Ideas please?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: 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.

The game presents the Allied air effort in the way it does, but it essentially cuts one arm of the two off the body. CAS, TacAir, call it what you will. It was massively important to land warfare, and it really isn't in the game. Multi-engine bombing is a poor substitute. But nerfing that leaves the Allies without their single biggest land-based advantage in 1944-45. And falling back on COBRA examples and demanding more examples of tactical uses of multi-engine formations in order to make an historical argument is disingenuous when the "more"--CAS--is not in the design. What we have is the "replacement" for the missing "more." NB I am not accusing you of this so much as posters farther up-thread.

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.

Also note that CAS was not only strafing. It was bombs, napalm, rockets. Stand-off weapons in some cases which gave AA limited kicks at the cat. And a napalm strike on a troop or arty formation was a wholly different loss algorithm than .50 caliber fire.

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.

I'd take that trade-off. The results from the ETO I quoted show that ground-based AA had little effect on late-war CAS there. The airplanes, especially the P-47, were too fast, too nimble, and too well-armored. The Germans had multi-barrel AA assets the Japanese could only dream of, and they died too. Tracers are a big "here I am!" sign to a pilot. A few .50 cal AA devices in a brigade versus 20 P-47s with rockets and napalm attacking a rocky ridgeline? I'll take those odds every day playing the Allies. Model CAS as historical in 1944-45 and the Japanese die by the thousands with no real effect on Allied air forces. How do I know? That's what happened.

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.

Far more devastating. You want Japan to have mobile 20 mm AA devices usable while in route march? Good luck with that historical argument.

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?

See , that's another bad way to go if you want historical accuracy. The training regime in the game is just that--part of a game. CAS crews in the ETO were first and foremost fighter pilots already. There wasn't this hard-coded line between escorting bombers and strafing. They were trained to do both. Watch Ken Burns' documentary "The War" where Quenton Anderson, a P-47 tank-killer pilot, fully describes his training and missions after D-day (which almost made him lose his sanity, but that's a different story.) Regardless, inside the game, give me "real" CAS and I train some aircraft models for nothing else. It was just that useful.

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 the game could be re-coded to reduce sweeps I'd be in favor. They represent probably half at least of fighter missions in PBEM. They were certainly not that in the PTO. But the game isn't going to be re-coded. What's being discussed here is HRing further the Allied air forces because they can really, really hurt the Japanese in the late war. Guess what? They could in RL too.

The real issue is JFBs wanting to have their 1942 cake, and then wanting to nerf 1944 Allied cake as well. In your PBEM game you're fighting like mad in northern NG in fall of 1944. You can field hundreds of front-line fighters there a couple of times a week? Historical? Snort. The Turkey Shoot got its own name because loss ratios like that happened ONCE, and were an utter disaster for Japan. In the game how many times do we see Japan lose 200 planes in a day and the player says "Rats. Take me a week to rebuild."

When you can't resist the air attacks you have two choices: retreat to new lines, or die. Just as the Allies have no "right" to effective CAP in 1942, neither does Japan have a "right" to a viable air defense over the DEI in 1944. Too many Japan players don't want to accept that the Empire MUST retreat and retreat and retreat to stay in the game. Done well it's a magnificent sight. If anyone wants to see how it can be done magnificently, go read jrcar's AAR, a sadly-ignored effort around here because he isn't a forum "celebrity", even as he's in the top five players of the game. Maybe the best Japan player we have.

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.

But, as above, the left arm of the body is missing. If you want to HR that 4E bombers have to bomb troops at 5000 feet or lower try that if you must. You really won't like the results, but at least we could dispose of these altitude arguments.

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.

I agree that the core issue is CAS. Make that work historically and the 4Es can go back to burning down the Japanese economy. And it won't be fixed in this iteration. I just, as I said, smile when the subject of 4Es comes up. If they can't CAS, and there are HRs nerfing their strat bombing here, there, and everywhere in so many games, what is it they do? Is it a problem of history, or a problem that Japanese players don't like the Allies having a capability they don't get, and one, when used well, that means Japan can't forward-defend until the end? I think what I think is apparent.

[crsutton]

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?


Can't really add much. FOW may be an issue. The problem seems to be what happens to Japanses troops in open terrain-even if that terrain has a base. I don't really see much damage happening if the troops are in any sort of good terrain. Is this out of whack? There is not much of a historic precedent to use as an example in the Far East. But when the German armies cut and ran from Normandy to the frontiers. Allied air forces had a field day. And, German units had much better AA than Japanese. If a massive Japanese force was operating in open terrain anywhere in the Pacific Theater in 1944-45, I would expect the Allied air force to conduct a wholesale slaughter.

We have to realize that even these ground attacks in the front lines are an abstraction. The Allies do not get to bomb rail line, roads and bridges in the game, which was a prime job of medium bombers. We just have to bomb the troops in order to have any effect in that particular hex. However, the losses, disruption, supply hits and morale hits that the Japanese take can be considered to reflect the over all effect of a heavy bombing campaign in depth behind the Japanese lines. Call it "near support" rather than close. Yes, Allied heavy and medium bombers would rarely be used to attack front line units in the trenches but when you consider that a hex is 45 miles wide and an army corp is not spread out in a small linear area like a Napoleonic army, then the use of heavies and mediums to attack troops begin to make more sense.

Lets get real here. Can anyone provide evidence that Japanese medium bombers were widely used in a tactical support role? I doubt that you can because it did not happen much. Their lack of effective ground coordination and vulnerability to even modest AA fire prevented that from happening to all but the woeful Chinese. Yet, you JFBs are happy to use hundreds of bettys and nells for this purpose. Now you want me to pull back on my ever growing 4E attacks because it is not fair in some way. Not going to happen...[:-]

It is 1945 and the "bottom rail is now on top." If you move your troops into open terrain then I am going to bomb the snot out of them. Please someone tell me that this was not the reality for Japan at this stage of the war.

[Bullwinkle58]

Give me some of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ6GlrE5SBg

"Vought F4U Corsair Drops Napalm Over Okinawa 1945"

[AE Veteran]

Ah Jocmeister how big was your recon unit? My point is that it is happening repeatedly to my boys, not just two out of the last three turns. Not helpful when the results are compared to Sallies and Betties attacking Chinese units, if I was an Allied player thats what I'd want them to do, well out of the way lol..

[Amoral]

Why does it matter if it takes 1 raid or 10 to wipe out your forces? If the allies get one of your bases inside their fighter envelope in 1944, it is time to stop worrying about that base and start worrying about the next line of defense.

I think a lot of the hate of 4E bombers is actually hate for how quickly the roles change for Japan. You might think you are still defending your outer perimeter, while your opponent is already planning for attacks at your vital areas. Finding out your defensive line isn't even a barrier in the allied player's mind can be very jarring. I know it was in my first game.

If you cannot (or will not) contest in the air or at sea then you aren't an empire anymore. You are back to being an island nation. It's the fact that this can happen over the course of 3 or 4 weeks that is so jarring to me.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Lots of thoughts here Bullwinkle. I'm just trying to calm the Japanese vs Allied tone and say I for one want more from the ability of the ground support mission as much as that isn't likely. Not one of those arguing to nerf 4Es, even though above I complain about them. We all complain about things a bit don't we? That's the nature of a game played mostly in solitude with a mysterious engine it takes years to master.

Should the Japanese player not be able to field a lot of planes? Well, have a look at the WW2 production numbers for the japanese in 44 and you might think twice about that. I probably won't reach the numbers of airframes they produced in 44 and I've had the benefit of a much more successful 41-43 than historical, economically speaking. Most of their planes simply weren't used in the frontline in New Guinea or the DEI. They were in the HI, China and Manchuria. Part of the way people play the Japanese side is to experiment with what might happen if they weren't sitting around with strategy mired in the feud between the services.

I follow jrcar's game with every post. I agree, a top player, period. Wish I was at that level, but not quite yet. I'm not sure he'd call what happened a retreat though. I'd call it an Allied invasion that he's managed to inflict damage to all along the way. That is the goal of any Japanese player who has a realistic sense of what is possible at that point in the war. (And by the way he's doing this with a massive air force built around accelerated plane models like the Ki-84r in mid-44).

Lets not perpetuate the JFBs want this and the AFBs want that. This is a discussion about what would make this game better. I'm not a coder so I don't know what is possible, but if no one brings ideas to the table nothing will ever evolve, right? Quite a lot has changed since I started the game and a lot of people told me to shut-up when I said 'why can't something be done about the air war late with the massive battles and perfect coordination.' Guess what? Michaelm ([&o]) figured out a pretty good solution. I'm sure absolutely nothing I ever advocated had anything to do with that, but you know ideas a re strange things. They transfer and evolve quickly, and sometimes they catch hold in the right place.

So I'll just keep proposing thoughts and you can keep shooting them down all you want, but maybe someone who actually has a chance to alter things will find something there. Maybe not. I like the game just fine as is, but I could certainly like it more. [:)]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Amoral

I think a lot of the hate of 4E bombers is actually hate for how quickly the roles change for Japan. You might think you are still defending your outer perimeter, while your opponent is already planning for attacks at your vital areas. Finding out your defensive line isn't even a barrier in the allied player's mind can be very jarring. I know it was in my first game.

This is a good point. In real life take a look at the USN OOB in October of 1943. Big, sure, but . . .

One year later they won the biggest naval battle in the history of the world, single-handedly without any Allied help. And then, after that, they kept growing.

The PTO was not linear. It was a series of capability stair steps and those weren't all the same height.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Lots of thoughts here Bullwinkle. I'm just trying to calm the Japanese vs Allied tone and say I for one want more from the ability of the ground support mission as much as that isn't likely. Not one of those arguing to nerf 4Es, even though above I complain about them. We all complain about things a bit don't we? That's the nature of a game played mostly in solitude with a mysterious engine it takes years to master.

As I move through my first PBEM and notice things I never did before I've come to accept I'll never really understand this thing. It's a Zen-like situation. I'm spending more of my time trying to become better at thinking through the problems a la Nemo, Alfred, and jrcar. Some of their posts on strategic onion-peeling are so far above where I can go I get discouraged sometimes.

I responded to your post because it was well-written and coherent, but I was also casting aspersions farther up-thread where the JFB juice was deeper.

Should the Japanese player not be able to field a lot of planes? Well, have a look at the WW2 production numbers for the japanese in 44 and you might think twice about that. I probably won't reach the numbers of airframes they produced in 44 and I've had the benefit of a much more successful 41-43 than historical, economically speaking. Most of their planes simply weren't used in the frontline in New Guinea or the DEI. They were in the HI, China and Manchuria. Part of the way people play the Japanese side is to experiment with what might happen if they weren't sitting around with strategy mired in the feud between the services.

That argument would be stronger if the game had avgas as a new product and planes didn't fly on LI-produced rice balls. In RL there were lots of planes on the ground without gas and without trained pilots. Defending the POL-producing areas was a key task of the Japanese military, one reason they didn't run into northern Oz as we see in the game. Once the petroleum was gone so was the air force. B-29s bombing in the summer of 1945 saw almost no fighters. In the game they see thousands. It would also work better if Japanese players were held to infinite numbers but defined type ratios. In truth thousands of the airframes that get quoted here were trainers, artillery spotters, and 1st gen planes still in production for the duration. Not 5000 Franks with trained pilots. The game gives Japanese players MASSIVE advantages in the air war, beginning on the first day. The Allies have some too, later, but always battle fixed pools. In reality the Allied nations made strategic decisions to fund R&D on ever better heavy bombers. Japan didn't. So Japanese players who use "historical accuracy" as a lever need to be honest about all aspects of that term.

I follow jrcar's game with every post. I agree, a top player, period. Wish I was at that level, but not quite yet. I'm not sure he'd call what happened a retreat though. I'd call it an Allied invasion that he's managed to inflict damage to all along the way. That is the goal of any Japanese player who has a realistic sense of what is possible at that point in the war. (And by the way he's doing this with a massive air force built around accelerated plane models like the Ki-84r in mid-44).

Yep, he's playing the game as well as the war, one reason I call it a masterful job. I try now and then to invite attention to his AAR. I think it's woefully un-read for the value it provides.

"Retreat" isn't a dirty word to me, but you could call it "strategic reassessment and deployment" and it would be the same thing. He's pruning his extremities as the arteries can no longer provide for them. He's pulling into his core torso for the final battle with the Allied cancer. He's inflicting punishment on the Allies with every step he takes inward. It's the way Japan ought to be played.

Lets not perpetuate the JFBs want this and the AFBs want that. This is a discussion about what would make this game better.

I cut in here in a place where many posts deep had discussed not should there be nerfing HRs, but how they should be designed. My position is well known--they shouldn't be designed or imposed at all.

So I'll just keep proposing thoughts and you can keep shooting them down all you want, but maybe someone who actually has a chance to alter things will find something there. Maybe not. I like the game just fine as is, but I could certainly like it more. [:)]

If the devs wanted to have a big weekend BBQ and re-design the CAS pieces of the air model no one would be happier than me. When I say "won't be" I just mean "tiny chance of grilled meat." Never say never, but don't bet the mortgage on it.

[Andy Mac]

I am coming late to this discussion so I can only give my own view as an allied player.

I do not ban the use of 4E on Ground Attacks but nor do I ban them - I choose to use them with restraint usdually for one off missions where my mediums simply cannot do the job.

i.e. supporting LCUs attacking overland into North Ausstralia and I do keep them above 10k.

I simply choose not to use them for tac missions as becuase they are to valuable in closing AF's and Laying mines on ports.

I do recognise the complaint about allied FB's and I do personally believe all marks of Beaufighters and Mosquito FB's as well as Hurri IV's and IId's should be classed as attack bombers not FB's as the code treats them better as attack bombers than FB's but the quid pro quo is not using 4E as tac bombers except as one offs in very unusual circumstances

[Andy Mac]

So in general i dont use 4E as tac bombers

There have been 2 exceptions

1. one off support for an attack on north aus
2. when an opponenet over ran all of china in one game i used my 4E to kill every jap unit at Chengtu to re open the spawn point with massed Chindit and usmc paras

Basically in situation 2. killing the respawn point was a mechanical issue so i used at mechanical solution <shrugs> a bit gamey probably

[Miller]

Even as a Jap "Fanboy" I have no problem with those results. Every 4E that is bombing your troops is one less bombing your industry.....

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I am coming late to this discussion so I can only give my own view as an allied player.

I do not ban the use of 4E on Ground Attacks but nor do I ban them - I choose to use them with restraint usdually for one off missions where my mediums simply cannot do the job.

i.e. supporting LCUs attacking overland into North Ausstralia and I do keep them above 10k.

I simply choose not to use them for tac missions as becuase they are to valuable in closing AF's and Laying mines on ports.

I do recognise the complaint about allied FB's and I do personally believe all marks of Beaufighters and Mosquito FB's as well as Hurri IV's and IId's should be classed as attack bombers not FB's as the code treats them better as attack bombers than FB's but the quid pro quo is not using 4E as tac bombers except as one offs in very unusual circumstances

Interesting insight into the FB vs. AB code. Maybe that IS something that Michael could do in a beta.

I agree with you that 4Es best use is economy destruction (I don't have air-dropped mines yet, but that too.) Japan can have all the troops they like, but if there's no supply and no lift it doesn't matter. At 25% AV due to zip supply the Chinese can beat them as well as anyone.

I'm just opposed to HRs, especially those in the name of "historical accuracy." If an Allied player chooses to bomb troops at low altitude with 4Es Japan has counters. And the Allied guy has opportunity costs.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Miller

Even as a Jap "Fanboy" I have no problem with those results. Every 4E that is bombing your troops is one less bombing your industry.....

Yes, this is my point. Ark's ground troops are getting a pounding in part because he has done such a good job of protecting his home island industry. And, because his focus is on protecting the home island he is not opposing my air power near the front. If I had my choice I would rather be pounding his industry. But, why should I pass up undefended troops operating in open terrain.

[Barb]

I see three "divergences" from reality on part of the players:
1) target selection
- One have to see that B-17s, B-24s and B-29s were planes of STRATEGIC BOMBING concept. They had leadership focused on mission of forcing enemy out of war with aerial bombing alone and they forced this idea to the limits. Therefore using these planes for other targets (even railroad plan, airfield suppression or aerial mining) were weakening the main effort. Primary mission of the heavies should always be: City attack or Port attack. Only if no such target is available (or weather forecast is bad), other targets should be looked for (like Airfield attack). Ground attack should be left to FBs, LBs and ABs almost exclusively. Mediums thus should be devoted mainly to Airfield and Port attacks.

2) altitude
- Medium bombers usually bombed from 10-20.000ft. Heavies usually from 15-30.000ft. Use planes in their historical limits.

3) numbers
Heavy groups in Pacific seldom sent more than 24 planes on single mission. That told, to limit maximum strike (see 1944-1945 Celebes, Biak, Borneo, etc strikes) of 48 heavies to single target (that requires about 2 BG(H)s with 50% rest).

All these "divergences" are caused by the players - so it is not problem in the game. Fix player attitudes to use historical limits, and you will get more historically correct results (it will then also take much more than flight of heavies to knock out a whole refinery/HI complex in one mission). [;)]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Barb

I see three "divergences" from reality on part of the players:
1) target selection
- One have to see that B-17s, B-24s and B-29s were planes of STRATEGIC BOMBING concept. They had leadership focused on mission of forcing enemy out of war with aerial bombing alone and they forced this idea to the limits. Therefore using these planes for other targets (even railroad plan, airfield suppression or aerial mining) were weakening the main effort. Primary mission of the heavies should always be: City attack or Port attack. Only if no such target is available (or weather forecast is bad), other targets should be looked for (like Airfield attack). Ground attack should be left to FBs, LBs and ABs almost exclusively. Mediums thus should be devoted mainly to Airfield and Port attacks.

2) altitude
- Medium bombers usually bombed from 10-20.000ft. Heavies usually from 15-30.000ft. Use planes in their historical limits.

3) numbers
Heavy groups in Pacific seldom sent more than 24 planes on single mission. That told, to limit maximum strike (see 1944-1945 Celebes, Biak, Borneo, etc strikes) of 48 heavies to single target (that requires about 2 BG(H)s with 50% rest).

All these "divergences" are caused by the players - so it is not problem in the game. Fix player attitudes to use historical limits, and you will get more historically correct results (it will then also take much more than flight of heavies to knock out a whole refinery/HI complex in one mission). [;)]

should we fix player attitudes of IJ players too then or just the Allied ones?

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: AE Veteran

Ah Jocmeister how big was your recon unit? My point is that it is happening repeatedly to my boys, not just two out of the last three turns. Not helpful when the results are compared to Sallies and Betties attacking Chinese units, if I was an Allied player thats what I'd want them to do, well out of the way lol..

Recon unit? Are you asking what the DL of the base was? 10/10 of course. I don´t think that matters that much though. And my point is that I can show you hundreds and hundreds of CRs like mine. So either you are doing something wrong or your opponent is doing something right.

Why is it not helpful comparing to the Chinese situation? Because its doesn´t suit your agenda? Its fine for the IJAAF to cause thousands of casualties per day until China falls but when the allies start doing some damage to your units its no longer fine to do so because you spent 1-2 hours doing the turn and getting them there? Really?

[AE Veteran]

They were disabled and thus presumably contibute nothing to the defence factor. Also any surving troops would have had a huge distruption disadvantage as well..

[AE Veteran]

Its about delaying, of course he'll take the base but it should be realistic and not coz 10 4E's have blasted a unit to kingdom come.

[JocMeister]

And China in its current state in AE is "realistic"?

[RogerJNeilson]

Gents, it was not my intention to stir up a firestorm here. I know I have no control over what you say and how you say it, but I was asking for ideas about why its happened and what could sensibly be done to ameliorate the issue.

It would be helpful if the facts were used mind you, this would help to cool the temperature.

Roger