I am getting P1ssed at all the cry-babies out there....so time for a poll to see where we all stand....and yes I will eat humble pie if needs be!
*Note the the full question to #2 was as follows:-
LRB use of airfields needs to be more restricted, ie 4 engined
heavy bombers such as B-17/24 should only use level 5 airfields or greater.
LRB Poll (take two)
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
LRB Poll (take two)
Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
-
LargeSlowTarget
- Posts: 5086
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Heavy bombers need 'hard' runways, usually concrete or asphalt, and rather big maintenance and storage facilities. They sometimes did fly from small bases, but not in any great number and usually only on a temporary assignment. For example, what UV doesn't allow is that Australia-based heavies land at PM to refuel before proceeding to Rabaul. I'm not sure which size on the UV scale does correspond to a 'hard' surface suitable for heavy bombers, but I guess it is at least size 6.
How is the air base size calculated anyway? What size represents an unpaved gras, dirt or coral fighter strip, what size stands for Marston matting (sp?) suitable for light and perhaps even medium bombers, and what size is a concrete or asphalt runway for heavy bombers? The size system is a bit artifical since a hex could contain more than one airfield of different qualities. Does size 9 means one fully built concrete runway or could it also (theoretically) mean nine unpaved dirt strips at the same hex?
How is the air base size calculated anyway? What size represents an unpaved gras, dirt or coral fighter strip, what size stands for Marston matting (sp?) suitable for light and perhaps even medium bombers, and what size is a concrete or asphalt runway for heavy bombers? The size system is a bit artifical since a hex could contain more than one airfield of different qualities. Does size 9 means one fully built concrete runway or could it also (theoretically) mean nine unpaved dirt strips at the same hex?
Originally posted by Mr.Frag
You missed an option:
Restricting number of squadrons at a base to reflect limited space/command and control abilities.
This particular fix choice would go a long way to limit the raid sizes to something more realistic.
Thats because I think the current aircraft per airfield size works well.
Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
-
CapAndGown
- Posts: 3078
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Virginia, USA
I voted for "LRB v fighters needs to be tweaked" but that needs to be qualified: I have no problems with B17/B24's vs zeros right now. That seems fine to me. I do have a problem with zeros not being able to close in on MEDIUM bombers. Right now they won't come any closer than range 3. I think that needs to change to show the medium bombers' vulnerability.
Other than that, the big issue I see is the inordinate amount of supply hits bombers are able to make, especially on port attacks. I think this should be halved.
Other than that, the big issue I see is the inordinate amount of supply hits bombers are able to make, especially on port attacks. I think this should be halved.
I didn't vote...yet. Does "LRB" stand for "Long Range Bombers"? If so, I think the problems most people are complaining about would be better addressed by a poll that questioned "Heavy Bombers" which would be 4-engine models. Medium bombers don't seem to be a problem.
Last night I played a quick game against the AI (because my cable line was cut bu construction workers). I played a modified scenario of "Four Weeks of Hell" where I removed all land-based attack planes and fighters, as well as all CVs. I gave each side one CVL.
It was a lot more fun to play with the ships and try to resupply troops on Lunga. There were a lot of surface battles and the land combat was actually decided by the side that could run supply into the island and not have to consider having 50% of it wiped out by one big air strike.
To me this game should be about ships first, and land-based units second.
Wow, I seem to have a lot of opinions for a guy who didn't even vote.
Yamamoto
Last night I played a quick game against the AI (because my cable line was cut bu construction workers). I played a modified scenario of "Four Weeks of Hell" where I removed all land-based attack planes and fighters, as well as all CVs. I gave each side one CVL.
It was a lot more fun to play with the ships and try to resupply troops on Lunga. There were a lot of surface battles and the land combat was actually decided by the side that could run supply into the island and not have to consider having 50% of it wiped out by one big air strike.
To me this game should be about ships first, and land-based units second.
Wow, I seem to have a lot of opinions for a guy who didn't even vote.
Yamamoto
Originally posted by Mr.Frag
You missed an option:
Restricting number of squadrons at a base to reflect limited space/command and control abilities.
This particular fix choice would go a long way to limit the raid sizes to something more realistic.
Isn't there already a limit as to how many aircraft may operate from a base with full effectiveness? Base size X 50. Perhaps that number should be reduced to 25 or 30. This would limit the size (and therefore the effectiveness) of LBA raids. However some of the larger air bases would be limited to very low totals. Anyway some tweaking along those lines should not be too hard to do.
I can't remember, do heavies and mediums count as more aircraft at a base than fighters? Maybe that number should be the number of engines which can be based/serviced at a base.
Quote from Snigbert -
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
The current limit is 50 aircraft per point of base size. This means that a size 4 airbase can fly 200 bombers (or 16 squadrons of B-17/-24 or 12 squadrons of B-25/-26)
If that rule was per engine instead of per aircraft:
We are now down to 4 squadrons of B-17/-24 or 6 squadrons of twin engine bombers at a size 4 airfield.
This just fits more within the realistic levels of how many places there are to store planes, how much maint is required to keep planes flying, etc.
Note, this rule also applies equally against Japan stacking a million Nell/Betty at a base and having a torpedo party on you. I am not biased against the USA, just the fact that we no longer have a naval game these days.
If that rule was per engine instead of per aircraft:
We are now down to 4 squadrons of B-17/-24 or 6 squadrons of twin engine bombers at a size 4 airfield.
This just fits more within the realistic levels of how many places there are to store planes, how much maint is required to keep planes flying, etc.
Note, this rule also applies equally against Japan stacking a million Nell/Betty at a base and having a torpedo party on you. I am not biased against the USA, just the fact that we no longer have a naval game these days.
Originally posted by cap_and_gown
I voted for "LRB v fighters needs to be tweaked" but that needs to be qualified: I have no problems with B17/B24's vs zeros right now. That seems fine to me. I do have a problem with zeros not being able to close in on MEDIUM bombers. Right now they won't come any closer than range 3. I think that needs to change to show the medium bombers' vulnerability.
Other than that, the big issue I see is the inordinate amount of supply hits bombers are able to make, especially on port attacks. I think this should be halved.
Seconded. (And thirded, and Fourthed......my biggest pet peave for the air component since 2.X)
I do also though like the idea of restricting heavy bombers to size 5 or larger **if** the overbuild feature is not reigned in. That way, if you max out a "size 0 or size 1" base to size 3 or 4.....your still only going to be able to operate single and twin engined bombers.
The per engine vs per 'plane' capacity issue forwarded by Mr Frag is also a very good suggestion...on par with stiffer supply penalties for large bomber ops.
I voted to tweak airbase size a bit - quite happy for the engine suggestion to be used.
LargeSlowTarget: Landing, refuelling and taking off again from PM is fine (although the time in the air to and from Rabaul would be pretty long), but would bomber crews fly to an airbase and land with bombs on board? Or would they land, and then have to have bombs loaded at PM (time consuming too)?
I guess I always thought they jettisoned all ordinance before landing anywhere, anytime - landing with bombs was not considered a good idea.
Could be wrong though.
LargeSlowTarget: Landing, refuelling and taking off again from PM is fine (although the time in the air to and from Rabaul would be pretty long), but would bomber crews fly to an airbase and land with bombs on board? Or would they land, and then have to have bombs loaded at PM (time consuming too)?
I guess I always thought they jettisoned all ordinance before landing anywhere, anytime - landing with bombs was not considered a good idea.
Could be wrong though.
With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?
-
von Murrin
- Posts: 1611
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: That from which there is no escape.
I like the base size adjustment idea, but it wouldn't be too feasible without adjusting the SPS of 2 to 3 more bases up a few points. Otherwise leave as is considering the posted options.
The one thing I would like to see altered is damage rendered to LCU's by any aircraft. Instead of mass casualties, I feel it would be much more realistic to have damage applied to supplies/fuel, fatigue, disruption, disabled elements, and outright casualties - in that order. Something like a 3:2:2:2:1 ratio out of 100% hits scored. It should be entirely posible to eventually render units combat ineffective, but would require extended commitment. A 6 CV TF shouldn't be able to do it in 2 weeks of constant bombing.
The one thing I would like to see altered is damage rendered to LCU's by any aircraft. Instead of mass casualties, I feel it would be much more realistic to have damage applied to supplies/fuel, fatigue, disruption, disabled elements, and outright casualties - in that order. Something like a 3:2:2:2:1 ratio out of 100% hits scored. It should be entirely posible to eventually render units combat ineffective, but would require extended commitment. A 6 CV TF shouldn't be able to do it in 2 weeks of constant bombing.
I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!
-
von Murrin
- Posts: 1611
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: That from which there is no escape.
They would fly in, refuel and arm, and then head out for Rabaul.Originally posted by Luskan
Landing, refuelling and taking off again from PM is fine (although the time in the air to and from Rabaul would be pretty long), but would bomber crews fly to an airbase and land with bombs on board? Or would they land, and then have to have bombs loaded at PM (time consuming too)?
I guess I always thought they jettisoned all ordinance before landing anywhere, anytime - landing with bombs was not considered a good idea.
It's highly recommended you jettison all ordinance prior to landing, although it wasn't done in every instance; so you're right.
I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!
Quite right Luskan.
Maximum Takeoff weight and Maximum Landing weight are nowhere near the same set of numbers. Just because a plane can take off doesn't mean it can land.
Emergency landing is exactly that, an emergency situation that means the plane can no longer maintain altitude. In that case, everything possible would be done to lower the weight, including tossing the guns out, ammo out, dumping the bomb load, you name it.
Emergency landing are obviously going to happen at higher gross weights then the plane was designed for and seriously risk runway damage, collapsing landing gear, dead crew, permanent plane damage resulting in it being written off, etc.
Maximum Takeoff weight and Maximum Landing weight are nowhere near the same set of numbers. Just because a plane can take off doesn't mean it can land.
Emergency landing is exactly that, an emergency situation that means the plane can no longer maintain altitude. In that case, everything possible would be done to lower the weight, including tossing the guns out, ammo out, dumping the bomb load, you name it.
Emergency landing are obviously going to happen at higher gross weights then the plane was designed for and seriously risk runway damage, collapsing landing gear, dead crew, permanent plane damage resulting in it being written off, etc.
Please define LRB, I know "Long Range Bomber", now would that be all Nells and Bettys for Japan and B-17s and B-24s for the Allies??? Or are we just talking about B-17s and B-24s?
The point is well taken that a 4 engine bomber needs larger facalities than a twin engine bomber.
Perhaps a more restrictive basing setup would be in order, but remember B-17s flew Recon missions out of GC, but because of the way the game works you can not base less than one squadron at an airfield.
I have found (as the Allies) that I never, never have enough B-17s or B-24 ready for flight. Perhaps part of the reason is I never have enough PBYs or F5 for recon so I have to use B-17s. And while I'm on a roll, why can't I assign more than one target to a squadron doing recon missions??? After all 12 A/C should be able to recon at least two bases per day.
Just throwing another log on the fire.
The point is well taken that a 4 engine bomber needs larger facalities than a twin engine bomber.
Perhaps a more restrictive basing setup would be in order, but remember B-17s flew Recon missions out of GC, but because of the way the game works you can not base less than one squadron at an airfield.
I have found (as the Allies) that I never, never have enough B-17s or B-24 ready for flight. Perhaps part of the reason is I never have enough PBYs or F5 for recon so I have to use B-17s. And while I'm on a roll, why can't I assign more than one target to a squadron doing recon missions??? After all 12 A/C should be able to recon at least two bases per day.
Just throwing another log on the fire.
Originally posted by Mr.Frag
I most certainly would include the Nell/Betty in any discussion as to changes, as 200+ of them coming in at 200 feet is just as bad if not worse then the B-'s.
I am not anti-USA, I am anti AIR, I want to be able to have a Naval game, where Naval strategies matter once again.
eh! Take off! eh?
(sorry....couldn't resist) :p
-
SoulBlazer
- Posts: 766
- Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 5:28 am
- Location: Providence RI
