Originally posted by dgaad I often wonder why Japanese PBEM players are not somewhat more aggressive with their carrier groups, especially early in the war. There are huge gaps in Allied air defenses, particularly if you slip past the Luganville / Gili Gili area. You can't "switch around" land based air squadrons and expect to catch the Japanese TF, the act of moving the LBA fatigues them to the point of being unable to launch.
I can answer that question......."system damage"
Heh, in the beginning i was almost starting to think that this was a balance destroyer because it seemed all too easy to troll around creating chaos and havoc where ever i went....however after a while i started noticing my system damage indicators begining to creep up. It may have been negligable at the time but once a major situation crops up, either an enemy TF incursion, or one's own major offensive.....that acumulated and still acumulating system damage starts to make the player sweat.....especially given how slow they repair even at big bases like Rabaul and Truk. Add in a lucky bomb hit or two and you've got major problems......more so if your winning as badly as i am....because then your "Release from Japan" factor goes to low probability so if you send a carrier back to Japan for refit....you may not get it back for a long time to come.
One factor i've noticed not in the game.......replacement aircraft and pilots for carrier come in "instantly" on return to port. For the Japanese especially this was not often the case......For example severe losses by the Shokaku and Zuikaku at Coral Sea made them unavailable for the Midway operation until both planes and pilots could be integrated into the carrier squadrons of those beasts. I would suspect this would be true of the Americans as well though at less of a time penalty.
Not that its a total gimme to the Japanese "as is" for after heavy losses their exp ratings go way down in a hurry and right now there's no easy way to train them back up to high proficiency levels. I've sunk alot of allied heavies.....but lost alot of my best torpedo pilots in the process.
The only advantages a carrier has is mobility and stealth. Mobility would matter if the land base had to chase the carrier. It doesn't. Stealth gives the carrier potentially the advantage of first strike. Stealth is soluable with searches. Even if the carrier gets first strike, you are not going to knock out the airbase. Your planes will have to return to the carrier, giving away your position.
Beep wrong. While stealth and mobilty are huge..the biggest advantage of a carrier is all the planes it has on board. Carriers were huge threats to landbases because they could plan outnumber them in terms of strength. Again this is 1942, things in theatre had begun to change by 1943 where it took several carriers to do the same thing one had done before.
I've kept out of the recent debates on this forum mainly becuase I don't consider myself to be knowledgable enough about the Pacific War to comment on the opinions and facts being laid on the table.
However, it is clear from reading the various postings that this debate has split into two camps.
There are those who wish to see the CV as king of hill in UV and therefore consider the performance and impact of LBA's as overly restrictive.
And there are those who consider LBA's to be the dominant factor in deciding control of the pacific.
Personally, having played both CAW and PACWAR I would have to say that my gaming experience suggests that LBA's are far more resilient and therefore citical to success in the Pacific than CV's. In CAW LBA's were deadly dangerous and basically you kept your distance from them unless they were extremely weak or well protected by a weather front. Whilst in Pacwar the shear size of the map and relatively small numbers of CV's mean't that LBA's were the main source of air power.
CV's really only figured in supporting landings to capture another piece of real estate and only then where there was no nearby LBA capable to providing the air cover. In both games CV's were terribly vulnerable, in CAW especailly, they suffered from the added penalties that when launching or recovering aircraft they had to steer a steady and predictable course and whilst waiting for aircraft to return they had to stay within strike range of the target in order that their own planes could reach them.
They also suffered from the disadvantage that when recovering or re-arming aircraft they were terribly vulnerable to any form of strike and if hit on the waterline any list could render the entire flight deck unusable with dire consequences to their returning stike planes. Land bases suffer no such problems so where a single well placed bomb or torpedo could render and enitre CV inoperable with the effective loss of three squadrons a single crater on a dirt airstrip can be filling in minutes.
I have no idea if this is historically accurate but thats the impression I have gained of the situation from these earlier games and in an abstract way UV seems to capture that quite well.
Heh, in the beginning i was almost starting to think that this was a balance destroyer because it seemed all too easy to troll around creating chaos and havoc where ever i went....however after a while i started noticing my system damage indicators begining to creep up. It may have been negligable at the time but once a major situation crops up, either an enemy TF incursion, or one's own major offensive.....that acumulated and still acumulating system damage starts to make the player sweat.....especially given how slow they repair even at big bases like Rabaul and Truk. Add in a lucky bomb hit or two and you've got major problems......more so if your winning as badly as i am....because then your "Release from Japan" factor goes to low probability so if you send a carrier back to Japan for refit....you may not get it back for a long time to come.
I can certainly second Nik on this. I'm in the final few months of #17 Allied and have managed to preserve all 6 US carriers but rarely can more than three of them put to sea at once simply becuase of the all prevading system damage that has them constantly in the repair docks at Noumea or Townsville.
However, it is clear from reading the various postings that this debate has split into two camps.
There are those who wish to see the CV as king of hill in UV and therefore consider the performance and impact of LBA's as overly restrictive.
And there are those who consider LBA's to be the dominant factor in deciding control of the pacific.
...
That is a bit oversimplified IMO. There is at least one other camp. Those of us who want to be able to recreate the same or very similar conditions under which the two sides actually fought the battle and don't feel either carriers or LBA completely dominated that fight. We want to be able to face the same decisions faced by our real life counterparts.
Since this is a game it should also be fun. One thing that could spoil the fun would be a game system that is significantly overpowered or underpowered compared to history. Might be CV's, subs, LBA's, too few/many transports, bombardment TF's, or something else. It could get even more complicated if an overpowered system for one side gets offset by an overpowered system for the other side thus spinning the game off into the realm of complete fiction.
Fitting all these systems together into a balanced, fun, historically valid game is why we're all paying 2by3 and Matrix the big bucks. You guys are making the big bucks right?
I for one am content at this point to let them sift the wheat from the chaff of these discussions and decide what if anything to do with the various system issues that have beed discussed.
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw
WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
Beep wrong. While stealth and mobilty are huge..the biggest advantage of a carrier is all the planes it has on board. Carriers were huge threats to landbases because they could plan outnumber them in terms of strength. Again this is 1942, things in theatre had begun to change by 1943 where it took several carriers to do the same thing one had done before.
Rob, do you recall that we were originally talking about an even up battle between a carrier and a land airbase? If something is "even up" that doesn't mean one side gets more.
If you are talking about HISTORY now, that was the traditional advantage of carrier groups, particularly US carrier groups later in the war, which could put over 1000 planes into the air for a single mission.
Back to the original topic, the one you quoted me on, if it is an "even up" battle between a carrier and a land airbase, the advantage of a carrier is mobility and stealth. The advantage of the land airbase is ability to take hundreds of times more damage than the carrier.
Originally posted by elmo3
There is at least one other camp. Those of us who want to be able to recreate the same or very similar conditions under which the two sides actually fought the battle and don't feel either carriers or LBA completely dominated that fight. We want to be able to face the same decisions faced by our real life counterparts.
I would like to think that as wargamers everyone in both camps wants the above. The problem as I see it is that there appear to be significant differences of opinion over what is and is not an accurate recreation of the conditions. Hence the apparent split in opinion.
The other major difference seems to focus on how the game should approach this task and I note very early on that the design team seemed to be taking a view that 'if it didn't happen in the real war it shouldn't happen in the game'. Whilst others myself included have clung to the idea that the game should be modelled on the potential performance of units with the players left to decide who best to exploit them.
This difference in approach has led to debates about the modelling of bombardment TF's and mines in the past and no doubt will continue to throw up issues in the future.
The bottom line is that I think everyone wants the same thing its just that we have different opinions on what the end result should look like and how to get it.
The other major difference seems to focus on how the game should approach this task and I note very early on that the design team seemed to be taking a view that 'if it didn't happen in the real war it shouldn't happen in the game'. Whilst others myself included have clung to the idea that the game should be modelled on the potential performance of units with the players left to decide who best to exploit them.
...
I'm with the design team on this one then. If they're going to allow tactics or events that very rarely or never happened it should be an optional rule so players who want a historical game can opt out. For example I just read in McGee last night about a Japanese pilot who crashed his plane into a US ship kamakaze (sp?) style. If 2by3 wants that tactic in the game it thould be optional IMO since that didn't happen regularly until later in the war. I'd probably put low altitude bombing (but not not skip bombing which did happen) in that category too since I'm still not reading that it ever happened with B-17's or B-24's.
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw
WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
I'm with the design team on this one then. If they're going to allow tactics or events that very rarely or never happened it should be an optional rule so players who want a historical game can opt out. For example I just read in McGee last night about a Japanese pilot who crashed his plane into a US ship kamakaze (sp?) style. If 2by3 wants that tactic in the game it thould be optional IMO since that didn't happen regularly until later in the war. I'd probably put low altitude bombing (but not not skip bombing which did happen) in that category too since I'm still not reading that it ever happened with B-17's or B-24's.
Then we will have to agree to differ then because in my opinion wargaming is about modelling what might have happened had different circumstances prevailed or different decisions been made. In my book recreating what actually happened is not wargaming its re-enactment.
Incidently, the example of the Japanese pilot doing a personal Kamakaze attack is an example of something that actually happened so following your line of reasoning it ought to be modelled into the game. i.e. it happened therefore it must be included. Exactly the same as the Tokyo Express debate.
My arguement would be that if Kamakaze tactic's were not available to the Japanese at the time then regardless of whether it happended by accident or not it should not be deliberately modelling into the game. i.e. Nobody ordered the idiot to do it so neither should we.
Low altitude bombing is another issue. But the key questions as far as I am concerned are a) was it possible a low level bombing run on a ship, b) if you did how effective would it be. Where one would find that sort of information is another matter and given that few people on this forum seem able to agree on what actually happened the chances of a concensus on what might of happened look pretty bleak.
You both bring up very good points and express the feelings of many of the ppl on this forum and their method pf play. I tend to lean towards the flexible side not having my hands tied because a particular tactic wasn't used en masse. But a possible solution would be in the settings...if its set to "historical", then why can't there be more restrictions on the employment of certain tactics...such as early use of skip bombing or kamikazes. But if the setting say is on "Hard"...then maybe these restrictions are lifted. I would definitly support switches added that would provide the option to restrict certain tactics to a more historical period, but would be upset if these limits were hard coded in.
Then we will have to agree to differ then because in my opinion wargaming is about modelling what might have happened had different circumstances prevailed or different decisions been made. In my book recreating what actually happened is not wargaming its re-enactment.
I'm not advocating reenactment. Just saying things that didn't happen or happened so rarely as to be insignificant should be modelled as optional rules.
Incidently, the example of the Japanese pilot doing a personal Kamakaze attack is an example of something that actually happened so following your line of reasoning it ought to be modelled into the game. i.e. it happened therefore it must be included. Exactly the same as the Tokyo Express debate.
These are two different issues to me. A lone kamakaze attack does not justify allowing it as a standard tactic in the game. However if 2by3 wants it as an optional rule so folks can see what might have happened if it were doctrine at that time of the war then fine. How successful it would have been would certainly be a source of further debate. The Tokyo Express is different for two reasons. First because it was a successful tactic used repeatedly, not just once out of desperation. Second because nobody is arguing that it shouldn't be included. That discussion has been about if or how the Allies should be able to respond. I'm in the camp that says leave it as is if for no other reason than it is a realistic portrayal of the frustration the Allies faced at the time.
My arguement would be that if Kamakaze tactic's were not available to the Japanese at the time then regardless of whether it happended by accident or not it should not be deliberately modelling into the game. i.e. Nobody ordered the idiot to do it so neither should we.
Agreed, except I have no problem with it as an optional rule even though I'd never bother using it.
Low altitude bombing is another issue. But the key questions as far as I am concerned are a) was it possible a low level bombing run on a ship, b) if you did how effective would it be. Where one would find that sort of information is another matter and given that few people on this forum seem able to agree on what actually happened the chances of a concensus on what might of happened look pretty bleak.
Agreed. Low alt bombing was cetainly _possible_ but I have yet to see an example of B-17's or B-24's ever doing it. That is why I suggested to 2by3 in another thread that they not look for a consensus but do the game the way they want. As an aside if you look at the poll results ~85% think something should be done about it, but nobody agrees on what.
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw
WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
I'm with the design team on this one then. If they're going to allow tactics or events that very rarely or never happened it should be an optional rule so players who want a historical game can opt out. For example I just read in McGee last night about a Japanese pilot who crashed his plane into a US ship kamakaze (sp?) style. If 2by3 wants that tactic in the game it thould be optional IMO since that didn't happen regularly until later in the war. I'd probably put low altitude bombing (but not not skip bombing which did happen) in that category too since I'm still not reading that it ever happened with B-17's or B-24's.
It was understood that any IJN pilot who's AC was too damaged to return to CV/base was to find a target of opportunity and crash it. This happened to Hornet at Santa Cruz IIR?
I would agree that the "Two camps" argument is a bit of an oversimplification. Myself, i dont see it as an LBA vs Carrier airpower issue, more of an issue concerning specific aircraft types being able to attack at dangerous heights or even moderately low heights with accuracies that cause eyebrows to raise when one factors in CAP levels, flak levels and also, bomber exp levels (for example, my current game......few if any Level bomber groups have exp levels out of the 50's.......low to mid 60's tops... given all the hits scored so far by level bombers, i'd be scared to see some veteran groups at play) A player's inability to counter this made the "issue" all the more apparant. (i.e. you've dotted all your eyes.....crossed your 'T's and still those 4 lone big bombers blast through your AA and CAP to hit your ships)
In my past readings, and more signifigantly my past wargamings, the LBA's that made me worry the most were the bases that had the same types of aircraft my carriers did.......mainly dive bombers and especially torpedo bombers. (and if factored in.......fighter bombers with the ability to lug said bombs)
For the historical, as i've mentioned....it was SBD dauntlesses and fighter bombers that made life hell for the Tokyo express during much of their runs......its the same in wargaming as well.....dive bombing of course is way more effective plane for plane than a level bombing, even were exp levels the same (which they often are not)
Level bombers remain a threat mind you.....but the first priority in my mind when factoring in an enemy airbase is......do they have any dedicated anti-surface ship aircraft (i.e. dive bombers, torp bombers or in the Japanese case, level bombers with the capability to arm with torpedoes) After that there is the lesser threat of level bombers carrying standard HE bombs.
There is another factor though which hasn't gotten much attention on this forum but one i've notified Matrix about on the bugs forum.
Part of whats causing gnashing teeth, even in the face of a "few" hits scored by level bombers on moving and heavily defended TF's, are the bombs themselves.
In private correspondance i recieved these figures for penetration on the two primary bombs as modeled in the game (and are generic....i.e. no real diff between US and IJN as modeled in the game)
500ILB/250kg - 150mm (roughly 5.9 inches)
1000ILB - 250mm (9.8 inches!)
There is a fundemental flaw apparant here. First off, there was never a 500ILB "AP" bomb in the US inventory....and few to no 1000ILB AP bombs during the period covered by UV.
Bombs carried by carriers especially and most if not all LBA level bombers (with the weapons used in this game at least) were general purpose or plain HE which have little Armor piercing capability, dependant largely on fuse delays which were often 1/100th of a second. This is why and how wooden decked carriers in the four major early carrier battles were able to often weather multiple bomb hits without suffering undo structural or flood damage (Fires. and hinderance of flight deck ops another story......) and why the bombs often exploded on contact with the flight deck or on the hanger deck below it
Now against transports and small craft....this is not an issue and is another factor why "skip bombing" and low level altitude attacks as seen at the Bismarck sea battle would be effective there but a bit more dubious when taking on major surface and carrier elements.
However because of this "overrating" of bombs in the game, everything up to (but not always including) modern battleship classes are vulnerable to even small 500ILB bombs which penetrate the deck armor systems of even heavy cruisers and older battleships 100% of the time.
I found this out when examining the woes suffered by my primary bombardment group, chock full of CA's and one Kongo class battleship (3 inch deck armor) which suffered four air attacks which, ironically were conducted by........you guessed it, "level bombers"
Since the AI attacks at 6000 feet, most of these runs were unsuccessful, however because of the penetration issue, only a couple hits are needed to cause serious inconvienience. In this case, "4" hits were scored in about 5 sorties......not much, however since all four "penetrated" i ended up with serious damage to two heavy cruisers and the Kongo. (500ILB) Serious damage is possible when facing bombs of course, but major surface elements (unarmored carriers excluded for obvious reasons) tended to fear bomb hits far less than torp hits because HE bombs....even 1000ILB HE bombs had far less potential to penetrate their hides and cause vital damage.
Had bombs, even 1000ILBers had this capability it wouldn't have taken Spruance all day to batter Mikuma and Mogami at Midway into floating wrecks....one which still managed to get away and the other only finally surcombing after a day's worth of beating, the testiment visibly shown in the famous picture of the cruiser with a dive bomber's tail assembly wedged in one of her after turrets.
Hopefully this issue will be or "can be" addressed in a future patch which along with the 1.2 changes will make the level bomber attacks with light bombs less of a killjoy for major warships . I say "can be" because i'm not sure if the code factors in fire damage without a "penetration". Hopefully that is not the case because as it stands now, a "penetration" often will lead to floatation damage and system damage as well as fires when it occurs. If it is then there is a problem because at the very least HE bombs landing on your ships will cause a serious fire hazzard as well as destroy light structure above the armor deck(s)
I dont after all, want to see bombs made impotent to the point of non factor, but as they are right now, they are almost as dangerous as torps because of the 1-2-3 type damage they tend to cause once they've "penetrated"
To make a rough comparison while i'm away from source let me put it this way
Most modern battleships were designed to resist or be immune to a 1000 ILB AP or semi AP type bomb at a height of around 10000 feet . An armor scheme of 5-6inches was deemed sufficient for this (some also had a "bomb deck" above it to initiate fuse action. (avg 1.5 - 2 inch class B steel)
The armored carrier Tahio had a 3inch flight deck which the Japanese considered would resist a 1000ILB bomb and stop a 500ILBer cold (i'm assuming HE or general purpose here given their likely opponents)
As a rough starting point i would suggest that these current ratings need to at least be cut in half to even 2/3rds for each bomb type (since even the 50mm deck armor of most non-tin clad CA's should be able to resist this HE weapon, 500ILB especially)
They should retain a powerful incendiary effect of course and of course unarmored or lightly armored weapons mounts and such would still be vulnerable.
for more info on the bombs see my post on the bugs forum.
The world of could have, and did seem to be at war. A lot could have happened.
The level of possibility should be determined instead of could have and did's.
The level of possiblity, or probability, for allowing heavy bombers to fly low level attacks is so high that I feel should be allowed into the game. HOWEVER, with every choice comes a consequence. With low level attacks, the Heavy Bombers lose their main defensive ability, that being out of reach from enemy fighters. Assigning heavy bombers on low level attacks will increase their accuracy, but will leave them at the mercy of enemy fighters. They may have heavy weaponry and tough armour, but they are sluggish and unmanoverable. Put up some Ki-45's against a pack of B-29's and USAAC losses will soar. Flying at low altitudes will also cause attrition due to accidents (an accident at 100 feet is a lot more deadly then one at 5000 feet) as well as ground fire (Not just AA Artillery, but AAMG's). Losses at low levels should be VERY high due to air-air losses, as well as other factors experienced at this altitude. Also, at lower altitudes on bombing runs you are a lot more vulnerable to enemy aircraft (who have the added ability of altitude as well as being able to manoever without fear of hitting a tree). Low level bombing runs were done when the destruction of the target was more important then the losses of the aircrew. However, the attrition levels should be so high that even the USAAC could not afford the loss of pilots when you compare the damage experienced.
It is possible to do a lot of things, what has to be determined is wether or not the possibility is high enough to warrant its inclusion. Having something not happen does not mean that it was totally imposible or unlikely for it to happen, just that there were reasons for it not to.
Coordination of air strikes, as well as CAP should allow larger groups to put up sheer umbrella of aircraft so that even strong LBA cannot get through. This was extremely important during the campaigns in the Philippine Sea and all actions after this. However, this did not happen in the Solomans, as there were neither the carriers availible to make their own screen in the face of LBA, and friendly LBA was always within reach. You shoul be able to order friendly LBA to cover your own TF's. You don't, or shouldn't have to rely on your carriers on their own. Why not do a carrier strike combined with a LBA strike on a LBA target?
