LBA problem

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
pompack
Posts: 2585
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 1:44 am
Location: University Park, Texas

RE: LBA problem

Post by pompack »

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Bottom line: it isn't a science.

What kind of bombers are these BTW?

B17C, B17E and LB30

Also on the 13th turn (just completed) they did attack, losing two B17

As I say, go figure
cato13
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:35 pm
Location: scotland

RE: LBA problem

Post by cato13 »

my bombers are A-20 hudsons.   can someone please explain why such a stupid rule is in a otherwise realistic game such as witp? 
 
1 - for a start, if bombers are tied to the range of fighters, an easy exploit is for players to leave TF's just outside the range of fighters (4 hexes) cos they know that bombers wont launch! ridiculous.
 
2 - if this escort rule stands, then how come jap torpedo bombers can routinely sortie from rabual down to guadalcanal without any escorts?
 
in a game thats all about control this rule dont make any sense.
 
so how am i supposed to resolve my noumea situation, have more fighters?  oh wait, my fighters range is only 3 hexes so i screwed!  and why are torpedo and dive bombers exempt from this rule?
 
has anyone else flipped their lid about this daft escort rule?  cos for me its on the verge of spoiling a very good pbem game.[:(]
User avatar
pompack
Posts: 2585
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 1:44 am
Location: University Park, Texas

RE: LBA problem

Post by pompack »

ORIGINAL: tonedog

my bombers are A-20 hudsons.   can someone please explain why such a stupid rule is in a otherwise realistic game such as witp? 

1 - for a start, if bombers are tied to the range of fighters, an easy exploit is for players to leave TF's just outside the range of fighters (4 hexes) cos they know that bombers wont launch! ridiculous.

2 - if this escort rule stands, then how come jap torpedo bombers can routinely sortie from rabual down to guadalcanal without any escorts?

in a game thats all about control this rule dont make any sense.

so how am i supposed to resolve my noumea situation, have more fighters?  oh wait, my fighters range is only 3 hexes so i screwed!  and why are torpedo and dive bombers exempt from this rule?

has anyone else flipped their lid about this daft escort rule?  cos for me its on the verge of spoiling a very good pbem game.[:(]


Well Tonedog, as I implied in my earlier post, I am actually upset that it does not enforce this rule more stringently and uniformly. I don't want my bombers making suicidal attacks against well defended TFs, I want them to attack undefended convoys instead of wasting my few and feeble air groups on hopeless attacks. Also, as I noted, when I ask it to attack a named base it usually will even if there is a large CAP thus providing your Schweinfurt type attacks when desired.

Bottom line: Some people hate the rule, some love it, some don't care. Typical WitP [:)]
cato13
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:35 pm
Location: scotland

RE: LBA problem

Post by cato13 »

so basically my bombers are tied to the range of my fighters?  and why are jap torpedo bombers and other such planes not included in this rule then?
 
does anything else factor into it?  does experience count? 
User avatar
morganbj
Posts: 3472
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:36 am
Location: Mosquito Bite, Texas

RE: LBA problem

Post by morganbj »

Check and see if a Betty Grable movie is the current rotation at the airbase.  Those flyboys never missed an opportunity to see those legs.
Occasionally, and randomly, problems and solutions collide. The probability of these collisions is inversely related to the number of committees working on the solutions. -- Me.
cato13
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:35 pm
Location: scotland

RE: LBA problem

Post by cato13 »

i just looked at a combat report from earlier on in the game where my opponent launched 12 betty's unescorted from rabaul against my carrier TF near guadalcanal which had over 70 planes on CAP. 

yet my planes wont fly 4 hexes under similar circumstances.  i think consistency is the key word here.  im assumin from the above example some planes are exempt from this escort rule.   even though ive had witp since release ive only really got into it over the last few months so id really appreciate other peoples knowledge on this.

1 - are bombers tied to the range of fighters?

2 - if bombers need to be escorted, how r u supposed to know how many fighters are required if u dont know how strong the CAP is?

3 - what bombers are exempt from this rule?

4 - the whole point of capturing/holding air bases was to dominate the the surrounding area (100's of miles).  if allied bombers in witp can only fly against targets with CAP from 3 hexes then whats the point in having airbases?

thanks in advance.[:)]

User avatar
Mynok
Posts: 12108
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 12:12 am
Contact:

RE: LBA problem

Post by Mynok »

in a game thats all about control this rule dont make any sense.

I discovered your problem. You have a gross misconception of what this game is about. It is not about control in any way, shape or form. It is about herding cats.

[;)]

Let me add also, since I just saw your most recent: naval attack is NOT the primary mission of the A-20. Indeed, it is really not very good at it. Betties, on the other hand, are specifically designed for the mission.

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown
spence
Posts: 5421
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: LBA problem

Post by spence »

The problem with LBA not launching to attack a TF is primarily a problem for the Allied Player. IRL and in the game the Japanese seem to routinely launch their LBA regardless of the strength of the CAP.

IMHO it results from a lack of historical data or misunderstanding of such historical data as does exist. IRL the KB did not place itself within range of substantial Allied LBA much.
1) The confusion in the American command following the PH strike resulted no return strikes because the Americans concentrated their searches in the wrong places so they never found KB. Thus any return strikes (however pathetic they might have been) never happened.
2) KB's next activity was near Rabaul. No major Allied air presence was to be found there and thus KB suppressed whatever was there quite handily and sailed on its merry way.
3) In the DEI in late February 42 the KB doesn't seem to have drawn any attacks but neither did it place itself in a position to intervene with the ABDAFLOT (offensive) sorties that resulted in the battles of Bandoeng Strait or the Battle of the Java Sea. KB did participate in the mop up of Allied shipping South of Java after the Battle of the Java Sea but it seems neither to have effected ABDA Commands naval efforts nor launched substantial strikes on ABDA shore facilities (actually I may just be unaware of any such KB efforts but KBs participation in the campaign seems almost superfluous).
4) When KB next appeared in the Indian Ocean it did draw a counterstrike by Allied LBA (a quite pathetic counterstrike of just 9 Blenheims but an unescorted counterstrike nonetheless in which most of the bombers were shot down). Perhaps the failure of that strike resulted in the British deciding to hold back further strikes but I have not found any information about that.
5) Certainly KB's next foray into the range of Allied LBA at Midway resulted in it drawing quite a few strikes onto itself from the island; all unescorted. At the same time American LBA was attacking the Ryujo and Junyo which were supporting the Aleutians Operation (again without any escort)
6) After Midway Japanese carriers pretty much avoided the effective radius of Allied LBA entirely.

All in all not much historical evidence to support what seems to be a hard-coded Allied "reluctance" to engage the KB with LBA.
User avatar
pompack
Posts: 2585
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 1:44 am
Location: University Park, Texas

RE: LBA problem

Post by pompack »

ORIGINAL: tonedog

so basically my bombers are tied to the range of my fighters?  and why are jap torpedo bombers and other such planes not included in this rule then?

does anything else factor into it?  does experience count? 


yep, and when you get adequate attack bombers (B25) and good escort fighters (P38), no Japanese ship can live within B25 range

As to why Japanese torpedo planes somethimes attack without escort and get slaughtered, well it's the same problem my B17 have when they go out without escort and attack targets protected by CAP, gets very ugly. I really wish they wouldn't do that [:(]
Halsey
Posts: 4688
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 10:44 pm

RE: LBA problem

Post by Halsey »

ORIGINAL: pompack

ORIGINAL: tonedog

so basically my bombers are tied to the range of my fighters?  and why are jap torpedo bombers and other such planes not included in this rule then?

does anything else factor into it?  does experience count? 


yep, and when you get adequate attack bombers (B25) and good escort fighters (P38), no Japanese ship can live within B25 range

As to why Japanese torpedo planes somethimes attack without escort and get slaughtered, well it's the same problem my B17 have when they go out without escort and attack targets protected by CAP, gets very ugly. I really wish they wouldn't do that [:(]

It should be SOP for players for both sides to do this.
At least until you have air supremacy over a given area.
Fighter range sets the base range for airstrikes.

Those ignoring that do so at their own peril.[:D]
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: West Yellowstone, Montana

RE: LBA problem

Post by Nomad »

Don't forget that the Betty units will tend to have high experienced pilots and very aggressive commanders.
User avatar
jwilkerson
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:02 am
Location: Kansas
Contact:

RE: LBA problem

Post by jwilkerson »

So they DO fly and get massacred and get replaced by low experienced guys who won't fly when they shouldn't ... which I think of as the "self correcting process" [:D]
WITP Admiral's Edition - Project Lead
War In Spain - Project Lead
rockmedic109
Posts: 2477
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 11:02 am
Location: Citrus Heights, CA

RE: LBA problem

Post by rockmedic109 »

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

So they DO fly and get massacred and get replaced by low experienced guys who won't fly when they shouldn't ... which I think of as the "self correcting process" [:D]
It also qualifies as effective allied strategy.
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: LBA problem

Post by Shark7 »

I've seen the AI use the 'self-correcting process' far too often. It is simply amazing how the AI completely ignores the escort rule and gets slaughtered repeatedly by an uber-cap.

I think my favorite one was 24 P-39Qs and 84 B-26 Marauders facing KB, Mini-KB, and a tanker group with a cap of 140 Zeke's and Claudes...needless to say, slaughter ensued. In this way, the AI is not only predictable, it is exploitable. After all, if I really need to thin out LBA I can simply send in the KB/Mini-KB death star and draw out a ton of AI aircraft and slaughter them as they make pointless, uncoordinated airstrikes.

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
cato13
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:35 pm
Location: scotland

RE: LBA problem

Post by cato13 »

so what early to mod war allied bombers are best for naval attacks then?   we're also playin with niks mod which makes CAP a lot less effective so no uber CAP.
 
what planes should i be usin at my most importants bases to increase the chances of strikes be carried out?
rockmedic109
Posts: 2477
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 11:02 am
Location: Citrus Heights, CA

RE: LBA problem

Post by rockmedic109 »

I am using the NikMOD CHS version, so there is no such thing as uber-CAP.  There will ALWAYS be leakers.  And 100 Bettys/Nells become their own Death Star. 

Raided Rabaul thinking there was only two carriers there {both lightly damaged}.  The intel on the number of planes at Rabaul was off.  So I sent Lex and Sara on a port raid.  Dang TBFs did not carry torps {Do they carry torps on port attack?}.  And I made a mistake with range, and SBDs only loaded 500lbers.  No attacks on my carriers that day, so I thought I was safe closing the range and attacking the nexxt day.....bad idea.  While I did a lot of damage, 102 Nells and Bettys sent Lex, Sara, 4 cruisers and a Destroyer to the bottom.  Not quite even, but the computer lost Hiryu, Soryu, Ryuho, and a bunch of subs {Shokaku was heavily damaged and Zuikaku was lightly damaged}.
Yamato hugger
Posts: 3791
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 am

RE: LBA problem

Post by Yamato hugger »

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

So they DO fly and get massacred and get replaced by low experienced guys who won't fly when they shouldn't ... which I think of as the "self correcting process" [:D]

Or the Jap commander is smarter than that and sets their "max range" to that of their escorts [;)]
Chris21wen
Posts: 7926
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Cottesmore, Rutland

RE: LBA problem

Post by Chris21wen »

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Aggressive leaders help. Passive leaders hurt. Is your morale high or low? They have to pass several morale checks in order to fly.


Units with low moral should take off, they probably will drop there bombs anywhere at the slightest hit of the enemy , but they'd take off or face the military consequences of disobeying an order.
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”