Question about 4E Bombing

[MakeeLearn]

AFBs being able to outsource Aviation Support to the lowest bidder is a little too much!

[spence]

And as soon as an JFB dares to say something about Allied advantages, he's being shouted down by AFBs.

Perhaps that's because the ignored Allied advantages were historical advantages and the Japanese advantages were conjured up out of whole cloth to make the nut case leadership of Imperial Japan attract some sort of following.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: spence

And as soon as an JFB dares to say something about Allied advantages, he's being shouted down by AFBs.

Perhaps that's because the ignored Allied advantages were historical advantages and the Japanese advantages were conjured up out of whole cloth to make the nut case leadership of Imperial Japan attract some sort of following.

Like it or not , an awful lot of allied advantages were deliberately "nerfed" to make the game more playable for the JFB. It has to be. Most AFB's acknowledge this. (Often with gritted teeth). Hearing the JFB's allege that the game might be slanted TOWARD the AFB is more than most can take. Understanding needs to go to both sides. Otherwise , don't play against a human. Play against the AI , screw with the editor to your hearts content , and live out your WITP AE fantasy's in peace. If your going to play against a human being you need to expect to give a bit. [;)]

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
...but on this forum it seems only the JFBs are allowed to complain.

Funny, my impression is exactly the opposite. And as soon as an JFB dares to say something about Allied advantages, he's being shouted down by AFBs...

+1

[GaryChildress]

From the sounds of it, there are some unhistorical advantages and disadvantages to both sides. The Japanese get to demolish the Allies early on and the Allies then get their turn to demolish the Japanese after that. I think I have to mostly agree with Lecivius, probably best to just take it as a game and try to overcome whatever disadvantages with cunning.

However, I have to admit that "winning" a game by collecting the most victory points in the end, while my empire is a blazing ruins, maybe isn't as satisfying as a more traditional win where you get to dance on your opponent's grave. That's one reason why I was exploring the idea a while back of creating completely ficticious scenarios where both sides start on relatively even footing.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Like it or not , an awful lot of allied advantages were deliberately "nerfed" to make the game more playable for the JFB. It has to be. Most AFB's acknowledge this. (Often with gritted teeth). Hearing the JFB's allege that the game might be slanted TOWARD the AFB is more than most can take. Understanding needs to go to both sides. Otherwise , don't play against a human. Play against the AI , screw with the editor to your hearts content , and live out your WITP AE fantasy's in peace. If your going to play against a human being you need to expect to give a bit. [;)]

I think most players of any side agree that allied advantages were deliberately "nerfed" to make the game more playable for the JFB - for JFBs maybe not "an awful lot" but definitely a significant number. Problem for me is that some AFBs portray the Allied side quite biased as the only victim of one-sided injustice. They keep pointing out the advantages taken away from the Allied side and the advantages given to the JFBs, but seem to ignore the advantages given to the AFBs and the disadvantages given to the JFBs. For some JFBs, hearing AFBs complaining about having been "nerfed" while seeing themselves getting clobbered by the Allies sooner or later and with most games ending with Allied victories well before the historical end date, those complaints are more than they can take. As long as there are post which present the Allies as the poor victims of a one-sided pro-JFB slant, "proven" with selective presentation of examples etc., we will have these flame wars. The other way round exists as well, of course, with AFBs reacting to biased JFB views.
If we all could agree that both sides get their share of a-historical advantages and disadvantages, then all would be fine. Personally, I resent being pushed into the "JFB extremist corner" by some AFBs just because I point out someone's pro-Allied bias. I think my records and my modding efforts prove that I try to do justice to both sides and that I have "nerfed" the Japanese side at least as much if not more than the Allied side. 'nough said.

[RichardAckermann]

My impression is that both sides complain the same way, but consider the other's advantages more valuable. For me it's a very helpfull dispute giving insight to the mechanics of the historical war, for players it's probably a breeding ground for trouble with each other.
Thus, I would also advocate for taking the game as it is. There are some balancing things very hard to get done. Having a strong Japan first under the same "game engine" calculations and later a strong allies is very hard to formulate. There are limits of what amount of RL causes and conditions can be abstracted. And it still has to be fun.

Now I would like to hear more on the actual topic of how effective 4E bombings should be and how they can or have been countered.

[Aurorus]

It never happens that AFBs fly planes designed for operations at 15-20K at 36K feet in 1942 to draw Japanese CAP out of their manuever bands. This never happens in the game and certainly does not constitute an absurd advantage to the allied player that is pure fantasy... lol. Nuff said... .

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
...but on this forum it seems only the JFBs are allowed to complain.

Funny, my impression is exactly the opposite. And as soon as an JFB dares to say something about Allied advantages, he's being shouted down by AFBs...

Really? Run a search on 4E whine threads and I would bet you would get dozens of hits. How many corresponding threads of AFBs whining about Nettie's or aircraft production far out stripping the Allies do you think you'll find? We seem to get a 4E whine thread every couple of weeks.

Both sides get abilities the other can't counter, one side in the beginning and one in the end. This what created the ebb and flow of the war and the game.

Why do JFBs want a way to counter the Allied late war advantage without offering a commensurate counter to the Allies, ie...an Ability for the Allies to counter the Japanese early war advantages?

Without the Japanese early advantage there would be no game, so why do so many JFBs begrudge the Allies their late war advantages. This expectation that Japan should be able to go to to toe in late war is simply unreasonable.


For the Japanese side, the 4E threat means you can't disband ships in port in range of them. Yes its a hardship.

For the Allied side, the Nettie threat means you can't move shipping around in what should be a relatively safe area, immediately behind your front line bases, without air cover for every hex of the transit. Yes its a hardship.

Compare how many 4E whine threads there are on this forum to how many Nettie whine threads there are and you'll clearly see that the Allied players are doing a better job of grinning and bearing their hardship than the Japanese players are.

And LST, sorry if you felt my counter argument lumped you in with the extreme JFB. Wasn't my intent.

p.s. and BTW, I have no issues with being labeled as the extreme AFB I have clearly defined myself to be. [;)]

[AW1Steve]

LST I'm sorry that you feel I singled you and other JFB's out, and that you feel insulted. THAT SAID , I don't feel the need to apologize. I do feel , based upon the comments of those people involved in creating this (that they have made in many of the past threads on this subject) that the allied side did have many more weapons and systems "nerfed" in order to make this game playable. I stand by that , and totally agree with them that such actions were necessary to make this a more playable GAME. Please notice the word GAME. Not simulation. I accept that you disagree with this. That's your right and privilege. As it is MY right to disagree with you. And I do.

I don't consider myself an allied fan boy. I only play that side strictly in the grand campaign. And I do that only because I do not like the production model. I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. If there is , I don't see much with it. I simply don't want to play "Factory manager in the Pacific". If in some future variation of this game , a feature is offered that allows you to de-select production , then I'll probably play that side pretty much exclusively. Until them , I'll play either side in the smaller scenarios , and Allies in the GC. I'm not biased , I'm not prejudiced toward one side or the other (in this game).

So I'd appreciated it if you would stop tarring me with the AFB label.

But I stand by my remarks in my earlier post. GAME not SIMULATION. If you want a simulation , then play against the AI and use the editor to suit yourself. IF you can get a real human to act as a sparring partner so you can try out your theories , treasure him (or her). It's no fun playing with the deck stacked against you. I've done it a couple of times (once against a VERY, VERY talented player, I can tell you that experience was extremely painful). Any person agreeing to fulfill that role is either curious, dedicated or extremely fond of you to do it. Or their exists a great skill imbalance between you. Either way you should deeply appreciate anyone who does you this favor.

Against anyone else , they are playing a game , with certain "nerfs" built in to balance the play. YOU may not be happy with this. FEW people are. That fact makes me pretty sure that the developers have hit the balance pretty dead on. It takes great skill at negotiating an issue for NOBODY to walk away happy. If you think you can do better by imposing lots of house rules , good luck with that. I might see it if there is an imbalance of skills (handicapping as it were). But as only the more skilled players should play as the Japanese player , that in itself should balance things out.


Again , sorry if you don't like my thoughts on the matter , but I have explained them , have tried to show no balance or favoritism , and gone a whole lot more into detail than I really wanted to. I suggest we agree to disagree ,and probably not play against each other. [:)]

[Lecivius]

Agreed. It's a game [8D] There is enough bad mojo in the world without getting excited about this [:)]

[Yaab]

I am getting all riled up because of bad tojo.

[Dili]

What about the fact that Japanese bombers/torpedo/dive almost never seems to be able to down an Allied fighter?

[Yaab]

There are two kinds of Japanase defensive 7.7mm MG. IJN bombers have the one which is less acurrate. IJA bombers have the more accurate variant of 7.7mm MG.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Dili

What about the fact that Japanese bombers/torpedo/dive almost never seems to be able to down an Allied fighter?

Ever see Allied 1E and 2E bombers down any Japanese fighters?

The fact is that you all have it wrong. The combat animation usually doesn't visually show non 4E bombers from either side downing enemy fighters, instead you have to note whether a text message says a critical hit was inflicted. Plus all those fighters lost on RTB did not crash as a result of receiving hits only from enemy fighters.

Alfred

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

It SHOULD be OK for both sides to complain about the overpowered, ahistorical advantages the other side gets, but on this forum it seems only the JFBs are allowed to complain.

It's kind of funny to me how I feel like I make people mad when I point out what's wrong or incorrect with regards to some complaint about balance for one side, and then a month or two later do the exact same thing with the other side. It's not always the same people, but it often is.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

It SHOULD be OK for both sides to complain about the overpowered, ahistorical advantages the other side gets, but on this forum it seems only the JFBs are allowed to complain.

It's kind of funny to me how I feel like I make people mad when I point out what's wrong or incorrect with regards to some complaint about balance for one side, and then a month or two later do the exact same thing with the other side. It's not always the same people, but it often is.

Yes, if nothing else, I'm at least consistent.

I also have a thick enough skin not to take offense.

[Dili]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

There are two kinds of Japanase defensive 7.7mm MG. IJN bombers have the one which is less acurrate. IJA bombers have the more accurate variant of 7.7mm MG.

Note that Betty have a 20mm gun.

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Dili

What about the fact that Japanese bombers/torpedo/dive almost never seems to be able to down an Allied fighter?

Ever see Allied 1E and 2E bombers down any Japanese fighters?

The fact is that you all have it wrong. The combat animation usually doesn't visually show non 4E bombers from either side downing enemy fighters, instead you have to note whether a text message says a critical hit was inflicted. Plus all those fighters lost on RTB did not crash as a result of receiving hits only from enemy fighters.

Alfred

I always check squadron kills.

I have seen quite a bit specially B-25, B-26.

At beginning there are some fighters with only rifle machine guns so they are at same level of Japanese bombers. Also Betty and later other models get more than just 7.7's

(edited)

[rustysi]

OK, this 4E bombing thread raises its ugly head around here every so often. I haven't read this whole thread, as I've read many before. The only thing I'll input/add to things here relates to the only input I could find by one of the DEV's. Read Nicodemus' inputs and take away what you will. I have.

tm.asp?m=3182549&mpage=1&key=night+bomb ... tus+update#

[rustysi]

Oops, just noticed this.

Ever see Allied... 2E bombers down any Japanese fighters? The fact is that you all have it wrong. The combat animation usually doesn't visually show non 4E bombers from either side downing enemy fighters, instead you have to note whether a text message says a critical hit was inflicted.

Sorry Alfred, I know your knowledge of the game is far more in depth than mine, but here I have to disagree. I always watch the combat animations, and I must say I have seen 2E bombers down Japanese fighters directly. Mitchel's are usually rather good at this in my experience. This is of course with early Japanese fighters. i.e. Nate's, Oscar's, and A6M2's, as their frames are rather weak. Not sure about Tojo's, but I'll watch more closely and report back what I find.

I have never noticed it with 1E bombers, but I'll be on the lookout now.[:D]