Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

What Was The Idea ...

 
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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> What Was The Idea ... Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 6:39:10 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
What was the idea of "drastically reducing" the effectiveness of 4 engine bombers?

I had bases such as Rabaul basically suppressed after a long daily day/night bombing campaign lasting damn near a year by B-17s and B-24 and would regularly hit the target but now, after patching to 1.4 I get no hits at all anymore.

I've noticed two and one engine planes getting better results which is bogus.

This is enough for me to delete WiTP, reinstall it and patch it just up to 1.21 and figure that 1.21 is the best I'll ever get with this game. At least then you could count on 4 engine bombers doing damage instead of only 1 and 2 engine bombers.

Historically, a bombing campaign with 4 engine bombers suppressed and neutralized Rabaul which -- before 1.4 -- is about where I had achieved but 1.4 has made that impossible and worse, because I couldn't keep up the level of suppression the bases were building up and all my efforts wiped out.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)
Post #: 1
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 6:42:49 PM   
Rocco

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: IL, USA
Status: offline
Is it just at night that you aren't getting hits anymore? I didn't think they touched daylight bombing.

Rocco

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 2
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 6:49:38 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
It's day AND night. I get better results with frigging DIVE-BOMBERS than I do with B-17s and B-24s which is bogus.

I've played about a game-week with 1.4 and I have not got any - or very few - hits using my 4 engine bombers.

Fortunately, before I upgraded to 1.3 and then to 1.4, I copied my last turn 1.21 game files so I'm just going to have to go back and uninstall WiTP and reinstall and just patch it to 1.21

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Rocco)
Post #: 3
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 6:52:16 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
Personal opinion. The Japanese don't have any 4-engine bombers, so the "fanboys"
screamed for relief and got it. Maybe they'll repair some of the damage in the next
patch, but don't expect to ever see the Allied heavies restored to their previous levels.

_____________________________


(in reply to Rocco)
Post #: 4
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 6:59:12 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Personal opinion. The Japanese don't have any 4-engine bombers, so the "fanboys"
screamed for relief and got it. Maybe they'll repair some of the damage in the next
patch, but don't expect to ever see the Allied heavies restored to their previous levels.


Yes ... the "Japanes" players want "realism" as long as it benefits them.

Historically the American heavy bombers suppressed Rabaul to the point where it wasn't necessary to capture it. That is what I planned to do but now thanks to this "patch" you can no longer suppress a base.

Hate to say it Matrix, but you just lost a customer because I'm going back to 1.21 and just putting up with the way it worked there.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 5
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 7:06:29 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Personal opinion. The Japanese don't have any 4-engine bombers, so the "fanboys"
screamed for relief and got it. Maybe they'll repair some of the damage in the next
patch, but don't expect to ever see the Allied heavies restored to their previous levels.


Mike: at least according to the notes, all aerial attacks were reduced in effectiveness against ports, cities and airfields, not just 4-engine bombers.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 6
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 7:14:27 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
Then how do you explain that I would get maybe 5 runway, port and supply hits using Marine fighters (Wildcats, etc) and dive bombers yet will get absolutely NO hits using B-17s or B-24s?

I liked some of the new changes in 1.4 but this bombing effeciency reduction is, in my opinion unrealistic and stupid, and for me a game killer to the point I'm going back to 1.21 and just never upgrading anymore.

If you send 50+ heavy bombers over a base you're going to do damage - not MISS the target completely all the time. If you do it day and night for a period of over a game year, you're going to get the base to the point where it will be suppressed and neutralized. In just about a game-week everything I've been doing has been totally negated to where it's not worth keeping it up and sticking with 1.4

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 7
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 7:27:26 PM   
Rob322

 

Posts: 578
Joined: 8/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

Then how do you explain that I would get maybe 5 runway, port and supply hits using Marine fighters (Wildcats, etc) and dive bombers yet will get absolutely NO hits using B-17s or B-24s?

I liked some of the new changes in 1.4 but this bombing effeciency reduction is, in my opinion unrealistic and stupid, and for me a game killer to the point I'm going back to 1.21 and just never upgrading anymore.

If you send 50+ heavy bombers over a base you're going to do damage - not MISS the target completely all the time. If you do it day and night for a period of over a game year, you're going to get the base to the point where it will be suppressed and neutralized. In just about a game-week everything I've been doing has been totally negated to where it's not worth keeping it up and sticking with 1.4


Very strange, my four engine bombers for the Allies have not been reduced to such a level I stills core what seems to be a decent amount of hits and am using 1.4. Weird.

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 8
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 7:52:13 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
Dereck, perhaps you would like to produce some historical documentation that shows that heavy bombers acted like you think they did instead of getting emotional about it. Results were grossly in the overkill catagory. They have been reduced to give tactical aircraft a roll in the game which they most certainly had in history.

(in reply to Rob322)
Post #: 9
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 8:08:48 PM   
Wilhammer

 

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline
4 engine heavies were relegated to mostly high altitude bombing, and were found to be generally INEFFECTIVE against bases in the pacific.

So they withdrew many of them, except for B-24s, and of course for B-29s.

To shutdown a base, the formula was found to be light to medium bombers at lower altitudes with frequent revisits.

Heavies and altitude bombing never really worked- level bobmbing is grossly inaccurate, so you need low strikes or dive bombing/strafing attacks.

Read up on the failures of Betties to Lunga - big raids, small raids, they rarely hit a thing.

If Heavies worked in Real Life like they did in the game, you would have towonder why you would need Carriers in the Pacific. Just send hundreds of B-24s and B-17s and neutralize any base in range in a matter of weeks - which never happened.

BTW, Rabaul was mostly torn up by Carrier Raids, not 4 engine heavies.

< Message edited by Wilhammer -- 12/17/2004 1:12:09 PM >

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 10
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 8:11:43 PM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
I'm waiting to see how B-29s perform before offering a firm opinion on this, but, to be honest, Frag, B-17s and B-24s (including LB-30s) seem to be pretty much ineffectual now, particularly as "base closers." B-25s and even Blenheim IVs are much better. Not only that, they suffer less in combat against Zeroes than B-17s now do, and are far less prone to operational damage.

As my old man used to say down on the farm, "She's all screwed up like Grogan's goats." He was especially fond of saying this after he'd had a few.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 11
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 8:19:44 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
As long as there is gravity,bombs will be able to fall and hit what is under them,(at least using the Norden bombsight and a crew with experience,and presuming the crew is not "rattled" by fatigue,etc.)
I can understand LRB's having some difficulty hitting a moving ship,(apologies to Billy Mitchell),but a non-moving airfield maybe a block wide(including various support facilities),should be a "sure-thing" for the planes to hit.
If the LRB's were bombing from over 30,000,through clouds,I could understand the misses,but in a clear sky from 7,000 feet,those boys should be able to hit the field with the proverbial "bag 'o poop"..
A strategic survey was conducted in the european theatre,and it was found that the daylight bombers were hitting their targets over 65% of the time,and the night bombers were hitting 80%.
*Please bear in mind the Americans(daylight) were counting targets within a block radius,whereas the Brits(night-time) were considering any part of a given city a "hit"..*
On a personal note,I was within a mile of strings of 500 lb bombs being dropped,and the concussion of even a "miss" of that magnitude would rattle anybodies nerves after a while.
(My guys were shaken as if feeling an earthquake,even at that mile distance)..
I continually refer back to Saburo Sakai's great book,"Samurai",and in it he made it clear the "daily harrasing raids by all Allied bombers made life intolerable and affected their nerves".I understand...
Tactical bombers like a-20's and B 26's were potent (or they would not have used them,but IMHO the LRB's should not be "dumbed-down" just to justify the tac'air's existence....
Let's look for another patch on this.
Here is a website showing a B-17 group flying against a single bridge from altitude(unknown height but this is the "high" squadron).
Report claims 96% of all bombs fell within 1000 feet of the bridge.
Please look at this site as you can also look at other missions of other planes,same group..
http://www.401bg.com/history/mission_sum.asp?mid=196

< Message edited by m10bob -- 12/17/2004 1:39:27 PM >


_____________________________




(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 12
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 8:28:40 PM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline
Hitting the airfield is not the problem... Give me a bomber and I can drop a bomb on an airfield and I'm not even a pilot... The trick is landing the bomb where is does something... Blowing up the fields next to the runways makes nice explosions but does nothing to effect the operation oif the airfield. I have seen dozens of pictures of 'string' bombing in Europe (level bombers use this method) and thier bombs hit every 50-100 feet away (depending on altitude when dropped). 50-100 feet ? Thats a huge margin and you can easily miss entire runways that way...

Now the question you have to ask yourself about the bombers is this... What altitude are they bombing from ? If your flying high to avoid fighters and AA gunfire then you're not going to hit anything. What experience are your groups at ? What is their morale ? And is their leader worth a damn ? These are the important questions to ask yourself about the units...

Also.. Are you playing against the AI ? If so, what level ?

And how can you keep your bombers ready to bomb nearly everyday ? I find it hard to get CV air groups to bomb more than 3-4 days straight before they refuse to fly due to morale issues...

Xargun

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 13
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 8:38:58 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
Hi Derreck
what alt are you flying your Heavies at ?, if ultra high alt, that may explain what you are seeing

this is part of my last turn playing 1.30 patched up to 1.40, Oct 2nd 1942

-----------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 10
A6M3 Zero x 11

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 28

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 5 destroyed, 7 damaged
A6M3 Zero: 4 destroyed, 1 damaged
C5M Babs: 1 destroyed
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 2 destroyed, 9 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
81 casualties reported

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 11

Aircraft Attacking:
11 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 20000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 20000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 20000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 20000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 20000 feet

LOOKS LIKE A DECENT RAID TO ME FOR 28 PLANES
-----------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Kavieng , at 61,86


Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 45


No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
20 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Runway hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x Hudson I bombing at 14000 feet
3 x Hudson I bombing at 14000 feet
4 x Hudson I bombing at 14000 feet
4 x Hudson I bombing at 14000 feet
3 x Hudson I bombing at 14000 feet
3 x Hudson I bombing at 14000 feet
3 x Hudson I bombing at 14000 feet
5 x Hudson I bombing at 14000 feet
3 x Hudson I bombing at 14000 feet
3 x Hudson I bombing at 14000 feet
3 x Hudson I bombing at 14000 feet
2 x Hudson I bombing at 14000 feet
3 x Hudson I bombing at 14000 feet
3 x Hudson I bombing at 14000 feet

45 HUDSON's DID ABOUT NOTHING
-----------------------------------------------------

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 14
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 8:40:31 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Guys,

If you want to work for a change on this issue, the best thing to do is post some results, do a bit of analysis and convince us that we've gone too far. A pre and post 1.40 comparison if you're seeing ahistorically weak results in 1.40 would be good to see. Also, of course, if you have some historical backup for a re-balance, we are always willing to listen and re-consider. Thanks.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 15
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 8:50:06 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun

Hitting the airfield is not the problem... Give me a bomber and I can drop a bomb on an airfield and I'm not even a pilot... The trick is landing the bomb where is does something... Blowing up the fields next to the runways makes nice explosions but does nothing to effect the operation oif the airfield. I have seen dozens of pictures of 'string' bombing in Europe (level bombers use this method) and thier bombs hit every 50-100 feet away (depending on altitude when dropped). 50-100 feet ? Thats a huge margin and you can easily miss entire runways that way...
Hi Xargun!
Well that is my point exactly!...It should not be difficult to hit the field,and the primary target is not the various parked aircraft,(which you migh be thinking),but the AIRFIELD ITSELF!..
A 500 lb bomb does not make a "hole",it makes a crater big enough to put a 2000 sq foot house into!..A few such craters and NOBODY can fly,(which is the point of bombing the field.)
Couple this with another "can of worms,some of those LRB's should be carrying more 1000 lb bombs than we currently see in WITP..The damage would go up proportionately,even though it would carry fewer bombs.

Now the question you have to ask yourself about the bombers is this... What altitude are they bombing from ? If your flying high to avoid fighters and AA gunfire then you're not going to hit anything. What experience are your groups at ? What is their morale ? And is their leader worth a damn ? These are the important questions to ask yourself about the units...

Also.. Are you playing against the AI ? If so, what level ?

And how can you keep your bombers ready to bomb nearly everyday ? I find it hard to get CV air groups to bomb more than 3-4 days straight before they refuse to fly due to morale issues...

Xargun


_____________________________




(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 16
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 9:00:48 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
I wish I was seeing B17's and B24's not hitting squat. As the Jap player in 2 PBEM games using 1.4 I am still getting swatted by heavy bomber raids.

The damage level is not as bad as pre 1.4, but it is still there. Alot has to do with the altitude you fly at. High up is not as good as low altitude.

I have yet to see an adverse effect for a B17 raid flying at 6,000 feet vs 20,000 feet from AA fire. I wish the Japs were as good with AA fire as the Germans were.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 17
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 9:04:57 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
Actually, strategic bombing in both theaters was far less effective than first thought.

B-17s at 18,000 ft, even with vaunted Norden bombsight, had a 50% CEP of 1000 yards. That means 50% of the bombs dropped would miss the target by more than a 1000 yards. B-17s weren't able to put enough bombs within the confines of an airfield often enough to justify the loss rate. That's why the tasks of bombing airfields was given to tactical bombers. They were much more accurate at lower altitudes, and were able to to get in and out of the target area quicker.

The following comes from the study "Determination and Effectiveness of WWII Strategic Bombing Strategy" written by T.T. Goetz, US Arny Retired:

Quote: "The strategic bombing campaign in the Pacific Theater was different in nature. At the beginning of the war, the United States lacked a bomber with the range to reach Japan. With the exception of a high-profile raid on Tokyo in April 1942, led by Jimmy Doolittle, there were no bombings on Japanese cities until the capture of the Marianas Islands near Japan in late 1944. From the Marianas, the new B-29 Superfortress could reach Japan. But precision bombing failed in Japan, which had erratic weather patterns and poor visibility. During the winter, bombs were so poorly aimed that the Japanese joked that the Americans were going to starve them into surrendering by killing all the fish in Tokyo Bay.

In January 1945 the command of the American XX Bomber Command in the Pacific passed to Major General LeMay. He recognized the problems, and in February began to introduce incendiary bombs, which could be dropped in any weather and which produced an intensely hot fire. The crowded Japanese cities became firestorms, aided by heavy winds and wooden buildings. The heat could get so great that glass would melt. In the midst of the fires, there was a good chance that the target would burn as well. The first incendiary raid occurred on February 3, 1945, in Kobe, where 159 tons of incendiaries burned more than a thousand buildings. The raids became so frequent that by early summer LeMay began to run out of supplies, and soon, of targets as well. LeMay also continued conventional precision bombing during that period when weather permitted but the results were often disappointing. " Unquote.

Most of this deals with Japanese cities, but if B-29s didn't have the accuracy to hit factories in cities, I highly doubt that the B-17 did. Remember, most targets in Germany had to be hit time and again before they were effectively destroyed.

Chez

< Message edited by ChezDaJez -- 12/17/2004 11:05:16 AM >


_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 18
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 9:26:23 PM   
testarossa


Posts: 952
Joined: 9/24/2004
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline
I;m bombing Formosa from Clark Field and had to drop alt to 6000 ft. Now it's getting exiting 60-80 damage to HI wih 110-130 B17. He-he. And P38 eating Jap CAP alive.

_____________________________

Dr. Miller: I should've called the marines!
Dalton: They're few, they're proud... And they ain't here!!!


(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 19
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 9:36:53 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline
I too am having good results with my bombers (4 engined and otherwise) in my single player games.

My pilot experience is high (75+), but I don't fiddle with leaders, yet...

Just speculating, but maybe just plain bad luck (mixed in with so-so weather?). With "die rolls" being involved in the outcomes, sometimes that happens. (I rolled a "3" six times in a roll, dag nabbit!! Not Fair!! I'm taking my dice and going home! Ahh, that brings back memories.)

(in reply to testarossa)
Post #: 20
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 9:41:21 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
To date I've played the allies exclusively (still haven't had the urge to tackle Japan's economy yet), but I must say I agree with the changes. It was/is far too easy to shut down a base in WitP and the Heavy bombers made it a rather simple task to assault Japanese bases without risking carriers at all to do it.

But just the heavies is not enough, I think all base attacks should be toned down for all types of aircraft. Naval bombardments are also far too powerful and need massive tweaking as well in my opinion.

It's very common to close a base with 1 naval bombardment as things stand now. The same is true for most air bombardments as well, 1 or 2 missions and the base is closed. A base should be hurt, but it should take a sustained campaign of a week or two before the base is actually closed down. Even if forced to close, repairs should be able to get the base up and running within a day or two if adequate engineers are on hand.

Look at the pasting Iwo Jima took from air and sea, yet its airbase was operational almost as soon as we captured it. Not simply accepting fighters, but if my memory serves a B-29 landed while the fighting was still raging on the island.

Bases were almost impossible to close down for any length of time during WWII in the Pacific, but WitP makes most forward bases untenable after just limited attention from air or sea. Once it’s closed it’s a simple matter of a raid or two a week to keep the base permanently shut down as well.

So yes keep the heavies toned down, but tone down everything else as well. That way players will have to work very hard to actually close a base and their window of opportunity to take advantage of the closing should be very small unless sustained heavy pressure can be brought to bear against the base while assaulting. So up the base repair rates as well if we can.

Jim

_____________________________


(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 21
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 9:49:30 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
Yeppers, have to agree. Not like you needed a 10,000 foot concrete runway in WW2.

"Sir, they put 3 bomb craters in the runway"

" Well then grab some men with shovels and get to work."

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 22
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 9:52:45 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
I think the major issue involved, that no-one ever seems to address, is the pace of operations. Quoting historical accuracy of how effective B-17s were on targets in the Pacific, is irrelevenent (bear with me).

Lets say the devs somehow got all of the accuracy and effectiveness ratings EXACTLY right, just precicely as they were in history. Maybe history says 5.32% of 500 lb. bombs dropped by B-17s over Rabaul actually hit their target, and only 4.28% of bombs dropped by B-17s on Truk actually hit their target. Maybe the waste guns of B-25 had only a accuracy rating of 12% instead of 22%. Whatever. What if they got it -ALL- right. If they coded every single odd-ball thing, that allowed them to give 100% accurate results for a air-raid, it would still end up wrong.

Why?

Because we as players do some really outlandish things. Maybe like launching 120 B-17s to plaster Rabaul in the first place. Never happened. Maybe like sending 2 strikes a day, 7 days a week. Never happened. Maybe like keeping our CVs at 24/7, and bombing continually for 10 days, running home to a small base, comepletely re-arming in 24 hours, and coming back again in short order.

The problem is the intensity of the ops (by size and frequency), not the actual accuracy of the model. Even if everything was 100% accurate, Rabaul would -still- get leveled, because we run ops at a pace that far exceeds anything that was historical.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 23
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 9:55:39 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
Feinder,

Why do you have to go and inject a rational thought into this? In my experience, if they are bitching, they are happy.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 24
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 9:56:27 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline
I too play the Allied side for now, but I respectfully disagree with your IWO JIMA analogy:

If, in the game, I blast the heck out of a base, most of the time, that base stays damaged for a long while unless the Japanese AI has some powerful engineer presence.

You can explain the IWO example: The Americans blasted IWO to 100 airfield damage, and the fixed it quickly by having 6 or 8 seabee units land and go to work. I see this at the begining of the game right after the Pearl Harbor raid. The strike does lots of damage to the facilities, but it gets fixed pretty quickly, in my opinion. (Heck, even in your post, you say "if adequate engineers are on hand".)

The gripe I have is that sustained air strikes don't do enough against land units. In my game, I pounded the Japanese 18th division (in Akyab) DAILY, for a YEAR, and they STILL show 20,000 guys eating rice and chillin' out. (Has done wonders for my pilot exp, though...) Just my opinion.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 25
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 10:01:23 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
quote:

Why do you have to go and inject a rational thought into this?


Because I save all my irrational conversations for my wife.



(*just kidding, love her to death*)

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 26
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 10:05:39 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
I love the GF to death too, but 90% of our discussions are irrational. They are then followed by a "yes dear", "whatever will make you happy dear", "if that is what you want dear", can I go back to playing WITP now dear.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 27
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 10:06:18 PM   
Mr.Frag


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

The problem is the intensity of the ops (by size and frequency), not the actual accuracy of the model. Even if everything was 100% accurate, Rabaul would -still- get leveled, because we run ops at a pace that far exceeds anything that was historical.


And *that* is why there are so many things in the game to attempt to break your aircraft non-stop to teach players some self control and bring them into some form of reality with the operational tempo of the real world.

From what I have seen, people use aircraft at rates that would have them scrapped and needing to be completely rebuilt or replaced weekly.

I think one of the things that allows this is the abstraction of supply into ammo. If you really had to cart bombs around to bases and built up a stockpile to use your bombers in a week long blitz, you'd suddenly find yourself with lots of aircraft with nothing to do.

I'd love to get Mike to toss out a hardcore version of WitP where supply use is quadrupled, SYS damage rates are dramatically increased for any speed beyond cruise, etc. There are a lot of things relaxed for playability that get abused by players simply because they can.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 28
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 10:09:06 PM   
testarossa


Posts: 952
Joined: 9/24/2004
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

(*just kidding, love her to death*)

-F-


Is she immortal?

< Message edited by testarossa -- 12/17/2004 12:09:10 PM >


_____________________________

Dr. Miller: I should've called the marines!
Dalton: They're few, they're proud... And they ain't here!!!


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 29
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/17/2004 10:11:18 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
That is not hardcore.

I want to have to move all the rolls of toilet paper too. Every bullet should be accounted for, every round of different caliber, every pair of socks, every rice ball etc.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> What Was The Idea ... Page: [1] 2 3   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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.000