Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

[rader]

Well I prefer the damage that I do at 6K and it looks like his main AA unit has heavy guns that I'm probably not going to fly above. Will see how this goes for now.

4 more air attacks this turn (Aug 1):

[RangerJoe]

I guess that you are right to do so since those 2 pdr AAA and/or those 40mm Bofors AAA that are inherent in the Indian infantry divisions do not fire at your bombers. The US Marines may also hae inherent AAA which does not fire either. My mistake . . .

[rader]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I guess that you are right to do so since those 2 pdr AAA and/or those 40mm Bofors AAA that are inherent in the Indian infantry divisions do not fire at your bombers. The US Marines may also hae inherent AAA which does not fire either. My mistake . . .

Why would they not fire at my bombers?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: rader

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I guess that you are right to do so since those 2 pdr AAA and/or those 40mm Bofors AAA that are inherent in the Indian infantry divisions do not fire at your bombers. The US Marines may also hae inherent AAA which does not fire either. My mistake . . .

Why would they not fire at my bombers?

I was being facetious. With the lighter AAA in the other units, that is at least equivilent to a light AAA regiment. Why let those guns shoot at you if you don't have to?

[rader]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: rader

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I guess that you are right to do so since those 2 pdr AAA and/or those 40mm Bofors AAA that are inherent in the Indian infantry divisions do not fire at your bombers. The US Marines may also hae inherent AAA which does not fire either. My mistake . . .

Why would they not fire at my bombers?

I was being facetious. With the lighter AAA in the other units, that is at least equivilent to a light AAA regiment. Why let those guns shoot at you if you don't have to?

Ah right. Well I'm sure I would definitely take less flak damage at higher altitudes but I would also inflict less damage on his troops. All I'm saying is that in this case I *think* the tradeoff is better to take a bit more flak damage to inflict a bit more losses. But not 100% sure.

[rader]

Aug 2, 1943.

Today no apparent flak at all, and decent damage inflicted. Lack of supply for AA rounds?

[RangerJoe]

Look at the disruption which the fires and smoke shows.

[PaxMondo]

50 damaged seems like a lot of flak to me ....

[rader]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

50 damaged seems like a lot of flak to me ....

Hmm yeah I just mean no flak bursts in the combat animation. But seems like the flak did something for sure.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: rader

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

50 damaged seems like a lot of flak to me ....

Hmm yeah I just mean no flak bursts in the combat animation. But seems like the flak did something for sure.

ok, now that's weird .... have to think about that. you should have seen flak bursts .... not balloons at that altitude, so ...

[rader]

Hmm, interesting occurrence. My partner/opponent Richard isn't happy with the ground bombing. He sent me this note with the latest turn:

Note:

Small point

En masse ground bombing with medium bombers at 6000 feet when you can produce as many Helens as you want (1/2 bomb load of an allied HB), and I can't bomb with my limited pool of heavy bombers at below 10000 feet is a little bit exploitive I feel

Here's my reply:

Hmm, that never even occurred to me, but happy to discuss.

In my late war games, ground (and airfield) bombing is the bane of the Japanese and I expect it to shred my forces in 1944+ - which is precisely why I asked for a HR to limit it to 10K feet. I thought it was acceptable here because I expected to be on the receiving end of it later. From my perspective, it's also well within the acceptable but annoying pain of having to live with unstoppable night bombing that just chews up my fighters for negligible bomber loss. I expect that to wreck my cities eventually. Seems like the problem here really is terrain - in clear terrain, ground bombing is uber effective. In bad terrain, it doesn't do much. But I'd be ok with some kind of limit on both side for medium bombers too - altitude? Limit of 10K or 15K for all level bombers on ground bombing? What do you think makes sense?

Question:
Any thoughts on what should be done here? I'm sympathetic to his point but I think the Japanese player also has to put up with a lot of Allied uber-bomber stuff so not sure what the best compromise is.

[RangerJoe]

He gets medium bombers plus attack bombers. Have a rule where the attack bombers have to fly at 6k or higher. [8|]

[rader]

August 6, 1943.

More bombing in Burma and this time Allied fighter sweeps next to Japanese bases that resulted in approximately equal losses in Allied and Japanese fighters.

[rader]

I haven't been able to get these Bettys to fly a mission to mine Darwin's port. It's been over 10 turns and nothing. Tried both day and night. Plenty of type 3 mines in the pool. Any ideas?

[Dili]

You need at least size 6 airbase.

[DesertWolf101]

Good idea to double check the mines are not stockpiled too.

[rader]

Level 9 undamaged airfield, mines not being stockpiled. The only thing I can think of is this group had low skill/experience because it was a test to see if it would work and I didn't want to risk very good pilots. Maybe there's a skill/experience check that they kept failing?

[Dili]

What about supply, maybe a threshold there?

[rader]

ORIGINAL: Dili

What about supply, maybe a threshold there?

Tons of supply.

[Dili]

Ok, i am out of ideas...