Ideas please?

[RogerJNeilson]

ORIGINAL: AE Veteran

Also please do bear in mind they do have signifcant fatigue and repair issues.....

Lol

Check on where there are areas in the game that have not recently had any 4E activity - there may be a very good reason for this.


Roger

[AE Veteran]

but its how you, as a commander choose to use them. I have chosen not to go the Centpac route and thus have different opportunities to use them.

Absolutely but history shows they were not used that often against ground troops - why? Becasue they were not very good at it historically. Not in AE!!!

[viberpol]

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3
I would agree that I should not use 4Es on deployed ground troops in close proximity to my front lines - and even a rule that says no ground attack by 4Es on hexes where friendly troops are also present.

This one is good HR imho.

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3
1. This would allow me to bomb a defending unit into oblivion the move before I landed.....
2. As there is no way to interdict supply lines - as happened certainly across all the major theatres of war, the only way to bomb these is to do ground attack....

Roger, believe me, you don't need to bomb LCUs (especially while we're talking about islands) to interdict supplies... This game is all about supplies.
If you bomb the airfields for a week or two, and if the base has no 7+ forts, the supplies evaporate very very easily... 20 000 supplies? 2 or 3 raids of 100 4Es and there's no supplies.
From the Japanese perspective, I'd even say it's a waste of resources to try to resupply such a contested base. With no supplies your opponents' LCUs are weak as kittens.
And bombing the airfields you do disrupt (and destroy) LCUs.

This is a way "round", but in my opinion closer to reality.
You will receive almost the same but it just needs more time.
Things look different in Burma or China etc. where the flow of supplies is different.
However, if I could do something with it, I'd banned the whole land bombing mission from the 4E squadrons mission view. [:D][;)][;)][:D]

So, from a different perspective, maybe 4Es raids should be HR-allowed if there is fort level 7+ ? In such conditions 2Es don't actually hurt a lot and some "more serious means" are needed... [:)]

[Numdydar]

I have had a large number of troops in clear getting bombed every day by 4E and 2Es. My PBEM game is in 11/44. No forts either as I am retreating. No air cover at all either. Have not lost a unit yet to bombing either.

The loses you took actually seem reasonable given the activity that was launched based on my experience. I really do not see an issue with the results of the bombing I am recieving in my game. You only lost two squads completely. Trust me you are going to see a lot worse than this as the game goes on [:(]

I hate to say it but anywhere you really want to put up a fight, you need at least a division. A para and Naval Guard is just a speed bump at this stage of the game.

[geofflambert]

I've never gotten very good results with 4Es bombing LCUs at 10k feet, but I very rarely attempt it because it's against my inclinations and it wasn't done much historically. I would not like to see rules that reduce the effect of 4Es on ports or airfields though, they seem to be fairly reasonable. We seem to have a problem with 4Es attacking LCUs though, perhaps house rules banning that altogether would be appropriate, I would not object and I don't think it would significantly damage realism to have such a rule. If MM can work a fix where LBs attacking above a certain alt are simply not very effective (and we use alt restrictions on 4Es) I would be fine with that. If that fix cannot be done, let's just deal with it and ban 4Es from attacking LCUs directly. I see no reason to just surrender and say the game is irretrievably broken. Players who care about realism can work these things out, and that's the only kind of player I'm interested in.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: viberpol

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3
I would agree that I should not use 4Es on deployed ground troops in close proximity to my front lines - and even a rule that says no ground attack by 4Es on hexes where friendly troops are also present.

This one is good HR imho.

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3
1. This would allow me to bomb a defending unit into oblivion the move before I landed.....
2. As there is no way to interdict supply lines - as happened certainly across all the major theatres of war, the only way to bomb these is to do ground attack....

Roger, believe me, you don't need to bomb LCUs (especially while we're talking about islands) to interdict supplies... This game is all about supplies.
If you bomb the airfields for a week or two, and if the base has no 7+ forts, the supplies evaporate very very easily... 20 000 supplies? 2 or 3 raids of 100 4Es and there's no supplies.
From the Japanese perspective, I'd even say it's a waste of resources to try to resupply such a contested base. With no supplies your opponents' LCUs are weak as kittens.
And bombing the airfields you do disrupt (and destroy) LCUs.

This is a way "round", but in my opinion closer to reality.
You will receive almost the same but it just needs more time.
Things look different in Burma or China etc. where the flow of supplies is different.
However, if I could do something with it, I'd banned the whole land bombing mission from the 4E squadrons mission view. [:D][;)][;)][:D]

So, from a different perspective, maybe 4Es raids should be HR-allowed if there is fort level 7+ ? In such conditions 2Es don't actually hurt a lot and some "more serious means" are needed... [:)]

Ark is my excellent opponent and he and I disagree greatly on this matter. It also bugs me that so many Japanese players start to moan about Allied air power in 1944 when then game gives them so many advantages early on. In 1942, I faced massive Japanese bombing attacks in China and Australia that tore up my ground units. Ark has managed to completely destroy a few units in his day. We are playing scen #2 where he still had pools full of excellent 2nd generation fighters and all of his strategic points are covered my massive CAP that would destroy any un-escorted strategic attempts. So you guys would like to see a house rule that says I have to bomb these strategic targets and get slaughtered or don't use my 4Es at all. You are so ready to put HRs on the one real Allied strength throughout the game but start to moan when we AFBs bitch about factors that favors the Japanese. The Allies chose to not use their 4Es tactically because they had the option to use them strategically, not because they could not...I choose to use mine tactically because I want to and can. In exchange, Ark gets to keep his aircraft factories until I invade Japan[;)] Sounds like a fair trade to me.

Below are some of the reasons why I choose to follow this course.

1. Fighter bombers, the traditional Allied ground support units are virtually useless in the game.

2. Allied medium bombers are always in very short supply. To limit close ground support to just mediums would prove to be a wonderful bonus to the Japanese player because they can produce literally thousands of Japanese medium bombers. It would basically give tactical superiority to Japan until almost 1945. In April 1945 I am producing roughly 80-90 medium bombers of all types..my pools are still virtually empty.

3. In our game we have heavy restrictions on night bombing. Daylight bombing without escort vs franks, jacks, georges is nothing but suicide. My losses would not be sustainable.

4. I spent the first two years of our campaign fighting for air superiority. In scen 2 you can expect air parity to come about one year later than historically happened. I have seen every betty and nell unit torpedo capable. (Yeah, that really happened). I have suffered through the great tojo infestation of mid 42 to early 43. I ate Jap bombs in China, Burma, India, Australia and the South Pacific like my dog eats pancakes, and my ships swallowed up enough torpedoes during his happy times. I am still stuck with 500 pound bombs on my mediums and 1,000 on my DB while I know he will be getting planes that carry 800 kg bombs. Ark had his fun. Now I got a gazillion heavy bombers and he is just going to have to howl about it. [;)]

Yeah, I know my big boys are a bit overpowered vs your poor, poor infantry units.
But you know, I am somehow learning to deal with the guilt......

Oh yeah, and when are you JFBs going to start begging for a HR that prevents you from using Japanese Army and Navy planes together. Sheeesh...give me a break.

[LoBaron]

Personally I refrain from using 4e bombers below 10k.

But still, isolated units without forts, no CAP protection, and in unfavourable terrain, tend to get hurt fast and bad. Those Japanese defensive positions that historically were subject to extended bombardement by either bombers or ship/land based artillery, and withstood that bombardement in acceptable shape, were in game erms dug in behind level 6-9 fortresses (e.g. the defensive positions at Okinawa, or what Kruger faced with the 6th army north of Luzon).

Also, casualties are not neccessarily equal to wounded or dead soldiers. It is the representation of the units' status. Damaged/destroyed units are, for whatever reason, removed as an effective fighting force, either temporarily or permanently, either as a direct or indirect result of an attack.


That said, I agree with crsutton. [;)]

[JeffroK]

That said, I agree with crsutton.

ditto

He said it far more politely than me.

PS The under usage of 4E as ground support was more to do with the Bomber Barons protecting their charges than their lack of success.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: viberpol


If you bomb the airfields for a week or two, and if the base has no 7+ forts, the supplies evaporate very very easily... 20 000 supplies? 2 or 3 raids of 100 4Es and there's no supplies.

that's just not true and I am sure you know that very, very well [8|]



Your proposals further above are even more grotesk than everything I've heard in the past. 4E attacks only allowed if a base has level 7+ forts? Are you serious?

"Japanese commander to Allied commander: Bombing of Manila not allowed, 250,000 troops are sitting only in level 6 forts" [8|]

"Japanese commander to Allied commander: 400 IJAAF medium bombers allowed to bomb every Chinese base whenever they want because the Chinese don't have enough supplies to build a base above level 6" [8|]

Bombing only allowed when bombers don't hurt much LOL, come on, why don't you say: Bombing only allowed if it's Japanese bombs that are dropped? let's do it that way then: no Betty/Nell attacks with torps allowed as soon as the IJNAF has dropped 300 aerial torpedoes in the game as that probably is all they have dropped in the whole war

[Yaab]

Well, in WITP:AE heavy bombers perform Ground Attack missions and Light Bombers perform City Attack missions. As Japs, I can pulverise industry in China with 15kg bombs and as Allies I can evaporate moving LCUs with heavy bombers performing tactical strikes.

We could lower the lethality of heavy bombers on Ground Attack missions by tying their effectivness with detection level. Detection level of 8-9 should give you good results, anything lower, and your attack should be waste of bombs for crater-making exercise.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Yaab
We could lower the lethality of heavy bombers on Ground Attack missions by tying their effectivness with detection level.

This is the case already.

It is just very easy to achieve a sufficiently high DL.

[RogerJNeilson]

Ok lets focus on results and not the could it/should it/would it arguments for a minute,

Actually we both are talking about the same result it appears....

Japanese ground losses:
496 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 33 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 16 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

So were they destroyed or disrupted to a point of not being militarily effective? The combat report says the 16th Naval Guard were hit with others also attacked, so there's around 3K Japanese at the base, 496 casualties is around 15% of the total. I have no idea whether the casualties are mainly the Naval Guard - if so that's nearer to 50% and would render most units (of whatever size) ineffective. There was an AV of 40 or so in a follow up bombardment.... 80+ bombers took out one unit - which if we are talking disruption not casualties will recover if its allowed to over a period of time. A full Naval Guard unit is AV 60 or so.... they replied with an AV of 40 or so in a bombardment that same day so maybe it was two thirds of the unit present.....

If the casualties were all kills or wounds then my dropped munitions have the effectiveness of snipers......
If they were rendered ineffective - lost, bewildered, out of command, deaf, crazy, shell shocked, waiting for orders that don't appear, buried, then that is more how I see it should be.

So when the word disabled appears, what does it actually mean?

Roger

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Ark is my excellent opponent and he and I disagree greatly on this matter. It also bugs me that so many Japanese players start to moan about Allied air power in 1944 when then game gives them so many advantages early on. In 1942, I faced massive Japanese bombing attacks in China and Australia that tore up my ground units. Ark has managed to completely destroy a few units in his day. We are playing scen #2 where he still had pools full of excellent 2nd generation fighters and all of his strategic points are covered my massive CAP that would destroy any un-escorted strategic attempts. So you guys would like to see a house rule that says I have to bomb these strategic targets and get slaughtered or don't use my 4Es at all. You are so ready to put HRs on the one real Allied strength throughout the game but start to moan when we AFBs bitch about factors that favors the Japanese. The Allies chose to not use their 4Es tactically because they had the option to use them strategically, not because they could not...I choose to use mine tactically because I want to and can. In exchange, Ark gets to keep his aircraft factories until I invade Japan[;)] Sounds like a fair trade to me.

I agree with everything here. I don't want the Allies to not be able to change the use of 4E or any other type of unit in game from the historical use. I would simply hope there would be some way to simulate better the historical results of any bomber hitting troops from altitude, with an even more exaggerated scale so that the higher you go against troops the less you hit, and so that even small planes could have a decent effect low to the ground. This would give the Allies the more historical uses of FB, Corsairs/P-47, strafing B-25s, etc. This would impact the Japanese side early especially as well, with no ultra effective mass bombings of Chinese troops which are just as silly, and might open more uses for other types not often employed like Sonias, Anns and also the FB like the Nick on ground attack low.

Alas that is probably never going to happen.

Below are some of the reasons why I choose to follow this course.

1. Fighter bombers, the traditional Allied ground support units are virtually useless in the game.

Yes. Sad. Wish it were different.

2. Allied medium bombers are always in very short supply. To limit close ground support to just mediums would prove to be a wonderful bonus to the Japanese player because they can produce literally thousands of Japanese medium bombers. It would basically give tactical superiority to Japan until almost 1945. In April 1945 I am producing roughly 80-90 medium bombers of all types..my pools are still virtually empty.

Completely agree. Although if you haven't tried using ONLY LR Havocs on bombing duties try it and see how much fun that is, because that's basically what a Helen gives you. Not so tactically superior no matter how many you have. [;)]

3. In our game we have heavy restrictions on night bombing. Daylight bombing without escort vs franks, jacks, georges is nothing but suicide. My losses would not be sustainable.

My opponent has found otherwise if within sweeping range of P-47s. [;)] Daylight bombing works without escorts.

4. I spent the first two years of our campaign fighting for air superiority. In scen 2 you can expect air parity to come about one year later than historically happened. I have seen every betty and nell unit torpedo capable. (Yeah, that really happened). I have suffered through the great tojo infestation of mid 42 to early 43. I ate Jap bombs in China, Burma, India, Australia and the South Pacific like my dog eats pancakes, and my ships swallowed up enough torpedoes during his happy times. I am still stuck with 500 pound bombs on my mediums and 1,000 on my DB while I know he will be getting planes that carry 800 kg bombs. Ark had his fun. Now I got a gazillion heavy bombers and he is just going to have to howl about it. [;)]

There should be a decisive turn toward Allied capabilities in mid-43. This happened for sure in my game. You however did choose to play against scen 2 and that is your choice, so you also have to deal with it before that and with the very inflated OOB and abilities of the economy throughout. [:)]

I for one am not arguing for any change in the use of 4E against any target, but simply (and most likely futilely) bemoaning the lack of balance between the types of units historically used for these purposes and those that MUST be used in game. It's just too bad, and when I play the Allied side I will wish all of those FB had a better purpose than weak slow escorts for 4E.

Yeah, I know my big boys are a bit overpowered vs your poor, poor infantry units.
But you know, I am somehow learning to deal with the guilt......

Oh yeah, and when are you JFBs going to start begging for a HR that prevents you from using Japanese Army and Navy planes together. Sheeesh...give me a break.

If the political component of this game was more complex, with the divisions between needs of the various Allied countries, the difficulty of coordinating agendas and unit types, different ordnance and all of those logistical concerns, plus a complete mess of local lordships in China all pursuing they own goals, then the division of IJN and IJA would make complete sense. I'd love to see that game but it would most likely have to me multi-player for each side and it would be almost unplayable unless very much simplified.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3
So when the word disabled appears, what does it actually mean?

This is just a personal opinion, but to my understanding it is anything from being wounded by a bullet or bomb splinter to sitting shellshocked and/or frightened to death in a trench, having lost communications with command, being disrupted to the point of surrender/desertion on first sight of the enemy, simply being occupied with urgent damge control duties, or any possible stage in between preventing immediate ready at arms status.

Same as to me a 'destroyed' squad never per default means a dead soldier. Rather it can be anything from disorganized retreat from the front with no chance to reform to being encircled and surrendering to the enemy.

IMO the states of disablement are as abstracted as is the term 'supplies'.

[GreyJoy]

Personally I think the 4Es are way overpowered and, if used en masse without any self restriction or HR, can really ruin the game. That's just my opinion, obviously, but I do find that the use of 4Es to simply annihilate the ground units does not counterbalance the powers Japan has in 1942.
Me and Brad are now playing in dec 1943 and Brad has used his 4Es in a very historical way (he used them very very seldom to attack LCUs and only in small numbers). Despite that, he managed to obtain the very same tactical effect using his 2Es for that role... obviously to a lesser and more realistic degree.

In my other game I've started with the allies i'm planning not to use 4Es on ground attack at all. I think I don't need them in that role and don't really like the idea.

[viberpol]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: viberpol
If you bomb the airfields for a week or two, and if the base has no 7+ forts, the supplies evaporate very very easily... 20 000 supplies? 2 or 3 raids of 100 4Es and there's no supplies.

that's just not true and I am sure you know that very, very well [8|]

Yes, Castor Troy. You say it's not true. I say it's true.
You have to accept we differ in opinions.

And I've seen it many times in my game with Crsutton.
Unless the forts are high up, 2 or 3 days of serious aerial bombardments and the supplies simply evaporate.
It's especially true for the island defence (again, while on continent the supplies can be sucked from elsewhere) and while you play with the latest beta, with different coordination routine, that cuts the incoming raids to smaller pieces.
(You probably know the damage to supplies is inflicted in % of the whole, so every piece hitting the "rest" of the supplies left -- in this case id est. destroying the supplies, single raid = less destruction, more raids = more destruction). Do you play with the latest beta? I thought you don't like it... [;)]

ORIGINAL: castor troy
Your proposals further above are even more grotesk than everything I've heard in the past. 4E attacks only allowed if a base has level 7+ forts? Are you serious?

I am talking about playability and fun of the game.
Some players just take the game (too) seriously... [8|]
In my opinion, the 4Es bombing troops every day is just no fun.
It's just a suggestion. Don't like it? OK. But please refrain from personal attacks.

No...

ORIGINAL: castor troy Bombing only allowed when bombers don't hurt much

but "4E bombing only allowed when 2E bombers don't hurt much".
I meant situations like this one mentioned by LoBaron...

ORIGINAL: LoBaron Those Japanese defensive positions that historically were subject to extended bombardement by either bombers or ship/land based artillery, and withstood that bombardement in acceptable shape, were in game erms dug in behind level 6-9 fortresses (e.g. the defensive positions at Okinawa, or what Kruger faced with the 6th army north of Luzon).

...in game terms I really understand using 4Es to weaken the heavy fortified areas just because the conventional attack (id est 2Es) are simply a non factor bringing no or almost no damage.

It's just a suggestion of a HR as everything else to make the game more balanced from one (mine) perspective. With the (un)coordinated [;)] beta changes I bet you actually won't see any coordinated attack of 300 Betties with torps. [8|] It's a two edged sword...
So what unique powers does Japan have in '42 that cannot be stopped/contested/counterbalanced somehow by a skilled Allied player?


Concerning that combat report:

ORIGINAL: AE Veteran
Morning Air attack on 16th Naval Guard Unit, at 60,99 (Bandjermasin)

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 3
B-24D1 Liberator x 14
B-24J Liberator x 34

Allied aircraft losses
B-24D1 Liberator: 1 damaged
B-24J Liberator: 4 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
496 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 33 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 16 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

This particular outcome I find rather standard, quite normal and even rather "small".
Given the small amount of actually destroyed squads, this is perfectly acceptable imho.
Disrupted squads doesn't mean destroyed. But disrupted squads get destroyed the next turn if the raids are repeated.
AE Veteran, just wait till you see the real shock&awe effects of a rain of bombs... [;)]
Ross, can you please add some info from the combat report that shows the real effect of massive raids of your 4Es?

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
Personally I think the 4Es are way overpowered and, if used en masse without any self restriction or HR, can really ruin the game.

Agree.

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Oh yeah, and when are you JFBs going to start begging for a HR that prevents you from using Japanese Army and Navy planes together. Sheeesh...give me a break.

OK. No problem, Ross. [:D]
I am ready to accept the HR that states I use only navy or only army planes from a single base. I have no problem with it. It's closer to RL (more real than "Cobra style" every day) and perfectly acceptable... [:D]
Maybe next game... [;)]

[Bullwinkle58]

I always read these 4E bombing threads with a smile. They never get old. The DEMANDS for historic accuracy are always followed in short order by DEMANDS that the Allies stop hurting the Japanese in ways they can't defend. (The China bombing of 1942 is apparently forgotten, as a 2E bomber is much, much nicer than those bad, evil 4Es.)

The historical purists never seem, however, to want to consider ALL of the history. Only that small piece that makes their life easier. In FACT, the Allies had dominant air power in 1944 and 1945. And a lot of this was in tactical air, in CAS, areas the game, much as we love it, falls woefully short. The Strafe mission is, to be kind, worthless in large continental campaigns found in China, Burma, and India. The game does not model rockets. It does not model napalm, It does not allow tank-killing missions to be specified for fighter-bombers. It does not allow locomotives to be targeted. It does not allow bridges to be dropped.

Here is some HISOTRY of that effort in Europe. Consider the figures. Consider how much better the German army was at AA than Japan. And then, maybe, consider that troop bombing by 4Es in the game is really just a light substitute for what FBs really accomplished in the real world, effects Japan in the game does not ever have to face.

"In the days before the closing of the Falaise gap, the 2 TAF averaged 1,200 sorties per day. The air war was particularly violent from August 15 through the 21st. Typhoons and Spitfires attacked the roads leading from the gap to the Seine, strafing columns of densely packed vehicles and men. Under repeated attack, some of the columns actually displayed white flags of surrender, but the RAF took "no notice" of this since Allied ground forces were not in the vicinity, and "to cease fire would merely have allowed the enemy to move unmolested to the Seine." Typhoons typically would destroy the vehicles at the head of a road column, then leisurely shoot up the rest of the vehicles with their rockets and cannon. When they finished, Spitfires would dive down to strafe the remains.
Because the Luftwaffe was absent over the battlefield, Broadhurst directed 2 TAF wings to operate their aircraft in pairs. Thus, a "two ship" of Spitfires or Typhoons could return to the gap after being refueled and rearmed without waiting for a larger formation to be ready to return. This maximized the number of support sorties that could be flown, and, indeed, pilots of one Canadian Spitfire wing averaged six sorties per day. Nothing that moved was immune from what one Typhoon pilot recollected as "the biggest shoot-up ever experienced by a rocket Typhoon pilot." Another recalled the flavor of attack operations:

The show starts like a well-planned ballet: the Typhoons go into echelon while turning, then dive on their prey at full throttle. Rockets whistle, guns bark, engines roar and pilots sweat without noticing it as our missiles smash the Tigers. Petrol tanks explode amid torrents of black smoke. A Typhoon skids away to avoid machine fire. Some horses frightened by the noise gallop wildly in a nearby field.

Nor was Falaise strictly a 2 TAF operation; the AAF was also heavily committed. Over the duration of the Falaise fighting, air strikes gradually moved from west of Argentan to north, to east, and finally to east of the Dives River. One strike by P47s on August 13 gives a graphic indication of the sizes of German forces open to attack:

That morning 37 P-47 pilots of the 36th Group found 800 to 1,000 enemy vehicles of all types milling about in the pocket west of Argentan. They could see American and British forces racing to choke off the gap. They went to work. Within an hour the Thunderbolts had blown up or burned out between 400 and 500 enemy vehicles. The fighter-bombers kept at it until they ran out of bombs and ammunition. One pilot, with empty gun chambers and bomb shackles, dropped his belly tank on 12 trucks and left them all in flames.

All told, on 13 August, XIX TAC fighter-bombers destroyed or damaged more than 1,000 road and rail vehicles, 45 tanks and armored vehicles, and 12 locomotives. Inside the pocket they reduced 10 enemy delaying-action strong points to rubble.

Four days later another Thunderbolt squadron, below-strength, flew over a huge traffic jam, radioed for assistance, "and soon the sky was so full of British and American fighter-bombers that they had to form up in queues to make their bomb runs." The next day, 36th Group Thunderbolts spotted another large German formation, marked out by yellow artillery smoke. Since the vehicles were in a zone designated as a British responsibility, XIX TAC sat back "disconsolately" while 2 TAF launched a series of strikes that claimed almost 3,000 vehicles damaged or destroyed. On August 19, one Spitfire wing put in a claim for 500 vehicles destroyed or damaged in a single day; that same day, another Spitfire wing claimed 700."


http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-H-DDay/

The Allies do not get CAS results like this. The Allies get limited planes. The Japanese get unlimited planes. Many PBEM games have restrictive rules already concerning using multi-engine bombers to destroy the Japanese economy.

Maybe more Japanese players should count their blessings and let this one go.

[obvert]

Bulwinkle, it's not about counting blessings or getting things easier for me, it's simply about plausibility and how to work against the situations presented.

I know it sounds odd from someone who has so far played only the Japanese side in PBEM, but I'd love to see the strafing planes do what they are supposed to do. The Japanese could use their own lesser versions, but the Allies SHOULD have those able to get low, bomb and strafe with all of the carnage and risk that involved. My counter would be to use the relatively unimportant multiple 20mm AA units Japan gets and make sure troops moving in open areas had some protection. Even the absolute useless MG AA units embedded in the units might then have some purpose. It would just make the game more rich, even if the results were equally devastating.

It would also present the Allies with more options, make them have to make tough choices. Do I train strafing and ground bombing for all fighter pilots? Do I train strafing for 2E bomber pilots? It wouldn't be easy to balance all of that either, and could take some of those uber-sweeps down to what they usually were in game, which was lots of low strafing attacks on fields with some high support. Much more interesting and dynamic.

If there were an issue with accuracy in 4E bombing from altitude in game (as was clearly demonstrated in the war, or the Germans would likely not been able to make a plane or tank after about 1/44, since all of their industry was continually bombed and never completely shut down, and by the more relevant ground bombing of the Falaise troops), and if strafing worked then it would allow all of these planes to take their designed role more often.

I guess though the issue with strafing will never be fixed, so I'm not sure why I keep bringing it up other than to say that this is really the problem, not so much the 4Es.

[Numdydar]

I did and just accept it as the price for plaing the game [:)]. It is truely amazing to me after getting this far in a game as Japan (11/44) how fast things go south lol. I am also in Scen 2 and will barely make it into '45 before an AV occurs.

I can assure you whatever strong position you think you have, it is just a paer tiger [:(]. I too thought I had things going pretty well at your point in the game. Boy was I wrong [:(]. The amout of power the Allies can project is staggering. Why on earth the RL Japanese kept fighting is beyond me.

When someone here is willing to sink a million dollars into accurately modeling the different weapon systems and how they all interacted, we just have to accept the game (and its inaccuraccies) as the price to even to have a game like this. To be honest, I am blown away it works as good as it does. So I can easily ignore the warts since the love is so good [:D]

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: AE Veteran
Morning Air attack on 16th Naval Guard Unit, at 60,99 (Bandjermasin)

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 3
B-24D1 Liberator x 14
B-24J Liberator x 34

Allied aircraft losses
B-24D1 Liberator: 1 damaged
B-24J Liberator: 4 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
496 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 33 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 16 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Are we playing the same game?

Morning Air attack on 30th Recon Regiment, at 100,125 (Umboi Island)

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes


Allied aircraft
Mitchell II x 19
B-17E Fortress x 19
B-24D Liberator x 8
B-24D1 Liberator x 85
B-24J Liberator x 49
B-25C Mitchell x 55
B-25D1 Mitchell x 98
F6F-3 Hellcat x 45
PB4Y-1 Liberator x 30


Allied aircraft losses
B-25C Mitchell: 1 damaged
B-25D1 Mitchell: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
102 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Point being I can find some silly results showing the exact opposite when almost a thousand bombers hit 200.000 troops causing 3 casualties.

Or how about the Jap air force killing over a thousand Chinese per day for six months.

[>:]