This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!
Back in the OLD WITP, i think it was specifically stated (on at least one occasion) that the restrictions on skip bombing were a play-balance issue.
Ok, I'm seriously NOT trying to be argumentative here. I've already made mention I'm an AFB, so my POV may be wrong, but how can you set up a balance issue where the Japanese side has so many advantages ( Kate accuracy, aerial torpedo accuracy, AV values, RORSAT capabilities etc) and keep taking away what ever the allied side found that worked and overcame their deficiencies (doctrine, torpedoes etc.) . From my amateur POV this appears sorta biased.
Of course it is... otherwise, knowing what we do in hindsight, the Allies could probably roll over the Japanese probably MUCH quicker than occurred in real events (e.g. - see some of the discussions about, for instance "Why Can't The Japanese Hold Burma"... answer: because the Allies players know better than to repeat the idiocy of what happened in the first few months of the war).
So, this all is all done in the name of play balance.
From what i can figure, given the penetration of the IJ codes (as well as some other things), the Allies should have won the war at least 1-2 year earlier, but this advantage was squandered by various "empire builders" in the intel agencies. i'd truly like to see something closer to a sim so that folks could really explore possibilities of what might (or should) have been in the theater. Unfortunately, right now AE doesn't approach this, but i am hopeful that in a few years folks will develop something that comes much closer than this does now.
Back in the OLD WITP, i think it was specifically stated (on at least one occasion) that the restrictions on skip bombing were a play-balance issue.
Ok, I'm seriously NOT trying to be argumentative here. I've already made mention I'm an AFB, so my POV may be wrong, but how can you set up a balance issue where the Japanese side has so many advantages ( Kate accuracy, aerial torpedo accuracy, AV values, RORSAT capabilities etc) and keep taking away what ever the allied side found that worked and overcame their deficiencies (doctrine, torpedoes etc.) . From my amateur POV this appears sorta biased.
Of course it is... otherwise, knowing what we do in hindsight, the Allies could probably roll over the Japanese probably MUCH quicker than occurred in real events (e.g. - see some of the discussions about, for instance "Why Can't The Japanese Hold Burma"... answer: because the Allies players know better than to repeat the idiocy of what happened in the first few months of the war).
So, this all is all done in the name of play balance.
This is not right. The game is supposed to be an accurate representation of the strengths and capabilities of the competing sides. "Play balance" is the job of the scenario designers, not the game designers.
So is the consensus that given high skill values for LowNav, bombing from 100' increases accuracy and number of hits enough to outweigh the 50% bomb load carried?
Something else I'd like to see the justification for. When LeMay brought his B-29's down to lower level night attacks they were able to INCREASE the bomb load, not decrease it.
By flying through thicker air and avoiding the jet stream. Going from 10k alt to 100ft does make a differance in air density but no where near enough as the B29's did under LeMay.
Also flying at wave top height really takes a toll on pilot fatigue and a plane needs as much agility as possible to avoid crashing into the waves. Maybe this is the raison-d'etre for 1/2 bomb load.
100ft is the attack alt but I seriously doubt the bombers ever flew a couple hundred miles at their attack alt. Pretty sure they flew to their targets at normal alt and not at skip bombing alt. So there shouldn´t be a fat hit in these attacks IMO.
Back in the OLD WITP, i think it was specifically stated (on at least one occasion) that the restrictions on skip bombing were a play-balance issue.
Not play balance. The penalty added was added because skip bombing as represented in the game (and usable by both sides) became an exploit.
In truth, maybe the answer should have been to limit actual "skip bombing" to those Allied A/C types designed for it. I refer to the "gunship" variants that had the forward firepower to suppress the flak of the target. As these didn't start arriving in theatre until mid-1943, it would have also have limited the effect until the right time frame.
Ok, I'm seriously NOT trying to be argumentative here. I've already made mention I'm an AFB, so my POV may be wrong, but how can you set up a balance issue where the Japanese side has so many advantages ( Kate accuracy, aerial torpedo accuracy, AV values, RORSAT capabilities etc) and keep taking away what ever the allied side found that worked and overcame their deficiencies (doctrine, torpedoes etc.) . From my amateur POV this appears sorta biased.
Of course it is... otherwise, knowing what we do in hindsight, the Allies could probably roll over the Japanese probably MUCH quicker than occurred in real events (e.g. - see some of the discussions about, for instance "Why Can't The Japanese Hold Burma"... answer: because the Allies players know better than to repeat the idiocy of what happened in the first few months of the war).
So, this all is all done in the name of play balance.
This is not right. The game is supposed to be an accurate representation of the strengths and capabilities of the competing sides. "Play balance" is the job of the scenario designers, not the game designers.
Tell that to the game designers! And, after all, i think they designed most of the official scenarios, so they are one in the same, no?
Tell that to the game designers! And, after all, i think they designed most of the official scenarios, so they are one in the same, no?
I think I just did. And even those wearing two hats should have known that "historical accuracy" is the bedrock of "game design", and "play balancing" is a part of "scenario design".
If a scenario is wrong, it's correctable by the players. Once you build WRONG into the system, only the designers can change it.
"Alea iacta est." Caius Julius
"If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing." Emo Philips
"Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." Abbot Arnaud Amalric
Tell that to the game designers! And, after all, i think they designed most of the official scenarios, so they are one in the same, no?
I think I just did. And even those wearing two hats should have known that "historical accuracy" is the bedrock of "game design", and "play balancing" is a part of "scenario design".
If a scenario is wrong, it's correctable by the players. Once you build WRONG into the system, only the designers can change it.
Not entirely true, i hope.
As inaccurate as original WITP was, i think some of the CHS scenarios came close to getting it right... don't get me wrong, i think there were still big problems (esp. using CHS-NikMod, the air-to-air model is very anemic, although the flak model was vastly improved.)
i am hopeful that someone will do something to AE to make it come pretty close to what a "scenario fan" would want... i don't think it will happen for a while, and it will be a BIG task, but i am optimistic it will eventually come about.
However, i think there are possibly SOME things in the AE model that might be extremely difficult to overcome... i really haven't fooled around with it enough to really decide, though.
I really didnt word the second part of my post very well at all tbh, I wasnt trying to suggest they flew at wavetop height all the way (couldn't aquire targets properly at least).Just that with the low level manuouvering and (usually sharp) pull up (however shallow) needs more manouvreability than a fully laden 2E or 4E bomber could comfortably do on a safe and regular basis. with 1/2 bombload the stresses on the airframe are much reduced.
however that said i havn't read anywhere that planes actually loaded less ordinance for attack missions, I was just coming up with a 'possible' justification for the rule. Not defending it or saying it's historically correct, just using my imagination for its implementation (righly or wrongly).
sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit
In our game we had a few low level 100ft port attacks with 4EB and 2EB's.
As far as I can see the bomb load in these attacks was not halved, and the results are impressive.
Our opponent ( we play 2 vs 1 ) claims that besides being gamey (we play with 1 house rule no strat bombing prior to 7/43 ), it also is a bug that was solved 2 patches back and seems to be resurfacing. Is ther a point in halving the bomb load for naval attacks at sea and not for attacks versus ships in port ?
Here are the attacks ,
Morning Air attack on Hong Kong , at 77,61
Weather in hex: Partial cloud
Raid spotted at 15 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes
Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 3
Ki-44 Tojo x 5
Allied aircraft
A-29A Hudson x 5
DB-3M x 3
B-17E Fortress x 9
Japanese Ships
xAKL Shingetsu Maru
BB Fuso, Bomb hits 8, on fire
xAK Soyo Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
BB Ise, Bomb hits 7, on fire
DD Tachikaze, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
xAK Kamoi Maru
xAK Atlas Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
xAK Anyo Maru, Bomb hits 1
Japanese ground losses:
23 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Vehicles lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Port hits 7
Aircraft Attacking:
5 x A-29A Hudson bombing from 100 feet *
Port Attack: 2 x 250 lb GP Bomb
1 x DB-3M bombing from 100 feet *
Port Attack: 5 x 100 kg GP Bomb
2 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
CAP engaged:
47th I.F.Chutai with Ki-44 Tojo (5 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(3 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
24th Sentai/B with Ki-27b Nate (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 9000
Raid is overhead
Morning Air attack on Hong Kong , at 77,61
Weather in hex: Partial cloud
Raid spotted at 33 NM, estimated altitude 6,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes
Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 1
Ki-44 Tojo x 2
Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 9
No Japanese losses
Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 3 damaged
Japanese Ships
CL Kitakami, Bomb hits 2
BB Fuso, Bomb hits 10, heavy fires
BB Ise, Bomb hits 9, heavy fires
xAK Maya Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
xAK Keisho Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
Port hits 2
Aircraft Attacking:
5 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
4 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
CAP engaged:
24th Sentai/B with Ki-27b Nate (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters to 4000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 106 minutes
47th I.F.Chutai with Ki-44 Tojo (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 1 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 5000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes
Morning Air attack on Batangas , at 79,78
Weather in hex: Thunderstorms
Raid spotted at 18 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes
Japanese Ships
CL Oi, Bomb hits 6
CA Chokai, Bomb hits 5, on fire
CL Natori, Bomb hits 4
CM Tsubame
xAKL Kumakawa Maru
xAK Oigawa Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
TB Tomozuru, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
Aircraft Attacking:
4 x Hudson I bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
5 x Hudson I bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
3 x Hudson I bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
7 x P-40E Warhawk strafing at 100 feet
CAP engaged:
Tainan Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 8 minutes
Morning Air attack on Hong Kong , at 77,61
Weather in hex: Partial cloud
Raid spotted at 23 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes
Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 10
Ki-44 Tojo x 5
Allied aircraft
A-29A Hudson x 3
DB-3M x 2
B-17E Fortress x 3
Japanese Ships
BB Ise, Bomb hits 2
BB Fuso, Bomb hits 3
Port hits 4
Port fuel hits 1
Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
CAP engaged:
10th I.F.Chutai with Ki-27b Nate (8 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(8 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 9000
Raid is overhead
47th I.F.Chutai with Ki-44 Tojo (5 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(3 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
24th Sentai/B with Ki-27b Nate (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 9000
Raid is overhead
Morning Air attack on Hong Kong , at 77,61
Weather in hex: Partial cloud
Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes
Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 7
Ki-44 Tojo x 5
Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 8
No Japanese losses
Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 3 damaged
Japanese Ships
BB Fuso, Bomb hits 13, on fire
BB Ise, Bomb hits 12, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Yugumo, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CL Tama, Bomb hits 1
Port hits 3
Port fuel hits 1
Aircraft Attacking:
2 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
CAP engaged:
10th I.F.Chutai with Ki-27b Nate (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 5000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes
47th I.F.Chutai with Ki-44 Tojo (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 2 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes
Morning Air attack on Batangas , at 79,78
Weather in hex: Heavy rain
Raid spotted at 14 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes
Japanese Ships
CA Chokai, Bomb hits 8
xAP Hikawa Maru, Bomb hits 1
CL Natori, Bomb hits 1
CL Oi, Bomb hits 6
DD Samidare, Bomb hits 1
xAK Sydney Maru #2
PB Kiso Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CM Tsubame, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
Port hits 2
Port fuel hits 1
Aircraft Attacking:
3 x Hudson I bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
6 x Hudson I bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
6 x Hudson I bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
CAP engaged:
Tainan Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 4 on standby, 10 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes
As can be seen none of the bomb loads, neither te 4EB or the 2 EB are halved. One can argue about the realism for the halving, as the flight is not entirely at 100ft, and this is a port attack, so hitting a sitting duck is not that hard. A clear rule would benefit gameplay/balance.
I am aware of that, although i can see no difference in reason for halving of the bombload, even more i see no reason for halving if in a naval attack as most of the flight happens above 100 ft. Besides doctrine there is no practical reason for not executing low level attacks, though the lossen on the planes executing them seem rather low.
Naval bases were protected by barrage balloons, usually deployed at 5000 feet. No port attack against a prepared enemy should be allowed at an altitude of less than 6000 feet.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
Naval bases were protected by barrage balloons, usually deployed at 5000 feet. No port attack against a prepared enemy should be allowed at an altitude of less than 6000 feet.
There are barrage balloons in game, and they are somewhat effective, but not every port is going to have them.
Naval bases were protected by barrage balloons, usually deployed at 5000 feet. No port attack against a prepared enemy should be allowed at an altitude of less than 6000 feet.
There are barrage balloons in game, and they are somewhat effective, but not every port is going to have them.
yeah, you need base forces for it. And there are two different balloons IIRC, at a differnt alt.
Naval bases were protected by barrage balloons, usually deployed at 5000 feet. No port attack against a prepared enemy should be allowed at an altitude of less than 6000 feet.
There are barrage balloons in game, and they are somewhat effective, but not every port is going to have them.
I'd be interested in the game data. Apparently Japan produced some 500 during the war. The UK had some 2000 deployed to cover London (about 500) and various ports/naval bases/river mouths (to discourage mining). The Allies used them for landing force and troop convoy defence!
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
