go searching the forum for people who support your argument, or should I just continue 'ignoring' them?
For some reason you seem to take my requests for data supporting your argument as an attack. I'm just not going to be convinced that you have a case unless you supply some evidence, and I'm not going to hunt it down myself. I have had over 100 B-17s lost in most of my games as Allies. I have not witnessed unrealistic accuracy from B-17s against naval targets. I can't imagine why I would be convinced by your argument when you have admitted that your tactic is to complain loudly in order to achieve some sort of perceived success that Mdiehl has achieved...
I'm not sure what I should apologize for either, for not providing your sources for you?

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 154

- 7/17/2003 6:45:19 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B][B]The difference between the B-17 in the game and reality is that the B-17 in REALITY did get shot down. Not mysteriously fall apart during flight. Not get lost on the way home, but get damaged enough that the plane could no longer fly. It happened to the B-29 also. In fact it happened enough that the Navy invaded Iwo Jima to secure a base close enough for
fighter escorts. THAT is the reality Snigbert, you simply chose to ignore it. Just like you choose to ignore the other posters that complaining about LBA as well. I wonder what the total B-17 lost to enemy action is. Anyone have a source?
As for performing to your satisfaction, when I get a public apology
I will consider it. Until then....[/B]

Alright, since you are subtley shifting your complaint about the B-17 from their accuracy at hitting targets (which you have yet to provide any data or links to data for) to their survivability rate...do you intent to provide any data demonstrating that they have too high a survivability rate compared to historical losses? Or do you expect us to hunt down the data to support your argument for you? B-29 is a different plane which isn't in UV, so I dont see the relevance of the Iwo Jima argument.
I also dont see anyone else jumping to your defense (on the subject of B-17s being too accurate, or their survivability) in this thread or the previous one. Do you expect me to go searching the forum for people who support your argument, or should I just continue 'ignoring' them?
For some reason you seem to take my requests for data supporting your argument as an attack. I'm just not going to be convinced that you have a case unless you supply some evidence, and I'm not going to hunt it down myself. I have had over 100 B-17s lost in most of my games as Allies. I have not witnessed unrealistic accuracy from B-17s against naval targets. I can't imagine why I would be convinced by your argument when you have admitted that your tactic is to complain loudly in order to achieve some sort of perceived success that Mdiehl has achieved...
I'm not sure what I should apologize for either, for not providing your sources for you? [/B][/QUOTE]

No Snigbert none of that applies. The argument between you and me YOU personalized. I didnt. I corrected you, and you still refuse
to admit that you were wrong.

I do not perform to anyone elses standards, I perform soley to mine. I have not changed my argument in any way. The B-17
is over emphasized in the game. THAT is my argument.
The invincibility of it, and its ability to hit ships moving at high speed are simply aspects of its over-emphasization.

Words like 'unreasonable' are subjective, they vary from person to person. The same can be true for 'unrealistic'.
Why should I accept your versions of what that means?
I have my own opinions =)

Mr. Frag and Nickodemus have made supporting posts. Possibly you missed them.

W/o a common and accepted standard for what 'proof' is,
trying to 'prove' something on this forum is a waste of time.
Evidence exists, you just dont see it.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 155

Enough, already! - 7/17/2003 6:55:56 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

Chiteng!!! I think we understand your point of view. Why repeat it incessantly? What can be gained by constantly bringing up the same point? You now have NINE or TEN pages of attention. That should suffice.:rolleyes:

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 156

- 7/17/2003 6:59:04 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

I've read Mr. Frag and Nikademus' posts, and they are pointing out that there is a problem in general with LBA. Neither of them are picking on the B-17, they have issues with AAA, High Altitude bombers, etc. As Nikademus says: [B] The major problem Craig, is that the bombers (not just B-17's) are able to do all that you described at the same time in UV. [/B]

Your argument has been that the problem lies with the B-17 being indestructable and overly accurate. To quote you: [B]The B-17 is over emphasized in the game. THAT is my argument.[/B]

I dont see how the two overlap? They see the problem being the LBA system, you have a problem with a specific plane model. Unless of course you want to change your point again to be more in line with what they are saying.

So, you see I have not ignored them, they are argueing a different point...one which I agree with more or less. I dont think the problem is something with the B-17, which you keep bringing up and beating away at.

What should I admit being wrong about?

A common and accepted method of proving something on this forum would be to run tests and compare the data to historical data. If you were able to provide this perhaps this issue would have made it into the discussion on the development board as a legitimate problem needed to be addressed.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 157

- 7/17/2003 7:05:38 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B]I've read Mr. Frag and Nikademus' posts, and they are pointing out that there is a problem in general with LBA. Neither of them are picking on the B-17, they have issues with AAA, High Altitude bombers, etc. As Nikademus says: [B] The major problem Craig, is that the bombers (not just B-17's) are able to do all that you described at the same time in UV. [/B]

Your argument has been that the problem lies with the B-17 being indestructable and overly accurate. To quote you: [B]The B-17 is over emphasized in the game. THAT is my argument.[/B]

I dont see how the two overlap? They see the problem being the LBA system, you have a problem with a specific plane model. Unless of course you want to change your point again to be more in line with what they are saying.

So, you see I have not ignored them, they are argueing a different point...one which I agree with more or less. I dont think the problem is something with the B-17, which you keep bringing up and beating away at.

What should I admit being wrong about?

A common and accepted method of proving something on this forum would be to run tests and compare the data to historical data. If you were able to provide this perhaps this issue would have made it into the discussion on the development board as a legitimate problem needed to be addressed. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well as a wargammer, I have a solution to misuse of other plane types. I shoot them down. An imperfect solution to be sure,
but far easier than trying to get Matrix to solve the issue.
However....with the B-17, that isnt an option. As the Jap I have no means NOT EVEN bombing allied airfields that will destroy
enough B-17s to stop them from being used in an anti-shipping role. CAP is a joke Flak is a joke.

Yes some B-17 are lost to operational losses YES that is true,
but it ISNT something the Japs can influence.

Thus there is no counter to the B-17 in a game context. They are invincible.

Other LBA I can at least ambush. That is why I am far less concerned.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 158

Re: Enough, already! - 7/17/2003 7:07:01 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
[B]Chiteng!!! I think we understand your point of view. Why repeat it incessantly? What can be gained by constantly bringing up the same point? You now have NINE or TEN pages of attention. That should suffice.:rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]

I didnt ressurect this thread. Aim your remarks at those who did.
I have attacked no one. I will however defend myself.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 159

- 7/17/2003 7:09:41 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

I'd look forward to your apology, if I thought you were capable.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 160

- 7/17/2003 7:11:42 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B]I'd look forward to your apology, if I thought you were capable. [/B][/QUOTE]

I have nothing to apologize for.

You are making this an issue, I am not. You are attacking ME,
I didnt attack you. In doing so you ignore the forum MODs stated request.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 161

No No No - 7/17/2003 7:38:49 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

"The whole point is that LBA are over emphasized. The CV are supposed to be the fearsome weapons of destruction.
NOT 9 lousy B-17 operating from a dirt strip."

__________________

Hi, Here you are so wrong. No one in their right mind would prefer a CV over a land strip. CV are built to provide air where none can be provided via land base. In a duel of CV versus land the land will always win (It can't sink.) But after you build the monster airbase and the war moves on (the airbase provides the means for victory) It will become a rear area and of no use so another new airfield has to be secured. The CV cover the landing on the new base and are replaced in time by new LBA operating from the new field.

The Pacific war was an airwar. Control of the air decides who will win the naval and ground battles.

The CV allows you to project air power where otherwise it would be absent. They are not better. (How can they be? The aircraft are designed to fly off a ship not maximize the ability of aircraft to inflict damage.

PS 9 B-17 operating from a dirt stip in UV would carry extended range loads at normal range. (You need a size 4 af to fly level bombers without penalty)

The only reason LBA played what is viewed as so small a part in battles is both sides stayed out of the other sides range of LBA as much as possible. The USN was able to bring great numbers of aircraft against those Japanese bases targeted for attack (and conversion to US AF) Still Japanese LBA inflicted more damage then IJN CV based aircraft ever did. (And this during a period when the Japanese Airpower had been greatly degraded.)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 162

- 7/17/2003 7:47:42 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

[B]I have nothing to apologize for.[/B]

I think that calling someone a liar when it is untrue qualifies.

[B]You are making this an issue, I am not. You are attacking ME,[/B]

You brought the subject up. You called me a liar when I questioned your assertion. Do you understand the difference between attacking someone and trying to discuss a point of disagreement? I haven't insulted you, you've insulted me by calling me a liar. I thought resorting to insults was against the Chiteng code of conduct.

[B]I didnt attack you. In doing so you ignore the forum MODs stated request.[/B]

See above..

Anyway, I'm going to exercise the ignore function since no apology is forthcoming and I dont have any interest in further conversation with someone who insults me in such a manner.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 163

- 7/17/2003 8:02:56 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B][B]I have nothing to apologize for.[/B]

I think that calling someone a liar when it is untrue qualifies.

[B]You are making this an issue, I am not. You are attacking ME,[/B]

You brought the subject up. You called me a liar when I questioned your assertion. Do you understand the difference between attacking someone and trying to discuss a point of disagreement? I haven't insulted you, you've insulted me by calling me a liar. I thought resorting to insults was against the Chiteng code of conduct.

[B]I didnt attack you. In doing so you ignore the forum MODs stated request.[/B]

See above..

Anyway, I'm going to exercise the ignore function since no apology is forthcoming and I dont have any interest in further conversation with someone who insults me in such a manner. [/B][/QUOTE]

***********************************************
All I've seen is one person complaining loudly and persistently, and ignore the historical facts presented that nullify his argument. I've been playing PBEM for quite some time and don't even bother putting B-17s on Naval Attack missions because they are so ineffective.
************************************************

The above is a cut and paste from where Snigbert started off
this little flame fest. It can ONLY be characterized as an attack.
It is also untrue. I have made no personal insults. What I have done refute the attack made upon me.
If there had been no attack, there would have been no need.

Snigbert tries to claim that supporting posts from other people
dont count, and thus he was not wrong. I am not willing to parse such games.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 164

Re: No No No - 7/17/2003 8:18:50 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]"The whole point is that LBA are over emphasized. The CV are supposed to be the fearsome weapons of destruction.
NOT 9 lousy B-17 operating from a dirt strip."

__________________

Hi, Here you are so wrong. No one in their right mind would prefer a CV over a land strip. CV are built to provide air where none can be provided via land base. In a duel of CV versus land the land will always win (It can't sink.) But after you build the monster airbase and the war moves on (the airbase provides the means for victory) It will become a rear area and of no use so another new airfield has to be secured. The CV cover the landing on the new base and are replaced in time by new LBA operating from the new field.

The Pacific war was an airwar. Control of the air decides who will win the naval and ground battles.

The CV allows you to project air power where otherwise it would be absent. They are not better. (How can they be? The aircraft are designed to fly off a ship not maximize the ability of aircraft to inflict damage.

PS 9 B-17 operating from a dirt stip in UV would carry extended range loads at normal range. (You need a size 4 af to fly level bombers without penalty)

The only reason LBA played what is viewed as so small a part in battles is both sides stayed out of the other sides range of LBA as much as possible. The USN was able to bring great numbers of aircraft against those Japanese bases targeted for attack (and conversion to US AF) Still Japanese LBA inflicted more damage then IJN CV based aircraft ever did. (And this during a period when the Japanese Airpower had been greatly degraded.) [/B][/QUOTE]

The only reason LBA played what is viewed as so small a part in battles is both sides stayed out of the other sides range of LBA as much as possible.
****************************************************
You dont know that Mogami. Your assuming that.
You cant read minds, and I cant either.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 165

- 7/17/2003 9:59:08 AM

CEDeaton

Posts: 149
Joined: 4/16/2003
From: Plano, TX
Status: offline

In the words of the late Strother Martin...

"What we have here, is failure to communicate. Some men just can't be reached."

I highly recommend to all the 'Ignore' feature. I've found it does as excellent job of removing "whine stains".

I nailed this one on my first post. It doesn't take long to smell a turd. Richard Noggins will continue to fill the toilet until the moderator takes pity and spares us with a 'stinky forum mercy flush'. :rolleyes:

_____________________________

Semper Fi,
Craig

It's always pilot error. Sometimes the idiot just doesn't know how to fly a broken aircraft.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 166

- 7/17/2003 10:02:00 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CraigDeaton
[B]In the words of the late Strother Martin...

"What we have here, is failure to communicate. Some men just can't be reached."

I highly recommend to all the 'Ignore' feature. I've found it does as excellent job of removing "whine stains". [/B][/QUOTE]

Not if you dont actually ignore =)

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 167

Mogami the mind reader - 7/17/2003 11:15:09 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]The only reason LBA played what is viewed as so small a part in battles is both sides stayed out of the other sides range of LBA as much as possible.
****************************************************
You dont know that Mogami. Your assuming that.
You cant read minds, and I cant either. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi, I can too read minds. If the Japanese were not afraid of LBA theu would have parked around Guadalcanal 24/7 (Like the USN did late in the war when they were not afraid of LBA (well the guys who made the plans were not afraid of LBA the Gunnersmates on all the ships being hit were afraid of LBA)

If your not worried about air attack you don't have to stay out of range during the day and run in at night. And then run away again. You just sit there the way the USN did.

Of course the USN early on did not try to do what the IJN tried to do in the Solomons. We were not running up to enemy bases. We were sitting next to our own base. In UV the USN player is often found doing many things the US did not (or did not have to ) do. Like bombardment missions that are not directly in support of landings.

Unless you stick to the historic after Midway scenarios all kinds of whacky things take place. (To avoid most weirdness play the scenario begining in Aug 42. It is the one that covers what actually went on down here)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 168

Re: Mogami the mind reader - 7/17/2003 11:47:54 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, I can too read minds. If the Japanese were not afraid of LBA theu would have parked around Guadalcanal 24/7 (Like the USN did late in the war when they were not afraid of LBA (well the guys who made the plans were not afraid of LBA the Gunnersmates on all the ships being hit were afraid of LBA)

If your not worried about air attack you don't have to stay out of range during the day and run in at night. And then run away again. You just sit there the way the USN did.

Of course the USN early on did not try to do what the IJN tried to do in the Solomons. We were not running up to enemy bases. We were sitting next to our own base. In UV the USN player is often found doing many things the US did not (or did not have to ) do. Like bombardment missions that are not directly in support of landings.

Unless you stick to the historic after Midway scenarios all kinds of whacky things take place. (To avoid most weirdness play the scenario begining in Aug 42. It is the one that covers what actually went on down here) [/B][/QUOTE]

I guess we differ about what LBA are. The danger with intials.
To me LBA dont mean tactical aircraft they mean Heavy Bombers.

Yes I am certain the IJN did fear the SBDs and TBF at CACTUS
They should have.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 169

LBA - 7/17/2003 1:47:59 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, There are a lot of SBD and Torpedo groups not on CV in UV.
The Japanese have to stay outside SBD range pretty early in the game. In svcenario 19 I often send the 2 USN CV back to PH on turn 2 (for AA upgrade) but I keep the airgroups at Noumea. (Japanese like to sail right up to Noumea early in scen 19)
But just for my own interest. How do you think the B-25 and other medium bombers do in UV? You can't allow them to be based in range of your shipping. And even the CV have to respect them and keep out of range. (They don't score as many hits but you never know when they will )

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 170

- 7/17/2003 2:24:02 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]

I dont wish to see a game dominated by B-17 that never get shot down and can hit ships at sea.

It is obvious (to me) that a ship moving at 33 knots is harder
to hit than one moving at 5 knots. But is there anything
in the game engine that suggests that reality is part of the game?
Who knows? It isnt documented.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Well this is documented and I can say, without any false modesty, that I
had asked for this with my "Remaining UV bugs/issues" thread:

"Current significant bugs in UV v2.20 (that I know of)..."

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30854

[QUOTE][I]
Matrix Games Uncommon Valor Updates Copyright 2003 All Rights Reserved
Uncommon Valor v2.30 Changes - Released 3/7/2003

11)
We have lowered level bomber accuracy against TFs, especially for pilots with
less than 70 experience against ships travelling at high speed. The impact of
pilot quality and ship speed on level bomber accuracy against TFs has been
enhanced. Even strong level bomber pilots against very slow targets will have
less chance to hit than before. This level bomber adjustment does not impact
level bombers using torpedoes.
[/I][/QUOTE]

This essentially means that moving ships at open sea are almost 99% safe from
LBA (Land Based Aircraft) of level bomber type.

The only vulnerability is when enemy TF is loading/unloading and is thus not
mobile. This is the only place where LBA level bombers can score hits.

Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 171

- 7/17/2003 2:42:04 PM

madflava13

Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

We're almost at 3000 views and several hundred posts... Are we really going anywhere with this? I'm just curious. I read the interview with GG and Joel Billings -- kinda made me wonder where we're headed from here on out. This post really exemplifies the idea that we can agree and still find something to fight over.

I mean, the most complicated and most difficult-to-design game ever is close to release, and all we can come up with to talk about is the goddamn B-17? I mean what about IJN torps... Or IJN night tactics... Or what about the USN's tendency to disallow DE's to guard the frontline units?... I love the idea of the IJN sanctioning their subs to fight their own war, but what if they let them loose? And come on, you're telling me that the US's cockiness over Plan Orange didn't mean we got over-confidant?

I may have had a few too many beers - I hope you boys count on it -- but lets get serious here. No more personal gripes. No more BS complaints. Let's really focus on what happened, what could have happened and what we'd like to see happen.

That's where I think we count.

My cents....

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 172

Re: Mogami the mind reader - 7/17/2003 6:22:56 PM

Ron Saueracker

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]
Of course the USN early on did not try to do what the IJN tried to do in the Solomons. We were not running up to enemy bases. We were sitting next to our own base. In UV the USN player is often found doing many things the US did not (or did not have to ) do. Like bombardment missions that are not directly in support of landings.
[/B][/QUOTE]

The USN did indeed bombard outside of invasion support fire. Munda and Vila were constantly bombarded at night . The fact that they were invaded months later has no bearing on the initial bombardments.

USN bombarded the crap out of everything. Aleutuians were oftern being bombarded, many of the early carrier raids were in conjunction with bombardments, Wake Island basically turned into a rear area "seasoning" exercise for Navy flyers and surface ship sailors.

Let's be careful to not give Chiteng any ammo, he can shoot his mouth off well enough without any!:D (Sorry, Chiteng, but you've asked for that.)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 173

- 7/18/2003 12:54:21 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

[B]Of course the USN early on did not try to do what the IJN tried to do in the Solomons. We were not running up to enemy bases. We were sitting next to our own base. In UV the USN player is often found doing many things the US did not (or did not have to ) do. Like bombardment missions that are not directly in support of landings.[/B]

Of course you will always have things occur in a game like this that didn't happen historically, and historical things wont appear in the game. The main difference is, we are sitting safely behind a computer playing a game... and during the war the decisions were life or death. We have the luxury to experiment and see how different things would work out. During the war, trying new strategies and new ideas could cost lives.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 174

- 7/18/2003 1:35:22 AM

Mr.Frag

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

[QUOTE]This essentially means that moving ships at open sea are almost 99% safe from ...[/QUOTE]

That would be the case if the altitude control was removed completely from use.

While 2.30 really did an amazing job of fixing this glaring flaw, it only really fixed it at 6000 feet plus. The defect is still there at lower altitudes.

Personally, I would like to see the Alt control removed as all it does is cause problems. Planes should automatically be tasked with proper altitudes based on mission types with a variance range tossed in to make CAP not always a sure thing.

Skip bombing while being very effective was not an everyday thing, and it certainly didn't happen with armadas of 200+ LBA at a time. UV allows this silliness still. It's a minor gripe of mine (I play with house rules to sort it out), but I'd like to see it removed. Either that, or allow ME to control the formations of my Task Forces into a pure line ahead formation to absolutely minimize the target aspect, with ships automatically doing a flank speed turn as soon as the bombs are dropped directly at the dropping aircraft. This as always is one of those scale problems, not really an issue at the single squadron level, but embarrassing at a 200+ aircraft level.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 175

- 7/18/2003 5:05:56 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

[B](I play with house rules to sort it out)[/B]

This is the solution to elements of the game that you feel are gamey or unhistorical, but there is no reason why it couldn't be done...

For example, my heavy bomber missions are always flown at high altitude because that is how it was done most of the time. It isn't impossible for them to fly low level missions, it just isn't realistic so I dont do it.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 176

- 7/18/2003 5:49:52 AM

Mr.Frag

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

Exactly Snig, but Chitty will not let go on the fact that it CAN be done ... We of the slightly less die-hard variety are happy to just toss in a PBEM rule of saying yep, you can do it once every 20 days or no alt control etc ...

I know where he is coming from, but his tactics to get his point across tend to pick fights instead of get people on his side of the issue. We all know what is gamy and what is not, no point beating it into the ground ... There is also no point in taking the oposite extreme and make it sound like it is not a problem at all which some folks want to do. I bet if he didn't try to swing people to the 100% extreme, he would have probably gotten everyone to agree with him that it is a tad silly and needs some form of a fix after WitP ships ...

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 177

- 7/18/2003 7:01:47 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

[B]I know where he is coming from, but his tactics to get his point across tend to pick fights instead of get people on his side of the issue. We all know what is gamy and what is not, no point beating it into the ground ... There is also no point in taking the oposite extreme and make it sound like it is not a problem at all which some folks want to do. I bet if he didn't try to swing people to the 100% extreme, he would have probably gotten everyone to agree with him that it is a tad silly and needs some form of a fix after WitP ships ...[/B]

His lack of tact has so far managed to create the opposite effect of what he desired, for what it's worth. Rather than getting the testers to give consideration to his argument by presenting them with some semblance of decorum he has stripped himself of any potential influence he might have had by selecting the tactic he did. I dont think I'll be seeing a thread on the development forum anytime soon addressing his 'improvement' suggestions.

[B]Exactly Snig, but Chitty will not let go on the fact that it CAN be done ... We of the slightly less die-hard variety are happy to just toss in a PBEM rule of saying yep, you can do it once every 20 days or no alt control etc ...[/B]

We just have to accept that the game isn't going to be everything to everybody. They are trying **** hard to make the best possible game they can. We have to meet them part way and make an effort to enjoy the game for what it is. The developers have bent over backwards to listen to the community here on what should go into the game. They aren't going to be able to squeeze it all in and get the game published before 2010. So we have an editor, we can make house rules, etc...the tools are there to make it the game you want to play.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 178

Japanese Flak is wimpy? - 7/18/2003 7:49:45 AM

CEDeaton

Posts: 149
Joined: 4/16/2003
From: Plano, TX
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]Exactly Snig, but Chitty will not let go on the fact that it CAN be done ... We of the slightly less die-hard variety are happy to just toss in a PBEM rule of saying yep, you can do it once every 20 days or no alt control etc ...

I know where he is coming from, but his tactics to get his point across tend to pick fights instead of get people on his side of the issue. We all know what is gamy and what is not, no point beating it into the ground ... There is also no point in taking the oposite extreme and make it sound like it is not a problem at all which some folks want to do. I bet if he didn't try to swing people to the 100% extreme, he would have probably gotten everyone to agree with him that it is a tad silly and needs some form of a fix after WitP ships ... [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree completely with the efficacy of "House Rules", but I still think just a bit too much is being made of this B-17 invulnerability issue.

We've all seen the pictures of the Forts that still came home with no tail to speak of, wings shot to hell, etc. There's no question it was a tough bird and only a fool would argue otherwise. Maybe it really was too tough for the [U]comparatively[/U] lightly-armed Zekes (comparing to what the Germans were packing on many of their bomber-killing fighters - more and heavier cannons and machine guns, rockets), thus the Japanese lack of success in downing "The Fort". The German pilots, as a group, also got nearly daily practice at shooting at Forts, and like the saying goes, practice make perfect. Based on this, I tend to think that we might not be too far off the mark on Fort vulnerability to fighters.

On the lower-level bombing issue, I'm more inclined to be forgiving here as well. In Europe, bombers went in as low as they safely could given the flak expected over the flight path in order to get better bombing results. Sometimes it was still done without regard to the flak because the target value justified it and nobody wanted to have to hit the same target again anytime soon. Japanese flak wasn't in the same ballpark as the German flak. Compared to the 88mm and 128mm Flak guns, and the Command and Control that the German Flak divisions enjoyed, I've seen nothing that would suggest that the Japanese were even playing the same game. So, if a Pacific B-17 commander wants to go in low because Japanese flak is rather ineffective, that would have been a valid command decision, IMO.

This, however, raises an entirely different question. Is Japanese flak TOO ineffective in game terms at lower altitudes? Perhaps it is. I really don't feel qualified to judge that and don't know how anyone really could without a heck of a lot of research that is probably almost impossible to do 58 years after the war ended in the Pacific. I'm sure [I]someone[/I] :rolleyes: out there will have all the answers though!

I'm really not trying to "stir the pot" here. Since the issue won't die, and multiple people seem to have come up with their own house rules, it's clear (to me anyway) that there may be some degree of validity that something is in fact a bit "broken". I'm just not convinced it's the Fort's vulnerability, so I'm trying to think rationally of what else it might be.

_____________________________

Semper Fi,
Craig

It's always pilot error. Sometimes the idiot just doesn't know how to fly a broken aircraft.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 179

WITP - 7/18/2003 8:02:52 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, In a test of WITP I had a zero shoot down 2 B-17 in one mission.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 180

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Re: Just the facts baby...

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 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

0.781

Slitherine

Re: Just the facts baby...