AAR: Strategic Balance

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Drex
My problem with my bomber groups is fatigue and morale. I find that I have to stand them down after every run to keep them above 50% and also keep them at 6000' or above. This also forces me to stagger my raids so I can get day after day attacks. While this works, it reduces the size of the air raids. And yes my bombers are also damaged and shot down which again reflects in a plummeting morale.

There is no law saying you must make daily raids.

When I am playing the allies I simply wait until all planes are repaired AND morale at LEAST matches exp.
Then I send a mass raid.

[Drex]

i guess it depends on how many engineers your opponent has at the base. I'm finding that I need daily raids to be able to close a base and keep it closed because his engineers repair it so quickly. Also if the base is a large size and its fortification level is high, it takes more bomb runs to reduce it. In 1943 my opponent's bases are already developed so it takes a concentrated bombing effort to soften them up -and I also couple them with bombardment runs if I can.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Originally posted by Nikademus
I never saw the problem of the heavy bombers as lack of kills, because they were hard to bring down historically. The problem is their JDAM like accuracy. While not nearly as bad against moving TF's with 2.30.....their ability to hit TF's in a port (along with medium bombers) is at times nothing short of astounding when compared to the driblets that usually attack. (avg # per raid 6)

Such consistant pinpoint accuracy belies the 1% to-hit record compiled by B-17's during the Guadalcanal campaign. Its especially strange to witness when compared side by side with dive bomber attacks which usually tend to score less despite the more accurate delivery method.

While i'd expect to see few kills, it would be nice if the damage inflicted impacted this uber-accuracy more often as well.......because as Drongo related, a unit with good morale will rarely break off even in the face of determined attack by fighters.

I've not seen any recurrance of the pseudo-fighter effect at least.

My biggest hangup with the level bombers however originate with the medium bombers. The .50cal armed versions (B-25/26) seem to behave like heavy bombers in terms of invulnerability in the face of heavy attack, even unescorted. Fighters refuse to close with them as well leading to few kills forcing players to rely on morale failure to save their bases from the pounding. Players dont have to really wait for long ranged escort fighters in UV.

I agree 100% with this !!!


Especially for 2-engined Allied bombers that were _NOT_ immune against Zero.

In Sakai's book he writes that 2-engined Allied bombers many times tried to
bomb their bases in New Guinea unsorted and that they almost always paid heavy
price (i.e. Zero fighters shooting them down)...


Also, the magical (GPS like) navigation abilities (especially in dark) is
another big problem.

In Europe (yes I know different weather) the percentage of bomber crews
able to find their target at night (and under this I mean general vicinity
of target area) was very very very low until specialized pathfinder bombers
(equipped with H2S ground radar) didn't mark target with incendiaries...

I hope this will be fixed in next UV (and WitP)...


Dan "U2" - is Matrix/2By aware of this?


Leo "Apollo11"

[dpstafford]

Originally posted by Apollo11
Especially for 2-engined Allied bombers that were _NOT_ immune against Zero.

In Sakai's book he writes that 2-engined Allied bombers many times tried to
bomb their bases in New Guinea unsorted and that they almost always paid heavy
price (i.e. Zero fighters shooting them down)...

I hope this will be fixed in next UV (and WitP)...


Dan "U2" - is Matrix/2By aware of this?

My take on this problem is a bit different. It goes like this:
Air-to-air combat became SO bloodless in 2.3 that bombers of all kinds now easily get through virually any amount of CAP with absolute minimal losses. Sometimes the bombers will abort, but usually they just plaster the target--as CAP fighters are ALWAYS too tired to do much fighting in version 2.3.......

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by dpstafford
My take on this problem is a bit different. It goes like this:
Air-to-air combat became SO bloodless in 2.3 that bombers of all kinds now easily get through virually any amount of CAP with absolute minimal losses. Sometimes the bombers will abort, but usually they just plaster the target--as CAP fighters are ALWAYS too tired to do much fighting in version 2.3.......

Certainly seems to be true in my games.
Good Point.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Apollo

I hope this will be fixed in next UV (and WitP)...


Dan "U2" - is Matrix/2By aware of this?


Leo "Apollo11"

I've been sounding off about it since the days of the "public beta" where this phenomenum was first experienced during testing(as a direct result of the "pseudo-fighter fix"; i.e. Fighters not attacking B-bombers at any range closer than 3) It did fix the most nagging fighter vs bomber issue (the using of heavy bombers as the game's most effective anti-fighter platform) but at the cost of virtually invulnerable B-bombers

As for WitP. We're still in Alpha at this point so right now the focus is on huntin bugs. Design issues are on the back burner at the moment. Alot of stuff is on the table though and all are being considered. Whether or not any changes regarding the above will be incorporated is up to Matrix/2b3.

Originally posted by dpstafford
My take on this problem is a bit different. It goes like this:
Air-to-air combat became SO bloodless in 2.3 that bombers of all kinds now easily get through virually any amount of CAP with absolute minimal losses. Sometimes the bombers will abort, but usually they just plaster the target--as CAP fighters are ALWAYS too tired to do much fighting in version 2.3.......

Fatigue has been given a scrubbing in WitP. CAP and search missions now produce far less fatigue so quickly now. I think you will like the results.

[dpstafford]

Originally posted by Nikademus
Fatigue has been given a scrubbing in WitP. CAP and search missions now produce far less fatigue so quickly now. I think you will like the results.

I really glad to hear that!

I was, however, under the impression that "fixes" made in WitP would be retrofit into UV....?

[Nikademus]

I cant say for sure but i would assume that once WitP gets past a certain stage of development that a followup patch will be made available for UV incorporating some/all of the improvements in the same vein as when UV patch improvements were incorporated into the proto-WitP engine.

Right now it's a matter of priority and right now that priority is developing WitP so that it can be completed by the end of the year.

[Drongo]

Posted by Chiteng

I can barely supply PM. It takes total commitment
of resources to get a convoy to the port.

What happends then is that after my CV leave, some strike
with some kind of bombers, it really doesnt matter what they are,
will get thru my cap and blow up the supply.

One would think that they would learn how to disperse.

I agree with your dispersal comment. Airbase and Port supply/fuel hits seem to be hit far too easy to obtain, even in the little raids by half a dozen bombers.

When the allies really get their air offensive going in '43, PM can no longer be anything other than a forward defense base. The bombers (and eventually the fighters) get relocated and excess land units get withdrawn to minimise supply usage. I've found that you just have to live with having PMs supply regularly smashed down.

However, so long as PM can be kept with its minimum supply, you can still make it very tough for the allies to take (hopefully it has been fully expanded and fortified by now). I normally expand Buna base up to its maximum as well and then pour supply into that base rather than directly to PM. Supplies at Buna will "flow on" to PM if its supply level is low. My fighters and a lot of AA will be based at Buna to protect its role as PMs supply head. Its a lot easier to get supplies to and it also forces allied medium bombers and P-38s to operate at extended range (reducing their payload and increasing attrition). The only direct supply to PM comes from the air.

By then, PM will normally be held only with the equivalent of high quality reinforced division (plus about 2 large engineer units, a small avaiation engineer unit for float planes and 4-6 of the smaller CD units). I will keep a lot of the AA units there as well but once the allied bombing becomes too intense, they become ineffective and most should be withdrawn. Another high quality divisional force sits in Buna as an immeadiate reserve. The PM garrison gets cycled whenever possible and by whatever means possible.

Regardless, it's never easy.

[Drongo]

Posted by Nik

I cant say for sure but i would assume that once WitP gets past a certain stage of development that a followup patch will be made available for UV incorporating some/all of the improvements in the same vein as when UV patch improvements were incorporated into the proto-WitP engine.

Right now it's a matter of priority and right now that priority is developing WitP so that it can be completed by the end of the year.

I suppose the fatigue change is pretty radical given the influence that fatigue currently has in UV.

Unlike a lot of the other changes, I could understand it if this one was held off a bit until it's impact on gameplay is fully established.
We're only really now able to start getting into the gameplay side rather than just the testing of routines.

I think it'd definitely be worth the wait since it lessens the fatigue not only on the pilots but the players as well.

[mogami]

Hi, I don't capture PM to hold it. I take it because by taking it in May/June/July 42 My flank at Lunga and my Rear at Rabaul are safe from bombing for around a year. (Long enough to try to win the game). Clearly the place is easier to move to from Australia then Rabaul. The Japanese can't place enough troops there to prevent it from being retaken (once the Allies can move at sea)
It has to be defended by long range bombers (Wewak/Lae/Rabaul) and the threat of surface TF's. Early in game (right after you secure PM. Begin building Wewak and moving supply there. (All your air transport aircraft base there)

There is no time in UV for the Japanese to spend a single turn not doing something constructive. Those rear area bases are very important. (By games end they might be front line bases and if not built early they won't be ready)

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, I don't capture PM to hold it. I take it because by taking it in May/June/July 42 My flank at Lunga and my Rear at Rabaul are safe from bombing for around a year. (Long enough to try to win the game). Clearly the place is easier to move to from Australia then Rabaul. The Japanese can't place enough troops there to prevent it from being retaken (once the Allies can move at sea)
It has to be defended by long range bombers (Wewak/Lae/Rabaul) and the threat of surface TF's. Early in game (right after you secure PM. Begin building Wewak and moving supply there. (All your air transport aircraft base there)

There is no time in UV for the Japanese to spend a single turn not doing something constructive. Those rear area bases are very important. (By games end they might be front line bases and if not built early they won't be ready)

You dont have enough ENG as Japan. You cant do it all

[mogami]

Originally posted by Chiteng
You dont have enough ENG as Japan. You cant do it all

I've never had a problem. I don't use my engineers to build PM or GIli (places I know I can never hold.)

Japan does not have enough airsupport units but engineers are enough if used correctly. (Move them to a base. build only what is needed then return them to Truk to refit before going to next job)

What Japan needs.
Level 3 ports close enough to protect ships. Rabaul and Shortland are already built. Leaving Lunga and 1 base between there and Shortlands.

New Guinea
Wewek/Lae (lae already being built)

Most Japanese players I encounter place many engineer in one hex to built monster base as fast as possible. They don't need a monster base and they don't need them for 8 months. (240+ turns) Engineers with combat factor don't build (they can but) They are used to reduce enemy positions they spearhead assaults. (and repair captured bases)

Support forces can slowely build bases. So once you have a size 3 port and a size 3-4 airfield you don't need a lot of pure engineer units in a hex. (they move to the 0/1 size hex and begin work)

[Yamamoto]

Originally posted by Mogami
Support forces can slowely build bases.

Are you certain of that? I thought only engineer units could build bases. I thought even non-engineer units with engineering squads (one of my early experiments with the editor against the AI) couldn't build bases.

Yamamoto

[mogami]

Originally posted by Yamamoto
Are you certain of that? I thought only engineer units could build bases. I thought even non-engineer units with engineering squads (one of my early experiments with the editor against the AI) couldn't build bases.

Yamamoto

Yes they build. (Slowly) In fact non engineer units are supposed to be able to build as well (but even more slowly)

[AmiralLaurent]

In fact non engineer units are supposed to be able to build as well (but even more slowly)

Allready seen that, when a base is occupied by INF units, 'build fortification' is on and supplies are plenty, there is some progress done. Will rise to fort 1 in one or two years...

Base forces are able to build bases. I sometimes used them fpr that as Allied but IJN base forces are needed elsewhere. But they are OK for expanding bases allready usable while tending planes.

[Chiteng]

Well for myself if I am going to be conducting strikes from a base
as Japan, I want it to be at least level 4 and have an air HQ there.
Otherwise, you are simply wasting planes and pilots.

Normally I put the entire 18th army at PM and leave it to die there.

[mogami]

Hi, Well there you go. Place an entire army in a hex and then ask why it's hard to supply. Use supply to build airfields beyond what is needed (and save the time for the enemy when he takes the place.) Long range bombers do not need to be forward deployed.
And a size 3 airfield can handle 150 AC. more then enough for CAP search and limited naval defense. (Also does not require a lot of your limited support units.
I'd love to play you some time.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, Well there you go. Place an entire army in a hex and then ask why it's hard to supply. Use supply to build airfields beyond what is needed (and save the time for the enemy when he takes the place.) Long range bombers do not need to be forward deployed.
And a size 3 airfield can handle 150 AC. more then enough for CAP search and limited naval defense. (Also does not require a lot of your limited support units.
I'd love to play you some time.

I have to date only played 1.5 people by mail
Sorry but I am an unreliable and very frustrating opponent.
I must confess that Harvey is a saint for dealing with me.
I wont go into detail but lets me say he was severely tried.

This of course excludes the TF incident. He was severely tried
by other aspects.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, Well there you go. Place an entire army in a hex and then ask why it's hard to supply. Use supply to build airfields beyond what is needed (and save the time for the enemy when he takes the place.) Long range bombers do not need to be forward deployed.
And a size 3 airfield can handle 150 AC. more then enough for CAP search and limited naval defense. (Also does not require a lot of your limited support units.
I'd love to play you some time.

Two divisions and an HQ dont consume that much supply =)

Its the OTHER units (like AAA) that jack it up.