BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn

Doesn't the (Japanese) AI get extra help with aircraft?

Yup, but I guess human player can get this "help" also (maybe in other form), with BRAINS [;)] Ah, and I think both AIs get this help from what I read here......

I was really frustated with the Betty+Oscars plague, so I sound a bit "pro Allies" sorry if I offended with this ......[:D] Consider you find 300+ Jap planes in Rangoon in mid 42. Even if in this phase the Allied air get´s better it´s still pretty hard to get them somehow. So the RN in this area is pretty much useless as the Japs will sink anything that floats even from small fields like Port Blair.....

[ChezDaJez]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn

Doesn't the (Japanese) AI get extra help with aircraft?

Yup, but I guess human player can get this "help" also (maybe in other form), with BRAINS [;)] Ah, and I think both AIs get this help from what I read here......

I was really frustated with the Betty+Oscars plague, so I sound a bit "pro Allies" sorry if I offended with this ......[:D] Consider you find 300+ Jap planes in Rangoon in mid 42. Even if in this phase the Allied air get´s better it´s still pretty hard to get them somehow. So the RN in this area is pretty much useless as the Japs will sink anything that floats even from small fields like Port Blair.....

No offense taken though I do believe that the continuing belief related to the "Betty Scourge" is a carryover from stock days. The ability of the Betty and Nell units to launch attack after attack with torpedoes has been greatly diminished due to the need for a local torpedo supply depot.

I wish I could amass 300+ aircraft in Rangoon in mid-42. I can barely amass that many in all of Burma and Thailand. To do so would be to strip other areas.

Brad and I are playing with PDU off. In our game, Brad conducted several raids on my supply TFs heading to Sabang and Port Blair with his RN carriers. I don't recall ever having any of my Bettys or Nells attack them though it may have happened once or twice. Most of the time I wouldn't know they were there until the bombs started falling. He only stopped raiding after one of my subs put 4 torps into the Invincible sinking her.

A bit off topic but indirectly related.. Most of the AFB complaints with Japanese production begin and end with PDU on. If you choose to play with PDU, the Japanese player will have far more flexibility than with it on. With PDU off, I can assure you that the Japanese player is considerably hamstrung and must wait for newer aircraft to be developed before upgrading his air units. And he can't downgrade an aircraft to free up more for the front. It does no good to over produce aircraft as you can't use them. Our game is in Sept 42 and I am currently producing 535 aircraft and 858 engines of all types per month.

To give you an idea of what I am talking about, I will list my air force compositions for all to see.

IJN
311 fighters in 14 units, all A6M2 or A6M3 Zeros. 2 of these units are restricted to the home islands.
306 medium bombers in 12 units, all Bettys or Nells. 1 unit is restricted to the home islands.
141 light bombers in 14 units, all Kates or Vals. 8 units are restricted to the home islands.

IJA
650 fighters in 30 units, 19 units have Nates, 10 units have Oscars, 1 has Tojos. 15 of these units (mostly Nates) are restricted to the home islands or Manchuria.
375 medium bombers in 16 units, 5 units have Lilys, 11 have Sallys.
411 light bombers in 24 units, 5 have Anns, 3 have Marys, 6 with Idas, 10 with Sonyas. 9 units are restricted to Manchuria or the home islands.

Anyways, its a bit ingenius when people complain about Japanese production after choosing PDU on. My opinion for what's worth.

Chez

[Mynok]

Yes, the Nettie scourge is much reduced in AE due to the torp supply requirement. A good move by the designers. They can still be deadly when properly supported, but they don't rampage across the map like they did in Witp.

PDU off certainly does put a tremendous damper on the Japanese efficiency, especially in their fighter units. Those A6M2s are going to be around a long time after they are flying death traps, as are much of the IJAAF fighter force.

[vicberg]

I'd like to throw in my results, which may be a-typical.  Playing scenario 2 as japs and I took koepang...my opponent started a 4e campaign against it starting mid-jan 42.  Japs have high starting pilot quality, but because I don't like losing high quality pilots in the early part of the war, I pulled roughly 30% of the top pilots out of all my air squadron into tracom and reserve and replaced with replacement pilots, so they aren't near top quality squadrons.  Average experience is probably low to mid-60s. 
 
When he started this, I was taking zero losses, but I moved AA btns (4), engineer companies, air support (more than I need) and 4 zero squadrons to the base.  He was initially attacking with roughly 30+ bombers and a few 2Es...he's abandoned the campaign.  It's early Feb now and he's lost 70 B-17Es and B-17Ds... I haven't lost even half that amount of zeroes..possibly only a quarter.
 
Looking at that, one has to wonder if durability is king or # of planes and pilot quality, plus AAs help a bit.

[Alpha77]

My own results with 4es are also not so phantastic like told here, however they are needed badly by allies, as they simply have no other planes with range (unlike the Japs), well maybe Wellingtons but their replacement is also not the highest. Also they are only useful for patrols and ground bombing, not anti shipping (compared to Bettys). I admit freely however taht the small number of 4es I have are helping me to reduce the Jap airpower esp.in Rabaul and the Guadalcanal area. But as far I am moving out of fighter cover the Bettys would return anyway and torp some ships. So I just assemble ships in ports where they can be protected, for any movements in Betty area I need US carriers for cover. The Brits carriers have not the capacity to provide that protection,well of course I send the RN near the Burma coast, where land based air can intercept. Still Japs put 2 or 3 torps in PoW for example + another one in a CL (PoW was saved in Dec. 41 and repaired).......iirc (this was Aug 42 or so)
 
Ergo: I would reduce only a very small amount of defense power of the 4es in game, otherwise leave at it is.

[vicberg]

The losses are from Tracker.  Tracker removes FOW, so not fantastic at all.  There's other things that I don't know about.  Was my opponent sending them in fatigued, for example?  Was there not enough air support where he was coming from that increased the operational losses?  No idea there...

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that Elf (who wrote the air combat routines) has made it very clear that other factors have a big impact, such as # of planes (and I've had 3-1 up to 4-1 against his bombers) plus squadron leaders (and I spend PP to get best leaders in these squadrons) plus pilot quality.

It's not a cut-and-dried gun damage x accuracy vs. durability...

[vicberg]

So you don't think I'm blowing smoke....

[Nemo121]

Well, I'm removing myself from the discussion. It has become useless because people couldn't maintain focus and, instead of starting their own threads to discuss how aviation support etc played into the grand strategic game decided to polute the thread.

I'm not posting this to be pissy but just to make people think about this and ask themselves what was so difficult about respecting the intention of the thread and just starting a 2nd parallel discussion about aviation support etc etc. The NEW THREAD button is there for a reason guys.

This sort of discussion creep renders focused discussion impossible and is one reason a lot of high calibre people will no longer discuss issues in the War Room and elsewhere.

[LoBaron]

Nemo, I didn´t follow the last posts, but for me the discussion lost its point after
oldman45 pointed out major the differences in player behaviour compared to the actual war.
 
We simply lack the data to estimate what massed heavy bomber raids consisting of B17E or more advanced models
would have done to the Japanese airforce, especially early war.
Even German heavy fighter pilots dreaded the stacked definsive formations of US heavies, and I admit I don´t have the
expertise to convert this into massed combat with planes as fragile as Oscars or Zeros.
 
You point out interesting facts, as gunner acc or unlimited ammo for bombers, but I think it is close to
impossible to know whether the current model successfully translates into a historical what-if situation.
 
Somtimes such discussions lose focus simply because there is not much more to investigate , or any further contribution
brings in so many additional aspects that it could as well be considered off topic.

[vicberg]

Apologies Nemo,
 
I didn't think I was being off-topic.  My results seem to be atypical and I wanted to post that.  I do agree that 4Es are too strong.  But there are counters, at least early war.  These counters are probably not be achievable as the war progresses. 

[crsutton]

Nope, leave the forts alone unless there is a willingness to address other issues in the game. Yes, I agree that my heavy bombers are a bit stronger and have more influence than they should in AE. However, as the Allied player I am dealing with-in no particular order:

An underpowered submarine force that will not target valuable TKs and AKs over craptacular escorts while taking ever increasing losses to fantasy Japanese ASW.

The Japanese ability to train up great pilots in endless numbers.

An inability to match Japanese production in fighters until late 43 or match Japanese ability to focus on building key wonder fighters while I have to live with my P40s and FM wildcats.

A total dearth of medium bombers which are terribly vulnerable to Japanese uber fighters (see above) until 1944-making them for all purposes useless.

Useless attack bombers and fighter bombers that don't really do anything in low level attacks.

Terrible coordination making the heavies the only bomber that I can send in with any confidence that most will not get slaughtered.

And, crap loads of torpedo carrying Japanese bombers. (We dare not mention this) Yes, my heavies are pretty good and you JFboys are having fits shooting them down. I say tough sh*t! Leave them alone. Quite frankly, I am loving it..... [:-]

On a more serious note [;)] Viperpol and I played close to 600 turns in our hard fought campaign. He is a skilled opponent and knows a few things about defending air bases. I find my heavies to be my only real realiable offensive weapon unless I have total air superiorty-then I can use the mediums. So far my heavy bomber losses has numbered well into the hundreds. I only have a handful of B17 E and Fs left. Maybe 30 B24 Ds and still have at least a dozen heavy bomber units that are using obsolete bombers or have no planes at all. I can now pretty much close any airbase that I want now (not ahistorical at all) but must still be careful with my heavy bomber use. I expect that to change as the year passes and my bomber spigot really turns on, and I can be a little more carefree in their use. The heavies are tough but I have had to be very careful and have used them very carefully since the fight began. Personally from my own experience, I don't see where my heavies have had an undue influence on our game. Certainly not as much as the five million tojos that I have had to face in the last year......[:@]

I really don't think our experience is too far out of the historical scope of things.

[Chickenboy]

I agree with crsutton-in the name of gameplayability, I'm willing to take my lumps as the IJ with what I believe to be an unrealistically aerial offensive platform because of all the other cliche goodies that I get or can develop.

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Guys, I've read a LOT about B-17s, and I find the game models them very accurrately. Subaro Saki himself lamments how difficult it was to bring one down, and he flew mainly against the c and D models. They were extremely rugged, and well armed. The Japanese would have entire squadrons taking turns on a B-17 , and litterally run out of ammo without bringing one down. And the B-17e was an even greater nightmare, as their previous tactics (tail attacks) were very , very dangerous. B-17 pilots had back and side armor, and bullet resistant glass. If a B-17 group employed "combat box" tactics, it took a very couregous pilot to attack , and a even more skill full one to survive. What the game also accurately models is the damage that B-17's took .It didn't take much to cause them to scrub the mission. Martin Caidan and others describe B-17 engines having entire cylinders shot out and still running. Japanese planes while very maneverable, were lightly armed and very fragile.

The Germans seldom did any damage to a B-17 with less that at least one 20mm cannon. But then again their guns were heavier (20,and 30mm) and they carried more of them, and much more ammunition. Plus being radar and ground controlled vectored, they generally had a higher concertration of planes in the right place, with pilots trained to shoot down B-17s (often using captured B-17s from KG 200).

Yes, but this does not discuss the OFFENSIVE firepower capabilities of the Allied heavy bomber, Steve.

Can they take a lot of damage? No question. Is the return fire from the Allied heavies unrealisitically accurate in the game? I'm convinced it is.

Is using Allied heavies without escort to intentionally 'sweep' fighter aerodromes gamey? You bet your bippy.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I agree with crsutton-in the name of gameplayability, I'm willing to take my lumps as the IJ with what I believe to be an unrealistically aerial offensive platform because of all the other cliche goodies that I get or can develop.

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Guys, I've read a LOT about B-17s, and I find the game models them very accurrately. Subaro Saki himself lamments how difficult it was to bring one down, and he flew mainly against the c and D models. They were extremely rugged, and well armed. The Japanese would have entire squadrons taking turns on a B-17 , and litterally run out of ammo without bringing one down. And the B-17e was an even greater nightmare, as their previous tactics (tail attacks) were very , very dangerous. B-17 pilots had back and side armor, and bullet resistant glass. If a B-17 group employed "combat box" tactics, it took a very couregous pilot to attack , and a even more skill full one to survive. What the game also accurately models is the damage that B-17's took .It didn't take much to cause them to scrub the mission. Martin Caidan and others describe B-17 engines having entire cylinders shot out and still running. Japanese planes while very maneverable, were lightly armed and very fragile.

The Germans seldom did any damage to a B-17 with less that at least one 20mm cannon. But then again their guns were heavier (20,and 30mm) and they carried more of them, and much more ammunition. Plus being radar and ground controlled vectored, they generally had a higher concertration of planes in the right place, with pilots trained to shoot down B-17s (often using captured B-17s from KG 200).

Yes, but this does not discuss the OFFENSIVE firepower capabilities of the Allied heavy bomber, Steve.

Can they take a lot of damage? No question. Is the return fire from the Allied heavies unrealisitically accurate in the game? I'm convinced it is.

Is using Allied heavies without escort to intentionally 'sweep' fighter aerodromes gamey? You bet your bippy.

There's a comment I've often heard WW2 Army aircrew men make that addresses this issue. Many , many times I've heard the B-17 called "The best 4 engine fighter of the war". It had between 10 and 15 heavy machine guns Andre. They flew in a pack, as big as they could. That's a heck of a lot of guns aimed at one fighter made mostly out of aluminum foil. Whats so hard to understand? You go stand in a aluminum garden shed while fifty to a hundred of me and my friends shoot at it with 50 calibur guns. Then tell me that it's unrealistic.[:D]

[PresterJohn001]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


There's a comment I've often heard WW2 Army aircrew men make that addresses this issue. Many , many times I've heard the B-17 called "The best 4 engine fighter of the war". It had between 10 and 15 heavy machine guns Andre. They flew in a pack, as big as they could. That's a heck of a lot of guns aimed at one fighter made mostly out of aluminum foil. Whats so hard to understand? You go stand in a aluminum garden shed while fifty to a hundred of me and my friends shoot at it with 50 calibur guns. Then tell me that it's unrealistic.[:D]

I don't think this argues particuarly for the accuracy of turret weapons, quite the reverse if you think about it.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


There's a comment I've often heard WW2 Army aircrew men make that addresses this issue. Many , many times I've heard the B-17 called "The best 4 engine fighter of the war". It had between 10 and 15 heavy machine guns Andre. They flew in a pack, as big as they could. That's a heck of a lot of guns aimed at one fighter made mostly out of aluminum foil. Whats so hard to understand? You go stand in a aluminum garden shed while fifty to a hundred of me and my friends shoot at it with 50 calibur guns. Then tell me that it's unrealistic.[:D]

I don't think this argues particuarly for the accuracy of turret weapons, quite the reverse if you think about it.

Even if the weapons are not accurrate (I personally belive that they are) a very large percentage (waiste,radio and nose are not turret), many many guns firing at the same target are bound to produce a significant number of hits. Frankly, I wasn't arguing for or against the turret----that depends more on the marksman than the weapon.

But I do defy anyone to tell me that having dozens and poetenitally hundreds of heavy machine guns firing at one target at a time isn't devastating.

[bradfordkay]

"Is using Allied heavies without escort to intentionally 'sweep' fighter aerodromes gamey? You bet your bippy. "

So... is every time a 4E bomber mission is sent without escort to be considered to be a "gamey sweep" mission? Are the allies supposed to just ignore their only long ranged weapons platform?

In most of 1942 there are no long ranged allied fighters, and a good Japanese player will establish his defensive perimeter outside of standard allied fighter range. In that case, the only offensive missions that the allies can send will be either unescorted bombers or carrier raids.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Is using Allied heavies without escort to intentionally 'sweep' fighter aerodromes gamey? You bet your bippy. "

Good thing your "bippy" isn't worth anything, because that bet is a sure-fire loser. Until the P-51 arrived in strength in the Spring of 1944, virtually ALL B-17 raids were unescorted. Against the Germans this was a tough proposition, but in the Pacific it worked just fine.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Is using Allied heavies without escort to intentionally 'sweep' fighter aerodromes gamey? You bet your bippy. "

So... is every time a 4E bomber mission is sent without escort to be considered to be a "gamey sweep" mission? Are the allies supposed to just ignore their only long ranged weapons platform?

In most of 1942 there are no long ranged allied fighters, and a good Japanese player will establish his defensive perimeter outside of standard allied fighter range. In that case, the only offensive missions that the allies can send will be either unescorted bombers or carrier raids.

bradfordkay,

No-every time a 4E bomber mission is sent w/o escort is not a gamey sweep mission. The Allies are welcome to use heavy bombers escorted or unescorted to bomb naval/ground/strategic whatever, as they did IRL. Escort was not available for most of the useage of heavy bombers IRL so they went it alone. I get that and have no beef with it.

I don't believe that the Allies made use of heavy bomber sweeps where the predetermined role of the bomber was to go in there, guns blazing, without bombs, to explicitly shoot down airborne enemy fighters as a means to an end.

The issue is INTENT. If the B17s, in the conduct of their recon/bombing/search roles encounter enemy fighters, then go right ahead and shoot 'em down. If it's intentional use of an ahistoric program / coding / game loophole just to kill more Jap fighters as a proxy workaround, now I've got a problem.

Another analogy: There's nothing amiss about an Allied CL/DD SCTF intercepting and destroying a Japanese transport TF of xAKs, xAPs and let's say PB escorts. I would be disappointed by the loss (as the IJ player), but stuff happens. I would not intentionally sail my transport TF into the waiting jaws of the allied SCTF in this example, as I can't fathom a rationale for why this would be done IRL. Sure, if the transports were dropping off supply or transporting something that's OK.

Now-let's say that I take my transport TF and intentionally sail it to 'intercept' your waiting SCTF. Only this time, I'm doing it intentionally to run the Allied ships out of main gun ammo prior to next turn, where I send Yamato and friends into the same hex to meet your ammo-less SCTF.

Any difference? Can't I, as the Japanese player, use my xAKs and transport ships the way I choose to in the game? I'm sure that I can cobble up some damage a Jap trawler conveyed to an Allied submarine IRL as a rationale for my argument for how all Jap xAKs and PB TFs can be used in this offensive capacity.

The B17s intentionally, explicitly as fighters strikes me the same way.

Hope this clarifies.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

....
I really think this discussion should be about how to slow down the use of the 4E bomber. As I pointed out earlier, we are not constrained by the "facts" of 1942. There were plenty of bombers for the AAC to use in the pacific. They were sitting on the West Coast and PH. They were used as patrol planes in the South Pacific. The players would be screaming bloody murder if they were forced to do this. Another fact is the IJN/IJA fighter pilots did not know deal wih the bombers in 42 and their planes had a very hard time shooting them down. Now thats a fact and its something that should not be changed as far as the game mechanics go. Here is another fact, 1942 10th AF sent B-17's to India.
On paper there were 17 bombers, but the reality was it was closer to 8. Over the following months they were able to fly missions of 2 and 3 planes. and it could take up to a week to get that many in the air. They also flew at night...... Perhaps what we need to look at is changing how many planes a squadron can get into the air. On a side note, one day light raid of 2 planes was attacked by 10 fighters. Not sure the type but they could have been Oscars or even Nates. One of the planes was shot down the other badly damaged. Another mission 4 Bombers attacked shipping @3500 ft. Between AAA fire and fighter attacks 2 were damaged. It was almost 2 weeks before they could put 3 planes up for another raid. If I searched information about Kenny's AF I have a feeling I would find similar data. The point I am trying to make is instead of changing combat and all the problems it could lead to, change how the bombers are handled.

This would suggest to me that the SR of the 4E's needs to be higher, probably above the current possible scale. Like maybe 7 or 8.

OR, they need to have higher penalties for low supply/small air fields. Better still would be to have another layer of penalties for them. lose 25% if base is less than 50,000 supply. Lose another 25% is less than 10,000. Lose 25% if base is smaller than 7. Lose another 25% is base is smaller than bomb load formula. This would make it tough to use them in large numbers the early war from "anywhere", but have little impact upon the allies in '43 and beyond. It would also more closely approximate the real requirements of these planes: they needed large, well supplied bases from which to operate from for offensive missions.

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Is using Allied heavies without escort to intentionally 'sweep' fighter aerodromes gamey? You bet your bippy. "

Good thing your "bippy" isn't worth anything, because that bet is a sure-fire loser. Until the P-51 arrived in strength in the Spring of 1944, virtually ALL B-17 raids were unescorted. Against the Germans this was a tough proposition, but in the Pacific it worked just fine.

Except that wasn't my quote...