RE: Question about 4E Bombing

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: Question about 4E Bombing

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Question about 4E Bombing

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/13/2018 2:02:50 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

Why is it when something on the AFB side works it's fantasy, but those that work in JFB favor is acceptable? Why do we even have these discussions after all of these years?

Some of the things a-historical...

1) Japanese torpedo bomber accuracy.
2) Allied attack bomber inefficiency.
3) E boat ASW.
4) Allied production.
5) Japanese CAP efficiency.
6) Allied bomber coordination failure.

The list goes on & on. Nobody likes it when 'their side' gets impacted. It's a game, play it. There are tactics to overcome most of this. The challenge is to work with what you have to accomplish your goals. One or 2 home rules, sure. Any more and you may as well put in cheat codes

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 31

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/13/2018 2:35:58 PM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: kfmiller41

Am playing Japan in a PBEM and my opponent just bombed my base at truk using about 50 heavy bombers. Date was 29 Dec 42. 5 raids came in at between 14000 to 18000 feet and total planes for all raids were 89. He lost no planes to my 30 zeros. He scored 18 hits, put 8 carriers and 1 battleship out of commission for at least 3-6 months with major damage. While I congratulate him on doing that I also feel like this accuracy is so out of whack I can understand why so many Japanese players call it quits. I mean I want to be competitive but I have nothing to shoot down hordes of 4 engine bombers, even my 2 engine fighters cannot stop them.
Am I just a bad player or is this something that should be house ruled to limit the uncanny accuracy these things have? It is only December 42 and he is already clobbering my bases with these beasts.

If you're looking for some help on settings drop in some screen shots of your fighter CAP settings, the combat report of the strikes, and some info on your pilot experience and skills. Too little here to go on.

That said, it's not out of the ordinary for massed 4Es to do a lot of damage on port strikes, as everyone has basically confirmed.

This uncanny accuracy during daylight is something that might be explained away, but when you see them coming in at night in 0% moonlight and getting multiple hits on pinpoint targets, while shooting down droves of night-fighters to boot without suffering much themselves, then you start wondering...

Thank You LST. I have stayed out of this thread due to my strong feeling on this subject. You, politely, hit the nail on the head.

Add to that the ability of 40-50 4EB to inflict 1,000+ Casualties on troops in Lvl-6 Forts and we're moving farther into the fantasy realms...

If it happens in PBEM, then you and your partner could rengetiate the house-rules and ban 2E/4Es from flying Ground attack missions in combat hexes.

I missed that John was mentioning ground troop here. Yes, and that is an HR I set up as Allies vs Greyjoy. It's fine in x2-3 defensive hexes, but in the clear it's pretty tough. I wouldn't insist on this as Japan though. I now prefer fewer HRs than I used to as flak has improved so much.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 32

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/13/2018 3:13:14 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Add to that the ability of 40-50 4EB to inflict 1,000+ Casualties on troops in Lvl-6 Forts and we're moving farther into the fantasy realms...

If it happens in PBEM, then you and your partner could rengetiate the house-rules and ban 2E/4Es from flying Ground attack missions in combat hexes.

I've conducted many (many, many, many, many) ground attacks with 4EBs on Japanese troops.

It takes more then 40-50 to inflict 1000+ casualties. The only way you approach the 1000+ casualty level is:

-open terrain
-no CAP
-low altitude (so susceptible to flak, but minimal flak might be present anyway)
-no forts (i.e., they're moving through open terrain)

Given that devices aren't typically destroyed until most are already disabled, this isn't terribly unrealistic. If you've got troops in a big ol' open hex (especially if they're moving through), of course they're going to be heavily disrupted by bombing raids.

I mostly think the great bugaboo of 4EB pilots with ace status from killing droves of night fighters is a bogeyman. I've seen (and participated in) some cases that might raise some eyebrows, but no more than perfectly coordinated CV strikes (for the most part) or no stacking limits (which I don't want to play with for playability reasons rather than realism or balance) or terrible sub attack routines or... I don't know, pick something that's just slightly off. The game's not perfect. Not to mention something that doesn't have anything to do with the game engine at all, which is the lack (in most games) of the historical Midway battle and its strategic consequences.

This 4E's are OP is a gripe about what is, at worst, a minor issue - and no more of an issue than any other minor issue. If you're getting pounded by 4Es, ask yourself if it's really ridiculous or if maybe you're doing something wrong. I don't lose droves of night fighters against 4Es bombing at night. I don't lose droves of non-night fighters against 4Es bombing at night. I don't experience insane bombing damage from dozens of 4Es bombing at night. It takes some experience and knowing how the game works, but I'll drop a little hint - it appears that the mere presence of CAP impedes the efforts of the bombers, so set your night CAP to be higher than the bombers such that engagement is minimal but still distracting to their aim, or lower than the bombers for more "normal" engagements.

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 33

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/13/2018 3:24:46 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

I see it all the time Lokasenna. Will guess that I've seen 1,000+ Cas inflicted at least 50-60 times in my current match. Am pretty certain that is not an exaggeration.

Will post some from my current game as they occur.

Lecivius's Post above is why I stayed out of this discussion to start with.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 34

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/13/2018 3:31:59 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

John's wrong, but he's wrong in good faith. He's taking a pounding from 4EB in the game. He's not quite sure how to stop it or if he can stop it. He's frustrated. He's making a point but he's unconsciously exaggerating to do so.

He's never suffered 1000 casualties under six forts nor in good defensive terrain. He has taken that many a number of time (probably dozens of times but probably not 50 to 60) in open terrain with few forts and no fighters and often with no flak.

Right now he has more than 1,500 fighters in Japan but leaves armies in open terrain with little or no forts without fighter protection. He instead devotes the fighters to Home Island industry protection, which is a concious choice that has merit but repurcussions. The repurcussion is that I don't want to tackle Tokyo, with 630 fighters, so I instead use my Liberators to target his army that is left unprotected.

If there was a house rule prohibiting Liberators from targeting troops, he could then, with impunity, shift his entire fighter defense to the Home Islands, secure in the knowledge that his troops are safe from attack.

As Loka and Obvert note, other IJ players are not experiencing this kind of thing. Why is that?

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 35

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/13/2018 3:47:21 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Lecivius's Post above is why I stayed out of this discussion to start with.

I hope I didn't come across as disrespectful. That was not my intention, and if I offended I apologize. I truly think you tried hard in your mod to keep a balance, and said as much in your mod thread

It's just this is a game, not historical. Each side gets something. Each side has aggravating problems to overcome. I would like to see posts on "How I overcame <this>", than repeated threads on why <that> is so frustrating

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 36

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/13/2018 4:09:06 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

You did not. I just hate getting into this discussion.

If I did Dan, I apologize. It has happened.

Tell you what. Why don't you hit one of those bases and we'll conduct an experiment. Port Arthur could be good. You could also hit Fusan. I won't change any defensive set-ups at either of those locations. We're at the end of things, perhaps we could make this useful for people discussing this.

What do you think?

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 37

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/13/2018 4:18:00 PM

RichardAckermann

Posts: 271
Joined: 12/4/2015
Status: offline

Well, an insight how many casualties would be realistic on groundattacks under various conditions would actually help me.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 38

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/13/2018 6:12:12 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

John, here's a good example from our last turn. The results should be even more dramatic in making your point, because your base only had one fort instead of the hypothetical "six" you referred to above. So the damage should have been even greater than you predicted. This raid was against Taikyu, Korea, a Japanese base with (as said) one fort, clear terrain, and a sizeable garrison including four infantry divisions. You had no fighters on CAP and some flak, though I think your AA units were disrupted or disabled or heavily fatigued. The results:

Morning Air attack on 32nd Division, at 103,53 (Taikyu)

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 38 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Allied aircraft
Thunderbolt II x 16
B-24J Liberator x 3
F4U-1D Corsair x 15
B-24J Liberator x 42
B-25D1 Mitchell x 3
B-25H Mitchell x 7
B-25J1 Mitchell x 3
P-51D Mustang x 36
F4U-1A Corsair x 14

Allied aircraft losses
B-24J Liberator: 2 damaged
B-24J Liberator: 11 damaged
B-25D1 Mitchell: 1 damaged
B-25H Mitchell: 4 damaged
B-25J1 Mitchell: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
500 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 20 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 45 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Guns lost 11 (1 destroyed, 10 disabled)

Note that none of the combat squads was destroyed; they were disabled, which you'd expect in open terrain with few fortifications and no fighters and meager AA.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 2/13/2018 6:14:30 PM >

(in reply to RichardAckermann)

Post #: 39

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/13/2018 6:17:02 PM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

Bombing altitude?

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 40

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/13/2018 6:31:20 PM

btd64

Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline

Heavy rain at the target....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 41

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/13/2018 6:35:12 PM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

50 4Es, clear hex, clear weather, 0 forts, 2000 feet..

(in reply to btd64)

Post #: 42

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/13/2018 6:43:43 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

All bombers (2E and 4E) were at either 8k or 10k. (Where does Yaab get 2k?)

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 43

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/13/2018 6:46:00 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

50 4Es, clear hex, clear weather, 0 forts, 2000 feet..

50 4Es, clear hex, clear weather, 0 forts, 2000 feet, no flak, no fighters, 1,500 enemy fighters nearby but allocated to other uses...and the Allied player is doing something wrong?

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 44

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/13/2018 7:04:26 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I see it all the time Lokasenna. Will guess that I've seen 1,000+ Cas inflicted at least 50-60 times in my current match. Am pretty certain that is not an exaggeration.

Will post some from my current game as they occur.

Lecivius's Post above is why I stayed out of this discussion to start with.

I've inflicted thousands (upon thousands) of casualties via 4E's. It takes hundreds of bombers to do this, however, and can really only occur in open terrain without forts. In any kind of multiplying terrain the casualties are much reduced. I've got the specific days noted and all the combat replays saved. I can add them all up for you guys later if you like, but I typically used (within range, including sometimes transferring units) every single B-29 unit and every single B-24 unit and every single B-25 unit and every single British unit and every single... well, you get the idea.

Not to mention, if there is any kind of bomber-killing CAP available to defend the troops then the range of these strikes is limited to what can be protected by Allied fighters (which are not both long-legged enough and good enough planes to do the job until 1945) or else risk losing bombers (which ignore air superiority calculations) for minimal gain.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 45

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/13/2018 7:06:56 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

All bombers (2E and 4E) were at either 8k or 10k. (Where does Yaab get 2k?)

He is saying that he wants results with those settings.

I've got some, but they're at home.

(I almost always bomb at 2K unless flak is scary)

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 46

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/13/2018 7:17:11 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

John is irritated by the use of 4EB at less than 10k altitude against ground troops. I rarely do so (and never under 8k), simply to accommodate his strongly expressed feelings on the matter. But then other IJ players assert that using them only at 10k is unfair, because that limits the effect of flak.

There's no pleasing folks, sometimes. Everything's an abuse; either way it's an abuse; and don't call to mind the equal and opposite abuses on their side.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 47

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/13/2018 7:17:55 PM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

Yep, 2000 feet still uses the Gnd skill. At 1000 feet the skill used is LowGnd skill. So bombing from 2000 feet yields biggest rewards especially if you bomb with 500lb bombs wich have high Accuracy rating in database/Tracker. You cannot get more dangerous than at 2000 feet with 500lb GP bomb from modified B-29. It is an overkill.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 48

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/13/2018 7:24:22 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

Then I ought to clarify: I don't use 4EB against ground troops at less than 8k and don't use B-29s against ground troops. There's no host of B-29s at 2k hitting John's troops (although I haven't seen anything yet that persuades me that doing so would be abusive).

If John moves some/most of his 1,500 fighters to Korea to protect his army there, I'd almost surely switch targets to Home Island industry. Using 4Eb against industrial targets doesn't raise eyebrows...but for some reason John prefers to protect industry instead of troops. Why? (I know the answer.)

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 2/13/2018 7:25:13 PM >

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 49

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/13/2018 7:43:23 PM

btd64

Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline

If a 4E has the capability to do a job, why not use it to it's full advantage. I do like and respect John, in fact ny59giants is currently kicking my ass in BTSL. But disliking getting LCU's bombed at 2k is wrong. It happens. The Japanese get some good higher altitute AAA. I know this because at 15k bombing mike's troops in north china I have about 10 to 12 4E on adverage getting hit and damaged. At 10k he was knocking down 1 or 2 per run, if I remember correctly. Basically I will bomb a target at any altitude if the conditions are right. Thoughts????....GP

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 50

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/13/2018 8:24:25 PM

modrow

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

John, here's a good example from our last turn. The results should be even more dramatic in making your point, because your base only had one fort instead of the hypothetical "six" you referred to above. So the damage should have been even greater than you predicted. This raid was against Taikyu, Korea, a Japanese base with (as said) one fort, clear terrain, and a sizeable garrison including four infantry divisions. You had no fighters on CAP and some flak, though I think your AA units were disrupted or disabled or heavily fatigued. The results:

Morning Air attack on 32nd Division, at 103,53 (Taikyu)

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 38 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Allied aircraft
Thunderbolt II x 16
B-24J Liberator x 3
F4U-1D Corsair x 15
B-24J Liberator x 42
B-25D1 Mitchell x 3
B-25H Mitchell x 7
B-25J1 Mitchell x 3
P-51D Mustang x 36
F4U-1A Corsair x 14

Allied aircraft losses
B-24J Liberator: 2 damaged
B-24J Liberator: 11 damaged
B-25D1 Mitchell: 1 damaged
B-25H Mitchell: 4 damaged
B-25J1 Mitchell: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
500 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 20 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 45 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Guns lost 11 (1 destroyed, 10 disabled)

Note that none of the combat squads was destroyed; they were disabled, which you'd expect in open terrain with few fortifications and no fighters and meager AA.

Let's put this into context:

October '42 in China, IJ air raid attack against Sian (fort level 4)

Morning Air attack on 91st Chinese/A Corps, at 83,41 (Sian)

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 79
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 5 damaged

Allied ground losses:
445 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 27 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 24 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 7000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
10 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 7000 feet *
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
2 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 7000 feet *
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
23 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 7000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
26 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 7000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
3 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 7000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
3 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 7000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
3 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 7000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

Not that different in terms of damage done per bomb IMO. It's ground bombing in open hex that can cause such damage on both sides.

Just my 2cts.

Hartwig

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 51

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/14/2018 1:41:26 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Dan and I are discussing an idea that might help with this conundrum that so sets AFB and JFB apart...

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to modrow)

Post #: 52

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/14/2018 3:01:52 AM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

I don't think it's a conundrum, obviously.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 53

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/14/2018 3:04:07 AM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

That's what I told John. No conundrum. I'm wiling to run tests when our game is done, if he still wants to then, but I'm persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that the results will conform to what you said previously.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 54

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/14/2018 8:17:59 AM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

I am posting here something that I posted on one of the AARs for the benefit of others:

quote:

4E use against ground units - actually this was used more than just once or twice, with mixed results. What is more important this should be probably the ideal situation where PPs should really be meant for!
Diverting single 4E (B-29 double so) from its main role of Strategic bombing/Winning air superiority for ground support IRL always drew enormous opposition from the Air Leaders. Being it RAF night bomber force used in daylight around Caen, or prior Normandy, and Veritable, etc. USAAF 8th in the same situations + Cobra, etc. Also using Bomber Command and 8th USAAF on "Operation Crossbow" targets was very hard to force and cost lot of political effort and maneuvering.

Also using B-29s for other than "factory bombing" created outcry - one of the said mission in support of ground forces was bombing of dockside/port of Wenchow/Hankow? in 44 called upon by Japanese ground offensive. Other missions forced upon XX Bomber command were airfield attacks on Formosa prior and during Philippine/Okinawa operations.

So diverting 4E to ground targets present perfect example of where PPs should be spent to "force your way".

Another prime example should be diverting 6th ,7th ,9th Australian Divisions anywhere else than direct Australia and islands to the north while Japanese are in the vicinity - diverting them to Burma should also demand very high PPs. Actually the 9th was delayed in North Africa for US division dispatched instead to Australia. 2 Brigades of the 6th were temporarily diverted to Ceylon until reinforcements could be rushed in at great political cost. Yet players are free to just drop them wherever pleased.

Also a heavy casualties (a Division of troops sunk on ships, eradication of Division+ of troops in a pocket) should actually cost PPs (and not allow for easy buyout of the destroyed unit). This should represent a blow to the ability of political will for prosecution of war.

< Message edited by Barb -- 2/14/2018 8:22:36 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 55

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/14/2018 8:46:36 AM

Aurorus

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline

"Bomber Harris" and the other advocates for large 4-engine bombers were adamant that these bombers were for "strategic bombing" only and objected strenuously to any other use of the 4-Es. They were soldiers, however, and in the military chain of command. As such, they did as they were told.

The allies were reluctant to use the 4-Es in ground support roles (in part, because of the objections of Harris and others). They were especially reluctant to use them in France to avoid friendly "civilian casualties:" though they had no objections to the wanton slaughter of hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese women and children in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and so forth.

That the allies were reluctant, for various reasons, to use 4-Es in direct support of ground operations should not preclude allied players in this game from using them in this capacity in my opinion, just as Japanese players should not be forced to use 1st Air Fleet to assault a useless atoll in early June 1942. The question then is this: is saturation bombing of ground troops too effective in this game?

There were instances of saturation bombing of ground troops in World War II. The most famous was during operation Cobra, but 4-Es were used elsewhere in this role as well, especially Burma. In my opinion, the casualty figures for bombing of ground troops produced by the game engine are remarkably accurate. I posted, in a previous thread, links to operations reports, with cascualty estimates, for raids from the 10th air force in Burma, that correlate to the results that the game engine produces.

The military history of the 20th century has demonstrated that saturation bombing against unfortified troops in open ground is very effective. This was demonstrated, beyond reasonable doubt, by the U.S. B-52 camapaign against the Iraq army in 1991. The saturation bombing in that campaign shattered 5 or 6 divisions of the Iraqi Republican guard. Compare the results in Iraq with those that the U.S. achieved in Vietnam. Saturation bombing of ground troops under jungle canopy has never been effective. The game engine represents this difference very well.

As to night bombing by 4-Es. There is no question that it is too effective in the game. However, even a token CAP and 1 AA unit at the location will reduce the effects of night-bombing significantly and bring the results in-line with what was possible to achieve historically.

< Message edited by Aurorus -- 2/14/2018 8:54:57 AM >

(in reply to Barb)

Post #: 56

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/14/2018 9:23:28 PM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Why is it when something on the AFB side works it's fantasy, but those that work in JFB favor is acceptable? Why do we even have these discussions after all of these years?

Some of the things a-historical...

1) Japanese torpedo bomber accuracy.
2) Allied attack bomber inefficiency.
3) E boat ASW.
4) Allied production.
5) Japanese CAP efficiency.
6) Allied bomber coordination failure.

The list goes on & on. Nobody likes it when 'their side' gets impacted. It's a game, play it. There are tactics to overcome most of this. The challenge is to work with what you have to accomplish your goals. One or 2 home rules, sure. Any more and you may as well put in cheat codes

Well, playing devil's advocate here - why is it that it is ok to complain about overpowered stuff the Japanese side has, but apparently it is not ok to complain about overpowered stuff the Allied side has? And your list of the things a-historical seems to be pretty selective, no? Allied advantages somehow went missing? Like Allies churning out supplies and fuel at late-war levels from Day 1 onwards? Or USN damage control/ fire-fighting advantage from day 1 when much of this superior performance came later in the after having learned some things the hard way early in the war? Or unlimited USN submarine torpedoes when in fact there was a shortage well into 1943 to the point that subs went on patrol with less than a full load? Yes, the list goes on and on. And why do we still have these discussions after all of these years? Well, probably due to one-sided and biased argumentations from one side's fanboys which trigger angry replies from the opposite side's fanboys. Just saying...

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 57

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/14/2018 9:31:29 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Why is it when something on the AFB side works it's fantasy, but those that work in JFB favor is acceptable? Why do we even have these discussions after all of these years?

Some of the things a-historical...

1) Japanese torpedo bomber accuracy.
2) Allied attack bomber inefficiency.
3) E boat ASW.
4) Allied production.
5) Japanese CAP efficiency.
6) Allied bomber coordination failure.

The list goes on & on. Nobody likes it when 'their side' gets impacted. It's a game, play it. There are tactics to overcome most of this. The challenge is to work with what you have to accomplish your goals. One or 2 home rules, sure. Any more and you may as well put in cheat codes

Well, playing devil's advocate here - why is it that it is ok to complain about overpowered stuff the Japanese side has, but apparently it is not ok to complain about overpowered stuff the Allied side has? And your list of the things a-historical seems to be pretty selective, no? Allied advantages somehow went missing? Like Allies churning out supplies and fuel at late-war levels from Day 1 onwards? Or USN damage control/ fire-fighting advantage from day 1 when much of this superior performance came later in the after having learned some things the hard way early in the war? Or unlimited USN submarine torpedoes when in fact there was a shortage well into 1943 to the point that subs went on patrol with less than a full load? Yes, the list goes on and on. And why do we still have these discussions after all of these years? Well, probably due to one-sided and biased argumentations from one side's fanboys which trigger angry replies from the opposite side's fanboys. Just saying...

LST you went off the deep end on this reply. You know perfectly well he had no intention of presenting a list of redresses for both sides, so taking him to task for not doing so is way off base.

It SHOULD be OK for both sides to complain about the overpowered, ahistorical advantages the other side gets, but on this forum it seems only the JFBs are allowed to complain.

Frankly, we AFBs are SOOOOOO tired off the JFBs beating the dead horse of 4Es we feel compelled to present this list every time the 4E whine rears its ugly head.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 58

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/14/2018 9:46:03 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

There's no question that the game had to be modified in favor of Japan to make it enticing for players to play the Japanese side. There are wonks and oddities hampering and helping both sides, but the overall skew is decidedly in favor of Japan as compared to real war.

That's a necessary development and probably a decent number of mods and House Rules balance out in favor of Japan. That's our way of handling the disparity in favor of the Allies in the real war. It benefits all of us (except those who truly wish to replicate the war).

For simulators, there's no question that a better way to model the war was to tinker with Victory Points so that both sides are "encouraged" to model real war activity. THus a Japanese carrier would be worth far less than an Allied carrier; the Allies would be punished for getting cavalier with merchant ship or troops losses; Japanese aircraft production would be ratcheted down to reality; and Allied subs would actually be able to choke Japan to death.

But tinkering with the VP system would take a tremendous amount of thought. Every single proposal would generate opposition. It would mire down and probably isn't possible.

So we instead tinker with OOBs and other things to give the Japan player a sporting chance to have fun. There's no doubt the Allied player, despite the skewing of the game, can still have fun.

So we have what we have. It's darned good. It's awesomely fun.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 59

RE: Question about 4E Bombing - 2/14/2018 10:02:15 PM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
...but on this forum it seems only the JFBs are allowed to complain.

Funny, my impression is exactly the opposite. And as soon as an JFB dares to say something about Allied advantages, he's being shouted down by AFBs...

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 60